AA13CR33

AS (2013) CR 33

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 2 October 2013 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT* – We begin this session with a communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, followed by questions from members.

Mr JAGLAND (Secretary General of the Council of Europe) – Mr President and distinguished delegates, as you know, I delivered my annual communication at January’s session, but at the presidential committee and the Bureau meeting in Dubrovnik recently, the Bureau found the information I provided so interesting and important that it asked me to tell it to the Assembly. That is why I am here now.

Before I begin, I would like to bring you some good news. Since the Bureau met in Dubrovnik, there has been an important development in the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, which you will be discussing this afternoon. Yesterday in Brussels, where my representative was present, the political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina agreed on how to implement the decision of the Court and provide every citizen with the right to stand for election to the presidency and the House of Peoples. The leaders pledged to finalise electoral modalities that will meet the legitimate concerns of the constituent peoples and others while also meeting international standards by 10 October. Of course, we need to be cautious, because we have nearly been here before, but we have reasons to be encouraged, so let us hope that the changes will be implemented by 10 October.

I strongly appreciate the consultations we have had with the European Union throughout the process, and I also pay tribute to the important contributions of the Assembly, particularly the rapporteurs Karin Woldseth, from Norway, and Mr Vareikis from Lithuania.

      Before I come to some important developments regarding our actions and operations in member countries, I shall put this in the context of the whole reform and remind ourselves of what the European Convention on Human Rights is. It is not only a convention; it is a convention system. We have monitoring bodies, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, and, on top, we have the European Court of Human Rights, with the right to individual petition. All these entities have to work together if we are to get the Convention to function.

We have focused a lot on the need for reforms inside the Court, which of course was necessary to make the procedures there easier. The Court has done a lot, but it is also important to understand that the backlog problems of the Court come from the member States themselves. Many applications come to the Court because member States do not have laws that are in conformity with the Convention, and because of their procedures, particularly in the judiciary. That is why it is so important for the Court to have the monitoring bodies and the assistance programmes of the Council of Europe, to help member States to make the necessary reforms.

That is why we put in place the reform itself of the Council of Europe, so that it can refocus its resources. We had to reorganise the Secretariat accordingly and decentralise our activities out to the member States, so that we could be relevant on the ground. We had to develop much better relations with partners, so that we can work with them on the ground. The logic of the whole reform has been about making the Council of Europe more assistance-oriented towards the member States, so that they can make the necessary reforms, which will of course help the Court a lot. That is what we have been and are doing.

For instance, in Ukraine we have a large programme focusing in particular on the reforms in the judiciary, costing around €23 million. We started by having a dialogue with the authorities on reform of the criminal procedure code, and it was important to make the prosecutor’s office independent of the executive. The reform programme that we have been working on for one and a half years is now bringing clear results. On 5 December, the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament, adopted a set of laws improving penitentiary conditions. Also, a law to secure swifter implementation of judgments from the Strasbourg Court was adopted, and there has been successful implementation of the criminal procedure code that was adopted on the recommendation of the Council of Europe. Ukraine took nearly 100% of our recommendations regarding the new criminal procedure code, which has resulted in the number of detained persons in 2013 being less than half that in 2012. We have received a draft law on the public prosecutor’s office, and the Venice Commission is looking into it. It is encouraging to see how that is now being dealt with in Ukraine. Some progress is also being made on reform of electoral legislation.

I use that as an example of how our assistance in member countries brings clear results. It does not bring us much into headlines in newspapers, because they focus only on Tymoshenko, but what has been called selective justice stems from the fact that the judiciary has not been entirely independent and of course the problems related to the prosecutor’s office. We are doing what is necessary, which is important for Ukraine if it wants an association agreement with the European Union.

You will remember that Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey was in this Assembly some time ago, which resulted in a co-operation programme with the Turkish authorities with regard to two main problems in Turkey, for which it has been heavily criticised internationally. Those were that so many journalists and politicians were in jail, which came from the fact that its laws relating to freedom of expression were not in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. I said to Prime Minister Erdoğan, “This has to be changed”, and the mentality and practice in the judiciary had to be changed too. We started a reform process with the Turkish authorities that resulted in amending the laws, and a programme of getting judges from Turkey to the European Court of Human Rights here so that they could learn about European standards regarding freedom of expression. That has brought clear results. Many of the journalists who were in jail are not in jail – that is absolutely clear – and many of the politicians too, and Turkey is not detaining more journalists and politicians because there is no longer the legal basis for it. There are of course still problems related to freedom of expression, but those problems are different from the ones that Turkey had before we started the reform process.

Turkey had another problem: that so many people had such lengthy pre-trial detention. Many sat in jail for five to eight years before they were brought to court and got a fair trial. We had to do something about that, because so many judgments from the Court here in Strasbourg related to that fact. The reforms that Turkey has made have brought clear results on that. Now the length of pre-trial detention in Turkey is at a European level.

Several reform packages have been launched in Turkey, very much based on the dialogue that we have had with Turkish authorities, and a new one was launched on Monday that contains one point that the Parliamentary Assembly has raised several times: the threshold to enter parliament, which in Turkey is 10%. The proposal is now to lower that to 5%. There are also proposals for increased cultural rights for Kurdish people. They do not go far enough, but it is a major step forward.

Hungary is another example. You remember the harsh criticism raised by the international community about the new constitution and the process of forming it, particularly those items related to freedom of expression, freedom of the media and the judiciary. The European Union reacted very strongly against this, but it found out that it did not have the legal competence to intervene, and therefore President Barroso in the European Parliament said that this is for the Council of Europe. We therefore opened a dialogue with the Hungarian authorities. Today I can say that the laws on the media and the judiciary that were so heavily criticised have now been amended, and we are satisfied with that.

      There were a number of further issues and I asked the Venice Commission to look into them. It came up with a recommendation in the June Session. Afterwards, Foreign Minister Martonyi of Hungary wrote to me saying the Hungarians would like to co-operate with us on the Venice Commission recommendations, and we agreed to meet in New York last week. We did so, and we are also on track with the remaining issues. A number of criticisms can still be made, of course, but the Hungarians have gone a long way in correcting much of the legislation that the international community has so heavily criticised.

      Turning to the Russian Federation, I had a meeting with President Putin in Sochi just before the summer. I raised in particular the issue of the NGO legislation and the so-called foreign agents. I got a response from President Putin that was based very much on our assessment, referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and the standards therein. He said he saw a need to review this law. That was said to me in a meeting and it was reconfirmed publicly later. He also said that the intention was to establish an independent institution headed by the well-known human rights defender Pamfilova that would finance the NGOs in the Russian Federation so that that financing could be independent. Again, it was confirmed later publicly that that has been done. There has been some progress, therefore, on the legislation that has been heavily criticised by the international community and by us.

      Another important positive development is that at a meeting I had in Moscow the Russian authorities for the first time agreed that we could open a programme office in Moscow with a mandate to co-operate with the Russian authorities on concrete reform projects. We have listed some 27 projects that we can work on together, based on the fact that we now have representation on the ground in the Russian Federation, which we never had in the past because it was not considered acceptable.

      It is also important to bear in mind that because of this new logic of concentrating resources and working on the ground, we have now agreed action plans with Moldova, which has particular problems that it wants to work with us on, and we are working with Azerbaijan, which will take over the chairmanship in May. We also have action plans with Georgia and with Armenia, which currently holds the chairmanship. These action plans include a number of co-operation programmes on reforms that are necessary in these countries. We will continue to work with as many countries as possible to put in place such action plans and co-operation programmes.

      I mention these measures to illustrate the things the Council of Europe is doing on the ground with member States that are having very positive effects for the Court of Human Rights and the whole convention system. If we were not able to start a reform process for the Court itself and to start making the necessary reforms on the ground, the convention system would break down. That is a fact.

      Much more has to be done, however. We must make all the monitoring we undertake much more effective and co-ordinated. At the ministerial meeting in May this year, the Ministers gave me the goal of producing an annual report on the state of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe. I must base that report on the findings of the Council of Europe’s monitoring bodies, which is a constructive use of their findings. We are very good at producing reports, but what do we do with them? What do we do with the findings of our reports? I will therefore have to systematise the findings of the monitoring bodies and also base my judgment on the judgments of the Court of Human Rights because it clearly defines what the main problems in Europe today are. I have to get all that into the annual report.

      We must bear in mind the following very important point. Many organisations have in the past written reports about human rights and the rule of law in Europe, and many NGOs issue annual reports, but never the Council of Europe, which is the most authoritative source on these issues on this continent. We were never able to do that, however.

      We have to reflect on why our Organisation was called the sleeping beauty on the river Rhine. Now, however, we are taking action out on the ground and we can start producing annual reports on the state of play in respect of human rights and the rule of law on this continent. We are no longer the sleeping beauty that never speaks and never acts. We will now be the acting queen on the river Rhine, which we should be; we should always have been that. As we were not, others have filled that gap, which I feel is very wrong.

      This brings me to my last topic: our relationship with the European Union. A debate has now started in the European Union: the European Parliament is writing a report on whether the European Union should develop its own mechanisms to uphold the rule of law and human rights within its own family. I do not know what that process will bring, but I would like to state clearly that it endangers the whole pan-European convention system. Everybody here knows how much I appreciate the European Union, but it will be a clear duplication if it starts developing its own monitoring mechanisms, and the resources will inevitably go in that direction, rather than to the pan-European system. There will be even more confusion about monitoring, because we are not alone in monitoring; there are so many others monitoring everything. Adding another source of monitoring would create more confusion and enable what I call forum shopping, where member States select what they like and push aside what they dislike.

That development might strengthen the system within the European Union, but there is a real danger that it will harm the pan-European convention system. That is what might happen if we do not get our act together. The message from us could be that we can offer what the European Union needs, because we have excellent instruments that it could use. That is why it was so important for me, immediately after taking office, to develop the best relations with the European Union at all levels, because we have to work hand in hand; we cannot compete. We have to realise that there are two organisations. We cannot do away with the European Union, because that would be very bad for Europe, but it must understand that there is a pan-Europe that stretches beyond its borders.

The Council of Europe is now at a crucial moment in its history. Do we want to go forward with the many reforms we have made, or do we want to face a development that will inevitably harm our pan-European system? I believe that we must fully utilise our particularities and be aware of them in our daily lives. Our most important particularity is that this is a pan-European Organisation. It is the only such organisation that exists. Yes, the OSCE is pan-European, but the Council of Europe stretches beyond Europe to States that do not agree on our standards. We are the only convention-based pan-European organisation, and we have standards that are for 47 member countries.

Another point is that the Council of Europe is not part of a geopolitical game. We do not take part in that because we are pan-European. My last point is that we do not politicise our work. We do not look upon our instruments and monitoring activities in a political way. We look only at the standards that are binding for our member States. For instance, when asked which political group I belong to, I respond that when I am in the Council of Europe I am representing the European Convention on Human Rights and do not belong to any group. That is my basis. It is extremely important to bear in mind that any attempt to politicise the conventions and their monitoring would do a lot of harm to the whole convention system. It is only by basing our judgments on the legal standards in a non-political way that we have strength. That is something we must apply if we are to fulfil our pan-European mandate. When we look at how Europe is organised, we see how important that is today.

I will end my remarks by repeating that the Council of Europe is at a crucial junction in its history. The reform of the Organisation, and through that the strengthening of our instruments, must continue. In particular, we must be relevant on the ground. We must consolidate co-operation with our partners. When I was at the United Nations last week I signed a memorandum of understanding on how the Council of Europe and the UN can co-operate. As a matter of fact, the UN Human Rights Council is already using the findings of our monitoring bodies in its annual reports on the state of play in the member States. Now we have signed a formal memorandum of understanding formalising that co-operation, which is very valuable for us.

We must consolidate and strengthen our partnership with the European Union. It is indispensable. When I came here there were no consultations at all with the European Union at the highest level, which I found a threat to the Organisation. Now we have consultations regularly at the highest level and at all other levels. That brings us a lot of new resources, and not only from the European Union, but from other partners. Voluntary budget contributions from sources other than member States increased by 27% between 2012 and 2013. If we did not have those resources, we could not have done many of the operations in our member States that I have talked about, such as the broad programme in Ukraine, which has been financed by outside sources.

We must continue to emphasise partnership with others. Another partner is the OECD, and we heard its Secretary-General speak here yesterday. It has now decided that voluntary contributions from our member States to the Council of Europe can be regarded as official development assistance money, which is very important, because it will encourage more such contributions financed by development aid in our member States. That shows that we are not alone. We have to expand our partnerships with others, but first and foremost we must continue to get our act together in order to do more and strengthen the whole convention system.

There are many other issues that I could talk about, but I will return to them when I deliver the annual communication in January. There are many other challenges in Europe today that I wanted to talk about, but these were the main points that I conveyed to the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly when we met in Dubrovnik.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Secretary General. We now move on to questions. For the first question, I call Mr Beneyto on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – I thank the Secretary General for being with us today and for answering our questions. I have two questions to put to you on behalf of the EPP. The first relates to the World Forum for Democracy, which takes place at the end of November. Do you think it would be advisable for the Parliamentary Assembly – in particular, its members – to have a larger role in its preparation and in the congress itself? My second question relates to some press releases, according to which you would be interested in a second mandate as Secretary General. As you know, there is a tradition of just one mandate. Independently of my strong recognition of your work, could you please explain your position on this matter?

      Mr JAGLAND – On the first question, I would say that the Parliamentary Assembly is already involved in the preparations for the World Forum. For instance, the Assembly is organising many workshops. I know that you have appointed an ad hoc committee to allow additional members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to take part. I am waiting for the results from the ad hoc committee, but absolutely it is good if more members of the Assembly are involved. Many members of this Assembly are already involved – I could name many – as, of course, are many people from national assemblies. I therefore respond positively, without reservation, to what you said.

      It was not actually a press release; it was a journalist who talked about this in a Norwegian paper. When it comes to the content of your question, I would say that it is entirely up to the Parliamentary Assembly to reflect on this matter. Whether the Organisation should have a second term for its leadership, which many organisations have – this is a normal tradition in other international organisations – is entirely up to the Assembly. You are the ones who elect, so you have to reflect on this and let us see the outcome of that reflection. I trust entirely the process you have in the Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Flego on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – I would welcome very much your initiative to develop the monitoring matrix in the frame of the Committee of Ministers. I believe that this initiative has a chance to strengthen the monitoring process if it is done together with our accumulated experience in the Parliamentary Assembly, in particular with the specialised working bodies such as the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I would therefore like to ask you to be more specific about the preparations, and I encourage you to go in the direction of common and co-ordinated action.

      Mr JAGLAND – I have said that when I am working out the annual report I will of course build on all the information I get from all of the bodies in the Organisation. As I said, we represent the most authoritative voice in Europe because we build considerations on convention-based standards and convention-based considerations from other bodies. It is extremely important that we get our act together and have much better co-ordination and co-operation between different bodies.

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

      Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – Earlier, Secretary General, you talked about the role played by the Council of Europe in the field. On the very important role of election observation missions on the ground, is it true that for budgetary reasons the Council of Europe is considering cutting down on them? Do you not believe that more media coverage should be given to the role played by the Council of Europe through these missions in stabilising democracies?

      Mr JAGLAND – I could not agree more. The media coverage that the Council of Europe gets today is much broader than in the past, but we have to base our assessment on strict standards and conventions and we cannot be in the headlines like many others – I am not bound by those kinds of formalities. This is our strength, but it is of course also a problem if we want to have big headlines in the media on a daily basis. However, if we look at the international and national press, we are now much more of a reference point than we were in the past.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Konráđsdóttir on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

      Ms KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – Thank you for your speech. Will you confirm that you are a candidate to run for another term of office? Secondly, what will happen if the politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina are not able to uphold the promise of reforms before the set time?

      Mr JAGLAND – I would like to refrain from answering the second question, because I hope that we are not at that point. There has been a positive development. Let us try to build on that and see whether the agreement that was reached yesterday will be implemented by 10 October.

On the elections for the Secretary General, as I said that is entirely up to the Assembly. I am not in a position to say anything more about that now. What I have said from the very beginning to people around me and to the Committee of Ministers is that I was asked by the Norwegian Government to come here to make deep reforms of the Council of Europe, because there was such a clear need. I said that I could not do so while having on my mind how to be re-elected. If you want to achieve reform and reach a popular goal, you have to take some unpopular decisions. If you are not ready for that and are instead looking for re-election, you are not able to fulfil the mandate. This was the mandate I got. I think I have done a lot, but I could not have done it if I had wanted to please many members in order to be re-elected. So this is where I am now.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – It was a good idea for you to come here to share your ideas with the whole of the Assembly, Mr Secretary General, because you are our Secretary General. I would like to ask you to elaborate a bit more on the synergy you want to have in the monitoring mechanism, because in my opinion we not only need more synergy but more quality. What are your suggestions for how we, as an Assembly, can improve our part of the monitoring process? There could be improvements. Do you have any suggestions?

      Mr JAGLAND – That is a difficult question to answer, because I am not an expert on that. It is very important to keep in mind that monitoring is about bringing out the facts. A report from a monitoring body is stronger if it sets out facts that do not involve political battles on party lines, because a politicised report is easier to dismiss, whereas a factual and consensus report cannot so easily be pushed aside. I am referring not just to what you do, but to what we do at the intergovernmental level. Much better co-ordination, which takes account of what you do in the Assembly, is very important for me and the Committee of Ministers.

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – Secretary General, on 14 June, a resolution was adopted to authorise the accession of Kosovo to the Council of Europe Development Bank. The initiation of that accession procedure coincided with the opening of negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement between the European Union and Kosovo. A resolution adopted by our Assembly in January launched the process for Kosovar parliamentarians to participate in the work of our committees. Will Kosovo be able to benefit in the short term from other mechanisms or subsidiary bodies of the Council of Europe, so that we can better assist a country that took a decisive step towards normalising its relations with Serbia by signing an agreement in Brussels on 19 April, under the aegis of the European Union?

      Mr JAGLAND – I thank you for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that that is a good example of how the Parliamentary Assembly can interact with me and the Committee of Ministers. We have achieved much recently. You adopted Resolution 1923, calling for a softening of our attitude towards contacts with the Kosovar authorities to enable work to take place on the ground in Kosovo. The resolution was forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, which responded positively and asked me to implement it, and I therefore started a dialogue between the highest authorities in Belgrade and Kosovo. We embarked on a concept that we called “functional capacity” – namely, mandating other people to have direct contacts with those we need to work with in the Kosovar authorities. I got an agreement from the Belgrade authorities, and the Kosovar authorities were satisfied. We now aim to implement exactly that agreement.

      It is important to realise why that was necessary. If, for instance, we want to use in Kosovo such instruments as the CPT monitoring body – the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – or the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which is very important for Kosovo, their reports have to go to the right authorities in Kosovo. That could not be done before, but something is now in place to make it possible. We can therefore deploy our instruments and people on the ground in Kosovo to work for the promotion of human rights and the rule of law.

We acted very pragmatically to pave the way for an agreement between Belgrade and Kosovo, which I appreciate, but that process started with the Assembly’s Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and I thank Björn von Sydow for taking that initiative. We can take forward the process constructively on the basis of UN Resolution 1244, because we have not changed the neutral status on which our activities are based. We also want to support the process between Belgrade and Pristina that is being facilitated by the European Union. We will not do anything to harm that process; on the contrary, we want to contribute positively to this historic process in the Balkans.

      Mr SABELLA (Palestine) (Partner for Democracy) – Secretary General, in relation to human rights, you spoke about the importance of giving more assistance to partners on the ground. As more countries – for example, Jordan – apply for Partner for Democracy status, is not now the time to develop, with the Partners for Democracy, a strategic approach on how partnerships can benefit human rights through a relationship focused on assistance, the passage and implementation of legislation in partner countries and the smooth transition of those countries to democracy?

      Mr JAGLAND – I could not agree more. We now have co-operation agreements with the Governments of Tunisia and Morocco, and we have established offices in Tunis and Rabat. We have also approached the Jordanian authorities, and I travelled to Jordan some time ago to discuss that with His Majesty the King. I think that we are approaching what you want. As we have said from the beginning – I again come back to the strengths and particularities of the Council of Europe – we are not trying to impose anything on anyone: the process must be demand-driven, with States in the region wanting to co-operate with us. If they do, we can use our expertise in non-political and non-geopolitical ways, which I think they appreciate.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Thank you for a very interesting speech, Secretary General. Do you agree that surveillance conducted by the US intelligence services, as revealed by the whistle blower Mr Edward Snowden, is a violation of the fundamental right of privacy? On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, let me suggest that, in the Nobel Peace Prize committee meeting on Friday, you propose Mr Edward Snowden for that prize.

      Mr JAGLAND – What Mr Snowden revealed raises several very serious issues for the European continent as well as for others. That is why it is important to look carefully into that issue. I know that people are working on a convention on the protection of so-called whistle blowers. A question arises about the fundamental issue, on which the whole European enlightenment was based, of the clear separation between what is private and what is public. If we tear down that curtain, it will be a dangerous development. When the privacy of ordinary people is harmed, whether by surveillance bodies or the media, at stake is the basic principle upon which the European enlightenment was based – namely, that there is a separation between what is private and what is public.

      This is an important task for the Council of Europe. We are revising the internet security convention, which is the only global convention in the field.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – After the democratically elected Egyptian Government was toppled by the military, you explicitly called it a military coup, which is what it was. I congratulate you on that; not many other international voices were as principled. How do you reconcile that unfortunate fact with the responsibilities of the international community when faced with such a democratic crisis? Will you elaborate on what international institutions should do to protect and promote the core values of democracy and human rights during such crises?

      Mr JAGLAND – As I said earlier, I was able to say what I said publicly because I represent the European Convention on Human Rights and no other power. I can understand that others had to be more cautious, because they have to work with the new authorities in Egypt. I have a different mandate: namely, to represent the principles in the European Convention. The replacement of the elected authorities in Egypt following demonstrations in the streets was a dangerous development. We have seen it before and it does not lead to anything good. I do not think that the developments in Egypt are promising. I not only recognise that other people have other considerations because they need to work with the new authorities, but think it necessary. There is no alternative. However, we have to speak clearly about what we have seen in Egypt. We have seen the same thing happen before in Europe and the Council of Europe has always been clear about such developments.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – At the end of November, the Council of Europe will for the second time organise the World Forum for Democracy. That initiative is as relevant as it has always been. The events of the past year have shown that, all too often, democracy cannot be taken for granted, even in member States of the Council of Europe. However, a number of members of the Parliamentary Assembly are concerned by what appears to be a marginalisation of our institution in the organisation of the forum, despite its being a key institution within the Council of Europe. Secretary General, how do you respond to that sentiment among members of the Assembly?

      Mr JAGLAND – If the impression is that the Parliamentary Assembly has been marginalised, I am the first to regret it. I do not think that it is true. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will look into the matter and correct things if it is necessary. The Parliamentary Assembly is, of course, an important player in the forum. Many members are directly involved and their names are already in the programme. We will continue to improve the situation.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That brings to an end the questions to Mr Jagland. I thank him most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for his statement and for the remarks he has made in the course of questions.

2. The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (Document 13300) presented by Ms Woldseth and Mr Vareikis on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      In order to finish by 6.20 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 6.00 p.m. to allow time for replies and the votes. May I remind colleagues that speaking time is limited to three minutes?

      I first call Ms Woldseth, co-rapporteur. In the absence of your co-rapporteur you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. First, I thank the secretariat for helping me to complete this report. I know that there will be some emotional speeches today, but I have written the report and I stand up for every word of it.

      This is the third or fourth report that I have written on Bosnia and Herzegovina in my time as a rapporteur for that country. I became a rapporteur right after the Sejdić and Finci judgment at the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009. So why have I written this report now? Bosnia and Herzegovina is going through its worst political crisis since the war. The lack of trust, the unwillingness to compromise and the increasingly bitter and aggressive political rhetoric all look like war being fought by other means. I will not get into the discussion on who is to blame; the overall picture is that the political leaders should be seeking to find solutions, not fighting each other.

      All members who have read my report will know that nothing had happened on the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment. However, only yesterday the seven political leaders had a meeting in Brussels with Commissioner Füle at which they agreed on six points to be fulfilled by 10 October. When they meet again on the 10th, hopefully we will be closer to a solution.

      The President said in his opening remarks on Monday that he was very concerned about the tense political situation in the country and that he believes in dialogue. I, too, believe in dialogue, but for how long shall the dialogue go on and nothing happen? How long shall we, as rapporteurs, be told that a group is set down in the parliament and something will happen in a short time? We are told that over and over again, year after year. I wonder how many members of the Assembly would have been as patient as I have been.

In January 2012, we – that means not only my co-rapporteur and I, but the whole Assembly – warned Bosnia and Herzegovina that something would happen if it did not implement the judgment. I see from the amendments that many of you did not mean what you said in January 2012, given that you now support amendments that would delete the steps that we were supposed to take.

How many years must it take to agree on a couple of amendments? I believe in dialogue, but sometimes that does not seem to be enough. That is why I have included paragraphs 11 and 12 in my report. Some of you might not be familiar with the complex situation in the country, and think that the threat to challenge credentials or to ask the Committee of Ministers to consider suspension is too harsh and counterproductive – well, so be it. I love Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, and I want the best for its people, but when children are dying because politicians cannot agree on identity numbers, I feel that I have to do something. The only thing that I can do is to write my report and to hope that someone – anyone – is listening. I have tried to do something about it.

      There have been improvements, and I am the first to acknowledge them and to congratulate the politicians on them. They have appointed people to important institutions, such as the Venice Commission and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or CPT. Furthermore, I have seen and read the formula for the census to be held in October – the first census since the war, so that is a good thing and an improvement.

      Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complex country, which remains in a kind of post-war situation. The country is trapped in the Dayton Agreement, which by now should have been rewritten into a new constitution that includes everyone, as a whole, and does not divide people into ethnicities and entities. I have a favourite map of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dating from before the war, and it shows us how people were able to live together, side by side. Even now, talking to ordinary people in the cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they do live side by side, but that is not the case with politics.

      I hope with my whole heart, therefore, that Commissioner Füle will succeed in his attempt to move Bosnia and Herzegovina towards a solution on all six points of the agreement. Today, Mr Jagland talked about Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he, too, held hopes for the negotiations going on in Brussels. Whatever happens to the report, I will continue to cherish all my hopes for Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the debate, I shall probably ask for the report to go back to the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Woldseth, personally and warmly. You have been a member of our Parliamentary Assembly for eight years. This is the last report that you will present, so on this occasion I stress how much good and important work you have done in your committee. We all know how greatly dedicated you are to this report on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I thank you warmly and sincerely. Despite your decision not to stand for re-election in your country, I am sure that you will continue to take a lively interest in the work that we do in this Organisation and in Bosnia and Herzegovina and with its men, women and children, who live in difficult circumstances at present.

      About seven minutes remain for your response, Ms Woldseth. In the debate, I first call Mr Schennach, to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Thank you, Mr President. I echo your words of thanks to Ms Woldseth. I have got to know her – we have worked together – and she has always been a tremendous colleague.

      I love Bosnia and its people, as you do, Ms Woldseth – that may be obvious for an Austrian, because that country is so close to our own – but we do not reach the same conclusion on the basis of the report. Bosnia needs our help; we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with it, and right now the thing that it does not need is sanctions – Bosnia must not be left to cope alone.

We should never forget the history of Bosnia. I remind you of the armies of Hitler, which moved through the families and villages of Bosnia. The recent civil war was the bloodiest on Bosnian soil, and civil war cannot be got over easily. We experienced the Second World War in our own country, so we get a bit fed up and tired, because Bosnia is moving at a snail’s pace – nevertheless, Bosnia is moving forward.

The motto of Sarajevo’s Winter Olympic Games was all about multi-ethnicity. Back then, Sarajevo, Jerusalem and New York were the three leading multi-ethnic metropolises. The Sejdić-Finci judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, however, shows the current problem – someone who does not subscribe to one of the entities laid down at Dayton is not a fully fledged citizen. That must be changed, and the authorities must do something about it. That is why my amendment is designed to help Bosnia. We do not need to impose sanctions on the country; it needs our full support – ours and the European Union’s.

We cannot have a state of affairs in which Serbia, Albania and Montenegro are all involved in accession processes to the European Union, while Bosnia stands alone. Bosnia is a core country and will be decisive in our future relations with the Balkans. I absolutely agree with all the criticisms in the report, but at the same time we need to stand side by side with Bosnia and to help it. We must not threaten it with sanctions – it is too valuable a member of our community.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I now call Mr Xuclà, to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain) – First and foremost, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I too commend Ms Woldseth for her report, and I pay tribute to her work. Ms Woldseth, we have the greatest respect for everything that you have done here over the past eight years in the Parliamentary Assembly. Specifically, I thank you for your commitment – you have worked with great conviction, in particular as rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      We as Europeans need to learn from the mistakes of the past. To do so, we must understand the dark moments of our history, and the difficult moments of the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is important to visit Sarajevo and to understand, for example, that 100 years ago a war started in this very city – a war that tore apart the two worlds of Europe. I am referring to the beginning of the First World War. That breach – that terrible incident – was repeated, and we are talking about a repetition of similar events in the very bloody conflict of the 1990s.

      We cannot allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to become an island among the other countries that are candidates for membership of the European Union or that have already joined. We cannot stand by and let that happen. In addition, we need to be firm about our expectations. We need a dialogue that is firm and constructive, and the report before us sets out a number of objective criteria. The Bosnian Government still has to meet challenges on institutional functions, on the constitution and on electoral reform, which is also required. Such reform of institutions and of how political parties operate needs to be reviewed.

That said, from my point of view, and indeed that of many members of the Liberal Group, that does not pave the way for an extreme or too-demanding position. We are entertaining the idea of suspending this country’s membership of the Council of Europe. We need to be stringent, but we need to accompany Bosnia and Herzegovina on its journey. We had some excellent news from Brussels only yesterday about an agreement reached by the high-level group led by Commissioner Füle on behalf of the European Union, whereby the obligations regarding the six points included in the European Court of Human Rights mandate will be met. That is of primary importance to us as well.

To conclude, we had a debate about monitoring earlier this week, in which Mr Tiny Kox made a comment that was apposite indeed: other institutions cannot impose their views on our calendar and our work. The report is a positive one, and I hope that it will be supported by the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Konráđsdóttir on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Ms KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – On behalf of the European Democratic Group, I congratulate the rapporteurs on their informative report. Thank you, Karin, for your co-operation. It has been nice getting to know you a little before you leave us.

Why is the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina so bleak? The cause appears to be the constitution, which constitutes part of the US-mediated Dayton peace accords. Sadly, the constitution strongly reflects the national interests of two of the signatories – the late Serbian President Milošević and the then Croatian President Tudjman – and has resulted in the partition of the country rather than contributing to the unity of the Bosnian State and the common interests and rights of its citizens. The Dayton peace accords were most likely necessary to end the armed conflict. However, in the absence of a sunset clause to the constitution, over time it has created vested self-interests which have taken priority over the well-being of the country’s citizens.

The question is who should shoulder the responsibility for the deadlocked State. The obvious answer is Bosnia’s politicians, but it is not that simple. Given the history of the conflict, the constitution and the consequences of it all, it is arguably more of a common responsibility which includes Serbia, Croatia and the international community. Against that background, initiating a process for drafting a new constitution that could serve as the foundation for a functional and inclusive democratic State is worth considering, with the participation of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the support of this Assembly and other stakeholders.

      We have talked a little about yesterday’s news. It is best to follow the rapporteur’s new suggestion that the committee again take the report into consideration.

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

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I thank the co-rapporteurs, especially Karin. Although we come from different ends of the political spectrum, we appear to be able to work well together, for example when we observed the 2010 elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we concluded that it would not be possible to hold elections under the same circumstances in 2014, because not all people in Bosnia and Herzegovina are equal when it comes to elections, which is inadmissible. I therefore support the report.

At the same time, I support the proposal to modify the report, which is why my name is on the amendment proposed by our colleague Mr Schennach. I think that we should support both, which shows that my group is in between. Yes, it is necessary for us to help Bosnia, because it is such a complex nation facing so much that is not easy to overcome, but we also need international pressure. At the end of the day, it is the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina who must deliver. They know that, they promised it and they have not done it until now. If we adopt an amended resolution, I think we will find a fine balance between the two, and then it will not be necessary to send the report back to the committee. Then we will be able to decide. The resolution will be fine; the amendment will modify it in a way that gives the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina a chance to deliver. Then we will wait and see.

I am in favour of voting today, because we are not subordinate to the European Union. I thank the European Union very much for its co-operation with the Council of Europe to arrive at this achievement – it now looks as though the Bosnian authorities are giving in – but we should not wait for the European Union before we vote. Clearly, we are the body that observes developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not putting this excellent report to the vote today would be an unnecessary mistake. If we endorse your resolution and the amendment modifying the paragraph on possible sanctions, that will be the best possible proposal. Again, Karin, I wish you all the best. It was good working with you in this Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Sasi on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SASI (Finland) – I thank Ms Woldseth and Mr Vareikis for a very good report. Bosnia is a very sad story. When it joined the Council of Europe in 2002, there was some progress, but since 2006 nothing has happened in the country. There is not much progress to report, but I had hoped that the report’s coverage would be wider, including not only constitutional questions but everything covered under the monitoring process. It would have been useful for this Assembly.

As we all know, the Sejdić and Finci case was decided in December 2009. I was rapporteur for Bosnia for several years, and during that time we tried to negotiate constitutional reform in that respect. However, in the negotiations, there were always promises, but nothing happened. The reports in 2010 and 2012 said that something should be done, but there were a lot of promises and no real progress. The fact is that the country needs wide constitutional reform. Sejdić and Finci is only a small part that should be easy to implement – everyone should be able to run in elections – but the country needs comprehensive constitutional reform. I understand that the Dayton agreement is the basis for that, but 20 years after the war, there must be some progress.

The system in the country is quite catastrophic. Let us consider local constitutions. For example, the constitution of Republika Srpska includes the death penalty. That is totally non-understandable, but it is not politically possible, because of vital national interest, to change the constitution – and the rule of vital national interest should be deleted everywhere in the country.

The country is in a total mess as far as administration is concerned: it is a federation with 10 cantons and a lot of constitutions. It is not possible to administer the whole system. The whole administration of the country, especially in the federation, should be changed. Unfortunately, there has not been any progress. Mostar, a beautiful city, has not been able to arrange a local communal election. It has no budget. That is only one example of the kind of mess the whole country is in, and why politicians are not able to agree. Today, Bosnia is lagging behind all the other countries in respect of European integration. Politicians in that country should wake up to fact that something should be done.

We can welcome the decision in Brussels on Monday. When you read the text there are some principles, but then, for example, two members can be elected to the presidency from the federation, with the model to be agreed later on. No final decisions have been made. There is a lot of work to do and people must be serious about finding a solution as soon as possible.

The EPP group is not in favour of sanctions. We hope that after this discussion politicians in Bosnia understand that something must be done soon, so that the next elections can be held according to new rules that fulfil the human rights criteria of the Council of Europe. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sasi.

I give the floor to Mr Šepić.

Mr ŠEPIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your contributions to the discussion.

This resolution, named “The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, is generally unacceptable due to its neglecting progress that my country achieved recently, as stated in a Committee of Ministers report. But it is true that some issues correctly describe our country’s position, especially where debt is mentioned.

Democratically elected institutions, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the three-member presidency, should not be under the instruction of political party leaders, but should work according to the four-year mandate they receive from the voters. This is important in fully understanding the political situation. It is also important to see how the Council of Europe or the international community in general can respond to that.

I find this position encouraging. I have no doubt about whether some of the measures mentioned in the conclusions will help Bosnia and Herzegovina or will help to keep the political status quo. As a representative of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I assure you all that we will do our best to make an effort to step up the negotiations necessary to implement the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.

We understand our responsibility towards our voters, as well as to all citizens. Therefore we will struggle to uphold the high standards of legal procedure in all aspects of our political activity, just as the Council of Europe membership requires. We are searching continuously for an available solution in accordance with the ruling, but which is also functional in the society as a whole. These principles were reaffirmed in yesterday’s meeting in Brussels, which Mr Jagland has already mentioned.

It would be simple unilaterally to shift responsibility only to local politicians and institutions, but it does not reflect the true state of things. All progressive reforms that were made, especially till 2006, were made under the strong support of the international community, and the current constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a part of the Dayton accord that still needs international mediation and professional help.

In any case, I totally disagree with suspension and it would be wrong to suspend my country from its right of representation. That would be a punishment for the State and the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and it should not be acceptable. We need support, as my colleague from Austria said, and positive action, not sanction. That is why I ask for understanding and support from the Council of Europe and international institutions. However, the way that this resolution is drafted does not contribute to a solution to our problems; it makes them more complicated and that is why this resolution should not be supported. In that regard, I ask you to support our amendments, signed by all members of our delegation, whether from ruling or opposition parties, and by many colleagues from the region and the whole of Europe.

Thank you to those who contributed, and will contribute, to this discussion and to those who keep their attention on Bosnia and Herzegovina and want to help us build a stable country.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr Ivanovski.

Mr IVANOVSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'”) – This is an important debate for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also for our Parliamentary Assembly. It is difficult to be a citizen in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to be a politician leading the country that suffered the worst unprecedented ethnic and religious war in modern Europe. However, I know that it is hard to be a rapporteur on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We should not forget that the political and legal system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a result of the Dayton peace agreement and its functioning is still formally dependent on the international community. That does not relieve, or provide an amnesty for, the authorities from fulfilling the country’s obligation and commitments, especially those to the Council of Europe. On the contrary, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina want to have a democratic, just and open society that fully respects and practises human rights and democratic standards and values. So it should be a matter not of if, but of how and when Bosnia and Herzegovina fulfils its obligations. Bosnian authorities and institutions are implementing that process slowly, with delays and problems, but surely. And there is a lot to be done. So I acknowledge that the rapporteur has produced some good solutions in this report. I also salute the start of the solution of the problem with yesterday’s Brussels meeting.

The approach should be to help Bosnia and Herzegovina. We should offer action and support to the country, not a sanction as proposed. We should integrate Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Council of Europe family of values, rather than exclude it or suspend it, thereby opening additional space for nationalism in the country which, unfortunately, still exists.

We should demand that Bosnia and Herzegovina implements the court’s decision on the Sejdić and Finci case, but we should also help and encourage it to do so – to be just in principle, for a change, perhaps, in this Parliamentary Assembly. Because if we treat Bosnia and Herzegovina with the sanctions proposed and continue with that approach, there should be a place for sanctions of the same kind for other countries that have a bad record on non-implementation of the Court’s decisions – and there are not just a few. However, I will just mention Greece and Bulgaria, for example.

      Let us give positive impetus to Bosnia and Herzegovina and encourage its leaders, but do more and hold them to their promises and obligations, and help and work for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who need it most.

I do not support the proposal for sanctions in paragraph 10 and 11. Coming from that region, I know one thing for sure, unfortunately, which is that the international community failed to stop the bloodiest war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let us do the right thing now to secure the future of this country.

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

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – Thank you, President. I welcome the report. In the period when we were in the same State of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina was an example of tolerance and peace in that former State, and an example of how different communities can live together. Unfortunately, in the 1990s the wave of nationalism created a civil war there, in which thousands were killed and millions were displaced. After the Dayton agreement, Bosnia is trying to build a new and better future for its citizens.

I remind you that Bosnia’s current constitution is, practically, a result of the Dayton agreement and the leaders at that time of the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, Milošević, Tudjman and Izetbegović. The constitution that Bosnia has today is created and supported by the international community.

The rapporteur is trying to oppose a constitution that was created by all the international community and resulted in stopping the war.

I ask openly, is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights the most important thing for the citizens of Bosnia? I think not. Is it right to suspend the country from the Council of Europe because it accepted a constitution to stop the war? No. Will the citizens of the country live better if the judgment is implemented? No. Let us be honest to ourselves. One reason why the war happened in Bosnia in the 1990s was that the international community reacted either not at the appropriate time or reacted wrongly. There were thousands of victims in Bosnia because the international community was not reacting at the proper time or in a proper manner. What we are proposing today is being proposed in the same manner: suspension and, again, making problems for this country.

Our approach should be the opposite – it should be positive – which is why I oppose paragraphs 11, 12 and 24 and ask members to support the amendments. We can best support the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a positive approach, not a negative one that imposes sanctions. The easiest thing would be to suspend them; the hardest thing would be to support them.

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

      Mr MICHEL (France)* – On behalf of the French Senate, I recently visited Bosnia and Herzegovina, where there is a consensus among the parties in power that there are shortcomings in the present institutions. However, everyone is blaming their neighbours for the failure to improve them.

Twenty years after the war and 17 years after the cessation of hostilities, there is no Bosnian identity and the desire to live together is a fiction. Fortunately, the horrific war was ended, but the Dayton agreements are now an obstacle to a good constitution, having been built on the concept of power-sharing by the recognised communities. The political parties have followed that trend, so there is no common will, and the so-called civic parties have been kept out of power – anyone not belonging to one of the three communities is legally excluded from political, social and economic life.

      The European Court of Human Rights has condemned the situation, but who is responsible? Is it today’s leaders in Bosnia or the international community? Will mentalities ever change? The younger generation does not seem committed to the country’s future, preferring to emigrate or become involved in radical Islamisation – Sarajevo is the most Islamised city in Europe. The debates on constitutional reform, administrative simplification and Bosnian citizenship are worked on by just a few university researchers, but these are people who remember Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Yugoslav period. Even worse, the schools prevent the emergence of a new political culture, education not being a competence of the central state, as it should be. Each community has its own forms of teaching that exclude others – this is particularly striking in the Croat-Bosniak federation, where 40 schools operate on the “two schools under one roof” principle, separating pupils by community, making them enter by different doors and allotting them free time at different times. In this, the role of religious authorities does not help.

Who is responsible? Bosnia and Herzegovina is subject to triple monitoring – by the European Union, the United Nations and us. In the middle of Sarajevo can be seen European Union and United Nations buildings, but what are they doing with the political authorities? We are debating sanctions, but that is not the answer. Instead, we must help Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yesterday in Brussels, there was a glimmer of hope, and Serbia and Kosovo seem to be moving closer together, so sanctions now would be wrong.

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

Mr KOLMAN (Croatia) – The truth is that in the middle of Europe is a State that, politically speaking, is in a hostage situation. The system put in place by the Dayton agreement is not working. It served an extremely important purpose – to end the war – but in terms of state and institution-building in peacetime, it is lacking in many fields.

To cut a long story short, that has brought us to where we are now. We have a State that is under constant supervision by the international community, but at the same time not functioning properly, to put it mildly – we all agree on that, more or less. But then we come to the proposed solutions, including suspensions and sanctions, which, I have no doubt, would be completely wrong. The political process in the country is slow and often frustrating – again, something we mostly agree upon – but it is slowly moving forward. Important steps remain, the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment – viewed in the broader context of political representation of the three constituent peoples as well as the so-called others – being only one of them. Constitutional reform, preparation for the census, reform of the federation, the list of military assets – important for joining NATO – are all at different stages of fulfilment.

Croatia, as a neighbouring country and a new member of the European Union, supports all these reforms, fully aware that such far-reaching changes cannot be achieved overnight. It is especially so with issues such as the Sejdić and Finci judgment, which requires a change of the constitution – the first judgment of that kind in the history of the European Court of Human Rights. Nevertheless, significant steps have recently been taken in the right direction, and we are encouraged by further positive developments that seem to be on the way. In this respect, I ask all colleagues not to support paragraphs 11 and 12. A fragile political situation such as the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires sensitive and sensible measures. Too much pressure might be counter-productive and radicalise the situation, instead of bringing it on to the right track. The international community has invested too much in Bosnia and Herzegovina now to leave it alone to make the necessary reforms under the threat of sanctions and suspensions. The country needs our attention, our support and our assistance, not sanctions and suspensions.

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

Mr BADEA (Romania)* – As a senator for the diaspora, the Balkan area is dear to my heart, and I know that many from Romania have lived in the territory – they have told me about their experiences and the tragedies of the 1990s, which is why I am alive to these issues of inter-ethnic coexistence. Bosnia and Herzegovina, struggling to move to the next stage in its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural development, presents a serious and difficult political problem. In the 1990s, through the Dayton accords, the international community put an end to a bloody conflict and brought about co-operation with and between the main ethnic groups in Bosnia, and the same spirit of co-operation needs to prevail now.

Our Assembly is a forum for parliamentary debate and should be coming up with solutions, not brandishing sanctions. This is not the time to threaten our colleagues in Sarajevo, who are prepared to talk to us. It is a complex situation involving amendments to the constitution – the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment is a matter not just of executing a single judgment, but of overhauling the constitution. The Bosnian delegation has called for paragraphs 11, 12 and 24 of the draft resolution to be amended. Sanctions would be counter-productive. If someone is ill, they need a doctor, otherwise they will never recover.

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

      Mr MAGAZINOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - Distinguished President, dear colleagues, thank you all for being so active on committees and in political group meetings related to the report on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I also thank the rapporteur, Ms Woldseth, for the effort that she put into her work to try to draw an objective picture of the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The title of this report is “The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina” but, as we can all see, most of the report is about the Sejdić and Finci judgment. Dear colleagues, for the first time in the Court’s history, that judgment requires the modification of a peace agreement – the Dayton peace agreement – part of which is the current Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why this is not easy. I consider the opening of the door to sanctions because appendix 4 of the Dayton peace agreement – the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina – is not yet modified, as was required, to be excessive and counterproductive.

I was in Brussels yesterday, and a step forward was made regarding reaching a final agreement. That and all other political processes in my country regarding EU accession could not be speeded up if we adopted the resolution. Moreover, the resolution as proposed could slow down or even stop some of the processes that we are talking about. The approach proposed by the resolution will not have a positive result. It can be used only by those who claim that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be divided by ethnic lines. Only those people can profit from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s bad position in international institutions. That will give new strength to separatist activities and the drawing up of new borders in the Balkans.

While we are talking about drawing up the maps, I underline that the second rapporteur on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Vareikis, insisted several times on the topic of changing my country’s borders basically on ethnic lines, as well as the borders of the Balkans. That is unacceptable and offensive, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should clearly say that something like that is not Council of Europe policy and does not represent the values that all of us together are fighting for.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multi-ethnic country, which enriches us. Yes, we need international help in development and to solve crucial problems. At the same time, we do not want to be a country on which those who are big, or consider themselves big, demonstrate their strength. We need sincere and concrete support. I hope that we get that support for our amendments because, if we do, we will finish a good job here.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Magazinović. I call Ms Zimmermann.

      Ms ZIMMERMANN (France)* - Thank you very much, President. Madam Rapporteur, you have done a complete and objective piece of work on Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is remarkable, and I congratulate you on your efforts.

Almost 20 years after the Dayton Accords, the situation in that country is dramatic. The European future of Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to become ever more remote year after year, while other Western Balkan countries are moving closer to the European Union. Croatia and Slovenia are already member States of the European Union and significant progress has been made by both Serbia and Albania. So even with these European Union membership talks, how can we understand that the European Union does not have any single address for Bosnia and Herzegovina? It has to negotiate separately with the two entities on some of the dossiers. In other words, there is an institutional blockage that prevents Bosnia and Herzegovina from moving forward. Ethnic issues undermine any attempts at reform, starting with the constitutional amendments that would be required to enforce the Sejdić and Finci judgment fully.

      In the run-up to the 2014 elections and the census that is to take place that same year, rivalry between the two main parties is complicating any progress that would lead to an agreement. The political class is not shouldering its responsibility. I understand of course that the accord has its own problems, but that is not an excuse. If the political class does not take its responsibilities seriously, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations towards becoming a member State of the European Union will come to nothing.

      Next year we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War in Sarajevo, and it is sad to note that there is still disagreement between Serbs, Bosnians and Croats. Bosnia is no longer in a state of war but nor is it at peace, as demonstrated by the fact that it is still under international supervision.

      UN Women recently highlighted that, 16 years after the end of the war, the situation of survivors raped during the war has still not been taken into consideration. Those victims of rape and the children born out of that are still stigmatised and rejected by society. That is a poor result. After all, those women are the main witnesses in the trials taking place now for war crimes. We should pay tribute to those women who have gone to The Hague. What progress can you see if justice drags its heels and the perpetrators of those crimes do not ask for forgiveness? We need to make sure that Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better political future than that.

      A few weeks ago the German President, Mr Gauck, went to the martyr village of Oradour-sur-Glane. Franco-German reconciliation could serve as an example. In the name of peace and in the name of the young people of your country and of Europe, we should do more. The Council of Europe could be the body that helps the country rebuild itself. Madam Rapporteur, I am opposed to sanctions and I very much hope that we will have more dialogue instead.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Ms Zimmermann. The next speaker is Ms Marković.

      Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – Thank you, President. Dear colleagues, the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina sets out a description of political events that have occurred in the country over the past two years. The rapporteurs have enumerated all the most important political events in that period, but they brought forward one in particular that they considered the most important: the non-execution of the Sejdić and Finci judgment handed down in 2009 by the European Court of Human Rights. Because of that judgment and the fact that it has not yet been executed, the rapporteurs suggest that this resolution be adopted and sanctions be imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our country is very worried by the resolution. We consider it unjust and counterproductive.

      Bosnia and Herzegovina has made important efforts to fulfil most of its post-accession obligations. It is not shirking the responsibilities that it took on when it acceded to the Council of Europe, and is fully committed to looking for an adequate and durable solution to execute that complex judgment. Furthermore, the language of the resolution is so negative that one might draw the conclusion that Bosnia and Herzegovina has a structural problem with the non-execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not at all true. Until now Bosnia and Herzegovina has successfully executed almost all the Court’s judgments, including the most delicate ones that related to certain aspects of national security.

      What is the reason for not having executed this judgment? The execution of this judgment amounts to a modification in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is an integral part of the Dayton peace agreement. Amending the constitution of a country is a political decision. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that means that political agreement must be reached between the two entities, Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Republika Srpska was ready to execute the judgment on the very first day that it was handed down, but it cannot do that on its own. There is no agreement in the Federation between the Bosnians and the Croats. The Croats insist on avoiding the situation of 2010 when a Croat member of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina was elected by the votes of Bosnians, and there needs to be more negotiation if a durable solution is to be found to the problem.

      Yesterday there was the important meeting in Brussels of the seven leaders invited by Štefan Füle, with a view to improving the political situation in the country and reinforcing everyone’s efforts to execute the judgment before the elections of October 2014. Mr Füle said that it was a very good discussion, that they did a lot of work and that they had a productive meeting, with all those involved being constructive and working seriously on the problem. The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina – the leaders of the parties – are making efforts to resolve the problem. It is not as though people were doing nothing, as the rapporteur seems to be suggesting.

      If we adopt the resolution in the form proposed, calling for sanctions, including the suspension of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Council of Europe, that could put our country in a very difficult position and even disrupt what is a fragile political situation. It could result in the country losing credibility at both the national and the international levels. That is why I call upon colleagues to support our amendments and to reject the resolution in its current form.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Dzurinda.

      Mr DZURINDA (Slovak Republic) – I agree that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is very serious. While all the other states of the western Balkans are making progress towards modernisation and integration, there is long-lasting stagnation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and it is even moving backwards. Every “shareholder” of that country bears his or her own responsibility for the lack of determination and commitment, including the international community, and especially the Peace Implementation Council, of which the Council of Europe is a member. We all bear our own responsibility for the present situation and, more importantly, for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      The draft resolution correctly and comprehensively reflects the situation in the country. I greatly appreciate the work of our rapporteurs, which is why I support it completely, including paragraphs 11 and 12. I disagree with those who argue that there is only one case - Sejdić and Finci - which has not been implemented yet. This is not an ordinary or technical case. Individual human rights are the basis of democracy and our civilisation.

      I wish to make two final remarks. First, we are not imposing sanctions on Bosnia and Herzegovina today, although there is, of course, a threat of such sanctions in the future if nothing happens – there is a time-scale for the patience of the Council of Europe. That is a responsible approach. My own experience, drawn from my own country in the past, tells me that a threat of sanctions works if it is thought to be serious. If we want to do our best for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we should act now, before the next elections in the country.

Secondly, one of the most important principles for the peaceful co-existence of fellow citizens in ethnically mixed states is deep and profound decentralisation of the public administration, strictly respecting the subsidiarity principle, in combination with respect for the individual rights of persons belonging to national minorities. It would be good if the amendment of the Bosnia and Herzegovina constitution were based on these individual rights of people belonging to national minorities.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Dear colleagues, it is beyond doubt that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most complex country in the Balkans socially, politically and historically. I should therefore congratulate our rapporteurs for having shouldered such a challenging task. The report, however, mainly focuses on the non-implementation of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the Sejdić and Finci case, disregarding the efforts and the progress made in the country. I agree with our rapporteurs’ efforts to send a strong message to the Bosnian authorities that they must fulfil their obligations, but I am afraid that I disagree with them when they recommend the suspension of the country’s Council of Europe membership if it fails to do so.

We have many honourable member States that have not fulfilled all their obligations in respect of conventions and Court decisions and we can live with them. Why pick on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Members of this Assembly must answer a fundamental question about the way we should assist young democracies: do we seek to shame and discipline countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina through monitoring mechanisms, or do we engage with them proactively and employ diplomatic channels, boost dialogue and patiently stand in solidarity with them in the face of such challenges?

Suspension or sanctions should not be considered as options since they are not only against the fundamental values and the standards that this Organisation represents, but they also contradict the spirit of our work. This Organisation is all about co-operation and therefore we cannot give up and simply watch a member State struggle with its own problems.

We should bear in mind that Bosnia and Herzegovina does not refuse to implement the Sejdić and Finci decision, but it requires complex legal modifications, which take time. Although I fully understand that our rapporteurs may have faced frustrations and difficulties in their contacts with the Bosnian authorities, we have to be realistic and act in a responsible way. Which Bosnia and Herzegovina is preferable and good for the peace and stability of Europe: a Bosnia in the Council of Europe or near the Council of Europe?

In the Council of Europe’s relations with its member States there can be no option other than co-operation, solidarity, offering assistance and active engagement. I am sincerely confident that the Bosnian authorities will do their best to seize this opportunity to co-operate with European institutions more closely. I want them to know we are with them in this endeavour.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Le Borgn'.

Mr LE BORGN' (France)* - Our colleagues’ report rightly alludes to the Drayton straitjacket, although those accords of December 1995 were a means of bringing to an end a terrible conflict that was drowning Bosnia and Herzegovina in blood. Its constitution is now the cause of shortcomings in the country’s governance, however, and we were rightly reminded that the Assembly has on many occasions pressed that country’s authorities to put in place a new constitutional framework. Nothing has yet been done, however, and, tragically, that has led the country into a dead-end.

Friends can speak openly and frankly with each other. It is unacceptable that the one thing that seems to bring together a political class that is perpetually antagonistic is a refusal to heed the will of the international community. That is highlighted by the June 2013 demonstration about the disagreement between the Federation and the Republika Srpska on the application of a ruling by the constitutional court. Regardless of the good news from Brussels yesterday, the fact is that the European Court of Human Rights’ Sejdić and Finci judgment has not been implemented, even though the judgment was handed down four years ago, and there is a ban on national minorities and citizens who refuse to be assigned to one of the constituent peoples from standing for election to the House of Peoples. Regardless of pressure from the Council of Europe and the European Union, systematic recourse to voting by entity and the rather opportunistic interpretation of the notion of vital national interest is holding up the decision-making process and all initiatives which would hold out any hope of making progress.

It was impossible to hold local elections in October 2012 because of the failure to enforce that judgment. It would appear that the ultimate outcome of all this will be nationalism, thereby depriving the young people of Bosnia of their future, but you, dear Bosnian colleagues, all share a community of destinies and you now have an opportunity to overhaul the Dayton constitution. We are not necessarily talking about sanctions, but we are expecting you to shoulder your share of the responsibility with courage.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn'. I call Mr Bockel.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – At this stage in the debate nearly everything has been said, and it has been said very well. The usefulness of the report is clear. It serves to remind colleagues in Bosnia and Herzegovina that membership of the Council of Europe involves obligations. You can be proud to be a member, but membership entails duties.

What about yesterday’s agreement in Brussels? One colleague said that we do not take orders from Brussels. That is of course true, and the report, together with other elements, has no doubt given a positive impetus to the whole debate. Just look at the timing. It does not put things off into the darkness of time, because we are talking about October, so it is very useful.

      The situation is difficult and complex, as many have said. Not everything is negative, because there has been good will in the implementation of the Court’s other judgments, and progress has been noted by the Committee of Ministers and by parliamentarians who know the country better than others. To repeat what our Turkish colleague said, sanctions would give the impression that there is a double standard. I think that for purely didactic reasons, in order to be well understood by citizens, it would probably be counter-productive, because it is disproportionate. It is true that we are becoming impatient. We have the impression that there have been too many delays, but there is a process under way.

This debate is extremely useful. I believe that sanctions are inappropriate at this time, but I think that the report and the debate will have made a contribution, and the representatives of the various entities understand that. Colleagues are saying, “Give us a bit more time and we’ll get to it, but for God’s sake don’t impose sanctions now”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Bockel. I call Ms Kapetanović.

      Ms KAPETANOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – I really appreciate the opportunity to address the Assembly at this very important time for my country. At the same time, I am deeply concerned about the outcome. I will not deny the validity of the disturbing findings about the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as I truly believe in the good intentions of this body and the Council of Europe as a whole; the history of the relationship between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Council of Europe reassures me of that.

      Also, I am not going to offer any kind of excuse, for you have heard many over time. The excuses, explanations and political arguments about placing blame and responsibility for leading us to this sorry point should remain within the domestic political field. As you have just witnessed, probably for the first time, the delegates from Bosnia and Herzegovina have spoken with one voice. We have a single request: give us more time to come up with a solution. Some might believe that the sanctions, though unprecedented and harsh, are well deserved. Although I do not subscribe to that view, I understand your frustrations and those of the international community. That frustration is shared by many of our citizens and voters. But I and my colleagues can assure you that we do feel responsible and take all the criticism seriously, and with the utmost determination to contribute to the solution.

Before you make up your minds and proceed to vote, I kindly ask you to consider the following questions. First, what is the purpose of imposing sanctions? Is it to punish for the sake of it, or is it to give an impetus to the process of political negotiations in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Do you believe that imposing sanctions in the proposed manner would help us come up with a solution and fulfil our obligations? I do not doubt your good intentions, but I do not believe that would help us.

Secondly, as our recent history has shown, some political goals can be achieved through the carrot-and-stick approach, but in this case we did not give up trying to reach the carrot. The whole time efforts have been made, and some are still are being made, even as we were speaking yesterday. But the stick is still in your hands. The purpose of the stick, though, is a tricky one. It works and is at its most powerful when it is not used. Once it is used, the one using it is no longer in control of the process and has fewer opportunities to act. If you use a stick against someone trying to reach the carrot, rather than assisting you are actively disabling them. You are knocking them down, rather than encouraging them. Just as I believe in your good intentions, so do I believe that you will not knock down Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has implemented all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and a great number of post-accession decisions.

Once sanctions have been used, they take away the power of influence and all the positive and progressive pressure on political leaders. That would exclude Bosnia and Herzegovina and put us into limbo, but it would also disempower you and create a distance that would be even harder to cross. It would be easy to adopt the sanctions, but do you have a clear idea of what to do next? Is there a plan on how to proceed, or will you just give up on us? Will you give a chance to those who are drawing new maps for the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

As a medical doctor, I can tell you that many innocent children died because of the international community’s slow intervention, but we forgive, though we will not forget. Nobody can love my country, Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than we do, so I kindly ask you seriously to consider those arguments before making up your minds and proceeding to vote and to support our amendments. Colleagues, I believe in your good intentions and thank you for your consideration.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Kapetanović. I call Ms Mulić.

Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – As we have heard several times, regardless of the title of the draft resolution, this is all about the implementation, or non-implementation, of the Sejdić and Finci judgment. I do not need to remind you that we have to change the international peace treaty, the Dayton peace agreement, in order to implement it.

This is a highly complex and delicate issue that requires special consideration. The Dayton peace agreement has set up ethnic principles to be the foundations of the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is obvious that the Dayton peace agreement has created an institutional straitjacket and that constitutional reforms should be negotiated and agreed. I strongly advocate the implementation of the citizenship principle above the ethnic principles and the right of every citizen, regardless of their national, ethnic or religious affiliation, to be nominated, elected and politically represented.

However, if that is a State of constituent peoples, it is obvious that the ethnic principle and vital interest of those constituent peoples must be taken into account in constitutional or electoral reform. I am strongly convinced that the minimum is for constituent peoples to have the right and possibility to elect their political representatives freely and autonomously. Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Croat ethnic community is almost half the size it was before the war. They should at least have the right, just as others do, to be politically represented by the people they voted for – to be equal.

In a country with such a hard and bloody history, it is very difficult to find a solution that will strike the right balance between the principle of citizen and the principle of constituent peoples and will enable political representation for all at all levels, respecting the same criteria. The international community did not succeed in that when it created the Dayton peace agreement. Politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not yet succeeded, but it is very unjust to say that they have not made any credible efforts. I am strongly convinced that the draft resolution should avoid arbitrary evaluation. I also believe that the wording of the explanatory memorandum should avoid patronising or giving subjective advice.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a State and a society in the process of building capacities for integration into the European Union and NATO. Instead of calling for sanctions, I would opt for a more constructive call to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to redouble their efforts to find a solution. I would opt for constructive wording and inviting member States to offer their expertise in order to resolve this complex issue. Opting for sanctions is counterproductive for Bosnia and Herzegovina – for its future and for its citizens. Opting for sanctions in this case – based on the report and the draft resolution – is also counterproductive to the credibility of the Parliamentary Assembly. I therefore invite you not to vote for the report, and to support the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Hancock, you have the floor.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I would hope that all of us here in the Assembly want to see Bosnia and Herzegovina travel on a journey from its dark past to a bright future where the Council of Europe can rightly be proud of what we have done to make that happen, but more importantly that the people in Bosnia can be lifted out of their island of despair and that the country can be transformed into one they can be proud of, live in peace in, and be comfortable with. If Bosnia achieves that with our help, all of us can say that we did a good job.

What we must not do, however, is get our role mixed up with the journey we want Bosnia to undertake on its own behalf. Our role, surely, is to be firm but fair and not put obstacles, which cannot easily be taken down, in the way of progress. We should recognise and appreciate that the journey has not been easy for Bosnia. It was never going to be, was it? The circumstances of its past completely overshadow its present and, possibly, its future. We have to be conscious that the steps the country takes have to be taken with our help, advice and guidance, and, most importantly, our support.

The report is firm, but I do not think it is very fair. It fails to recognise what can be achieved and what has been achieved, and it puts unfair obstacles in the way of further progress. That is not something we want to see. The journey to a better future for Bosnia is surely based on what is reasonable. Is it reasonable for the Assembly to expect a country to deliver in this period of time? I think that the report’s recommendations put up unfair obstacles that are a jump too far for a country to achieve in the current circumstances and the political atmosphere it has to work in.

If we are to be recognised as a helpful force, we have to modify the report and address the issues that we need to address. To a certain extent, the report outlines what they are, but it is not very good at identifying the steps that we can take to help. The one thing that will not help it is if we vote in favour of the report unamended and believe that that will solve the problems in Bosnia. What is manifestly clear to anyone who has read the report and who knows the history of Bosnia is that the report will not achieve that. That is why we should not support it in its current form, and why the amendments, which have been thoughtfully put forward and readily accepted in the Monitoring Committee, should be accepted by the Assembly tonight. If we do not do so, sadly we will not have achieved our role and we will not have satisfied the clamour for a change in Bosnia. We should not deny the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina the opportunity to get their future right. The report hinders that process.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now call Ms Krišto.

      Ms KRIŠTO (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complex country. It operates on the basis of an international peace agreement that has no democratic legitimacy. It is therefore difficult to objectively explain Bosnia and Herzegovina as a country governed by the rule of law, or to explain the functioning of its democratic institutions. I am not referring to a particular point in the resolution, nor am I trying to find a pretext for our failures in finding a solution. Nevertheless, allow me to emphasise once again how sensitive this subject is.

      Bosnia and Herzegovina is made up of three constituent peoples. The absence of a solution to our problems is what prevents us from arriving at our Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The enforcement of the Sejdić and Finci judgment is particularly complex. It requires constitutional reform, which is a complex process even in more orderly countries. We believe that the Sejdić and Finci ruling cannot be deemed an ordinary ruling because of its complexity – it requires specific procedures. Based on the understanding that has been shown towards Bosnia and Herzegovina on the enforcement of this ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, I call on the Assembly to please remain patient so that Bosnia and Herzegovina stands a chance of obtaining assistance to find a solution to this problem.

In this context, Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot accept the draft resolution, particularly the part that says that, up until now, it has made absolutely no effort to find a solution on the enforcement of the ruling. There is a political process and a solution is being sought. In addition, we believe there is no need for sanctions and no need to think about suspending our right of representation, because there is a will in Bosnia and Herzegovina to find a solution and we will find that solution. It is in the interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, and it is in the interests of our Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

Bearing in mind everything that has been said so far, we would say that the draft resolution is inadmissible. In particular, paragraphs 11 and 12 should be either deleted or substantially modified. Members of the Assembly, Bosnia and Herzegovina would very much appreciate your support to ensure that the draft resolution is dismissed. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Krišto. I do not see Mr Drăghici in the Chamber. I call Mr O’Reilly. He is not here either, so I call Ms Goryacheva.

Ms GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) – There is probably no normal country or people who would not want to live in a democracy, but the road to democracy is full of contradictions. There is a well-known saying that democracy is just a thin line between everything being allowed and nothing being allowed. It cannot be achieved by a wild cavalry attack.

The rapporteurs have a done a lot of work on studying the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have set out the difficulties in clear terms. They are calling for faster constitutional transformation and democratisation, but one gets the impression on reading the report that there is still a double standard and a continuation of the attempt to divide the member States of the Council of Europe. For example, paragraph 2 of the draft resolution makes the charge – perhaps justified – that this is a State where national minorities cannot participate in elections, but why has Mr Herkel not brought the same ignominy to an end in his own country? We put our heads in the sand about that.

Secondly, we get the impression that among the countries of Europe there are two categories: the untouchables, to whom one might address some pious wishes; and the others, at whom one can unceremoniously point a finger and make all sorts of accusations and reproaches. As confirmation, look at paragraph 7 of the draft resolution. It exceeds not only the mandate of the Monitoring Committee, but the competence of the Council of Europe as a whole. It states that Bosnia and Herzegovina must fulfil certain conditions before it can join the European Union. That is not up to us to decide.

All of this brings us back to yesterday’s debate on the objectiveness of the monitoring procedure. This is obviously a procedure that has become obsolete. It might have been acceptable and appropriate in the 1990s when there were so many post-Soviet countries joining the Council of Europe, but it just does not work today. The annual report on the monitoring procedure, which supposedly covers all countries, is just a fig leaf – yesterday’s debate showed that very clearly. We need to come up with a new monitoring mechanism that is consistent, coherent and takes into consideration positive experience. Unfortunately, the report and the draft resolution do not take that into consideration; they just want sanctions to be imposed. As we know, the road to hell is usually paved with good intentions.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Goryacheva. I call Mr Matušić.

Mr MATUŠIĆ (Croatia) – The title of the report suggests that we should be talking about the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we are in fact talking about only one issue – the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment in the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps we can ask other questions. Is Bosnia and Herzegovina a democratic country today? Do democratic countries have high representatives that are the principal rulers? Those might be questions for the next part-session of our Assembly.

      As everything has already been said, I will make only two points. First, I am against sanctions and the suspension of members of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation, because they need our support and we must encourage them to do the best in the next period. Secondly, we should welcome the agreement reached yesterday in Brussels and hope that it is followed by concrete results.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Matušić. I call Ms Vučković.

Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – Dear colleagues, let me first congratulate the rapporteur. It is very difficult and requires much effort and commitment to report on a country that is as complex and has as many problems as Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, I share the opinion of all those who think that the draft resolution, particularly paragraphs 11 and 12, is extremely harsh.

I would not want to undermine the importance of the Sejdić and Finci judgment, which enhances the rights of minorities to participate in political life and have their share in the political process. The judgment should certainly be implemented, and I assume that we all agree that Bosnia and Herzegovina should really make an effort to find solutions and mechanisms to implement it.

      The proposal to suspend the representation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Council of Europe is too harsh. Coming from a country, Serbia, that has experienced a variety of sanctions and suspensions of rights, I think that it would be quite the wrong decision. It would only feed the radicals and extremists, and provoke and promote xenophobia in society there, while not helping those who want a solution and to find mechanisms to resolve the problems.

      My opinion is that the Council of Europe should support and assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in its attempts to find solutions. I therefore support the amendments that have been tabled. I agree with those who think that we need not decide whether to refer the report to the committee again. I reiterate the importance of the fact that all members of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation are united in tabling and promoting their amendments and in wanting us to support them. I also stress that it is interesting – this should be taken into account – that voices from the region support their colleagues from Bosnia and Herzegovina and do not want their rights in the Council of Europe to be suspended.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Vučković. We have got through our list of speakers, and I am delighted to have been able to give the floor to everyone on the list. That goes to show that if you respect the allotted speaking time, as many people as possible can speak. I call Ms Woldseth, the rapporteur, to reply.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I thank you all for taking part in the debate. There is obviously not much support for paragraphs 11 and 12, to which I will return, but my report has had an impact today. Those from Bosnia and Herzegovina have spoken together and with one voice, which is a little achievement for the report, whatever you might think about some of its content.

Those who say that the report is all about Sejdić and Finci can never have read it properly. Eleven of the 24 paragraphs are about the democratic functioning of institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Listening to the debate, it sounded as though we had invented Sejdić and Finci as something on paper, but it concerns the more than 30% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina who are not able to run for the House of Peoples. Just imagine if, in your country, 30% of your fellow citizens could not stand, and that you were one of them. The report is not only about Sejdić and Finci, but it is a very important judgment.

In all the years since I became a rapporteur, I have not minded if things took time, but why do people not tell me that things will take time, so that we can get on with them right away? Instead, I am told, “Oh, we have a committee, and we are working on it. We will have a meeting next week or next month.” Then the following time I visit, I am told, “Well, unfortunately, that committee did not work, so we have to have a new one.” Why cannot they at least be honest? It is important for rapporteurs to be given honesty and trust by the politicians with whom we work.

I am rather engaged in this subject, but anyone who tells me that sanctions are the easy way out has not been with me in Bosnia and Herzegovina and has not done the work that we have done there, nor had all the thoughts, concerns and troubles we have had on our minds. Believe me: sanctions would be worst of all. As someone quite rightly said, it is not a sanction to give politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina one year to make things happen and then, if nothing happens, to discuss sanctions, but that matter must come back to the Assembly.

      Of course, we shall help and support Bosnia and Herzegovina. All our institutions in the Council of Europe have tried – the Venice Commission offered to help rewrite the constitution, and we have all wanted and tried to help in the best way we know, which is through dialogue – but it did not work, which is why the report is on the agenda today.

      Finally, I thank you all and the Secretariat. I especially thank the politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Every time I have been there, you have received and welcomed me. I have come to know this beautiful country, and after my last report and my last day in the Parliamentary Assembly, I will go back to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but as a tourist, and maybe we could have a cup of coffee and not talk politics, but just be friends.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wish to speak? You may speak for two minutes.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – It is traditional to thank the country concerned, but I mean it sincerely. I thank the Bosnian delegation, the secretariat and the rapporteurs. I regret that Mr Vareikis is not here. I also regret that this will be Ms Woldseth’s last report.

Ms Woldseth had every right to say that the report and its preparation have already had an impact. Yesterday’s outcome was evidence of that. In the debate, many people said what they thought about the possible sanctions, but members did not say as much about the impact that we have already had. As she said at the outset, there is a question over what we should do with the report at this stage now that the situation has changed. That was not reflected on much during the debate. That is the first thing that we must decide on – what we should do with the report in this new and promising situation.

THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

Mr Walter wishes to move the reference of the report back to the committee.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I wish to propose a procedural motion. As we heard in the debate, developments have gone on apace, including an agreement last night in Brussels. If that is successful, we will see the results on 10 October. As a result, I believe that we should refer the report back to the committee so that we can see whether the agreement is successful. If it is not, the report is very valid and may need to be strengthened. If it is successful, we can consider a report that is much more positive when we meet in January.

THE PRESIDENT* – Only the proposer of the motion, one speaker against, and the rapporteur or chairperson concerned have the right to speak on the motion.

The proposer has already spoken.

I call Mr Gross to oppose the motion.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I ask the Assembly not to do this. What happened in Brussels yesterday was helpful, but it does not harm our report. Our report will strengthen the process that was established in Brussels. We are our own Organisation with our own standards, and we should not let ourselves be interrupted by Brussels. We should vote for the amendments and then pass the report in the usual way. I think that that will be helpful for the people in Bosnia.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the rapporteur?

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee voted on this possibility and it is against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT* – I will summarise to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about the vote. There is a request that the report be referred back to committee. Mr Walter spoke in favour of that motion and Mr Gross spoke against. The rapporteur, in a personal capacity, is in favour of the motion. The Monitoring Committee is opposed to any referral back to committee. It is up to you, ladies and gentlemen, to decide. A simple majority is required.

The Assembly will now vote on the motion to refer the report on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina” back to the Monitoring Committee.

The vote is open.

The motion has been defeated and we shall therefore proceed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which four amendments have been tabled. They have been organised in the order in which they relate to the report. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Ms Dervoz, Ms Kapetanović, Ms Krišto, Mr Magazinović, Ms Marković, Mr Šepić, Ms Memecan, Ms Mulić, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Postanjyan, Mr Ariev, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Allavena, Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Mariani, Ms Orobets, Mr Sobolev, Ms Djurović, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Kolman, Mr Bockel, Mr Geraint Davies, Mr Presečnik, Ms Vuksanović, Mr Vukčević, Mr Leyden, Mr Bojanić, Ms Oehri, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Gorghiu and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, to replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“The Assembly encourages all political stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina to do their best in order that the country, as a member of the Council of Europe, fulfils the requirements from the Sejdić and Finci judgment by the end of 2013.”

I call Ms Marković to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – The delegation has tabled an amendment to paragraph 11 because the subject of that paragraph is sanctions. We believe that sanctions can do nothing to improve the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina because it is so complex and fragile. We want to improve and correct the content of paragraph 11.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Hancock wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 2, to replace “their best” with “everything possible”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Hancock to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The reason that I want the words “their best” to be replaced with “everything possible” is that although politicians aspire to do their best, they sometimes do not end up doing it. If they must do everything possible, there is an obligation on them to see matters through. That is why I was grateful that the oral sub-amendment was supported in the committee today and why I hope it will be supported by the Assembly. It would improve the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – In the Monitoring Committee, I was against Mr Hancock’s oral sub-amendment, but I have noted from the committee meeting and the debate in the Chamber that he is very serious and that he has good will towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. I therefore support the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – I thought as much, but I wanted to hear it from you.

The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Dervoz, Ms Kapetanović, Ms Krišto, Mr Magazinović, Ms Marković, Mr Šepić, Ms Memecan, Ms Mulić, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Postanjyan, Mr Ariev, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Allavena, Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Mariani, Ms Orobets, Mr Sobolev, Ms Djurović, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Kolman, Mr Bockel, Mr Geraint Davies, Mr Presečnik, Ms Vuksanović, Mr Vukčević, Mr Leyden, Mr Bojanić, Ms Oehri, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Gorghiu and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 12 with the following paragraph:

“Furthermore, the Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to urge the authorities and political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to amend the Constitution and electoral legislation in conformity with the Sejdić-Finci judgment without any delay.”

      Amendment 3, if passed, would mean the Assembly calling on the Committee of Ministers to consider a particular issue. This would turn the resolution into a recommendation. Amendments with this effect require a two-thirds, not a simple, majority.

      I call Ms Marković to support Amendment 3.

      Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – Our delegation submitted the amendment, because the rapporteur’s decision to open the door to suspension of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the October 2014 elections is questionable. We wanted paragraph 12 to be deleted, but instead we have proposed the text before you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Sir Roger Gale.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – As you pointed out, Mr President, the amendment transforms the whole nature of the debate. Without a two-thirds majority, a recommendation would fall, so the report will fall and we will be left with nothing, because the referral back to the committee has been refused. I regard this as a wrecking amendment and it should be opposed.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Dervoz, Ms Kapetanović, Ms Krišto, Mr Magazinović, Ms Marković, Mr Šepić, Ms Memecan, Ms Mulić, Mr Pylypenko, Mr Dişli, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Postanjyan, Mr Ariev, Mr Gaudi Nagy, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Allavena, Mr Beneyto, Mr Conde, Mr Mariani, Ms Orobets, Mr Sobolev, Ms Djurović, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Kolman, Mr Bockel, Mr Geraint Davies, Mr Presečnik, Ms Vuksanović, Mr Vukčević, Mr Leyden, Mr Bojanić, Ms Oehri, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Gorghiu and Mr Díaz Tejera, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 24, to delete the last sentence.

I call Ms Marković to support Amendment 4.

      Ms MARKOVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina)* – We have amended paragraphs 11 and 12, so the meaning of paragraph 24 changes from what was meant by the rapporteur – hence our suggestion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Gross.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I ask you to vote against the amendment, because we have already replaced paragraphs 11 and 12. In order to vote in favour of the next amendment, Amendment 1, you have to be against this one – if you vote in favour of Amendment 4, Amendment 1 would not be possible. That is why we in the committee were against Amendment 4 and in favour of Amendment 1.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Schennach, Mr Gross, Mr Kox, Mr Fritz and Mr Schwaller, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 24, to replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

“If no progress is made on the issues mentioned in this resolution before the end of September 2014, the Assembly has no other possibility than to discuss and consider in the October-Session 2014 the next, necessary steps and further action in its relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

      I call Mr Schennach to support Amendment 1.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – We worked on the assumption that paragraphs 11 and 12 would be deleted, but we want the speed. What has happened over the past few days is common action – action by the European Union on the one hand, and we want to that to be maintained on the other hand in the Council of Europe. In other words, we want to do things jointly or together for a year. One year from now, in the October part-session, we could take stock and establish whether the approach has been worth it or successful – one third of the population being covered by a new constitution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Walter wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 1, to delete “the next, necessary steps and”.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I therefore call Mr Walter to support his oral sub-amendment.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I simply want Amendment 1 to read in a more purposeful way. The words cited are superfluous to its meaning.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I agree with and approve the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      I remind colleagues that we are now voting not on a draft resolution, but on a draft recommendation, which is what it has become since Amendment 3 was adopted. A two-thirds majority is required.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13300, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      Ms KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – On a point of order, Mr President, the voting rights of the Icelandic delegation were ratified this morning; nevertheless, I do not have the power to vote in the Assembly. This has to be taken care of.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will check if your voting card is working. Meanwhile, welcome to the Chamber.

Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Further to that point of order, Mr President, I just wanted to say that my card did not work yesterday, so I am not sure whether my votes in the debate on the Monitoring Committee were recorded.

THE PRESIDENT* – That is not my fault. Let us continue with the debate.

3. The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Republic of Moldova

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Republic of Moldova”, Document 13303, presented by Ms Lise Christoffersen and Mr Piotr Wach on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President. Sometimes politicians make mistakes. I made one when I signed amendment 18 to the report. I did so because of a plea made to me by our colleague in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. On reflection, I have realised what a mistake that was. I tried to have my name removed, but the system here does not allow one to remove one’s name from an amendment. The purpose of my point of order is to establish clearly that I urge everyone in the Assembly to vote against amendment 18, and not to support it just because my name is on it.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hancock. We have taken note of your statement.

I ask colleagues to take their seats. It is already 6.30, and voting on all the amendments to the report may take some time, so the quicker we start, the better. I see that one of the co-rapporteurs and the chairman of the committee are ready and in their seats. I do not know where Mr Wach is, but he should arrive any second.

In order to finish by 8.00 p.m., I will interrupt the list at about 7.15 p.m. to allow time for replies and the votes.

I first call Ms Christoffersen, co-rapporteur. You and Mr Wach have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Dear colleagues, we are grateful to the Moldovan authorities and the entire delegation for their excellent co-operation in preparing this report. We also thank the administrative staff of the Council of Europe and our local office in Moldova for their professional assistance.

The Republic of Moldova has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1995 and under the monitoring procedure since 1996. Seventeen years of monitoring is much too long to be satisfactory. Nevertheless, through the report, we ask the Assembly to acknowledge the continuous commitment of the Republic of Moldova to complying with Council of Europe standards. We note a convincing will, but the ability to implement the necessary changes still remains to be seen in several important areas.

Six years have passed since the Assembly’s last full monitoring report on the Republic of Moldova. The reason, first and foremost, is the long-lasting political deadlock caused by the Parliament’s inability to elect a President, which led to repeated parliamentary elections in April 2009, July 2009 and November 2012. A constitutional referendum in September 2010 aimed at solving the problem by changing the constitution and introducing direct elections of the President, but the referendum failed due to low turnout. After several attempts, on 16 March 2012, the Parliament finally managed to elect a President. Parliamentary elections will take place next year. We urge the authorities to revise the constitution by then to avoid further political deadlocks and repeated elections in future.

In our report, we have also pointed out a series of other fundamental issues that still need to be addressed, concerning the functioning of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. To mention some examples, the prosecutions following acts of violence during and after the post-electoral protests in April 2009 have not yet been finalised, the media remains a sensitive issue, homophobic prejudice is still a problem and there are shortcomings in electoral procedure, especially concerning voter lists. There is a lack of transparency in the financing of political parties. A reform of local self-government needs to be conducted, and a separation of powers must be secured. Judicial reform is necessary, including a reform of the prosecutor’s office. Levels of corruption are still high. The human rights situation is worrying, especially in the region of Transnistria.

      On the other side of things, our report lists a lot of positive achievements and intentions, including the ratification of 81 Council of Europe conventions, the national human rights action plan and the anti-discrimination law concerning the labour market, which is a positive step but not yet sufficient. However, the most important step is the adoption of a main comprehensive action plan for fulfilling Moldova’s commitments.

      Building democracy takes time. The transition period raises a lot of political, economic and administrative challenges, of which building trust across old conflict lines might be one of the greatest. Building trust between rulers and the ruled might be even more difficult. Ensuring the sustainability of democratic institutions on the national, regional and local levels is crucial. Both the Government and the opposition ought to commit themselves to building a stable constitutional and legal framework within which political discussion and future elections can take place without being tempted to use legislation as a tool against each other.

      In addition, the Moldovan authorities face a particular regional challenge where the Transnistrian region is concerned. The region, although part of Moldovan territory, has for 20 years been governed by de facto authorities supported by Russia, and it has been named by this Assembly as a frozen conflict, with Russian military forces stationed within Moldovan territory. Ongoing high-level international talks should be noted as a positive sign, but they have not yet led to a satisfactory solution, so I address not the Moldovans but the Russian delegation to this Assembly, asking them to make their sincere contribution to ending the unfortunate situation of one member country occupying parts of another.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Wach, you have the floor.

Mr WACH (Poland) – I will speak later.

THE PRESIDENT* – Then the two co-rapporteurs will have eight minutes overall.

In the debate, I call Mr Stroe on behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr STROE (Romania) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their effort to produce an insightful document. They give us a comprehensive view of the current situation in the Republic of Moldova, including the notable achievements of the democratic pro-European alliance that governs the country, as well as of the challenges that still lie ahead.

The report comes at a significant political juncture, so it must be read within a wider political context. As you are aware, the Republic of Moldova is contemplating initialling the association agreement with the European Union at the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius. Our report is therefore a logical input for the European Union’s assessment of the country’s reforms in Brussels, especially in light of the closer co-operation dialogue that has developed lately between the European Union and the Council of Europe and the growing use of our findings and conclusions by various European Union bodies.

I congratulate the delegation of the Republic of Moldova on the progress that this country has achieved in the last few years. You may recall, as the rapporteurs do in the document, the delicate situation following the parliamentary elections in April 2009, with poor management of public demonstrations by the government at that time and the political deadlock that followed. Compared to that, the Republic of Moldova today enjoys political stability that allows it to progress rapidly in the dialogue with the European Union.

I emphasise in concrete terms the adoption of the national human rights action plan, the adoption of last year’s anti-discrimination law and the accession to the Lanzarote Convention, which are important steps in the field of human rights. At institutional level, the reforms carried out notably by the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice should also be commended. The advancement of the Republic of Moldova-European Union dialogue confirms these reforms. Of course, that does not mean that there is nothing left to be done. Certain challenges remain and more efforts are required in the field of the judiciary, for example, as well as in the electoral realm.

Changing Article 78 of the constitution should also remain important, to prevent political troubles ahead, similar to those encountered prior to March 2012, when the current president, who was warmly welcomed by this Assembly exactly one year ago, was elected.

All in all, this is a proper time to highlight the positive achievements of the Republic of Moldova’s reform efforts, and those achievements should be better reflected in the draft resolution. This would not only be a token of recognition and appreciation, but also a stimulus for deeper engagement in the Republic of Moldova-Council of Europe dialogue, foreseen in the current discussions between Chișinău and the Council of Europe on a framework for intensified co-operation.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

Mr Neill has the floor, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – Thank you, President. This is a balanced report and I, too, welcome it. It sets out some important measures that we should take into account.

It is fair to say that considerable work has been done by the Republic of Moldova. We should recognise that and give it credit, particularly when we recognise the difficult circumstances from which it has come and the difficult economic base and political situation from which it has had to deal with various situations. The economy of this country remains poor, but it has still made strong efforts. It has tried to make political reform, against the context of considerable difficulties and tensions around it. We should recognise that.

I am particularly glad that the report references the work of GRECO, where I represent this Parliamentary Assembly, and chimes with the practical recommendations made by GRECO. One theme that comes through is the importance of building on the work that has already been achieved by establishing more systematically within the civic systems in Moldova a proper form of checks and balances in the political system, in a way that does not lead to sclerosis and deadlock. It is also important that there are checks and balances between the various elements of political and civic society. I stress the importance of reinforcing judicial independence and the independence of the prosecutorial and other systems. This has been the subject of considerable work by GRECO, which I recommend.

It is interesting that there has been good progress in the field of reform of some elements of the criminal law in relation to bribery, which is recognised, but there has been less progress in relation to transparency of the funding of political parties and, in some areas, the trading of influence. We all know that there can sometimes be a link between those two. Perhaps the message and encouragement to our friends in Moldova is to redouble their efforts in those areas.

Of course, we must look, too, at the broader political context. Frozen conflicts in any part of Europe – in any part of the Council of Europe’s area – cannot be acceptable. All the nations and parties involved have a responsibility to redouble their efforts, to try to find practical resolutions. The five plus two formula must be built upon. We must look at practical steps on the ground to try to resolve that situation.

Equally, none of us should do anything to impede the democratically elected Government of Moldova, if it reflects the will of its people in seeking further integration within the rest of Europe.

This report fairly reflects considerable progress and fairly reflects work to be done, and we should adopt it in that constructive spirit, to try and help our friends in Moldova to go further forward.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Neill.

I call Mr Papadimoulis, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – Thank you, President. On behalf of UEL Group, I thank the rapporteur and co-rapporteur because they have done some excellent work. Of course, they cannot satisfy everyone 100%, but their report is balanced, well-documented and fair.

Experience shows us that monitoring of Moldova by the Council of Europe and by the Parliamentary Assembly is a useful process for this country. It should not be seen as a sanction, but rather as something helpful. This is how we need to consider the matter, because it is true that the vast majority of the Moldovan people want to hear objective criticism and positive evaluation, and our criticism helps them understand what they can do better and what their country can do, so that it becomes even more closely aligned with the principles, rules and values of the Council of Europe.

Bearing this in mind, a great deal of work remains to be done in the area of political pluralism and in the mass media, so that there is no temptation for the majority in power to change the electoral laws, just a few weeks before an election. To ensure this, the country needs to take advantage of the assistance that it can receive from the Council of Europe and particularly from the Venice Commission.

Once again, I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work and for preparing a balanced, fair report. Even if some amendments that we submitted will not be approved, my political group will support this report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

I call Mr Mariani on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MARIANI (France)* - Thank you, President.

On 16 September, Mr Leancă, Prime Minister of Moldova, stated: “Moldova has made its choice and this choice is European integration.” This choice – this wish for rapprochement with Europe – has become one of the driving forces for the reforms. Thus, despite a difficult social and economic situation, and despite the political instability that this country experienced at the beginning of the year – it is quite a divided country, as we know – Moldova has accomplished tangible progress. This has been possible as a result of real local political will. That is quite rare in this region and deserves to be underlined. Of course, there are still problems, as the rapporteurs have themselves underlined, but Moldova is one of the two best countries in this region in terms of progress.

Rapporteurs, you have underlined that a lot has to be carried out in the field of clamping down on corruption, for instance, because this is one of the main weaknesses of the rule of law in Moldova. Having said that, Leancă’s government should be commended on its initiatives. For instance, energetic measures have been taken by the Education Minister to clamp down on baccalaureate fraud, which has been quite successful. I pay tribute to the Moldovans for the improvements they have made to their justice system and for the more effective co-operation between the public prosecutor and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Other problems could be resolved if there was a substantial improvement in the economy – Moldova is the poorest country in Europe.

The draft resolution is largely devoted to Transnistria, which is testimony to how important this frozen conflict is to the future of Moldova. On 23 September last year, for the first time since 2006, the Moldovan Government and the Transnistrian leaders sat down at the same table – a positive sign that Moldova is assuming its responsibilities – and on 3 October a meeting of the five plus two group will be held. We should be pleased about that, given that in the past few years things have been going nowhere. In that area, I also pay tribute to the President of the Assembly for his efforts to make headway.

Europe needs to give greater support to Moldova. Next month’s Vilnius summit will be of paramount importance for the country’s European future. The Communist party, in opposition, is calling for a velvet revolution to topple the democratically elected government, but we should extend our hand to Moldova by unequivocally recognising its efforts and allowing its leaders and citizens better to defend their choice of the rule of law, democracy and European values.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Mariani. I call Ms Durrieu, to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I can bear witness to the exceptional efforts of this small country, having been rapporteur for 14 years – the period of three and a half presidents – which is a very long time. I have become extremely attached to the country. Moldova has overcome many severe crises, but it has not resolved all its structural and institutional problems. It has now elected a new president, but there remain issues with the balance of forces, the Communist party still being strong, and the coalition probably cannot be totally effective, given its diversity, and despite the presence of brilliant leaders. Furthermore, that is against a background of corruption that, alas, continues.

Moldova has made tremendous efforts, however, and surprising reforms and advances, and we need to encourage other projects, such as the de-politicisation of institutions and so on. Moldova has always affirmed its wish to join the European Union, despite the difficulties that has created with countries to the east, including its near-neighbour Russia and some Asian countries – an embargo has been placed on its wine and probably its oil, for instance.

The resolution of the Transnistrian problem should be a priority, as it would mean we could end the monitoring process, but of course that depends on Moldova’s neighbours. We must look to the future and encourage mutual co-operation, and we should end monitoring because it is not in the best interests of the country. We need to support and encourage Moldova. The 2014 deadline and the general election make this a moment to reassess the situation. I wish Moldova – a country to which I am deeply attached – a brilliant future.

THE PRESIDENT* – Would the rapporteurs like to respond to the representatives of the political groups?

Mr WACH (Poland) – We would like to speak at the end of the debate.

THE PRESIDENT* – In that case, I call Mr Ghiletchi.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I begin with a saying from John Fowles, an English novelist: the most important questions in life can never be answered by anyone except oneself. For 18 years, the Republic of Moldova has tried to find answers to the most important questions concerning its existence, and it has been a difficult and painful but ultimately worthwhile experience. When we declared independence, many thought we had little or no chance of survival. It reminded me of an old story about the first train journey. When the people at the railway station saw this ugly machine, most of them thought it would never move. After it started moving, they said, “Well, it will stop soon”. When it picked up speed, they said, “It will never stop”. Tonight, we have a short stop at Strasbourg at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We have stopped here because our train needs a check-up, but most of all we need a good push and additional fuel to continue our journey.

I thank previous rapporteurs, including those who criticised us and who will criticise after I have spoken. We deserve to be rebuked and corrected, but we also deserve to be praised. When you bring up a child, you experience both joys and sorrows, hopes and disappointments, but when they turn 18, you recognise their personality, and as a result they acquire certain rights. Moldova has been subject to the Assembly’s monitoring for 18 years. Tonight, you can throw stones or, as Mr Mariani said, give a hand to Moldova. If you want to hit us, give us a push instead, and you will not be disappointed. Dear friends, let us leave here joyful and hopeful for a better future for Moldova, knowing that we are surrounded by friends and partners.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. I call Ms Jantuan.

Ms JANTUAN (Republic of Moldova)* – It is difficult to follow Mr Ghiletchi, but I shall try.

I congratulate the authors of this detailed report on having dealt with a complex topic and on highlighting both the progress achieved by Moldova and some of its failures. The fight against corruption has become the top priority of the political class in Moldova and a fundamental premise for the development of democratic values. The State has become fully committed to the implementation of that goal, so in Moldova we have begun the process of reforming the National Anti-Corruption Centre, the ministry of justice and the ministry of the interior. Green telephone lines were created for whistle blowers to denounce corruption. We have created a judicial precedent for cases to punish acts of corruption. The contribution of the media in combating corruption has become much more important. Many cases of corruption have drawn attention from the media and become subjects for investigative reporting.

We have initiated broad-ranging information and public opinion campaigns to explain the nefarious impact of corruption on the mechanism for the enforcement of rights, and on the rule of law in general. However, to eradicate corruption completely, it is essential to be determined and to have political stability. More importantly, we have to change people’s attitude to this phenomenon.

Unfortunately, we have to note a number of problems related to the separation of powers and the de-politicisation of judicial and other public institutions; they are complex subjects that depend on various factors. The legislation of Moldova sets out a number of guarantees and mechanisms that are supposed to ensure separation of powers and their proper functioning. After the “hunting accident”, we approved a transparent and objective procedure to identify and select a candidate for the office of prosecutor-general. After that, the Moldovan political class drew the right conclusions and has undertaken efforts to de-politicise law enforcement institutions.

We can be proud of the success that Moldova has obtained on respect for human rights. As mentioned in the report, the Republic of Moldova has ratified a considerable number of human rights documents. We have also adopted and modified various provisions in our national laws, introducing considerably stronger sanctions for torture. The national action plan for human rights was reviewed and amendments were adopted. In the same context, the Republic of Moldova has taken an important step to consolidate the mechanism of enforcement and upholding of human rights by having its parliament adopt a law on equal opportunities. It establishes a clear and concrete mechanism to combat discrimination and guarantee equality – the council for the prevention of and fight against discrimination. It is an impartial body independent of public authorities, and its goal is to raise awareness in society of the unequivocal and unconditional need to respect the principle of non-discrimination. It is answerable before the law when cases of discrimination are identified. Thank you very much for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Jantuan. I call Mr Badea.

Mr BADEA (Romania)* – President, colleagues, four years after the events of 7 April 2009, which became known internationally as the Twitter Revolution and which very much affected elections to the parliament, the Council of Europe is presenting a full report about how the democratic institutions work in the Republic of Moldova. In view of the short period of time, we are impressed by the political reforms in the Republic of Moldova.

My line of argument comes from a member of parliament who has been in office for the past four years. Over that time, I have monitored the situation in Moldova. There are many new laws – community laws and laws that have undertaken severe reforms of the judiciary, but also those on health, social assistance, social reforms and combating corruption. The freedom of the press is impressive; in the space of a few years, many positive reforms have taken place. Transparency at governmental level and civil society have been further enhanced. The way in which the improvements have been supported and encouraged in the Republic of Moldova should be a lesson to other countries in Western Europe that seem to have problems with certain minorities.

      The report is in a strange context, as the Republic of Moldova’s society is still under strong pressure from the ex-Soviet Union. Because the small Republic of Moldova is trying to get close to the family of Western Europe, a Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Mr Dmitry Rogozin, said on a visit to Chişinău, “Be careful that you don’t die of cold this winter, and that you don’t lose a few carriages off the train during your vertiginous journey towards Western Europe”. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Badea. I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* - President, colleagues, a few years ago when we were discussing the workings of democratic institutions in Moldova, we did so with a very critical eye. After emerging from the crisis last May, Moldova has triggered real hopes for stability and progress for the first time in a while. Through the reforms and projects carried out, human rights and the rule of law in Moldova have improved substantially; I highlight the setting up of a national human rights action plan and a programme for gender equality.

      Moldova, with its very few resources, has succeeded in a number of ways. That is a result of political will on the part of its new leaders, who have faced up to their responsibilities. We should congratulate them. Of course difficulties remain, particularly in the judiciary, and there are questions of corruption, but no doubt reforms will continue and be bolstered. Indeed, in one month’s time, a key event for the European future of Moldova will take place. The summit due to take place in Vilnius should mark a successful climax for the participants of the Eastern Partnership, and mark out guidelines for the future.

      The free trade and association agreement due to be signed between Moldova and the European Union is an opportunity for the country. Such agreements have huge potential, and can have concrete results for people and become instruments of reform. For young Moldovans who leave their country every year, this is a hope for a more prosperous Moldova and for their being able to raise their children in their own country.

      Moldova has had to cope with regrettable outside pressure these past weeks. There has been interference in terms of political choices for a sovereign State. Despite those pressures, Moldova has confirmed its pro-European aspirations. I am pleased about the decision taken by the European Union to open its market to Moldovan wines. That bears testimony to the fact that the Eastern Partnership is not simply geo-strategy or European economic integration; most importantly of all, it is solidarity and shared values for a united and free Europe.

      Dear Moldovan colleagues, you know just how much France is attached to your country. You know how deep our links are through the French language; it is taught in your parliament as a result of the Alliance Française in Chişinău. Dear Moldovan friends, you made a brave choice for which you have had to sacrifice a great deal. Please be in no doubt that France will continue to support you. Therefore, please be in no doubt that “European solidarity” will not be an empty phrase.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I call Ms Guţu.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* - I also thank the rapporteurs Ms Christoffersen and Mr Wach for this detailed and interesting report, which is especially impressive as they have not been working on it for long. Of course we would have liked to have had more visits.

      The Republic of Moldova decided to join the Council of Europe in 1994. In doing so, we chose to share its values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The road has not been easy. After the declaration of independence, a war broke out. Russia was involved and 8% of our territory is now covered by the secessionist region of Transnistria. The Russian army has still not withdrawn from our territory.

      Afterwards, the former communist nomenclature came into power. There was a global economic crisis in 1998 that paved the way for the communists to come back to power in 2001 for eight years. That was a period of stagnation and lack of reform. Political parasitism and populism were maintained. Moldova went backwards in that period.

However, the pro-European coalition of 2009 made it possible to relaunch reforms. They have been important for the democratisation of our country and the freedom of the press. The coalition has defined our foreign policy priorities very clearly. This November we will initial the association agreement with the European Union. We have adopted thousands of laws, with some 45% of the plan of action in the area of justice having been implemented. Fiscal and economic reforms have led to 4.1% growth in the first half of this year, which is a very positive result. We have begun reforming the general prosecutor’s office. The plan of action on Moldova’s obligations with regard to the Council of Europe has been fully implemented. We are leaving the monitoring procedure and will enter post-monitoring. The dialogue with the Council of Europe will certainly not end, however, as Moldova is a member of the Council of Europe and wants to continue living up to its commitments.

Fundamental rights are respected in Moldova. National minorities enjoy their rights. A good example of that is the autonomy of the Gauguz ethnic group, which is unique in Europe.

I ask you to support the draft resolution, and in particular to support Amendment 20 which aims to move Moldova from the monitoring stage to the post-monitoring stage.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Ms Palihovici.

Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr President and distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I appreciate this opportunity to address you as you consider this resolution on Moldova. On behalf of the Moldovan people, I want to bring to you both our appreciation and an appeal.

I offer our appreciation for the attention and encouragement you have consistently provided to our country and its process of European integration. PACE, the Council of Europe and the entire European Union community have done so much to help secure our place in Europe through the many visits by PACE rapporteurs and staff, the meetings with our officials and civil society leaders, the detailed attention to our political developments, the monitoring reports prepared for this institution, the various programmes of financial assistance and training, your support for Moldova’s European Union association agreement, free trade agreement and visa liberalisation regimes, and the continuing personal concern and friendship shown by so many of you to our people. All of this has helped motivate us on our journey and illuminate our path as we move towards our European future.

We particularly appreciate many aspects of the new monitoring report. It helpfully acknowledges the many gains in Moldova’s political development, from the election of our president in 2012, to the 2012 adoption by our parliament of an action plan to address Moldova’s commitments towards the Council of Europe, to our continuing efforts to strengthen our institutions of justice and democracy. The report usefully prods us to do even more to continue this process of reform, particularly in our ongoing fight against corruption, our ongoing efforts to reform the judiciary, and our ongoing quest to peacefully re-integrate our country’s Transnistrian region.

All this we appreciate, but I also come to you with an urgent appeal. In order to truly advance our democratic progress and our European journey, I appeal to you to amend this resolution in order to end PACE’s monitoring procedure in our country. Ending the monitoring procedure will help us, and perhaps it can also help Europe.

Today’s report notes that Moldova is a country that looks both east and west. That is only partly true. Yes, some elements of our country still look east, but the majority looks west: our government looks west, and our next generation looks strongly west. A vote to end the monitoring process can send a strong message of encouragement to all of us who believe this westward orientation is, and must be, irreversible. It will be received as a vote of confidence, and it will deprive some voices of the false and facile debating point that the east welcomes us while the west doubts us.

All across my country and our region, pro-European voices like mine are pushing back against that argument, highlighting the coercive actions being brought to bear from outside, whether against Moldovan wine, Ukrainian chocolate, or occupied Georgian territories. Whenever Europe takes bold and positive steps toward us, such as with the new association and free trade agreements, it helps us win this argument, and confirms where our real future lies.

No matter how you vote today, many things will remain the same. Moldova will continue to welcome PACE’s visits, presence, inquiries, friendship and advice, and Moldova will continue to pursue the reforms that express our national determination to follow a European path. An end to monitoring will not mean an end to reform. Just the opposite: it will provide added energy to all of us who are driving those reforms, day after day, so that we may take our place forever beside you. Thank you for your attention, you friendship and your consideration.

Excuse me for my emotion. I always have emotion when I am speaking about the realities and future of my country.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Braun.

Mr BRAUN (Hungary) - We have to welcome the fact that Moldova has a government that is devoted to European integration. We have to recognise that Moldova made a lot of effort to improve its legal system. We have to appreciate that Moldova has adopted action plans on improving the judiciary and reinforcing human rights. We have to recognise that Moldova has ratified 81 of the Council of Europe conventions. We could be all happy with these facts, but we know that there are some unsolved problems. For example, I should like to call the attention of our Moldovan colleagues and friends to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - No. 148 - which has not yet been ratified by the Moldovan Parliament.

I thank the rapporteurs for their thorough and conscientious work. I would like to support their report, but I cannot support their final conclusion. I think we should give the green light to Moldova, and we can do that if we turn the monitoring process into the so-called post-monitoring process. So I call on this distinguished Assembly to support Amendment 20 tabled by Ms Palihovici and others.

The PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I call Mr Petrenco.

       Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their principled approach and for being brave enough to call a spade a spade, despite the attempts by the Moldovan authorities to postpone this discussion. We have waited a long time for the report.

Today there are protests in Moldova, and it is only the beginning. The citizens have risen up against corruption, because they see a group of oligarchs taking advantage of them. Today the international road between Chișinău and Odessa has been closed. The people are desperate. The do not want the government to close the last schools in their villages. The road is still blocked and not a single government representative has visited. That is how it treats the people and deals with social problems. It never listens to the wishes of the people. With one stroke of the pen it does away with hundreds of schools. It lives in a parallel universe in which it has only dry statistics on how many billions it has received in international assistance.

The citizens will not even be able to read in the Moldovan press about roads being blocked, because the so-called free press blacks out such stories. Has anyone seen a single representative of the Moldovan press here? No, because they have been told not to come, because the Moldovan Government does not like the report and does not want anyone to hear the truth.

The resolution does not mention any names, but I have to. Moldova can no longer be held hostage by two oligarchs, Plahotniuc and Filat. One of them has already been dismissed from Parliament and the other is in the same process. They continue to control the law enforcement institutions, the courts and many of the largest companies. They continue to raid other companies, to control and censor the media and to restrict the rights of citizens.

It is thanks only to the Council of Europe’s monitoring that many violations of democratic norms have been stopped. Ending the monitoring process could have serious consequences for the development of our country’s democratic institutions. We want to live in a fully democratic and free Moldova with government by the people, not over the people and their will by oligarchs. I want to express my solidarity with the Moldovan citizens fighting for their rights and moving the country forward. Every individual can make a contribution.

The report is a mirror of Moldova. It is very important that the resolution we adopt reflects the facts contained in the report. Today our country needs monitoring more than ever. I suggest that you support the report and the draft resolution. If you want to help Moldova and its people, reject the calls for post-monitoring. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. That concludes the list of speakers. I am delighted to have been able to call all those members to contribute. We will now hear from the rapporteurs. I call Mr Wach to speak first.

Mr WACH (Poland) – I thank all the members who took part in the debate. I think that generally a very friendly tone towards Moldova prevailed. Most of the speakers recognised the real efforts and progress it has made in recently years. Even though many of the speakers were Moldovans themselves, they made constructive and balanced speeches, even taking into account what Mr Petrenco said. I think that that reflects the proportion of the problems. He spoke about real problems, perhaps in exaggerated form, but his views were more or less proportionate to those in the country, so I think that generally the debate reflected reality.

There are several reasons why we, the rapporteurs, do not propose moving Moldova into post-monitoring. There is an action plan for every sector of social and political life, some of which are developed and some of which are just beginning, so we have to see how they are implemented and what effects they will have, but they are really well prepared. We must also take into account what is in our report. We heard some criticism from Mr Petrenco. In speaking about what has happened, he probably represents about 30% of the population who feel that way. I will not go into details.

Moldova, with great effort and determination, is moving in a good direction. It has prepared really good plans and is implementing them, but we still need to see some results. In my opinion – it is my private opinion – we need to see a small and limited amendment to the constitution to avoid the deadlock in electing the next president. There is still time for that, because President Timofti is in office for another one and a half years. We encourage our colleagues to take that step. In our opinion, it is perhaps one report too early to move to post-monitoring.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Wach. Ms Christoffersen, you have four minutes and 20 seconds left.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I, too, thank all the members who participated in the debate. I wish that the list of speakers had been longer and that we had heard from members from more countries – let us hope that the main reason we did not is that it is getting late.

I will start with Mr Ghiletchi’s contribution. He said that they were now in the station in the Parliamentary Assembly but that they cannot stay there for too long and so need a good push. They also need fuel, because a push will only take them so far. I hope that this Assembly can provide that fuel.

That leads me to Mr Rouquet’s comments. He said that support from members of the Council of Europe should not be an empty phrase. We heard his contribution about buying Moldovan wine and so on, and we know that its former partner in the east now uses economic tools against it. Suddenly its wine was not clean enough. I read today in Radio Free Europe that Moldovan foreign workers in Russia, on whom you are highly dependent, are having trouble going back. We all have a job to do in our own Parliaments and ask our own governments what we can do to support Moldova in a way that Moldova chooses.

As rapporteurs, we have tried to be neutral. The question of Moldova’s orientation westwards or eastwards is a political question. Our task as rapporteurs is to see that Moldova has democratic institutions that make these decisions in a democratic way. Whether Moldova should choose east or west is not for us to say – that would extend beyond the role of a rapporteur.

      Mr Neill mentioned GRECO. I remind members of our Secretary General’s contribution earlier today. He stressed that the Council should make a difference and that we should take advantage of all the kinds of monitoring we are able to do. GRECO is one way that we can do so. In our report, we gained from the work of our Commissioner for Human Rights. In Moldova, an organisation of local authorities contacted us. It wants to speed up local authority reform and decentralisation reform.

After this debate, my main impression is that Moldova has the Assembly’s fully support. I feel that we, as rapporteurs, have been equipped with many arguments to monitor Moldova. Our ambition should be for the next report not to take six years, but two. The debate has been encouraging and I want agreement on when to go back and start the next report – we have to keep on going. I look forward to continued co-operation with the Moldovan authorities and the opposition. Thank you very much for the debate.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much indeed, rapporteur. Ms Christoffersen, you were saying that you regret that not many people signed up to speak. Some people did sign up. Let me point out that despite the late hour, 100 or so members are in the Chamber. I think that bears testimony to the fact that the debate is of great importance. As well as the two rapporteurs, 13 speakers signed up. I think that that is a good quality result. Would you like to take the floor, Mr Herkel?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – As the chairperson of the committee I, of course, thank the secretariat and both rapporteurs, who did a lot of work, and the Moldovan delegation, with whom there was always a good atmosphere of co-operation. We do not know yet whether there will be one more report, but this report contains a lot of critical remarks and there are many problems that still need to be addressed. It is not easy to be criticised.

Ms Christoffersen said that it is not our role to make the choice between west and east, but Moldova is taken very seriously and I hope that the work of the Monitoring Committee is beneficial to European integration. A second issue, which was referred to at the beginning of the debate, is that of Transnistria. We strongly regret that this kind of frozen conflict still exists and that your territory is not free – it is an impediment to development. One of the activities of the committee this year was a hearing on frozen conflicts, held in Tallinn. I hope that the work we are doing together furthers the possibility of developing democracy in Moldovan society.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, chairperson.

The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 21 amendments have been tabled.

They have been organised in the order in which they relate to the report. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that Mr Herkel wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the Monitoring Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 33.11: Amendment 15 and Amendment 17.

Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 15 and 17 to the draft resolution have been adopted.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 15, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

“It reiterates the call made in Resolution 1666 (2009) in order to finalize the transfer of the competence over pre-trial detention centres from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice.”

Amendment 17, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20, first sentence, replace the word “stresses” with the following words:

“notes with satisfaction”.

The remaining amendments will be taken in the order taken set out in the Organisation of Debates.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

“Some issues, however, still need to be addressed in the field of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 6.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – We believe that it would be fairer to say “some issues” rather than “some crucial concerns”. We agree that there are issues that need to be addressed, but they do not fit into the category of crucial concerns.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment speaks about democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are not just “some issues” – they are crucial. That is why we are against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.

The vote is open

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the first sentence and in the second sentence, delete the word “therefore”.

I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 7.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Moldova is a poor country, but as the report is not about poverty we felt that the sentence that says that Moldova “remains the poorest country in Europe” looks a bit like a stigma. It is better to leave the paragraph as it is, but without this sentence. If we delete the first sentence, we propose to delete the word “therefore” in the next sentence.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Petrenco.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – I think we will not find anything wrong with this sentence. Moldova is indeed facing strong economic challenges. We have to recognise that, unfortunately for all of us, Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. Why would we not mention that? This is a report on Moldova – the first in four years. That is why we are against the amendment and propose to leave paragraph 4 as it is.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the words “takes note of” with the following word: “encourages”.

      I call Ms Jantuan to support Amendment 8.

      Ms JANTUAN (Republic of Moldova)* – The amendment highlights the successes of the Republic of Moldova and will encourage the Moldovan authorities to continue their efforts with regard to European integration.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Taktakishvili wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows: In Amendment 8 to delete “encourages” and insert “welcomes”.

      The oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules unless 10 or more members or alternates stand up to object. That is not the case. I call Ms Taktakishvili to support her oral sub-amendment.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – This Assembly of the Council of Europe should react positively to the fact that the authorities and the nation of Moldova aspire to a European future, so the word “welcomes” would be more satisfactory than the words “takes note”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mr Petrenco.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – We are not here, as was mentioned, to choose the European Union or anything else; we are here to state something. The words “take note” are neutral. Why is it necessary to say only positive things? The term is neutral and absolutely correct, so why not use it? We are against the oral sub-amendment and Amendment 8.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms JANTUAN (Republic of Moldova)* – We accept the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 8, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Loukaides, Mr Villumsen, Mr Hunko and Mr Papadimoulis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the final sentence with the following words:

“At the same time, the Assembly notes that economic ties with Customs Union countries remain extremely important. It is up to the people of Moldova to decide by referendum on crucial issues of their country’s future development.”

I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 1.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – We want to improve the text and to state that it is up to the Moldovan people to decide by referendum on the crucial issues of their country’s future development.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Stroe.

Mr STROE (Romania) – It does not fall to the Assembly under its mandate to impose on a country how it takes decisions about its foreign policy. The current ruling coalition, the Alliance for European Integration, has been democratically elected with a firm mandate for European Union integration. In practice, the amendment goes against the will expressed by the people in the election.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Zingeris, Mr Xuclà, Mr Hancock, Mr Leyden, Ms Bulajić, Mr Kennedy, Mr Heer, Ms Oehri, Mr Fenechiu, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Stroe, Mr Hamid, Ms Reps, Mr Verheijen, Ms Mateu Pi, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Neacşu, Mr Korodi, Mr Florea, Mr Preda and Mr Iordache, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, first sentence, to delete the words “following ‘the hunting accident’ of December 2012”.

I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 9.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – The words we want to be deleted are not relevant to the framework of the draft resolution and do not add any value.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The political crisis started after “the hunting accident” in which a crime was hidden by the high-level authorities. It is therefore absolutely logical to mention that phrase in the text, which we propose to leave as it is.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, first sentence, to replace the word “agencies” with the following word: “institutions”.

I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 10.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – In Moldova, we do not have law enforcement agencies; we call them “institutions”. The draft resolution relates to the reality in Moldova, so we propose to keep to the words used in the country, which are “law enforcement institutions”. It is a technical amendment.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, first and third sentences, to replace the word “political” with the following word: “constitutional”.

I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 11.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment is a technical one. The draft resolution mentions “constitutional deadlock”, but also “political deadlock”, but we should use the single term “constitutional deadlock”.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – I would not call it a technical amendment. Some people try to blame the constitution for deadlocks, but we should first blame politicians for not being able to reach agreement among themselves. We therefore propose to leave in the phrase “political deadlock”, and to oppose the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Villumsen, Mr Hunko and Mr Papadimoulis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, delete the last sentence.

I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 2.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – We propose to delete the last sentence of paragraph 7 because it is not clear what kind of revision of the constitution the Moldovan authorities should consider. In order that the sentence is not interpreted in different ways, we propose to delete it.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Stroe.

      Mr STROE (Romania) – The Republic of Moldova needs a broader revision of the constitution. That might ensure that the state institutions function more effectively and it might facilitate the democratic development of the society. It is about much more than modifying the way in which the president is elected.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the third sentence with the following sentence:

“However, the Assembly encourages the Moldovan authorities to fully implement the amendments to the Electoral Code adopted on 18 June 2010, including the requirement to set up an electronic voters list.”

I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 12.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – Amendment 12 would reword the third sentence of paragraph 8. In 2010, we did not adopt the electoral code, but simply amended it. We do not want to talk about further decreasing the number of electors who are registered on the supplementary voters list. This is a sign of democracy because young people should be able to vote where they are because they are Moldovan citizens.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The necessity of decreasing the number of electors who are registered on the supplementary voters list has been mentioned by all the observation missions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the ODIHR. It is important to maintain this phrase in the text because it repeats the recommendations of our international observation missions.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Villumsen, Mr Hunko and Mr Papadimoulis, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 8, add the following words:

“The Assembly stresses the necessity of respect by Moldovan authorities of the international standards in electoral matters, particularly the Venice Commission Code of good practice in electoral matters. The eventual modification of the electoral system should meet with the wide support of all main parties, followed by extensive public discussion.”

I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 3.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment is important because there have been attempts to change the electoral law just a few weeks or months before elections. That is not acceptable and is contrary to the Venice Commission Code. That is why we propose to include the text of the amendment in paragraph 8.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Ghiletchi wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 3 to delete the last sentence.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Ghiletchi to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The oral sub-amendment would delete the second sentence of the amendment. That would emphasise the importance of considering the good practices in electoral matters set out by the Venice Commission.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The last sentence of the amendment is very important. It proposes that all “eventual modifications of the electoral system should meet with the wide support of all main parties, followed by extensive public discussion.” That is absolutely normal and does not contradict the previous sentence.

THE PRESIDENT* – We know the view of the author of the amendment on the oral sub-amendment.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Ms Christoffersen, Mr Koç, Mr Hunko, Mr Sasi, Ms Schuster and Mr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 10, add the following words:

“It urges the Moldovan Parliament to adopt these amendments as a priority matter, in order to allow the implementation of the law in 2014.”

I call Ms Christoffersen to support Amendment 21.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – This is a factual amendment. It is connected to the last sentence in paragraph 10, which we included in the report after some information that we received during the committee meeting in Paris last month. However, things are not moving as rapidly as we thought they would, so we propose to urge the Moldovan parliament “to adopt these amendments as a priority matter” because that would provide a good example that results are being delivered.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Ghiletchi wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 21, to replace “these amendments” with “the law on public finances”.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Ghiletchi to support his oral sub-amendment.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I proposed the oral sub-amendment for the technical reason that the parliament is debating a new draft law, not amendments to the law.

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 21, as amended? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, replace the word “launch” with the following word: “pursue” and delete the words “statute and”.

I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 13.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – It is not a question of starting a dialogue with the Gagauz authorities, but of continuing the dialogue that we already have. Furthermore, I do not know whether we can improve the autonomous status of Gagauz-Yeri, which is widely recognised in Europe and is anchored in the constitution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the rapporteur, on behalf of the committee, wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 13 to delete the second part of the amendment so the words “statute and” are retained in the text.

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

That is not the case. I therefore call the rapporteur to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr WACH (Poland) – We support the oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – That is a pleasant surprise. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 13, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Zingeris, Mr Xuclà, Mr Hancock, Mr Leyden, Mr Heer, Ms Oehri, Mr Fenechiu, Mr Garðarson, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Stroe, Mr Hamid, Ms Reps, Ms Bulajić, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Neacşu, Mr Korodi, Mr Florea, Mr Preda, Mr Iordache and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, first sentence, to delete the words “secure the separation of powers and”.

      I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 14.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) – The French and English versions do not agree: in French we have “assurer” separation of powers, but in the English it is “secure”. In the Republic of Moldova, there is a separation of power; under the law, the legislative, executive and judicial powers are now separate, so the phrase is unnecessary.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Petrenco.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – Indeed, there is a separation of powers, but there are problems with it. All the facts are in the report. Therefore, the resolution mentions the necessity of securing the separation of powers. We are against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

Amendment 15 was adopted unanimously, so we come to Amendment 16, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Zingeris, Mr Xuclà, Mr Hancock, Mr Leyden, Mr Heer, Mr Garðarson, Ms Oehri, Mr Fenechiu, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Stroe, Mr Hamid, Ms Bulajić, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Neacşu, Mr Korodi, Mr Florea, Mr Preda, Mr Iordache and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 19 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly appreciates the achievement on media development in the Republic of Moldova. The Assembly encourages the authorities to continue strengthening media freedom and avoid political interference. The Assembly hopes that the Parliament will soon adopt the new broadcasting code, which was revised in line with the Council of Europe's recommendations.”

      I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 16.

      Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – We have proposed the amendment because the Parliament and the Government cannot influence the judicial process. Parliament has voted on the laws, and the lawyers are now doing their job. We cannot influence or speed the process, which is why we ask the Parliamentary Assembly to support our amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – We want to leave paragraph 19 as it stands, because we cannot avoid the fact that the only opposition TV channel in Moldova was closed more than one year ago, and it is still closed. Concern was expressed by Mr Jagland, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, by the European Union and many international journalist organisations. We cannot simply delete the paragraph and talk about achievements in the Moldovan media.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is rejected.

      Amendment 17 was adopted unanimously, so we come to Amendment 18, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Zingeris, Mr Xuclà, Mr Hancock, Mr Leyden, Mr Heer, Ms Oehri, Mr Fenechiu, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Stroe, Mr Hamid, Ms Bulajić, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Neacşu, Mr Korodi, Mr Florea, Mr Preda, Mr Iordache and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 24.

      I call Ms Guţu to support Amendment 18.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) – The paragraph we want to delete fails to mention that the law only applies to communications intended to be received by children. It has no bearing on adults, so it does not limit any freedom of expression. Moreover, the wording is the same as in an existing law in Lithuania, so it is in accordance with European standards.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Ms Christoffersen.

      Mr CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The rapporteurs are against the amendment. I draw your attention to Document 13228, from last June, when we decided both a resolution and a recommendation. This is about freedom of assembly and of speech and about human rights being for all.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Villumsen, Mr Hunko and Mr Papadimoulis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 26, to delete the words “caused by unilateral decisions of the de facto authorities in the Transnistrian region”.

I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 4.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – The idea of the amendment is to avoid certain accusations that could harm the negotiations on the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. Even the statement of Parliament avoided such accusations, and it would be better not to mention them in paragraph 26.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Ms Guţu.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) – We should keep the language as it is, because, on Transnistria, the authorities have adopted a law to reorganise the territory and nor would they allow people to enter the territory.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Petrenco, Mr Loukaides, Mr Kox, Mr Villumsen, Mr Hunko and Mr Papadimoulis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 32, first sentence, to replace the word “European” with the following words: “Council of Europe”, and, in the second sentence, to delete the words “constitutional, electoral and”.

I call Mr Petrenco to support Amendment 5.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – To refer to “Council of Europe standards” would be more precise. Furthermore, we want to delete those words about pursuing constitutional and electoral reform, because it is not clear what kind of reforms, and everyone could interpret it as he or she wants.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Ghiletchi wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

      In Amendment 5, to leave out the second part of the amendment so the words “constitutional, electoral and” are retained in the text.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

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

      Ms GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I propose to delete the second part of the amendment, because the resolution already talks about constitutional reform and an electoral code. Even Mr Petrenco proposed to adopt an amendment dealing with the Venice Commission on electoral matters. Therefore, why should we delete those words?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call the mover of the amendment.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Ghiletchi said that this is already mentioned, so why do we have to repeat it? The proposal is to delete those words.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Ms Liliana, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Stroe and Mr Gutiérrez, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 32, second sentence, to replace the words “the most pressing” with the word “priority”.

      I call Ms Palihovici to support Amendment 19.

Ms PALIHOVICI (Republic of Moldova) – The reason for our proposal is that we consider that we are not speaking about pressing issues; we are speaking about priority issues for the Republic of Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – We consider that fighting corruption and promoting human rights and good governance are the most pressing issues. That is why we are against the amendment and we propose to leave the initial wording.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 19 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Ms Palihovici, Ms Guţu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Zingeris, Mr Xuclà, Mr Hancock, Mr Leyden, Mr Heer, Mr Garðarson, Ms Oehri, Mr Fenechiu, Ms Gorghiu, Mr Stroe, Mr Hamid, Ms Bulajić, Ms Taktakishvili, Mr Neacşu, Mr Korodi, Mr Florea, Mr Preda, Mr Iordache and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 33 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly considers that over the last three years the Republic of Moldova has clearly demonstrated its will and ability to fulfil its statutory obligations as a Member State of the Council of Europe. Given the progress achieved since 2009, the Assembly is confident that the Moldovan authorities will apply and strengthen the reforms in question. The Assembly resolves to close its monitoring procedure and to initiate the post-monitoring procedure for the Republic of Moldova.”

I call Mr Preda to support Amendment 20. You have 30 seconds.

Mr PREDA (Romania) – This is the most important amendment to the document. It is perfectly true that the rapporteurs have done a very good job, but Moldova deserves to move beyond the monitoring phase into the post-monitoring phase. It has done everything it has been asked to do since 2009, and it needs our support. We are all here to say that we would like to support Moldova; this is the way to do it. If we support Amendment 20, we will provide a great deal of true support for Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Taktakishvili wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, as follows:

In Amendment 20, leave out “replace paragraph 32 with” and insert the words “insert after paragraph 33”. Leave out the proposed inserted text and replace it with the following amended version:

“Given the progress achieved since 2009, the Assembly remains committed to consider the possibility of moving to a post-monitoring dialogue should the expected reforms be carried out in line with this resolution.”

In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case.

I call Ms Taktakishvili to support the oral sub-amendment.

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – This decision is extremely necessary to the Moldovan people, the Moldovan authorities and the opposition. It will give a clear sign that reforms must be implemented speedily. I remind you that we decided the same thing for Armenia in 2008 when we said that if reforms were not implemented, we would examine sanctions. Now we are saying the same thing in an opposite, positive way. We are saying that if the reforms are implemented as needed, we will examine the possibility of moving to post-monitoring. That is a compromise solution given that Moldova has made progress but reforms need to be implemented in future. I urge the co-rapporteurs and all Assembly members to support this sub-amendment, which seeks that compromise.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – If there are reforms and if there is progress, there will be a new report, and the Assembly can take the decision to move Moldova to post-monitoring, but we are dealing now with this report and examining the situation in Moldova now, where reforms are lacking in many domains. That is why I am against the sub-amendment and propose to leave the text of the amendment as it is.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr PREDA (Romania)* – I regret that I cannot answer your question. It depends on the vote on the amendment. That is why I would accept the sub-amendment in order to give true support to Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – This is a complicated situation. The wording of the sub-amendment is not exactly the same as the wording of the sub-amendment that the committee voted against, although it is more or less similar.

THE PRESIDENT* – Are you in favour or against?

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – This amendment is slightly modified from what was discussed in the Monitoring Committee.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Since it is not exactly the same sub-amendment as in the committee, the correct thing is to say that the committee has no opinion.

THE PRESIDENT* – I am supposed to give an answer. I need to know, because this is now the most important amendment. An oral sub-amendment is in order, and we have discussed it, so now we have come to the point where we must vote on it before we can vote on the amendment.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – There was a sub-amendment. If the sub-amendment has been changed, it is not fair. The committee had a position: it was against the sub-amendment. If it was later modified by the initial mover, that only makes it more complicated. The Assembly has a right to be properly informed on the issue.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the oral sub-amendment?

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – Yes, it is true that the amendment discussed in the committee was voted against, but then I changed the amendment, so the committee has no opinion on the wording that I have tabled for discussion. Let me suggest checking with the Secretariat whether the document presented to the committee and the document that I have presented before this session are the same. They are not the same.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have a text before me, so we are talking about replacing the paragraph of the amendment with the following paragraph: “Given the progress achieved since 2009, the Assembly remains committed to consider the possibility of moving to a post-monitoring dialogue should the expected reforms be carried out in line with this resolution.” That is the only text I have before me. I believe that that is correct. Is it? So you confirm that this is the text, is it? The Committee has not been able to express its view on the oral sub-amendment, so I now ask the Assembly to express its view.

I call Ms Bakoyannis on a point of order.

Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece)* – I do not understand anything now. I just do not understand, now, whether, with Amendment 20, we are completing monitoring or not, because with those words it is not being completed. Is that right? So what are you proposing, then? Was it accepted?

THE PRESIDENT* – I shall do my best to try to sum up. It is complicated. With Amendment 20 as it stands, the Assembly would decide to close the procedure and initiate the post-monitoring procedure for the Republic of Moldova. But Ms Tatakishvili’s oral sub-amendment completely changes the nature of Amendment 20, saying, “Given the progress achieved since 2009, the Assembly remains committed to consider the possibility of moving to a post-monitoring dialogue should the expected reforms be carried out in line with this resolution.” That is different.

I call Ms Durrieu on a point of order.

Ms DURRIEU (France)* – It seems to me that the only thing that you have to know at present is whether our Georgian colleague is entitled to table an oral sub-amendment on which the Assembly has to give an opinion.

Is there any opinion? If it is in order, let us vote on it. In fact, this would replace Amendment 20. But is Ms Taktakishvili entitled, according to the rules, to table an oral sub-amendment? I believe she is, in which case it has to be voted on.

THE PRESIDENT* – This oral sub-amendment has been declared in order according to our rules. I asked if anyone was against, but no one got up. So that meant we discussed it. But apparently the oral sub-amendment is not the same as the one that was to be discussed. However, I have to apply the rules and put it to the vote.

The committee has no opinion on the oral sub-amendment submitted by Ms Taktakishvili, so we will defer to the wisdom of the Assembly.

I call Ms Christoffersen on a point of order.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Since the committee has no opinion, do you want the opinion of the rapporteurs?

THE PRESIDENT* – It is rather difficult, because normally we would defer to the opinion of the committee. I asked Ms Tatakishvili whether she would support her oral sub-amendment and she did so. I asked who was against it. Mr Petrenco was against it. I asked for the opinion of Mr Preda, the representative of the amendment’s authors, and he said that he was in favour. I have asked what the committee thinks about it, but I do not believe that the rapporteur is entitled to express an opinion that the committee did not express.

The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 20, as amended?

I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – It is important not to change the rules of the game during the game. This oral sub-amendment was not presented in the committee meeting: it was possible for them to do so, but they did not do it. We are against the amendment, because if we want to support Moldova and the Moldovan people, we have to leave monitoring, because that is a kind of guarantee that there will be no attacks on democracy and on the functioning of democratic institutions. That is why I say to you all that Moldova should leave monitoring. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – No opinion.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13303, as amended.

The vote is open.

4. Next public business

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

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting closed at 8.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Communication from Mr Thorbjorn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions: Mr Beneyto, Mr Flego, Mr Bugnon, Ms Konrađsdottir, Mr Kox, Mr Michel, Mr Sabella, Mr Villumsen, Ms Memecan, Mr Rouquet,

2. The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Presentation of report, Document 13300, by Ms Woldseth on behalf of the Monitoring Committee

Speakers: Mr Schennach, Mr Xuclà, Ms Konrađsdottir, Mr Kox, Mr Sasi, Mr Šepić, Mr Ivanovski, Mr Nikoloski, Mr Michel, Mr Kolman, Mr Badea, Mr Magazinović, Ms Zimmermann, Ms Marković, Mr Dzurinda, Ms Memecan, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Bockel, Ms Kapetanović, Ms Mulić, Mr Hancock, Ms Krišto, Ms Goryacheva, Mr Matušić, Ms Vučović, Mr Herkel, Mr Walter, Mr Gross.

Amendment 2, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 3 adopted.

Amendment 1, as amended, adopted.

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13300, as amended, adopted.

3. The honouring of obligations and commitments by the Republic of Moldova

Presentation of report, Document 13303, by Ms Christoffersen and Mr Wach, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

Speakers: Mr Stroe, Mr Neill, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Mariani, Ms Durrieu, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Jantuan, Mr Badea, Mr Rouquet, Ms Guţu, Ms Pahilovici, Mr Braun, Mr Petrenco, Mr Herkel

Amendments 15 and 17 adopted.

Amendment 7 adopted.

Amendment 8, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 10 adopted.

Amendment 3, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 21, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 13, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 5, as amended, adopted.

Amendment 20, as amended, adopted.

Draft resolution contained in Document 13303, as amended, adopted.

4. 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*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Eka Beselia

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA/Anvar Makhmutov

Mladen BOSIĆ/Nermina Kapetanović

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Özlem CEKIC*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO/Ferdinando Aiello

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

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan

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/Jean-Pierre Michel

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/Iwona Guzowska

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Patrick De GROOTE/Sabine Vermeulen

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Marie-Louise Fort

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

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/Sahiba Gafarova

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Maghradze

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/Tina Acketoft

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Unnur Bra KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN/Martina Schenk

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA/Miroslav Krejča

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Pascale Crozon

Igor LEBEDEV/Olga Kazakova

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/Riitta Myller

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE/Joe Benton

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Carmen Quintanilla

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lydia MUTSCH*

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Marian NEACŞU

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Michele NICOLETTI*

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/Ester Tuiksoo

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*

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/Damir Šehović

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON/Robert Neill

Katrin WERNER*

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Observers

Partners for Democracy

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM