AA13CR03
AS (2013) CR 03
2014 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(First part)
REPORT
Third sitting
Tuesday 28 January 2014 at 10.00 a.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.
(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)
THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.
1. Appointment of committees
THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is further changes to committee membership set out in Documents Commissions (2014) 01 Addendum 3.
Are these proposals approved?
The proposed candidatures are adopted.
2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
THE PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Denmark.
The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 13360.
The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair.
At 1 p.m. the poll will suspend. At 3.30 p.m. the poll will re-open until 5 p.m., when it will close.
I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.
I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.
Ms Godskesen and Mr Gražulis have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.
If a second round of voting is necessary it will take place on Wednesday morning and afternoon.
If possible the result will be declared this afternoon before the end of the sitting.
I now declare the ballot open.
3. “Refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky”
THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report entitled, “Refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky”, Document 13356, presented by Mr Andreas Gross on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
I remind members that we have agreed a speaking time limit of three minutes for this morning’s sitting.
In order to finish by 12 noon, we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 11 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Mr Gross, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.
This is the first time I have given Mr Gross the floor and I would like to thank him for the excellent way in which we have been able to work together on the Presidential Committee over the past few years.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – Thank you, Madam President. May I congratulate you on the fantastic results of yesterday’s vote? I am sure that you will be an excellent President.
I had the privilege, together with Günter Schirmer, of writing an unbelievable report that tells the story of a simple employee, Sergei Magnitsky. He was a patriot who took the law seriously, whether as an accountant or bookkeeper, and who, having come across a great criminal act - a massive act of theft against the Russian people by certain officials - did not want just to leave that be. He wanted to shed light on it and, as a result, he was arrested and left to die a horrible death in prison. It is the story of Russian prisons and detention centres, where no appropriate medical treatment is given to inmates and they are neglected, cast aside and mistreated, without being accorded that to which every individual has a right – the right to be given the appropriate care and attention. It is the story of Russian State employees who are appointed by the State but who do not serve the State, choosing instead to line their own pockets. They take from the State, in order to feather their own nests, money that is sorely needed for infrastructure, schools and so on.
It is also the tale of an American who made money having done good business in wild times. He knew how to exploit loopholes in poorly made laws. He made money not because he stole, but because he was aware of the nature of the situation. He did not steal, but he cleverly used the money lent to him. He became very rich, but through the fight against corruption he came across the same situation as those who had worked for him. Things then became very dangerous for him; he could no longer travel to Russia and found himself being prosecuted. This American individual noticed that his name was also on the death list; it did not just contain the name of the man who had worked for him, and that is striking. He felt empathy for the person who had worked for him and did not simply want to let this injustice stand, so he undertook great work to ensure that we address this issue.
Finally, it is the tale of $230 million stolen and transferred cleverly throughout the world. The money was put into accounts in various banks and then invested, by those who had profited, in property in some of the most beautiful parts of the world.
This is not a tale being told against Russia; Sergei Magnitsky was a patriot who wanted to serve his country, and this report about him wishes to serve Russia. Everybody makes mistakes and every country makes mistakes. Great countries make great mistakes, and no country makes none. It is important, however, to acknowledge failure and the mistakes one makes so that one can then see how to avoid them in future and so that those who have made these mistakes and done wrong are brought to justice. Our report is a service in the interests of Russia. It is an appeal to Russia to ensure that those who have done wrong are brought to justice and held to account. It is a reminder to Russia of its duties and of the fundamental values of the Council of Europe: the right to property, the right to life and the right to live free from torture. Those things have all been violated and we cannot allow that to stand, above all, because we know that although this is a major report on a major event, it also deals with just the tip of the iceberg. Many similar smaller tales lie beneath the surface and we have not yet been able to write any reports on them. I would therefore be grateful if you gave this report your support.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. The floor is now open for discussion and the first speaker on the list is Mr Omtzigt, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I congratulate Mr Gross on his clear and meticulously written report on the circumstances in which Sergei Magnitsky died almost four years ago. The Russian authorities had the option of not having this debate, as four and a half years ago Ms Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was already paying attention to the horrible situation in which Mr Magnitsky was held in pre-trial detention and asking for his release. The Russian authorities missed the opportunity to take better care, and then instead of investigating why he died they decided to make sure that nobody would find out. He spent one year in pre-trial detention and was beaten to death with rubber batons. As Mr Gross clearly describes, there were two death certificates. Anyone who sees the pictures of Mr Magnitsky’s body, which his mother showed here yesterday in the Council of Europe, can no longer be in any doubt about what happened just before he died.
It is good that we have finally investigated what happened because this case also involves a massive tax fraud, which was covered up in Russia’s wild early days. Some people want to talk about his client, but this report is about Mr Magnitsky. The EPP is sorry that those on the Russian delegation missed an opportunity to write an addendum to the report, which is what they had promised to do. They had promised to give us their view of the events and show what the Russian authorities did to investigate, yet no view was expressed. Furthermore, when there was a hearing, which was mutually agreed, the Russians did not invite their experts. So if they think that the work done by Mr Gross was incomplete, that was because of them. A number of people did not like me as rapporteur and wanted Mr Gross instead, and I thank them because he wrote a clear report. I really hope that justice will now finally be done on behalf of Mr Magnitsky, because that will make Russia a safer and better place.
The PRESIDENT* - The next speaker is Mr Neill, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Madam President. As this is the first time I have had the chance to speak since you, Madam, became President, may I congratulate you on your election? I also congratulate the rapporteur, as I agree with Mr Omtzigt that he has done meticulous work and produced a thorough report.
The report is important for the individual case, because it deals with a human tragedy and we should not forget that. It is, however, also important for this body as a matter of principle, because it deals with issues that go to the core values of the Council of Europe. In particular, it addresses the importance of the independence of the law and, as part of the underpinning of the independence and rule of law, the strength of independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions, and of international co-operation, not only between all members of the Council of Europe but with other neighbours and friends who share our values, particularly when dealing with complex issues of international fraud. Therefore, this report does a considerable service. It is also important for Russia in terms of reputation, as well as human rights, because one would hope that everyone who joins the Council of Europe wanted to maintain a reputation as a believer in human rights.
It is also important that we recognise the economic importance of such principles. Honest and genuine business and international investment desires an operating environment that provides both physical security and legal certainty. It is therefore in the interests of every member State of the Council of Europe to subscribe fully to the values that we set out. When constructive proposals are made to highlight failings, it is not appropriate to adopt a tit-for-tat response. People should co-operate with international criticism and take it on board.
I particularly want to stress the importance of the work that we already do. We should be proud of it, but we need to reinforce it through institutions such as GRECO, on which I represent the Parliamentary Assembly, and Moneyval. The report highlights in detail the importance of international co-operation in tracing complicated money flows across many jurisdictions. It is regrettable that quite a number of member States of the Council of Europe are not yet fully signed up to and have not yet fully implemented all of GRECO’s recommendations. We could all therefore learn lessons from the report.
The importance of genuine checks and balances within civil society should also be stressed. I commend paragraphs 14 and 16 of the report and the draft recommendation in particular. Oversight bodies have been created, but it is important, as the report states, that Governments take genuine notice of their recommendations. The report is an important piece of work, and I commend it to the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Beck, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms BECK (Germany)* – Mr Gross is a balanced and careful speaker who has close links with Russia, so we should take the nightmare tale that he presented seriously. Mr Magnitsky did not believe it possible that tax officials from his country’s Ministry of the Interior, with backing from the judiciary, could steal from the State in such a way. He then found himself in pre-trial detention. He was taken late in the evening and was not allowed to contact his family, including his seven-year-old son, for a year. He was held under terrible conditions and transferred from one detention centre to another and then, after a year, he was dead. It is a breathtaking and awful tale. We must ensure that the people responsible are brought to justice, that they are not allowed to make similar decisions and that such events are never repeated. If Russia were to pursue the matter and the seven countries in which the money ended up were investigated, some light would be shed on who was involved. Mr Magnitsky had a clear idea of who was actually involved in the fraud. He was a whistleblower.
The West also has a whistleblower who is being protected in Russia. My party wishes that he had been given asylum in Germany, because how does Russia deal with its own whistleblowers? Alexei Navalny has courageously openly referred to similar cases in Russia, but I fear that this Assembly will be discussing his case in a few months unless amends are made. The Assembly was aware of the tragic Magnitsky case when he was still alive, but we were unable to protect him, which is an indication of how dramatically we have lost authority.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. I also want to thank him for his good co-operation on the Presidential Committee.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – It is more than four years since Sergei Magnitsky died in a Russian prison. This married father of two was deprived of seeing his family for almost a year. He died after being mistreated while imprisoned in Moscow. How could this happen? Why did it happen? Who should be held accountable for his death? Why does time pass by without those questions being answered? That is what Mr Gross’s report deals with. We need the relevant authorities in the Russian Federation to provide answers. Today’s debate emphasises that we cannot accept impunity for those responsible for a clear violation of human rights. The Moscow Public Oversight Committee indicated shortly after Mr Magnitsky’s death that the case could be described as a breach of the right to live, which is a fundamental human right for all in Europe under the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed and ratified by the Russian Federation. The Public Oversight Committee discovered that psychological and physical pressure was exerted on Mr Magnitsky while he was imprisoned. On the basis of the committee’s findings, the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights of the Russian Federation urged the relevant authorities to hold those responsible for Mr Magnitsky’s death to account. More than four years after the scandal, we are still waiting for that happen. It is a disgrace.
Meanwhile, Mr Magnitsky’s name is used, misused and abused worldwide. Laws are named after him and sanctions are imposed on officials because of him, but the Group of the Unified European Left believes that justice needs to be done. My group is appalled that people who are imprisoned and therefore entrusted to the authority of our biggest member State can die through ill-treatment. Mr Magnitsky is not the only person who has died in suspicious circumstances in a Russian prison and many more are suffering. Whether people are imprisoned for committing a crime or for trying to end corruption, it is totally unacceptable. Mr Magnitsky is considered a hero by many of us in the Council of Europe and by many outside the building, but others believe him to have been involved in criminal acts. My group wants to shout out that it does not matter what Mr Magnitsky was or what he did. The European Convention on Human Rights and all the human rights conventions of the Council of Europe oblige all States to take care of all those who are imprisoned – guilty or not. The conventions guarantee a fair trial and that there will be no inhuman or degrading treatment, whatever people have done. No matter how interesting all this talk of money and tax evasion might be, we should concentrate on that part of the matter. The vital thing is that Mr Magnitsky was denied his human rights and that is what the Russian Federation should be held accountable for.
THE PRESIDENT – I call Lord Anderson, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I extend my congratulations to you, President, and to Mr Gross on an excellent report. We understand from Mr Slutsky that our Russian colleagues will stand together and vote against the report. Some even allege that it is part of an anti-Russian plot. I can only say in defence that Mr Gross is not the most plausible member of an anti-Russian conspiracy.
As has been said, there are two elements to the case: one, most importantly, is human rights and the other is what it tells us about the business environment in Russia. So far as the human rights element is concerned, we have the tragic death of an individual in custody, the beatings and what happened thereafter, and the impunity of the State employees who stole the money and secreted it around the world. That tells us something about the business environment. No doubt all of us can point to deficiencies in the systems of our countries. All of us have sad examples of deaths in police custody and corruption among officials, but the real test for us as democrats is how we respond to them. This case highlights deficiencies in the Russian system on human rights, judicial standards and the rule of law, which are the core work of the Council of Europe.
Our Russian colleagues cannot rely on national sovereignty. They have accepted international obligations in the Council of Europe, as well as in the OSCE and at the United Nations. Russia has applied to join the OECD. We can surely agree that it is in Russia’s interest to be seen to deal with this matter thoroughly and punish those responsible, if it wishes to attract foreign capital to modernise its economy and to persuade Russian investors to keep their money at home. Last year there was an outflow from Russia of more than $70 billion, yet this tragic affair, like that with Yukos oil, shows the prevalence of corruption, the weakness of property rights and the failure of the legal system to protect business. That is the sad picture we have. I urge our Russian colleagues not to be on the defensive and not to make any allegations that we are playing to US interests. That is old politics. They should recognise that to give impunity to those responsible not only damages their business, but is contrary to their international human rights obligations.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Anderson. That closes the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups.
(The speaker continued in French.)
Before continuing the discussion, I remind you that the election of the judge to the European Court of Human Rights has begun, and you can vote behind the President’s chair. If you would like to start voting, that will speed up the procedure.
We will now move on to the debate. I remind everyone that they have three minutes and that we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at 11 a.m.
Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – Europe has often underestimated the need for a strong and stabilising Russia, just as Russia has underestimated its need to play that strong and stabilising role. Just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, we missed an opportunity, and it is difficult to claw back that opportunity now. Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, it has joined our main institutions and it must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
We should all realise – this is very much along the lines of what Lord Anderson said – that we are not here to defend our national interests, which might have been dragged through the mud or pilloried; we are here to express solidarity around the values that transcend national positions, such as human rights, and the Magnitsky case is typical of that. After what Politkovskaya went through, it is high time that our Russian friends understand that it is time for them to put their own house in order, to put an end to corruption and to ensure compliance with human rights. We will no longer tolerate such breaches. We are all members of the Council of Europe and, as such, we will encounter terrible violations of human rights every now and again. We and the people who come to us need to put an end to that. That does not let off any country, because none of us is in a position to throw stones. We have all had such cases, but when these things happen, it is an opportunity to make progress. If Russia makes the efforts that we expect, it will advance and progress and finally take the place in Europe that it should take as the biggest country. Today, it is penalised by too many human rights violations that reduce it in stature, so I ask Russian colleagues to grow with us.
Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I congratulate Mr Gross on an extremely good and precise report. I agree with every speaker so far: shame on the Russian authorities for not investigating the fraud against Russian fiscal authorities that Mr Magnitsky discovered; shame on the Russian authorities that none of the people responsible for his death has yet been punished; shame on Russia for prosecuting a dead man; and shame on the Duma for reacting to the United State’s Magnitsky Act by creating a law to prevent Americans from adopting Russian orphans. Those children had already met their new families.
The Russians might ask themselves why we have this report, and the answer is simple: the Russian authorities and those in power have so far shown no political will to do anything about the Magnitsky case. On the contrary, they have created a huge cover-up. I call upon the Assembly to vote for the resolution and to vote for the recommendation in Mr Gross’s excellent report.
Mr MICHEL (France)* – This agenda item is rather special, because it deals with an individual case, but let us not have any illusions about it. Looking beyond that individual case, we are talking about the administrative, penal and penitentiary system in Russia, and our Russian colleagues clearly understand that, because they have constantly sought to put obstacles in the path of this report’s adoption, the only aim being to delay it.
Sergei Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention in Moscow on 16 November 2009. On 11 July 2013, he was found guilty of tax evasion. Are we dreaming here? What is going on? It is against any international penal law to have legal proceedings taken against someone who is dead. When someone has died and is presumed to have committed a crime, their death puts an end to any action against them. It is possible that a civil case might be taken to obtain compensation, but there cannot be a criminal procedure. That, however, is not the case in Russia. The case proceeded as if nothing had happened, despite the fact that someone had died, and they ended up being sentenced. That unfair and inequitable proceeding should have been stopped, and the Russian authorities should have recognised that it was nonsensical and against fundamental laws. Let us think about the murderers – they are still very much alive and free to come and go as they wish. According to Andreas Gross’s report, some of them may even have been promoted.
In passing, I want to congratulate Mr Gross, our rapporteur, who has done an enormous amount of work in this report and stood up to all the trials he faced and the opposition he encountered. Many people would have given up in the light of the problems he encountered, but he did not.
There is not really much mystery about this case. The details given in the report are more than convincing. In fact, as early as December 2009 they were recognised by an independent Russian committee in Moscow – the Public Oversight Committee. However, we have to assume that the Russian authorities did not really take to heart the opinion it expressed. After that independent investigation into the death of Mr Magnitsky, the Public Oversight Committee concluded that he had been tortured to death in prison. None of those presumed responsible for his death has since been punished. That is a tragic illustration of the very serious problems within the Russian penal and penitentiary system. I know that there are also problems in our countries, but that is not a reason to tolerate this. I understand how difficult the situation is for all our countries, but we have to stand up and fight when the most fundamental rights are being trampled upon. I therefore call upon all who support our common values – values that we endorse, as we have shown by ratifying this convention; values that have brought us here today – to support this resolution.
Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – First, I would like to congratulate you, Madam President, on having received such a strong mandate from this Assembly.
Mr Gross’s report brings to our attention very serious deficiencies in the rule of law, law enforcement and basic human rights in Russia. I very much agreed with the previous speaker, who said that we should not read the case of Sergei Magnitsky as an isolated one, as an exception from the rule. Unfortunately, it testifies to a system.
At the end of last year, three prominent prisoners in Russia were released: Mr Khordokovsky, Ms Tolokonnikova and Ms Alyokhina. They had very powerful advocates, and their release was connected to the upcoming Olympic Games in Sochi. Unfortunately, many civic activists in pre-trial detention in Russia do not have such strong advocates as Mr Browder was for Mr Magnitsky, or the singer Madonna was for the Pussy Riot women.
As we all know, at present in Russia it is still possible for those on trial to receive psychiatric, so-called expert, treatment stating that their civic activism is a sign of personal disorder. We should speak out for the many who are still in pre-trial detention – for instance, following the Bolotnaya Square gatherings and demonstrations. Those people will be tried after the Sochi Olympics, and we cannot be sure that their trials will observe the rule of law and justice.
A book has recently been released about the band Pussy Riot, who performed in a church. It contains a heart-breaking passage involving a dialogue between the son of one of the women band members and his father. The son asks, “Father, why did my mother go to jail?” The father replies, “Your mother went to jail because she sang too loud in a church.”
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – At this part-session, the Parliamentary Assembly is discussing a report prepared by Andreas Gross on its behalf, which was presented to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee last year. This is the third time we have returned to this subject, which will obviously be discussed at great length for a long time. Mr Gross asked people who use the Internet, and even the secret services, to send information to his e-mail address. The information he received is not easy to understand, collate and organise. He twice met officials in Moscow. As I see it, he should not be standing on the doorstep and announcing what was said by the official prosecution service and other official bodies – in other words, the Russian authorities saying that it is a tragic coincidence that Mr Magnitsky just happened to have died when he arrived in prison. Russian prisons, like those in many other countries, do not necessarily have the right facilities – for instance, they may lack the necessary medical facilities. Much may have been done, but we cannot blame Russia for the fact that people die. We are all mortal, and sometimes people die in prison, rather than, for instance, on holiday. That is not fair, but what can we do?
On the question of accusing the people who worked in the prison of negligence, we know that one of them, because of a statute of limitation, had the case against them dropped; but that person has not been found guilty of anything. The constitution does provide for the possibility of clemency. For instance, Mr Mikhail Khordokovsky and the Pussy Riot people were subject to such an order for clemency from the President. However, Magnitsky was not.
When any human being dies young, it is a drama. If that person dies in prison, of course, extra elements of emotion are added to that drama. But we should not link the very serious claims made by Mr Browder to what he claims are actions by Gazprom and the money that was lost to the State through the tax rebates.
Mr Andreas Gross and “Voice of America” have said that many other countries, including Council of Europe countries, might follow the lead of the United States. But if we follow Mr Gross’s logic, some countries are more likely to follow the lead of the United States than that of the Council of Europe. I think that this is not right.
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – On behalf of the Norwegian delegation, I congratulate Mr Gross on a thorough report on the case of Mr Magnitsky: a report on one individual’s struggle against a system riven by corruption and injustice.
I agree with Mr Gross that we can only speculate on why the Russian State covers up the facts of the case. Mr Magnitsky died while in pre-trial detention, when not proven guilty of any crime, and when simple medical procedures could have saved his life. This has not gone unnoticed by the international community and it cannot go unnoticed by our Assembly. I therefore urge you all to vote in favour of Mr Gross’s draft resolution and recommendation. We cannot accept impunity for the killers of Mr Magnitsky.
The Norwegian delegation has for several years been concerned about this case. When the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights met in Oslo in the spring of 2011, in co-operation with the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, we organised a side-event to draw attention to the case. Addressing the Magnitsky case in the last monitoring report on Russia was an important step, and I am glad that we now have a report that looks at this issue alone, giving the case the thorough attention it deserves. Looking at corruption and the justice sector of our member States, through monitoring reports as well as reports on specific issues and cases, is an important task of this Assembly.Mr Magnitsky is surely not the only individual deserving of our attention, but I hope that by looking into this case we can contribute to others not falling victim to such grave injustice.
The injustices and failures of the system in this case are numerous, but I especially took notice of the former vice-president of the Russian constitutional court, who stated that “if posthumous prosecutions were allowed, responsibility for a lot of crimes would just be a sign to dead people.” In the case of Mr Magnitsky, the family members have not called for a posthumous case. I therefore point out that paragraph 14.4 of the draft resolution is of particular importance.
Norway has addressed Russia on the human rights violations the Magnitsky case represents. The Norwegian delegation encourages all colleagues to put pressure on their own governments to do the same.
Mr JAKAVONIS (Albania)*– On behalf of the Lithuanian delegation, I thank Andreas Gross for this excellent report and the excellent work he has done. Right from the start, he occupied a neutral position, and his report comes across as a very accurate and objective assessment of the situation surrounding the death of Sergei Magnitsky. It is an assessment of a very specific situation and the continuation of a report that we discussed at the previous part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly. He has explored the limits between political crimes and financial crimes and has tried to uphold human rights. It is important to draw up rules on the basis of which we can decide where the criminal activity was and where the political activity was, and what was the line between them.
In discussing this report, the Parliamentary Assembly is asking whether western democracies share values on human rights. Like members of the Council of Europe and the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Muižnieks, as well as the United States of America and the Parliaments of Sweden, Italy, Britain and Norway, all western democracies have expressed a clear position on the Magnitsky death, and this very much coincides with what Mr Gross has said. Our vote will show whether we all agree on the rights of a person in prison or whether we have different standards.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have been focusing on the Sergei Magnitsky case for more than four years now. It is very well known in Russia, as well as elsewhere. Indeed, non-governmental organisations and various other bodies have independently investigated it. This includes an investigation by those attached to Russia’s presidential human rights council. Many people have been involved in the ongoing investigation and many people have been dismissed from high posts as a result.
All this, however, cannot bring Sergei Magnitsky back to life. Thinking about his death, we see that there has been a lot of misleading information about it. He was a tax and accountancy expert, not a human rights advocate or someone who stood up for human rights in any way. We know what Mr Browder has said and we know that in the past he has tried to put the case that Magnitsky was simply an innocent party in all this, but Mr Browder himself was very much involved in many financial transactions in many financial companies. All this has to be borne in mind.
The report clearly states that Magnitsky was an accountant and a tax expert, and that is true, but there are serious inaccuracies and inconsistencies in other areas. In fact, Sergei Magnitsky was not posthumously sentenced – I would like to assure some of the previous speakers on this point – so these accusations of shame against the Russian Federation must rather be accusations levelled about those who have given our rapporteur misleading information. There are also some factual inconsistencies in the report. For example, it does not take due account of information that was provided by Russian departments on this issue. For that reason, we cannot support the report despite the enormous amount of work that has gone into it.
The Magnitsky case has been highly politicised. Today, when thinking about the whole issue, we are not talking about Magnitsky himself but about something that can be used to drag the name of Russia through the mud, and we simply cannot accept that. The Committee of Ministers is supposed to be concerned with the rule of law, human rights and democracy, not with trailing money all over the world and trying to find out where it has gone. For that reason, I call on colleagues to vote against the recommendation. In saying that, however, I can assure you that we will continue to co-operate with the Assembly on this very difficult issue.
Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate you, Madam President, on your election as President of this Assembly.
The case of Sergei Magnitsky is a very sad one. As Mr Gross has said, it is a story of a patriot who fought for the Russian State. In Mr Gross’s excellent report, undisputed facts are gathered and one can read about what has happened. This issue has two aspects: prison safety and corruption. When a person is in prison – Magnitsky was in pre-trial detention – the State has to guarantee the safety and health care of the prisoner. In this case, health care was denied and Magnitsky was beaten in prison; in fact, he was killed in prison. That means that the prison system was misused. This is not a question of prison facilities in Russia but of how the prison system is used and how prison guards are educated. An ordinary prison guard does not kill anyone, beat anyone or use violence.
This is a landmark case in the corruption that is known all over the world today. There are two ways to fight against corruption: first, people have to fear that they will be revealed if bribes are offered or taken, and, secondly, there must be someone who tells of it. The higher the risk for someone who tells, the more corruption there is in a country. When there is corruption, people must be brought into court and punished. When Magnitsky revealed a $230 million fraud against the Russian State, he was punished for doing so, but those who committed the fraud and stole the money from the State are not being punished. There is a two-way system where people try to continue with the corruption in the Russian system. This sends a very bad signal from Russia to the world. If Russia wants growth and business investment, there must be a favourable environment for investors, not a message sent out that people have to be part of a corrupt system where they need to have the right contacts with the authorities and corruption is necessary and even protected.
Magnitsky gave his life for truth and for the Russian State. I hope that this leads to a situation where the case is studied thoroughly in Russia and the people responsible are brought into a court of law and punished. That would send the right signal from Russia to everyone else. That is the aim of Mr Gross’s report. Please let this case be investigated before we have to use any sanctions against the people involved in it.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sasi. Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I remind you that the vote has started to elect a judge on behalf of Denmark, so will those who have not voted yet please do so?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Dear colleagues, this kind of investigative-style report, which from time to time comes from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is a big contribution to our Assembly’s reputation. This is really necessary. Sometimes we deal with very individual cases. Mr Magnitsky died in prison in 2009 and, yes, we can ask whether it is too late. It is not too late, because the basic questions have not been addressed by the Russian authorities and conclusions have not been made. The big advantage of this report is that we have a very large explanatory memorandum, which is a source of many questions to be addressed in the future as well as here today.
As many speakers have already said, there are different elements. The first element is the corruption and impunity of those involved in fraudulent tax cases. We were told about the exoneration of Ms Stepanova despite all the evidence of her involvement in this case. The rapporteur also described the lifestyle and sudden wealth of apparently very modest tax officials who are suspects in this story – villas in Dubai, and so on – which creates a lot of questions. The second side is what is happening in the prisons, and human rights. It is a question of the responsibility of the prison administration and medical staff. We are told about beatings and inadequate treatment by medical staff with regard to Sergei Magnitsky, who, I agree with the rapporteur, was a patriot of the Russian Federation in his actions.
I finish by thanking Mr Gross. Sometimes we disagreed about how to defend what are actually very similar values. Mr Omtzigt was right to decide to have a separate report on this case and not to have it in the framework of the monitoring report. You, rapporteur, did excellent work. I thank you and fully support the resolution and recommendation.
Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – The death of Magnitsky is a true tragedy. A young man of my age – so many in our society share many of the points of view put forward in the report and suffer his death very personally. But much of the report is actually about Mr Browder rather than Magnitsky. It justifies him in various ways, saying he was a successful businessman, but we cannot help seeing in parenthesis that many of Mr Browder’s collaborators have died under suspicious circumstances: one died in a fire, another died in London. It is Mr Browder who should be considered responsible for these deaths, including Magnitsky’s. He sent him off to the republic of Kalmykia. He forced Magnitsky to hire people who had disabilities of various kinds, including mental ones. It is because of Browder that Magnitsky ended up in prison. Who sent him to prison? I think it was Browder. He should be the one held responsible for Magnitsky’s death, along with all the others whom our colleague has named in the report. But no, he puts Browder in a different category.
Ms Beck asked Mr Gross where he got most of his information from. He said either from journalists or from Mr Browder, for which he was very grateful. But can he really trust Browder? Quite recently, in the autumn of last year, the High Court in London, which we all trust, considered the Browder affair. The court in London said that there was no cause-and-effect link between the arrest of Magnitsky and his death. The court stated that Browder did not provide any evidence of a link between the arrest and the death, which means that when a court looks at this case it finds no evidence. Basically, this report is founded on the views of just one side and we are asked on that basis to adopt a recommendation – perhaps to refuse visas or introduce sanctions – but it is the view of only one side.
Andreas has approached many countries to ask them to find the money that was supposedly stolen but he sees only Russia as responsible. There are dozens of countries involved but no, it is only Russia that he points the finger at. I am aware of the importance of this issue and that we are not going to let this subject go. I recommend to my colleagues that they abstain on the recommendation that the Council of Ministers take any steps. Certainly we should not vote for sanctions because sanctions never lead to anything good.
Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – Rapporteur, dear colleagues, the system of protection of human rights set up by the European Convention on Human Rights is based on a threefold pillar, corresponding to three subjects in law: the individual, who benefits from the protection that is enshrined; the State, which must provide the protection of the individual; and the body that can avail itself of the protective mechanism or mechanism of reparation or sanction assured by the State to the individual. In general, the beneficiary of this protection is the same one that can act to implement it. In the case before us today, unfortunately the beneficiary is no longer with us. He was the victim of the abuse and mistreatment that led to his death under conditions that have yet to be clarified. For its part, the State proved unable to ensure the protection to which, as a subject of law, it is committed. Finally, the possible channels of appeal did not take effect for procedural reasons or because of the decision of the jurisdictional authorities.
As in other cases, third parties are involved, which should refrain from breaching the human rights of Mr Magnitsky. His fundamental rights were not ensured. There was a failure to respect his dignity and physical integrity. For those responsible to be punished in line with the principles and texts that unite us here, we must now turn to the State. It is the State that should be held responsible for the violations of rights and for the failure to have them respected. That is why the concept of the victim before our Assembly and the ECHR is so important and so decisive. There is a kind of shift in the demands as regards the responsibility of third parties for the rights that were affected.
The case before us is dramatic, as is the case with all violations of fundamental rights of the individual. It is emblematic not because of the political environment that it reveals but because of what it illustrates about the requirements of the State to ensure physical protection to its citizens, the protection of the rights of victims to a fair trial and the prosecution of those who initially breached the rights of the individual, Sergei Magnitsky, in particular when they are servants of the State and should be exemplary. There should be exemplary and effective observation by the institutions. The rights that we advocate must not be considered theoretical or illusory – they should be tangible and effective. We must concentrate, above all, on what has been reported objectively.
At the same time, wishing to resolve all the problems that this complex situation has thrown up might risk our failing to resolve any of them. Justice must be done in respect of prosecution and sentencing for the detention and death of Mr Magnitsky. That would be an expression of the social function of each State and our common institutions. The guarantees must prevent citizens from having to question the legitimacy of how the law is enforced. Under those guarantees, there must be impartiality before the law. It is up to all of us to urge each State – in this case, the Russian Federation – to renew and bolster its legitimacy.
Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation)* – The issue we are discussing is complex. I agree with some of those who have accused certain Russians of being biased in some ways. However, I am very aware of the Russian situation; at the moment, the Russian Bill against corruption is before our Parliament. We know that corruption is a problem, but where is the source of it in this story? It is Mr Browder, who made a great deal of money through machinations similar to those that Russian civil servants are now being accused of.
We have to make that point clearly to the rapporteur, Mr Gross. The very title of the report is biased; it talks of refusing impunity for the “killers” of Mr Magnitsky – it already assumes that someone has been killed before the investigations into the circumstances of the death have even begun. More than half the report is devoted to Browder, as has been more than half of what has been said here today. Like others, Browder is not hidden away somewhere in China; such people are in western countries. A serious mistake is being made. It is true that evil must be punished, but the kind of evil represented by oligarchs finding a safe haven in many western countries is not being punished. Unfortunately, Mr Magnitsky became a victim of Browder, among others, and Browder personifies the problem exactly.
Now we are talking about the supposedly dozens of people who are involved. They have fled to London, New York and other places and live as if in total innocence. They are living a life of luxury and there should be serious question marks over them. I call the report’s conclusions into question and suggest that we do not vote in favour of it.
Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Ever since the Soviet Union, which I regard as an evil empire, collapsed, the civilised world has been asking itself whether worldwide standards of the rule of law and democracy should apply to Russia. Even after the many landmark events during Russia’s meteoric slide towards being an aggressive kleptocracy – a process that accelerated following Putin’s rise to power – the voices calling for the standards to be lowered and for there to be “more understanding” have been strong.
Many landmark events during those years must have served as wake-up calls. I recall only a few: the mass murder of civilians in Chechnya, the aggressive war against Georgia and the ethnic cleansing just a few kilometres away from the location of the Sochi Olympics – another symbol of Russian kleptocracy. There is also the campaign to undermine freedom at home and abroad. Many western politicians, including those in this Chamber, would say that we should be more tolerant and understanding towards Russia and that applying to it the same rules as exist elsewhere would anger our Russian partners and make them leave organisations such as this. Today’s debate should become a symbol of the failure of that approach, just as Sergei Magnitsky has become a symbol in respect of the Russian kleptocracy.
Sergei never saw himself as a human rights or political activist – he was a decent, law-abiding citizen who saw Russia as a civilised country rather than an aggressive kleptocracy. Many millions of decent citizens such as Sergei are fortunate enough to be alive, and they deserve moral clarity from organisations such as ours. The Magnitsky affair has become a symbol of modern Russia not only because of its high profile in the West but because instead of doing anything at all, instead of even putting up a façade of legality, the Russian Government decides not to prosecute the perpetrators – the 60 top officials who stole $230 million, imprisoned Sergei, killed him and then covered up the evidence.
A large-scale kleptocracy – the stealing of public property and money – is and has been a widespread phenomenon in Russia and its neighbours. One way in which this Chamber and the civilised world can tackle that is to approve this report and the Magnitsky list, as many western Parliaments, such as the United States Congress, have done. That should be a reminder to any Government, including my own, that the use of the justice system for political purposes will have clear consequences.
Ms BLONDIN (France)* – Mr Gross’s report, which reads like a page-turner of a detective story, sends a shiver down the spine. The Magnitsky case seems to offer a liturgy of Russia’s shortcomings when it comes to the rule of law. The report lists the breaches not only of the European Convention on Human Rights but of Russian law.
The breaches continue as we speak. In December, Le Monde described the case as a sordid story of State Machiavellianism. Nevertheless, Russian civil society is dynamic and attentive to the need to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. It seems, however, that what is lacking is the political will for a transparent and impartial investigation into Magnitsky’s death.
Our Organisation has various ways of improving the situation, but they need to be made truly effective. Persistent corruption in Russia raises the question of the role and results of GRECO. What has GRECO done about corruption in Russia? Do the Russian authorities co-operate with it? Secondly, we must be attentive to the consequences of the reform of monitoring, which must not lead to a weakening of the follow-up on human rights in the relevant States. Difficulties derive not so much from poor legislation as from poor enforcement.
What is the role of the Committee of Ministers in the political management of the case? What was its attitude to the Russian Government and what undertakings did it get from it? The report comes rather late, but I welcome Mr Gross’s initiative to submit recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. The Council of Europe has been too sluggish in addressing the issue of Mr Magnitsky and many others.
THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office, in typescript only, for publication in the official report.
I call Mr Gross, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland.) – I thank you all because you understood the report well and the message was well received. We know we cannot bring Mr Magnitsky back to life, but by trying to bring justice by discovering why this happened we try to serve the interests of the Russian people so we can perhaps prevent this from happening again. As Mr Stasi said, this is a systemic problem, but we must tackle systemic problems case by case. By doing so, we see the system, and then we can correct the system.
I am also grateful to our Russian colleagues because I listened closely to what they said, and although the rhetoric was tough, they were self-critical, too, and recognised wrongdoings and said they are ready to work with us. Mr Slutsky, for instance, said that. It was said Russia should respond to our proposals to prevent sanctions.
There are some concrete questions, nevertheless. Mr Aguzarov, I am very glad that you said this is a drama. In doing so, you acknowledge that something happened that should not have happened, but you also said we should not blame Russia, yet when a State arrests and imprisons somebody, it is responsible for that. If the $230 million that has been stolen had been invested in improving prisons, Mr Magnitsky would have got the medical treatment he needed. You cannot say the State does not have the money to fulfil its obligations when it imprisons people. Think about the money you invest in other things. A State has certain responsibilities to its people, especially those it arrests, and it cannot leave them alone and just forget about them. It is a drama when you do not see this situation in this way. You should think about what the Duma prioritises in its budget and whether the prisons get enough, especially as you arrest so many people.
Let me address the next misunderstanding. I am not the “Voice of America”. If you read the report properly, you will see that I do not follow the “Voice of America”. I tried to find a compromise. I tried to find a way that still leaves space for Russia to act correctly. Please do not take it too easy.
Mr Alexander Sidyakin said this is a true tragedy, and then he tried to turn the point, as did Mr Leonid Kalashnikov. I agree that Russia has a huge history, and I sometimes think we should study it more closely. In the 1990’s you had oligarchs, who stole money and resources and did not pay for them. It happened because Russia had the right conditions for that. You wanted money – you did not have enough money – and you sold your riches and resources much too cheaply. These people could also only do this through connections with political institutions. It is not by chance that many of the current oligarchs were former young communists, for instance, who had good relations with the State institutions. Mr Browder is not somebody like that. He might make you angry, and I understand why because he makes you not forget what you have done, but you cannot put him simply in the category of oligarch. He saw that companies are also suffering from the corruption because those who invest did not get a fair share of the profits as too much was passed into other channels by the management. Through trying to change that, he was successful and that is why he got more investment and that is why he became rich. That is why he paid more taxes than anybody else paid at that time - $230 million. This was the money that was stolen.
Do not be angry at Mr Browder, therefore, but take this opportunity to do better. Do not just try to neutralise what he has to say by using offensive words he does not deserve. He is rich, but rich people should also be fairly treated and have rights that should be respected. Mr Clappison agrees very much.
It is a fact that Mr Magnitsky was killed. The big question is whether he was intentionally killed. If he was intentionally killed, we will be speaking about murder. That is the difference – the German translation was perhaps not so bad. He was killed, and when somebody is killed there are responsible people because they did not prevent that from happening. That is what we are trying to investigate.
Some of our Russian colleagues said I have one-sided sources. That is not true. The largest part of the information has come out of official Russian sources and documents. The two institutions we praise, as Mr Kox also did, are official institutions the Russian President introduced to improve the system of arrest and imprisonment. The presidential council for human rights is a fantastic institution, and we got a lot of information from it. The Public Oversight Committee is a fantastic institution, too, which investigated the case and saw the manipulation of the death certificate, as Mr Omtzigt also said.
Please do not take it too easy. Do not blame others because you perhaps are not ready to assume your own responsibility. You have a responsibility and the report tries to help you to assume it and tries to serve the Russian interests in order to prevent such a case from arising again. It is true that many other people suffer in a similar way but do not have such famous advocates so we do not know them. We should help them, although we do not know them.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.
Does Mr Clappison, the chairperson of the committee, wish to speak?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – May I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam President, on your election to the presidency?
I can be very brief on this occasion, because the committee and I support the work of the rapporteur.
THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you very much.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution (Document 13356) to which 23 amendments have been tabled and a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will take the draft resolution first. The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the organisation of debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, delete the following words:
“and that none of the people responsible for his death have yet been punished”.I
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation.)* – The point of this amendment is that nobody has yet been found guilty of anything, and the wording here is inconsistent with the wording in paragraph 7, which says:
“Two prison officials were indicted for negligence”,bu
but also that nobody was found guilty. What decisions were taken in connection with these indictments? This is up to the courts and the law enforcement agencies. It is not something we can discuss here.
THE PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland.) – We found this wording together as a compromise in the September meeting. That is why we speak about punishment. Nobody was punished; that is just a fact, and I ask us all to stick to the facts.
THE PRESIDENT* - What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – Against.
THE PRESIDENT* - The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the first sentence.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 4.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – In paragraph 3 it is stated that Magnitsky “carried out investigations on behalf of a client”. That is not appropriate wording, because under Russian criminal law, an investigation can be carried out only by official bodies. Magnitsky had not got in touch with any of the relevant bodies. I therefore call on members to support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Please vote against the amendment. This is just a fact, and the word “investigation” is not official wording reserved for use by institutions. Anyone can investigate, and Magnitsky found out something because he investigated and conducted research himself.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 5, tabled by tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov,which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “The suspects he had designated” with the words “Some suspects”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 5.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – Paragraph 3 mentions “suspects”. Again referring to the Russian procedural code, suspects are people who are going to be tried. No one was going to be tried or was under official investigation. The matter was basically about checking certain people. Therefore it is wrong to say that Magnitsky had designated suspects.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Mr Magnitsky suspected specific people, whom he identified as responsible. It is a paradox and a tragedy that those he designated were those who tried him afterwards. Please stick to the clear wording.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 6, tabled by tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov,which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, delete the following words:
“but they were sent for investigation to the same Interior Ministry officials who had been accused of complicity”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 6.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – The wording in paragraph 4 is incorrect, because under Russian law, complaints about members of the police force can never be sent to those same officers who had been complained about for investigation. I therefore ask for the wording to be removed.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The exact information that we received from the presidential human rights council is that that happened. Under the law, it should not have happened, but it did. That is why we have to include the wording.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 7, tabled by tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, paragraph 4, replace the words “They placed Mr Magnitsky” with the following words:
“Mr Magnitsky had been placed”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 7.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – This is a purely technical and linguistic amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 8, tabled tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the word “client” with the word “employer”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 8.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – Mr Browder was never a client of Magnitsky; he was Magnitsky’s employer. Magnitsky was in his employ. Mr Gross mentioned that in his report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. He has also said today that Browder never forgot the people who worked for him, and that was Magnitsky.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – It is clear that Mr Magnitsky was working for Firestone, the company. That company was hired by Mr Browder. Therefore, Mr Magnitsky was working for Mr Browder not as an employee, but indirectly through Firestone, and the word “client” is accurate.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 10, tabled by tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words “is now accused” with the following words:
“was accused”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 10.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – This is a purely stylistic amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I am sorry, but the amendment is not purely stylistic, because the accusation is still happening. If it is still happening, the words “is now accused” are appropriate, and not the perfect tense, as if it has passed already.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPSION (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Arshba, and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, delete the following words:
“he had denounced”.
I call Mr Aguzarov to support Amendment 9.
Mr AGUZAROV* (Russian Federation) – I have already said why we support Amendment 9 and I call on colleagues to support it.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Mr Magnitsky denounced something he had found out about and he did so until his last days. One of the most shocking sources is his diary – he kept writing in it until his last days – in which he wrote about what was done to him because he had denounced something he had found out about. Instead of being happy about the information he provided, you caused his death.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Arshba, and Mr Ter-Avanesov,which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the word “client” with the word “employer”.
Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Arshba, and Mr Ter-Avanesov,which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, replace the word “client” with the word “employer”.
Does Mr Aguzarov wish to move the amendments?
Mr AGUZAROV* (Russian Federation) – To save time, I shall not move the amendments.
THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Sidyakin, Mr Likhachev, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Aguzarov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, last sentence, delete the words “and senior government representatives have publicy commended the officials covered by sanctions under the Magnitsky Act for their actions.”
I call Mr Sidyakin to support Amendment 13.
Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation) * – I asked Mr Gross earlier whether he was able to name the senior government representatives mentioned in the amendment. There are not that many of them – there are 10, 15 or 20 at most. Will he tell us who publicly commended the officials and where and when they did so? Mr Gross told me, “Well, we have all heard it somewhere.” Where has he heard it – “Voice of America”, perhaps?
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I told Mr Sidyakin that it was on an evening show on TV. Instead of criticising the accused, the ministers praised them. I will give him the video if he wants.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 13 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Chope, Ms Gillan, Dame Angela Watkinson, Mr Neill, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Binley and Lord Donald Anderson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, replace the words “urges the competent Russian authorities” with the following words:
“regrets that the competent Russian authorities have failed”.
I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 20.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This amendment would strengthen the resolution by putting on record our regret at the manifest and manifold failures of the Russian authorities, as set out in so much detail in paragraph 14. I think that the existing wording, which just “urges” them to do something, is whistling in the wind, particularly in the light of the response of Russian members during today’s proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – Things are getting a little bit complicated, because the logic of Mr Chope’s amendment is that this matter is now over and we can no longer hope that the Russian authorities will improve, so we need to impose sanctions. I am in favour of Lord Anderson’s amendment, which would still give them a chance and time and, if they fail again, we could come to a conclusion. We do not need to do so immediately. That would be against the logic and ethics of this debate.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 20 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Aguzarov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Ter-Avanesov, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.1.11, delete the words “denounced by Mr Magnitsky”.
Does Mr Aguzarov wish to support Amendment 15?
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – No. I would like to put it to the vote.
THE PRESIDENT* – In that case, I give you the floor to support the amendment.
Mr AGUZAROV (Russian Federation)* – We discussed the subject of this amendment a little earlier. Mr Gross said that he had evidence that Mr Magnitsky made a denunciation, but I assure colleagues that no such record exists. It is ridiculous to say as much, so the amendment should be adopted.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We have already voted on a similar amendment and the facts remain the same. Mr Magnitsky denounced the situation until the last moments of his life. He knew what had happened to him. He was pressed to take back his denunciation, so no one can say that he did not make a denunciation.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – As this amendment had been withdrawn, the committee did not take a position on it, but, as has been said, it repeats an earlier proposal that was rejected by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 15 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Aguzarov, Mr Ter-Avanesov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova and Mr Timchenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14.2, delete the words “denounced by Mr Magnitsky”.
Does Mr Kalashnikov wish to withdraw Amendment 14?
Mr L. KALASHNIKOV* (Russian Federation) – I explained to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights why I would not withdraw the amendment. The resolution uses different verbs such as “killed” and “died”. This is a legal document on legal issues, so we should delete the words, “denounced by”.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – For the third time I say that Mr Magnitsky denounced and we should stick to that.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 14 is rejected.
The PRESIDENT* - We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Aguzarov, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Shlegel, Mr Likhachev and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 16.
If Amendment 16 is adopted, Amendment 21 falls.
I call Mr Sidyakin to support Amendment 16.
Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation)* – Paragraph 16 goes beyond the rapporteur’s mandate, so we should delete it. We have discussed Mrs Reps’ excellent report on corruption as a threat to the rule of law. We all supported that report, which recommended how to behave to all Council of Europe members. Paragraph 16, however, is a recommendation for the Central Bank, which adopts new rules every day. So this is like trying to spread a tiny bit of butter along the length of a long French loaf: there is no point in doing it.
The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – As many people have said, corruption is a part of this story. We have to think about it in order to find out who stole the money and where it went. Paragraphs 16.2 and 16.3 make proposals on how to prevent this from happening again.
The PRESIDENT* - What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.
The PRESIDENT* - The vote is open.
Amendment 16 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Mr Chope, Ms Gillan, Dame Angela Watkinson, Mr Neill, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Binley and Lord Donald Anderson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, replace the word “encourages” with the following words:
“calls upon”.
I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 21.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – This amendment would make the wording more precise by removing the word “encourages”, which is rather weak in this circumstance.
The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.
The PRESIDENT* - The vote is open.
Amendment 21 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Leonid Kalashnikov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Morozov, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Aguzarov, Mr Shlegel, Mr Arshba, Mr Ignatenko, Mr Fetisov, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko and Mr Ter-Avanesov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17, delete the words “he had denounced”.
I call Mr Kalashnikov to support Amendment 17.
Mr L. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation)* - I do not wish to press the amendment.
The PRESIDENT* - Amendment 17 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Lord Donald Anderson, Mr Davies, Mr Dobbin, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Jensen and Mr Evans, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 18 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly resolves to follow closely the implementation of the above proposals. It recalls its Resolution 1597 (2007) and Recommendation 1824 (2007) on United Nations Security Council and European Union blacklists. And further resolves that if within a reasonable period of time the competent authorities have failed to make any or any adequate response to this draft Resolution the Assembly should recommend to member States of the Council of Europe to follow as a last resort the example of the US in adopting targeted sanctions against individuals (visa bans and freezing of accounts) having first given those named individuals the opportunity to make appropriate representations in their defence.”
If Amendment 1 is adopted, amendments 2, 22, 18, 23 and 19 fall.
I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 1.
Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I drafted the amendment mainly in an attempt to improve the English in the paragraph, to provide clarification and, therefore, to strengthen the proposal.
The PRESIDENT* - I understand that this amendment is supported by the committee.
Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT* - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Shlegel.
Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – This amendment is just another slice cut from the cake of Russiaphobia that we see today. The language in place was already sufficient, so I am against the amendment.
The PRESIDENT* - The opinion of the committee has already been set out.
The vote is open.
Amendment 1 is adopted.
Amendments 2, 22, 18, 23 and 19 therefore fall.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13356, as amended. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 13356, as amended, is adopted, with 151 votes for, 25 against and 10 abstentions.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft recommendation (Document 13356 Addendum) to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13356 Addendum. A two-thirds majority is required, counting only the affirmative and negative votes.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 13356 Addendum is adopted, with 151 votes for, 29 against and 8 abstentions.
I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will suspend at 1 p.m., and reopen during the afternoon sitting from 3.30 p.m. before closing at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President's Chair.
4. Free debate
The PRESIDENT* - We now come to the free debate under Rule 38.
I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the Agenda agreed on Monday morning. Speaking time will be limited to 3 minutes.
The free debate will finish at 1.00 p.m, when I will have to interrupt the list of speakers.
I call Mr Marias to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr MARIAS (Greece)* - We see a lot of articles in the press today about the destruction of arms within the enclosed area of the Mediterranean between Greece and Italy, where we know a lot of toxic waste has been destroyed. We do not know its precise composition, but we know that sarin is one of the gases involved. Neighbouring countries have stated that they do not wish these toxic materials to be destroyed in their territorial waters. When 1 000 tonnes of chemical weapons are destroyed, no matter what method of destruction is used, a great deal of toxic waste will be produced and a great deal of toxic liquid will enter the environment. Obviously, if this is done at sea, the waste will enter the marine environment, and we know that that will have catastrophic consequences for people living in the area and that it will contaminate the marine environment and endanger ecosystems. Problems already exist in the fisheries sector, but this activity will further damage fishing in the area today, which will be very much to the detriment of Greece, southern Italy and other Mediterranean countries where fishing is very important.
We should also emphasise that there is no precedent for the destruction of chemical weapons in this way anywhere in the world, and we do not know what the precise consequences will be. Furthermore, the methods being used are proving more than problematic and pose a serious danger, alongside the risk of gas leakage. Such chemicals should not be destroyed at sea.
The considerable anxiety felt in Crete and other parts of the Mediterranean has intensified in recent days because the vessel in which the chemical weapons are being transported from Syria is far from appropriate. The ship, which is currently anchored at sea, is a roll-on/roll-off-type vessel that was built in 1977, making it 36 years old, and it became part of the United States fleet in 1993. A vessel of this type should have been decommissioned after 30 years and does not have the kind of transversal support or protection required for it to withstand fire or other serious incidents. I invite the Assembly to protest with us so that we can prevent this environmental crime, which is a real threat to the Mediterranean, from being committed. The United Nations and bodies concerned with the prohibition of chemical weapons must be involved in the process to ensure that weapons taken from Syria are destroyed safely in some uninhabited place far from the Mediterranean.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Acketoft to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – I have been an elected politician for 16 years, but it was not until two weeks ago that I really understood the greatness that the people gave me when I was elected. I was standing in Maidan square in Kiev on a freezing cold night with thousands of people in front of me and I was allowed to make a short speech. Just my being introduced as a European elected politician led to the most overwhelming welcome that I have ever received. The only thing that they wanted was for Europe to acknowledge them and to say that they have a part to play in Europe. I promised them that I would tell their story and try to ensure that the pictures I got from Ukraine and from the Maidan independence square were shown to the Assembly and to people in Sweden. The only thing that these people want is what I take for granted.
THE PRESIDENT – I am sorry to interrupt, but I have been reminded that members cannot speak in a free debate about a topic that is on the agenda for the week. We are going to be discussing Ukraine on Thursday.
Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – In that case, I will save my speech until Thursday, when I will have more time to speak because I have already introduced my subject
THE PRESIDENT* – Let me remind the Assembly that we can address any subject in a free debate except for those on our agenda. The Secretary General will ensure that we strictly observe that rule, so please adhere to it. Thank you, Ms Acketoft, for your understanding.
I call Mr Papadimoulis to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – A few days ago, a humanitarian tragedy occurred off Farmakonisi, a Greek island near the Turkish coast. Twelve migrants, nine of them children, are now lying at the bottom of the Aegean Sea. Before that, a similar tragedy happened in Lampedusa, where 175 people died. In the case of Farmakonisi, the migrants have stated that the Greek port authorities tried illegally to send them back towards the Turkish coast. There was a reaction from Mr Muižnieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and from Amnesty International. Unfortunately, a hasty statement from a Greek minister suggested that Mr Muižnieks’ reaction was politically motivated.
Dozens of Parliamentary Assembly colleagues, representing a broad political spectrum, have asked for two things. First, in parallel with the inquiry already started by the Greek authorities, they requested a second, independent investigation by the Council of Europe. Secondly, they said that the Council of Europe should consider the need for a modern, humanitarian European migration policy. We should not have to continue to lament so many deaths. The values of the Council of Europe and of Europe more generally – humanism and democracy – compel us to tackle an issue that affects not only entry countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain but all the people and politicians of Europe. I hope that the Bureau takes up the issue and that the Council of Europe begins an investigation.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Blanco to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – I want first to congratulate you, Ms Brasseur, on becoming President. We are particularly pleased to have a female President. Perhaps you can change a few things.
I want to defend the freedoms of women, which are being threatened in some countries of the Council of Europe. Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1607 of 2008 sets out that women should be free to choose to have an abortion. Reforms to legislation on the termination of pregnancies, particularly in countries governed by conservative Governments of the right, including the extreme right, such as Spain, Turkey, Macedonia, Lithuania, and Poland, are a shot across the bows of the right of all women to decide whether to become a mother. This decision should be left up to women. It cannot be left in the hands of the state or psychiatrists or doctors. The right to make such a decision in the first few weeks of pregnancy is for women. It is our decision. It is always painful to interrupt a pregnancy in the first few weeks, but let me emphasise that it is our decision, which is why we oppose attempts to impose time limits and preconditions.
Spain has been attempting such things, but the proposals are yet to reach parliament, which we want to avoid because the current government has an absolute majority and could get such measures on the statute book. Women would be forced to risk their lives by going underground for abortions carried out under the worst possible conditions. The government have failed to impose such rules in the past and they will fail in the future. Women have fought for centuries to gain equality, but equality without rights is meaningless. Having suffered austerity policies, we are now suffering impositions on our rights, and the first of those is being aimed at us – women. We are full subjects in law, responsible for our acts, yet they want to turn us into mere objects. If such laws reach the statute book, we want the Assembly to help us, because they will set a terrible precedent. This body has defended and defends human rights, and women’s rights need defending. Let there not be the slightest doubt about that, otherwise all rights will be affected.
THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Pintado, but he is not in the Chamber, so we will continue with the speaker’s list. The next speaker is Mr Dobbin.
Mr DOBBIN (United Kingdom) – I want to speak on integrated health care and the relationship between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Council of Europe. The issue is close to my heart, and I want to raise the Assembly’s awareness of the fight against child deaths from preventable diseases and the need for an integrated approach in tackling that.
My esteemed colleagues on the Sub-Committee on Public Health have been meeting officials from the WHO and are looking to drive recognition at Council of Europe-level for the delivery of integrated health care solutions to help reduce deaths from preventable diseases. Last May, the WHO and UNICEF published “The Integrated Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea”, the aim of which is to reduce deaths from pneumonia to fewer than three children per 1 000 live births, and deaths from diarrhoea to less than one in 1 000 by 2025.
I will quickly outline the current situation. Pneumonia is the leading disease cause of death in children worldwide. It kills an estimated 1.1 million children under the age of five years every year—more than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. Pneumonia can be caused by viruses, bacteria or fungi and can be prevented by immunisation, adequate nutrition and by addressing environmental factors. Pneumonia caused by bacteria can be treated with antibiotics, but only about 30% of children with pneumonia receive the antibiotics they need.
The situation is similarly tragic regarding deaths caused by diarrhoeal diseases. Diarrhoea killed more than 1 600 children under five every day in 2012. Latest figures show that 600 000 children lose their lives to this disease every year. Most of those deaths occur among children under two years of age in the poorest countries of the world. Rotavirus is the largest cause of diarrhoea mortality in children and is associated with 28% of deaths from diarrhoea.
What I have learned throughout many years of working on these issues is that polarised campaigns do not work. We need to work together for an integrated approach. I have worked hard with parliamentarians, including on visits to Taiwan and South Africa, to push an integrated approach among national Governments. That is desperately needed and we particularly need integrated approaches on sanitation and vaccination programmes. On a field visit to Kenya I was struck by the unhygienic conditions that were undermining the good vaccination programmes. Bins were overflowing with used syringes and there was a severe lack of refrigeration facilities.
I urge colleagues to familiarise themselves with the report’s recommendations and to consider signing our motion, which calls on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to note the recommendations of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea report, which are aimed at reducing childhood mortality from pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases through integrated health care programmes. As gathered parliamentarians, we further note the life-saving work carried out by organisations such as; WHO, GAVI, PATH and WaterAid. We call on the Committee of Ministers to support integrated health care solutions to lower child mortality, and the implementation of the recommendations in the GAPPD. We call upon all delegates to raise the recommendations with their national governments.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – The continual emergence of pictures of murder and killing in Syria makes us anxious and sad, but the situation is very difficult to solve. It is not as if it is black and white and a Manichaean choice. There is violence on all sides, and an age-old conflict has made it much worse. The authoritarian Government use appalling methods that everyone would condemn, but they have a certain amount of support in the Syrian population. It is very difficult for us to decide who is active in the Syrian opposition, which we unwisely talk about in the singular. There are several oppositions, and because it is hard to form any unified force among the opposition, official representatives have been reticent at the beginning of the Geneva 2 negotiations. We have seen offences against the Christian village of Maaloula and the killing of two bishops and some Jesuit Fathers, all of which is extremely worrying. It shows little hope for progress and for such groups ending up with any power.
If there is to be a balanced solution to the conflict, freedom of religion will be necessary. Religious freedom is a vital criterion in assessing the attitude of each force at play and in ensuring a minimum level of democratic freedom. Such assessment is necessary for a lasting political solution to the Syrian crisis. The dignity and freedom of people and freedom of belief are pillars of the Council of Europe, and that is why we should do everything in our power to ensure that those values are taken into account during the Geneva 2 negotiations. Apart from protecting a minority community, it is about having a lasting political solution to the crisis and the geopolitical balance in the region.
I conclude by congratulating the President on her election.
Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – I want to talk about energy shift and to bring together two ideas: sustainable development and energy diversification, which do not always go hand in hand. The goal of sustainable development blocks all other forms of energy diversification, including fossil fuels. In France, for instance, there is no question of going back to coal, which was at one time very much used in the energy sector. Diversification can have negative secondary effects for sustainable development. The development of renewable energy for electricity generation undoubtedly allows us to build on all the technological developments of the past two centuries. An offshore wind farm is a wonder of innovation and development. Electricity production needs stable supply. After all, no industry will remain in a country—
THE PRESIDENT* – I have to ensure that we abide by our rules. A little earlier I interrupted a speaker talking about Ukraine. The matter that you are addressing – energy – is on our agenda, as we will discuss climate change and energy diversification on Wednesday. In accordance with our Rules of Procedure – I am sorry I have to do this – I have to interrupt you. In the free debate, you can discuss anything apart from matters that are dealt with in reports on the agenda this week.
Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – I apologise, but I was not talking about climate change; I was only talking about an energy shift or transition. It is true that the two issues are linked, but I accept what you have said and I will defer my statement, as you have requested. I really just wanted to say that the Council of Europe ought to play a more active role in this regard, particularly with reference to Articles 191 and 194 of the EU treaty. I was trying to say that we should not hold up innovation in this sector.
Mr OSCARSSON (Sweden) – Yesterday was the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is now 69 years since the opening of the gates of hell on earth: the Holocaust. Recently, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights conducted a major survey of Jews in a number of countries. In our continent, which was hit so hard by anti-Semitism, three out of four Jews say they feel that such hatred has got worse in the last five years. According to the report, 22% avoid visiting Jewish sites, or wearing the Jewish kippah or other symbols showing they are Jews.
According to the same survey, in my nation of Sweden, some 49% of Jews are afraid to show that they are Jews. The Centre for Research on Prejudice at the University of Warsaw recently presented a study showing that near one in four Poles who were asked believed in the old anti-Semitic myth that Jews use blood when they bake unleavened bread. A majority agreed with the statement that “Jews are involved in a conspiracy that seeks to dominate the world’s banks and media”. In the Greek Parliament there is a party that denies the Holocaust, and in Hungary, a representative of the Jobbik party suggested some time ago that Jews in Government and in Parliament should be entered in a special register because they represent a so-called national security risk.
Colleagues, let us do what we can to stand up against anti-Semitism. Let us never forget the Holocaust.
Mr SCHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Yesterday there were two significant dates. We marked 69 years since the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops, and 70 years since the end of the Leningrad blockade, when more than a million people died. Such frightening statistics remind us of the fact that even the most progressive people can commit terrible crimes. They remind us that a compromise with evil and the hope for a political dividend leads to the death of millions of people. They remind us that when politicians show a lack of courage and are mercenary, tragic consequences follow.
Today, people tend to think that there is no evil, that everything is relative – you can justify anything. In this Assembly, that view is clear. You can justify, for instance, support for terrorists if they let you get the quickest outlet to the sea that you need, as happened in Syria. All you have to do is to call them “freedom fighters”. Let us not forget that tens of thousands of people are dying – but that can be forgotten if you want. You can also justify flagrant intervention in the life of a sovereign country, and supporting mass uprisings. You call it “democracy”, and you can even take money in in diplomatic bags to extremists, as is happening in Ukraine. So what if they are Nazis? So what if a civil war is about to break out? After all, they are fighting for markets within the European Union, and that means they are fighting for freedom and democracy, does it not?
How can we justify the existence of “non-citizens” in some countries? We can do that by referring to national specifics, saying that these people are Russians, that they are non-citizens. In some countries, Russians are put in this situation and nobody seems to care. Human rights, it seems, do not apply to all. We see this going on from session to session. Why, for instance, are we discussing the circumstances surrounding the death of one person in prison, and not talking about the situation in the prisons of all the countries of the Council of Europe? Why are we not talking about other prisons, about secret prisons, about torture? Are those who suffer there not people? Do we not have to defend their rights also? I could give many examples of compromise, lies and hypocrisy – all leading us down the path that led our ancestors to the great tragedy that we all know of.
In Russia, people are interested in the Parliamentary Assembly. It is naïve to think that they do not see or understand what is going on. Year after year, it gets more difficult for us to explain why there are so many distorting mirrors here, and why Russia needs to be involved. I am sure that the same thing will also happen in other countries.
Today, our Assembly has a new President, and as I see it we have a choice. We can put an end to selective approaches and the use of the Parliamentary Assembly for short-term political goals, and decide really to fight for human rights and democracy; otherwise, in future, I really think the work of this international institution will come to an end.
Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I think you will agree with me that it is time to change our politics: to look carefully at the question of Azerbaijani “caviar politics” and to consider this an important factor in politics. How many times have we said in this Chamber that the policy of buying democracy through oil dollars and caviar, as conducted by Azerbaijan, is unacceptable? Nevertheless, neither our Organisation nor any other international organisation influenced by the Azeri caviar phenomenon, which is so pernicious to democracy, has ever taken any effective measures against it. As a result, we have reached a stage where the delegation of observers, chaired by an Italian MP, Pino Arlacchi, that went to the scandalous elections in Azerbaijan described them as free, fair and transparent. Of course, this unprecedented and deplorable assessment led to a major scandal in the European Parliament. Guess what Mr Arlacchi said to justify himself? That he had lied in the interests of Italy – in other words, he lied because Italy has oil interests in Azerbaijan. According to “The Economist”, this representative of the European Parliament saw a perfect democracy in Azerbaijan, which has an authoritarian regime that is worse than those of Burkina Faso and Angola. He saw that because of Italy’s economic interests. Is this not, after all, a public declaration of political corruption? It is certainly the result of the lack of action taken by international organisations against Azerbaijan’s “oil and caviar” policy.
Of course, it is because of this oil and caviar “confidence” that, after the presidential elections, President Aliyev’s head of personnel, Ramiz Mekhtiev, accused the United States of having deliberately falsified the presidential elections in Azerbaijan. According to him, senior officials in America ordered them to give 25% of the votes to the opposition and 75% to Aliyev. Of course, such a scandalous statement could only be made by an officer who could be sure that they could continue to “inject” oil and caviar into international organisations. Why? Because there is no real resistance on the part of the international community. When Freedom House recently called upon Brussels to punish Azerbaijan by ceasing its visa facilitation negotiations with it, Brussels of course refused.
The only safeguard of real freedom is independence. Do not allow the independence of our organisations to be bought by one of the last despots in Europe.
Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine)* – Today in Ukraine the head of the cabinet of ministers resigned, and the Parliament of Ukraine has just adopted a piece of legislation that repeals all the legislation that had caused the protests and upheaval that we have seen. But that is just the first step forward to restoring –
The PRESIDENT* – I am so sorry to interrupt you. As I had to say to previous speakers, including Ms Acketoft, who talked about Ukraine as well, because we have this subject on the agenda elsewhere in the week, unfortunately we cannot discuss it during the free debate. This is our rule. I am grateful for the information you have just imparted, which is very important, but I am sorry to say that I cannot give the Floor back to you because you are talking about Ukraine.
Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine)* – Well, now I will talk about something else; I will not talk about Ukraine.
In fact, what I really wanted to say was that in Ukraine there is no xenophobia or racism, nor is there any evidence of neo-Nazism. We do not have in Ukraine the kinds of extremist forces that have been referred to. There may be some small groups who want to try to make the case that those forces are prevalent in Ukraine today, but that is simply not the case. People are speaking of Ukraine as being anti-western, and we do indeed –
The PRESIDENT* – I am so sorry, Mr Shevchenko, but the President of a Parliamentary Assembly or Parliament must apply the rules equally. We are going to discuss Ukraine on Thursday, so I am sorry but I cannot give you the Floor to talk about it today. You said you were going to change the subject, but you have not done so. Therefore, I am very sorry but I have to call you to order and say that you can speak, but not about Ukraine.
Mr O. SHEVCHENKO (Ukraine)* – What I am saying is that there is no anti-Semitism or other xenophobia in Ukraine. I am moving on to talk about these phenomena and saying that they do not exist in my country.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you so much, Mr Shevchenko, but I am sorry – I do have to apply the rules. We move on to the next speaker, Mr Gutiérrez from Spain.
Mr GUTIÉRREZ (Spain)* – My first words are to congratulate you, Madam President, on your splendid appointment.
Last year in a plenary sitting of the Council of Europe, I raised the need for new social policies to ensure that we have the leadership we have always had and avoid dislocations. It is possible to have an industrial policy enshrining the necessary measures, but greater investment is needed; otherwise we will have no future, given our problems with competitors who enjoy great State support. We need new industrial policies that are based on co-operation between undertakings. Above all, we need to look further afield. Many major companies help others to become more international, but many others besides are simply swallowing up other companies. We need greater co-operation among ourselves. We must be clear about our goals and the value of public-private co-operation in achieving them.
Politics must have a different focus, looking at tax breaks or certain other forms of support to help both the primary and secondary sectors. We must think about the huge numbers of unemployed we have at the moment and the need for investment in local systems of production in specific conurbations. In thinking about our industrial fabric, we could put greater emphasis on co-operation. It is a sound moment to undertake such projects. I come from the south of Spain, which is one of the areas that is so hard hit. We need clear goals and new systems of governance. When we were about to enter the euro, we were given a clear checklist of things we had to attain. We need a similar list to help us to emerge from this crisis and to help people, whether they be workers, business men or those at universities, so that together we can achieve our goals, however large they may be.
Austerity policies have done tremendous damage to individuals, families and enterprises, and our institutions need to consider that. We must be aware of the perverse effects that some of these measures have had. I propose that to look to the future we need, first, to look around us and observe that a major part of the populations in our own countries will continue to be unemployed and marginalised in the forthcoming weeks. So let us not remain inactive but ensure that we are taking the necessary measures, including training and retraining, and changing our focus to do all we can to ensure that we all have the means to live with maximum dignity.
Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia)* – On behalf of the National Assembly of Armenia, I would like to make some brief observations on laws criminalising the denial of genocides and crimes against humanity. This topic came up again after the controversial decision rendered on 17 December 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland. This is a matter of great concern not only for Armenians but for the Europe and beyond.
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the explanatory memorandum of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, “are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings". It is my strong conviction that special legal provisions punishing such denial should be established, because those crimes are an assault on the whole of humanity and its essential values. They cause unutterable sufferings to victims, survivors and their descendants. Denial of these crimes is always organised by their perpetrators as a component of the destruction plan. Consequently, the denial infringes the human dignity of people dead or alive. Moral disapproval is not an adequate response to people who abuse the fundamental right of freedom of expression to spread their shameful lies and to induce hatred.
The ECHR decision considered that a political opinion cannot be subjected to speech restrictions and set aside the requirement of scientific strictness that was endorsed by ECHR jurisprudence as a basis of any statement hurting others' rights. How could Mr Perinçek, a Turkish citizen, be justified when he publicly declared a few times that even if scientific proofs are brought to him, he will still deny the genocide? Worse, he made an apology for Talaat Pacha, the main organizer of the genocide.
It is time for our honourable Assembly to hold a debate and draft legal provisions on freedom of expression in relation to the exception of international crimes in order to prevent any denial of genocides and crimes against humanity and, in doing so, better contribute to the prevention of such atrocities in the future.
Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I congratulate you most warmly on your election, Madam President.
I am going to talk about the Mediterranean and Africa. It is important to talk about the Mediterranean, because we tend to forget that after the Channel it is the most crowded sea there is. On the southern shores of the Mediterranean, we are often concerned by Arab revolutions and the path they take, which in some countries is not very positive. We have recently been following the developments in Tunisia and Egypt with a great deal of attention. We have to remember that Maghreb is closer to us now that some countries have joined us in the European Partnership for Democracy. That is true of Morocco and we hope that others, such as Tunisia, will follow suit. We should remember that there are only 14 km between Spain and Morocco, and most European capitals are only two or three hours from these countries and the rest of Africa.
Africa is destined to be the continent of the 21st century and will probably have 2 billion inhabitants by 2050. I call on you to follow the contours of this region – Europe, the Mediterranean, the Maghreb and Africa – which could become a great region of the world, a north-south world region, in the future. This could be one of the leading regions in the world. The future of Europe lies to the south and Europe will have to rethink its neighbourhood policy. This would be only logical, after all.
THE PRESIDENT* – Before I call the next speaker, I remind you that the vote for the judge in the European Court of Human Rights is still in progress. You can vote until 1 p.m. The voting will close at 1 p.m. and reopen this afternoon, so if you have not voted yet, please do so behind the presidency’s bench.
Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – When our Russian colleague declares that the main reason for all the rebirth in northern Africa, the Middle East, Ukraine and other countries is the money that was sent to these countries by diplomatic post, we can only smile. The main reason for all these actions is the total corruption in the northern African countries, Ukraine and many other regions. My concern is how to stop political corruption, especially in a period of economic crisis, when governments, presidents and members of parliament declare to their citizens: “We cannot pay the same salary or pensions. We need to stop some social programmes”, and at the same time presidents and their families, government leaders, members of parliament in many countries in Europe have their dirty operations in the banks of Switzerland or Austria and the dirty property that they received because of the dirty operations with the budgets of their countries. It is the main problem that we need not only to discuss but to regulate in the Council of Europe.
Yesterday we received the answer to our recommendations: the reply from the Committee of Ministers about its actions over the past months and years in order to stop political corruption. The main action was not to declare: “If there are violations of human rights we will have sanctions, as in the case of Ukraine, against the president and his family”, but to say: “We know about the facts of corruption but we do not want to stop this corruption. We will do this only if there are some violations of human rights”. We must change our mind on these questions. We can really struggle with this process if it is a war against political corruption in all the member countries of the Council of Europe.
Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – Last year was marked by the violent removal of signs written in Cyrillic script in Vukovar and other towns in Croatia where more than one third of the population is of Serbian ethnic origin. The State of Croatia had a pretty mild reaction to these uncivilised acts of vandalism, and a group of people gathered around the Headquarters for the Defence of Croatian Vukovar collected around 600 000 signatures calling for a referendum on limiting the right of the Serbian ethnic minority in Croatia to use Cyrillic script.
Pursuant to the Croatian constitution and laws, the freedom of members of all national minorities to express their nationality, to use their language and script and to exercise cultural autonomy is guaranteed, and official use of bilingual signs is mandatory in any area, town or municipality where more than one-third of the population belongs to an ethnic minority. The idea of the referendum in Croatia goes strictly against those established rights of the minority, in order to limit it. A group of 73 members of the European Parliament has sent a letter to Croatia expressing objection against the violation of ethnic minority rights.
With regard to relations between Croatia and Serbia, I am pleased to see that progress has been achieved. However, it takes two to tango. Therefore, I urge the Croatian authorities to stop these retrograde processes and to provide assistance in protecting the rights of ethnic minorities. The Council of Europe, particularly its Assembly, is the house of democracy of all European nations. Therefore, it must have its say and react to these events appropriately.
Mr HUYSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I will not respond to the lies and hate speech against Azerbaijan from my colleague from Armenia, and I will not speak about fair and democratic presidential elections in Azerbaijan because that is already history. I will speak about another history. As usual, the round of anniversaries and jubilees of happy and joyful days is celebrated. But unfortunately, in some cases it becomes necessary to celebrate also the anniversaries of the sorrowful days that astound humanity. One should continuously turn over the tragic pages in the memories in order to memorise them regardless of their bitterness.
Along with numerous heart-warming events, today is marked as the 20th anniversary of a tragic day in the life of my country, Azerbaijan. On 2 June 1994 an ominous act of terror was perpetrated in Baku: an explosion was carried out in a train moving between two stations of the Baku underground. Due to this terrible act, 13 people died and 42 people were injured to varying extents. Investigations made it clear that this crime had been perpetrated by the special forces of Armenia and that it was an example of State terrorism. A year later an even more ominous underground tragedy happened. The underground accident that happened on 28 October 1995 took the lives of 300 people, injured 400 people and thousands of people suffered horrible stress, which terrified them for ever. The fatefulness of this accident is illustrated by the fact that it was recorded in the “Guinness Book of Records” as the worst underground accident in history. Data in this book can change as time goes by but no one desires to witness the recurrence of another or more tragic terrorist act. Any terror is a crime against mankind irrespective of its perpetration against a certain country or nation, so we should combat this adversity together.
It is amazing that Armenia, which has committed and continues to commit such crimes, does not refrain from accusing the opposite side. Recently, Armenia has been violating the cease-fire regime along the entire frontier, slaughtering peaceful civilians. However, its Council of Europe representatives turn the truth completely inside out and find Azerbaijan guilty, despite the fact that it is their country that is guilty.
Terrorism is our common enemy and a struggle against it can yield positive results. If we protect against other countries on the issue of terrorism, we will above all protect ourselves. Restricting terrorism depends on the co-operation among States. Terrorism, our common enemy, is ever ready to inflict another tragedy.
Ms CROZON (France)* – I congratulate you, Madam President, on your election. I am delighted to see a woman presiding over our Assembly.
Last December, the Spanish Government tabled a draft law that, had it been adopted, would have significantly restricted the right to abortions. That would not only have undermined the freedom of choice affirmed by the 2010 law; it would have been more restrictive than the 1985 law on the decriminalisation of therapeutic terminations. The draft law outraged Spanish public opinion. An El País survey showed that 86% of Spaniards are for free access to abortion, as were 68% of those who elected the Partido Popular, which is now in power.
The draft law also outraged public opinion throughout Europe, as we see from the condemnation from several governments, although they weigh their words carefully before interfering in the politics of other countries. In France, the issue revived a debate that we thought had been dealt with almost 40 years ago. There were demonstrations and an attempt by a small minority of right-wing members of our parliament to stop the health service from reimbursing payments for abortions.
Going back to blaming and criminalising women and reducing them to their maternal functions is unacceptable. We cannot allow an important issue such as women’s power over their own bodies to be reduced to a so-called public health issue to be dealt with locally. That power is a necessary precondition for the emancipation of women and there can be no equality and freedom without free access to abortion. We must never allow ideology, dressed up as concern for public health, to impose on the whole of society. Moral and religious principles should be a matter of personal choice.
Along with other European women, I stress again my solidarity with Spanish women, aware of the fragility of the freedoms that have taken so much time and effort to achieve. The values that we uphold in our fundamental texts should lead us to consolidate sexual and reproductive rights continent-wide, so that Europe finally becomes a place where all women share all rights and freedoms.
Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – When we consider what has happened in various European countries in the past few weeks, we cannot help remembering what happened on 7 April 2009 in Chișinău. An attempted coup was prevented, but the country is still reeling from the attack, organised from abroad, against Moldova’s statehood, our democratic institutions and the freedom of our citizens.
We see the same technical means being used in many parts of Europe and the Middle East – the same behaviour from leaders of the opposition. They divest themselves of responsibility for the pogroms, the marauding and the looting and claim that there is an elemental upswell of protest. Furthermore, it is as if the international organisations were using carbon paper to copy each other’s reactions to such attempts to undermine the lawful authorities of certain countries. There have been such attempts even here at the Parliamentary Assembly.
I remind members that the events of 2009 in Moldova drove a wedge into the heart of our society, polarising it and bringing into power a repressive, anti-democratic regime. They led to the destruction of our basic civil rights and freedoms and gave us an ultra-right, xenophobic, anti-Semitic government. Why are we indignant about new amendments to the law on the right of assembly in one country while we ignore the same situation in another country? Such amendments have been introduced in Moldova. We criticise such legislation in some countries, while Moldova is treated as an example to European democracy. That is a clear double standard. If the Parliamentary Assembly fails, as with Moldova, to condemn such attacks on democratic institutions, other countries will suffer the same fate as Moldova – the same usurping of power by nationalists and people fleeing abroad.
When we see the flag of the Council of Europe with the flag of the ultra-nationalist Stepan Bandera on our screens every day, we have to ask where Europe is going. We might as well hang a padlock on the door of the Council of Europe if we are to stand by and watch passively as those who admire Antonescu, Stepan Bandera and Admiral Horthy come to power in a neighbouring country. We need close monitoring from the Council of Europe. Oligarch-infected, corrupt, ultra-right-wing regimes are trying to seize power everywhere. In Moldova, there was an attempt to close down three television channels. The Council of Europe has to act in Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia and Greece – everywhere where there are threats to democracy. Let us not forget that.
Ms BOUTIN-SWEET (Observer from Canada)* – I want to address the issue of income inequality and its impact on socio-economic health. Income inequality is a global phenomenon that affects both rich and poor countries. We cannot deny the abundant proof showing the growing gulf between the small number of rich and the huge population of poor. The OECD has analysed that gulf for decades. Recently, it calculated that across 33 member States the richest 10% earned an average 9.5 times more than the poorest 10%. That trend can be seen in most OECD countries. In some of the richest countries, the poorest families’ income was lower than the OECD average. That is also true of Canada, where in 2010 Statistique Canada stated that 1% of the most affluent taxpayers represented more than 33% of growth in median income since the end of the 1990s. Income inequality is not only unjust and immoral but unsustainable economically, as IMF research has shown.
I also want to underline some worrying developments in certain countries, including my own – trade unions, which play a crucial role in ensuring a fair distribution of income, are being marginalised. It is hardly surprising that attacks against unions by repressive legislation and the ensuing erosion of trade union representation have come about at a time when income inequality has reached worrying levels. The rates of trade union organisation in Canada have shrunk from nearly 40% in the 1980s to less than 33% today. In the private sector, one company in six is unionised, while in the United States unionisation in the private sector is barely 7%, while in general it is about 12%. One reason is the massive factory closures in the manufacturing sector due to the world financial crisis and the export of well-paid union-protected jobs to countries with no wages and minimal costs. Successive governments have facilitated that by enacting laws making unionisation more difficult and weakening trade union rights in the workplace. This trend has led to a drop in wages and growing income insecurity. That state of flux is worsened by the absence of progress to eradicate child poverty. By attacking income inequality, however, we will be taking a step in the right direction. As legislators we are in a privileged position to bring about the type of change necessary so that future generations have the possibilities we take for granted – decently paid jobs and a fair distribution of wealth throughout the country. This was good not just for the population, but for the economy as well.
Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan.)* - I congratulate you on your election, Madam President, and wish you every success. I also thank Mr Mignon for all the very useful work he did.
This has been a useful couple of days for me. I was in the House when there were some very democratic elections and now we have you as President of our Assembly, Madam President. It was all done very calmly and with due process. Unfortunately, especially in the countries of eastern Europe there are a lot of conflicts these days. We need to understand how they arise and how we can eliminate them and look to create a peaceful future for coming generations.
Unfortunately, there is a conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia which has been ongoing for more than 20 years. I think through the Minsk Group the conflict will eventually be eliminated by peaceful means – dialogue and negotiations, which are now being conducted at summit level. I remind colleagues that at the beginning of that conflict the parties were Armenia and Azerbaijan, but there were communities in Nagorno-Karabakh that were Armenian and Azeri, and I am interested in the Azeri community in Nagorno-Karabakh because I am on the executive committee of that community. We have been proposing for some time now that a dialogue be begun so that we can look at our demands from the 1990s. It will be difficult at the start, but I am sure that by starting a dialogue and sitting around the same table we can make a lot of progress and give some impetus to the overall process.
I appeal to you, Madam President, and everyone in this House to support our desire to start a dialogue and do everything to further that, because the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the number of problems there will be. Three days ago at the conflict line there was crossfire again, and we need to try to help Azerbaijan and Armenia, because otherwise the future will be very bleak and even worse than at present. Once again I urge you to try to help, and I am sure you will be able to help us.
THE PRESIDENT* - I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the Speakers List who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript, to the Table Office for publication in the official report.
The debate is closed.
THE PRESIDENT* - It is now 1 p.m. The election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is now suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m.
5. Next public business
THE PRESIDENT* - The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed 1.05 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Appointment of committees
2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
3. Refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky
Presentation by Mr Gross of the report of the Committee on legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13356 and addendum.
Speakers: Mr Omtzigt, Mr Neill, Ms Beck, Mr Kox, Lord Anderson, Mr Recordon, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Michel, Ms Čigāne, Mr Aguzarov, Ms Christoffersen, Mr Jakavonis, Mr Slutsky, Mr Sasi, Mr Herkel, Mr Sidyakin, Ms Karamanli, Mr L Kalashnikov, Mr Kandelaki, Ms Blondin.
Replies: Mr Gross
Amendments 7 and 21 adopted
Draft resolution in Document 13356, as amended, adopted
Draft recommendation in Document 13356 Addendum adopted
4. Free debate
Speakers: Mr Marias, Ms Blanco, Ms Acketoft, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Diaz Tejera, Mr Dobbin, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Le Déaut, Mr Oscarsson, Mr Shlegel, Ms Zohrabyah, Mr O Shevchenko, Mr Gutiérrez, Ms Hovhannisyan, Ms Durrieu, Mr Sobolev, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Huseynov, Ms Crozon, Mr Petrenco, Ms Boutin-Sweet, Mr Rzayev
5. Next public business
Appendix I
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
Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Anton Belyakov
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*
Werner AMON
Luise AMTSBERG*
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Khadija ARIB*
Volodymyr ARIEV*
Francisco ASSIS*
Danielle AUROI/Pascale Crozon
Daniel BACQUELAINE
Egemen BAĞIŞ
Theodora BAKOYANNIS*
David BAKRADZE
Taulant BALLA/Olta Xhaçka
Gérard BAPT/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot
Doris BARNETT*
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková
José María BENEYTO*
Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Eka Beselia
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi
Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone
Teresa BERTUZZI
Robert BIEDROŃ
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY
Ľuboš BLAHA*
Philippe BLANCHART*
Delia BLANCO
Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Jean-Pierre Michel
Eric BOCQUET/Maryvonne Blondin
Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIĆ*
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam
Alessandro BRATTI*
Márton BRAUN*
Gerold BÜCHEL
André BUGNON
Natalia BURYKINA
Nunzia CATALFO
Mikael CEDERBRATT/Mikael Oscarsson
Elena CENTEMERO/Giuseppe Galati
Lorenzo CESA
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
Jonny CROSIO
Yves CRUCHTEN
Katalin CSÖBÖR*
Milena DAMYANOVA*
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Armand De DECKER*
Reha DENEMEÇ
Roel DESEYN*
Manlio DI STEFANO
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Şaban DİŞLİ
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*
Jim DOBBIN
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS*
Damian DRĂGHICI*
Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE/Robert Neill
Josette DURRIEU
Mikuláš DZURINDA*
Lady Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan
Tülin ERKAL KARA*
Franz Leonhard EßL/Edgar Mayer
Bernd FABRITIUS*
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU
Vyacheslav FETISOV
Doris FIALA
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča
Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*
Axel E. FISCHER
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Bernard FOURNIER
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*
Martin FRONC*
Sir Roger GALE
Adele GAMBARO*
Karl GARÐARSSON
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Nadezda GERASIMOVA
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Francesco Maria GIRO
Pavol GOGA*
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Alina Ştefania GORGHIU
Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Alexander Romanovich
Sandro GOZI*
Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt
Patrick De GROOTE*
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST
Dzhema GROZDANOVA*
Attila GRUBER*
Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar
Gergely GULYÁS*
Nazmi GÜR
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Ana GUŢU
Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON/Jouko Skinnari
Carina HÄGG
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Hamid HAMID
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON
Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Armen Rustamyan
Alfred HEER
Michael HENNRICH*
Martin HENRIKSEN
Andres HERKEL
Françoise HETTO-GAASCH
Adam HOFMAN*
Jim HOOD
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN
Anette HÜBINGER
Johannes HÜBNER
Andrej HUNKO
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Vitaly IGNATENKO
Vladimir ILIĆ*
Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Bernadette Bourzai
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Stella JANTUAN
Tedo JAPARIDZE/Tinatin Bokuchava
Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara
Michael Aastrup JENSEN
Mogens JENSEN
Frank J. JENSSEN
Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić
Antti KAIKKONEN
Ferenc KALMÁR
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński
Deniza KARADJOVA/Valeri Jablianov
Marietta KARAMANLI
Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren
Jan KAŹMIERCZAK
Serhii KIVALOV*
Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski
Serhiy KLYUEV*
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Kateřina KONEČNÁ
Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson
Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc
Alev KORUN*
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO
Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Otari Arshba
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT
Igor LEBEDEV/ Sergey Kalashnikov
Christophe LÉONARD/Christian Bataille
Valentina LESKAJ
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Andris Bērzinš
Lone LOKLINDT
François LONCLE*
George LOUKAIDES
Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*
Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ
Philippe MAHOUX
Thierry MARIANI
Epameinondas MARIAS
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Sir Alan MEALE/Michael Connarty
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA
Ivan MELNIKOV/Leonid Kalashnikov
José MENDES BOTA
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jacques Legendre
Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*
Philipp MIßFELDER
Rubén MORENO PALANQUES
Igor MOROZOV
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Melita MULIĆ
Lev MYRYMSKYI*
Philippe NACHBAR*
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*
Marian NEACŞU Ana Birchall
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Michele NICOLETTI
Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON/Lennart Axelsson
Joseph O'REILLY
Lesia OROBETS*
Sandra OSBORNE*
José Ignacio PALACIOS
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Ganira PASHAYEVA
Foteini PIPILI
Stanislav POLČÁK*
Ivan POPESCU
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE/Carmen Quintanilla
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Mailis REPS
Eva RICHTROVÁ
Andrea RIGONI*
François ROCHEBLOINE
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA
René ROUQUET
Pavlo RYABIKIN*
Rovshan RZAYEV
Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni
Kimmo SASI
Deborah SCHEMBRI/Michael Falzon
Stefan SCHENNACH
Ingjerd SCHOU
Frank SCHWABE*
Urs SCHWALLER/Luc Recordon
Ömer SELVİ
Senad ŠEPIĆ
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN
Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO
Bernd SIEBERT*
Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta
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/Giorgi Kandelaki
Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Alexander Sidyakin
Romana TOMC*
Lord John E. TOMLINSON/Geraint Davies
Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS
Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Costin Pâslaru
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS
Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov
Dana VÁHALOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová
Snorre Serigstad VALEN
Petrit VASILI
Volodymyr VECHERKO
Mark VERHEIJEN
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Zoran VUKČEVIĆ
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Robert WALTER*
Dame Angela WATKINSON
Karl-Georg WELLMANN*
Katrin WERNER/Martina Renner
Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen
Gisela WURM
Jordi XUCLÀ
Tobias ZECH*
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ
Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Iva Dimic
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Petras Gražulis
Guennady ZIUGANOVVassiliy Likhachev
Naira ZOHRABYAN
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Croatia / Ivan Račan
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Tina ACKETOFT
Andris BĒRZINŠ
Christian BARILARO
Angeliki GKEREKOU
Jaana PELKONEN
Ángel PINTADO
Volodymyr PYLYPENKO
Barbara ROSENKRANZ
Spyridon TALIADOUROS
Observers
Jorge Iván VILLALOBOS SEÁÑEZ
Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA
Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET
Corneliu CHISU
Stella AMBLER
Michel RIVARD
Partners for Democracy
Azzam AL-AHMAD
Najat AL-ASTAL
Mohammed AMEUR
Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID
Abdelkebir BERKIA
Nezha EL OUAFI
Qais KHADER
Bernard SABELLA
Bassam SALHI
Mohamed YATIM
Appendix II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Denmark
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Danielle AUROI/Pascale Crozon
Daniel BACQUELAINE
Egemen BAĞIŞ
Gérard BAPT/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK
Teresa BERTUZZI
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY
Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Jean-Pierre Michel
Eric BOCQUET/Maryvonne Blondin
Olga BORZOVA
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam
Gerold BÜCHEL
André BUGNON
Nunzia CATALFO
Mikael CEDERBRATT/Mikael Oscarsson
Lorenzo CESA
Vannino CHITI
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Boriss CILEVIČS
Henryk CIOCH
Deirdre CLUNE
Paolo CORSINI
Celeste COSTANTINO
Jonny CROSIO
Yves CRUCHTEN
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Manlio DI STEFANO
Şaban DİŞLİ
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE/Robert Neill
Josette DURRIEU
Lady Diana ECCLES/Cheryl Gillan
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Doris FIALA
Axel E. FISCHER
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO
Bernard FOURNIER
Hans FRANKEN
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Sir Roger GALE
Karl GARÐARSSON
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Nadezda GERASIMOVA
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI
Fred de GRAAF/Pieter Omtzigt
Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar
Nazmi GÜR
Ana GUŢU
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON
Alfred HEER
Martin HENRIKSEN
Andres HERKEL
Françoise HETTO-GAASCH
Anette HÜBINGER
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Bernadette Bourzai
Michael Aastrup JENSEN
Mogens JENSEN
Frank J. JENSSEN
Antti KAIKKONEN
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński
Deniza KARADJOVA/Valeri Jablianov
Marietta KARAMANLI
Jan KAŹMIERCZAK
Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski
Haluk KOÇ
Kateřina KONEČNÁ
Igor LEBEDEV/ Sergey Kalashnikov
Christophe LÉONARD/Christian Bataille
Terry LEYDEN
Lone LOKLINDT
Trine Pertou MACH/Nikolaj Villumsen
Philippe MAHOUX
Thierry MARIANI
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Philipp MIßFELDER
Rubén MORENO PALANQUES
Igor MOROZOV
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Melita MULIĆ
Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON/Lennart Axelsson
José Ignacio PALACIOS
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Ivan POPESCU
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
John PRESCOTT
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Mailis REPS
Eva RICHTROVÁ
François ROCHEBLOINE
René ROUQUET
Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni
Kimmo SASI
Stefan SCHENNACH
Urs SCHWALLER/Luc Recordon
Leonid SLUTSKY
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Lorella STEFANELLI
Yanaki STOILOV
Valeriy SUDARENKOV
Björn von SYDOW
Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ
Konstantinos TZAVARAS
Dana VÁHALOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco
Klaas de VRIES
Piotr WACH
Dame Angela WATKINSON
Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen
Jordi XUCLÀ
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ
Guennady ZIUGANOV/Vassiliy Likhachev
Vacant Seat, Croatia / Ivan Račan