AA14CR14

AS (2014) CR 14

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fourteenth sitting

Wednesday 9 April 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.

(Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.00 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Personal statement

      The PRESIDENT* – I understand that Mr Şaban Dişli wishes to make a personal statement. I remind the Assembly that no debate may arise on a personal statement. Mr Dişli, you have two minutes.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – Thank you for giving me the chance to correct an unintentional mistake. When we voted yesterday on whether to give the Kyrgyz Republic Partnership for Democracy status, I later discovered that I had abstained when I meant to vote in favour. I therefore want that to be corrected and ask that my vote be counted as a yes.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, for your personal statement, Mr Dişli, which I have allowed under Rule 34.6.

2. Joint debate: Improving user protection and security in cyberspace and

the right to Internet access

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. The first is entitled “Improving user protection and security in cyberspace”, Document 13451, presented by Mr Axel E. Fischer with an opinion presented by Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13481, and the second is entitled “The right to Internet access”, Document 13434, presented by Ms Jaana Pelkonen with an opinion by Mr Jordi Xuclà on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13465, presented by Mr James Clappison.

      I remind the Assembly that speaking time in all debates is limited to three minutes.

      In order to finish by 12 noon and to allow time for replies and votes, we must interrupt the list of speakers at around 11.15 a.m. Are those arrangements agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

      I call Mr Fischer, rapporteur, to present the first report. You and Ms Pelkonen have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – It is a great pleasure to introduce this joint debate on Internet governance with Jaana Pelkonen.

      The Internet has changed our world, particularly over the past decade. It allows us to communicate with each other and to get information and news on a daily basis. Society would not look how it does today without the Internet and the Internet’s presence will only increase as a result of cloud computing and the Internet of Things. The Council of Europe was created in 1949 to forge closer links between its member States on the basis of shared values, so it is important that the Parliamentary Assembly deals with Internet governance on the same basis. We refer here to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on Cybercrime and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. Access to the Internet is a basic right and, as I said in presentations in 2008, there should be both data protection and freedom of information on the Internet.

      Today, we are discussing consumer protection and safety and security. People are highly aware of the Internet’s hidden dangers. For example, millions of e-mail addresses and passwords were recently stolen in Germany and Edward Snowden’s revelations have demonstrated how easy it can be to steal data online. Everyone is subject to a flood of spam daily, and people realise the problems that cookies can cause only when it is too late and the damage has been done. Internet services are successful only if they have the confidence of their users, but that confidence has been shaken by the things I have spoken about.

      We must improve user protection and security. The report I produced on behalf of my committee sets out a number of necessary preconditions for guaranteeing an appropriate level of user protection. First, private life must be protected. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights obliges member States to provide protection for people’s private lives. Internet users in Europe must be able to rely on their member State to provide an appropriate level of protection for their private lives and private data. Typically, to achieve that, it is necessary for Internet services to be encrypted. Encryption should come as standard; it should not be an option, and it must not have a high price tag. Individual users would find it too much if they had to deal personally with the technical ins and outs of a firewall or an anti-virus program. When a car rolls off the production line today, anti-lock brakes and airbags come as standard.

      We must also recognise that the criminal law applies to the Internet as much as it does to the real world, to the extent that it is possible to draw a demarcation line between the real world and the Internet. The Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime set far-reaching standards that extend beyond Europe. However, individual questions about consumer protection are still unresolved, such as the issue of property and ownership. The European Convention on Human Rights provides rights that our citizens expect us to apply online as well.

      On the issue of cloud computing, we have to look at the whether the cloud should be deemed to be offshore. We must consider what happens to the rules that protect users in Europe when they use a cloud computing service. We need Internet service providers to be transparent and to state the terms of user protection. In Germany and other States, arrangements have been made for disputes to be settled out of court. In computer-related disputes, there must be recourse to the courts if all else fails. My colleague, Mr Shlegel, is preparing a detailed report on that issue. It is appropriate to discuss Internet governance. I am grateful to my colleague Mr Shlegel and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for tabling a series of amendments. I can endorse many of them, which add to the report and go into greater depth on some questions. I commend the report to the Parliamentary Assembly and I look forward to an interesting debate.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Fischer. You still have six minutes. I call Mr Díaz Tejera to give the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Good morning. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights congratulates Mr Axel Fischer on the report. We enthusiastically support it and all its proposals, suggestions and recommendations. We tabled Amendments 7, 8 and 9 to expand, emphasise and bolster the recommendations in the report.

      A former colleague, Dick Marty, worked for years to bring to light the rendition flights that took prisoners to Guantánamo Bay. Another report was produced on national security and access to information, and Peter Omtzigt is producing two reports on mass electronic surveillance and the need to increase protection. Today, we are considering the lessons we learned from the video conference with Edward Snowden, and we are working with two other people who have been working on this issue. We need an ethical code that applies to all secret services that carry out wiretapping. It is important that we realise that unauthorised wiretapping and surveillance is a human rights violation. We must see the work before us as a further extension of civilisation. We must defend our right to data protection and ensure that no State or public or private power has the right to collect information about us. Every individual has the right to privacy. That is the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We are grateful to the Secretariat for its huge efforts.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Pelkonen, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, to present the report on the right of access to the media.

      Ms PELKONEN (Finland) – The Internet has revolutionised the way people interact in more ways than we could have imagined. I can still remember a time before the Internet, but today I cannot picture my life without it. Among other things, the Internet enables me to keep in touch with my voters and voice my opinions. I use it to find information on which to base my decisions in parliament. This year, the number of Internet users worldwide will reach 3 billion. We are all expected to be online in one form or another. Consequently, more and more public services have moved online. We can use the Internet to pay our bills, make legal complaints, receive medical prescriptions and even vote. Some services have become almost impossible to access without the Internet, and some personal, face-to-face services cost more, although the people who lack Internet access are usually on low incomes. If public authorities move their services online, they must ensure Internet access for all.

      Digital divides exist all over Europe. In some States, Internet access is or can be restricted by public authorities. In addition, commercial pressure may prompt Internet access providers to favour some users while putting others at a disadvantage. Blocking access to websites has recently become a major controversy in Turkey, when the government blocked Twitter. I joined those who questioned the lawfulness of such measures under human rights legislation, and I welcomed the Turkish Government’s decision to lift the blockade. I tabled a motion on the right to Internet access to examine whether there is such a right and what it means for us as decision makers. To my great surprise, I discovered that the whole legal discussion on the right to Internet access was an unbeaten track that had to be explored. I am grateful for the help of Ms Riika Koulu, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, who helped me to prepare the background memorandum for the report. She is responsible for one of the most extensive reports that has ever been done on the issue.

      That is why the work of the Assembly is so important. We parliamentarians are well aware of the topical issues and we can put them on the international agenda.        The Assembly has adopted several resolutions and recommendations on the various aspects of the Internet but none on access itself. It is time for a change.

      This is the first report I have presented in the Assembly and I am proud that it is on such an important issue: the right to Internet access. The Internet is a way for all of us to exercise our freedom of expression and information, as well as other human rights, including cultural, civil and political rights. It cannot be disputed that Internet access is a human right. It is well established that the Internet is an enabler of human rights. Unfair limitations on Internet access hinder equal opportunities to exercise those rights.

      It cannot be overstated that our governments and parliaments have a public responsibility to support the well-being of their people and ensure that human rights are respected. This important democratic responsibility is the reason for our discussion today. If the Internet is essential for accessing public services and exercising human rights, our governments must ensure Internet access for all.

      It is true that the government does not build the infrastructure or provide Internet services: that is the task of private service providers. However, that private-public aspect does not remove the State’s responsibility. When our governments employ private contractors to take care of any public service, they must ensure that human rights obligations are met.

      Internet access requires telecommunications networks, the last-mile connection as well as access equipment. The overall infrastructure can be organised differently. The relationship between technology and regulation is two-way, as standardisation also determines the development of technology. Although Internet access is considered a universal service in the European Union and beyond, that does not mean that States should provide such access for free. Funding the development of Internet infrastructure is one of the outstanding issues for the future of the Internet. Public-private partnerships will surely be the way forward in that respect and can be built on the prevailing multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance.

      The report examines various aspects related to Internet access, both legal and technical. When working on the report, we arranged an expert hearing and consulted various stakeholders. We also set up a Facebook page, where anyone was able to comment on the draft proposals. That new opportunity revealed that many people take Internet access for granted and it is complicated to explain the legal aspects related to access. Nevertheless, I am sure that by adopting the draft resolution we will pave the way for the development of Internet-related rights.

      Based on standards set by States, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations, as well as the jurisprudence developed by the European Court of Human Rights and some national courts, the draft resolution presents the following principles. First, the right to Internet access is an essential requirement for exercising fundamental rights, in particular the right to access, receive and impart information and ideas through the Internet without interference by public authorities, regardless of frontiers and subject only to the limitation under articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, States should therefore recognise a fundamental right to Internet access in their domestic law and practice. Thirdly, an adequate standard of Internet services should be available to all, with particular emphasis on affordability, interoperability and integrity of Internet services. Fourthly, Internet access for people with special needs and disadvantaged Internet users should be a public goal. That includes public access points and multilingual Internet access. Fifthly, technological research into improving Internet access as well as open access to relevant software and services should be promoted. Finally, net neutrality must be ensured through non-discriminatory treatment of Internet data and traffic based on the device, content, author and original destination of the content.

      Governments and commercial stakeholders of the Internet should co-operate in realising such universal access to the Internet. It is a big challenge but also an enormous opportunity, in technical and economic terms, as well as for our democratic societies. Individual countries will face huge economic, social and democratic deficits if a large percentage of their population cannot go online. Even worse, individuals will be left behind in all aspects of life, including their human rights, if they are excluded from cyberspace.

      I know that we all come from different countries with diverse geography, size and infrastructure, so let me share with you an example from my own country. By area, Finland is the seventh largest country in Europe but we have only 5.4 million inhabitants, of whom more than 70% live in the south. Still, all parts of Finland are inhabited. Therefore, ensuring Internet access also for those living in remote areas is costly, complicated and time consuming.

      As a result, my government has decided that all consumers and businesses are entitled to a well-functioning, basic, 1 megabit per second broadband subscription at their home or business premises. The government also has a Broadband 2015 project to make access to high-speed broadband networks available to all by the end of 2015. The project focuses especially on sparsely populated areas. It is partly financed by State subsidies. I encourage all of you to look at similar programmes to speed up the development of Internet infrastructure to help your citizens to take part in the Internet revolution.

      I thank the Secretariat and Rudiger Dossow in particular for his invaluable help and support throughout the preparation of the report. My appreciation also goes to Riika Koulu for her excellent memorandum, which serves as the basis for the report. I also thank my colleague Mr Xuclà and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which has tabled some amendments that will help to improve the resolution further. And Maria Fagerholm – I could not have done this without you, so thank you very much.

      The world is changing at an unforeseen pace. The possibilities of the Internet are limitless. Let us ensure that all people have the same opportunities to take part in this development. I thank you for your attention and hope that you can support the report and the resolution.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Pelkonen. You have about two minutes later to reply.

      I call Mr Clappison to present the view of Mr Xuclà from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights warmly commends the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Mr Fischer and Ms Pelkonen for their hard work, the report and draft resolution. As Mr Díaz Tejera has rightly said, our committee largely subscribes to the other committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

      The committee recalls that it is currently undertaking further work on the protection of individuals against violations of their privacy rights in cyberspace and on the protection of whistle-blowers revealing abusive practices in cyberspace. As the Assembly has heard, it is in the process of preparing reports on “Mass surveillance” and on “Improving whistle-blower protection”. The rapporteur for both subjects is Mr Omtzigt.

      As the Assembly has also heard, our committee’s amendments are merely designed to improve further what is already a very good report. The hearing of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights with Mr Edward Snowden via live video link and the considerable media coverage it received worldwide shows that this issue still requires a lot of work until a satisfactory legal framework can be established that balances our security needs and privacy rights. We freely acknowledge the valuable work that the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has done in this regard and support its report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Clappison. We will now begin the list of speakers. We have 47 people down to speak, so may I remind members that they must stick to the three-minute time limit?

      I call Mr Flego to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – One needs to keep repeating that cyberspace produces revolutions in human relations. It simplifies interpersonal and social communication; restructures the methods of business; enables new kinds of financial transactions; reorganises research, enabling the direct connection of researchers in different parts of the world; contracts space, as “internauts” can alternate their location in a second; constructs a virtual reality; and so on and so on.

      Social networks, bloggers, new media and mobile platforms contribute to the new and rapidly changing landscape in which news is created and disseminated. Politics, democratic practices and local autonomy are deeply affected by the Internet, through which people exchange political views, influence each other and configure public and personal opinions on the basis of such exchanges. New venues of education are being invented – electronic distance learning, electronic encyclopaedias, video clips, web pages of museums, books in electronic formats, electronic readers, and so on.

      Given the omnipresence and the importance of cyberspace, it is important to have access to the Internet. States need to ensure equal access to electronic communication without discrimination and should never prevent it, particularly not at the end of an electoral campaign. The Internet is part of our everyday life and public authorities need to guarantee its regularity. Concerning regularity, the safety of cyberspace is becoming ever more important. Personal and private data, offline and online, need protection. They are private and nobody has the right to access them without the permission of the owner. Business and financial transactions need to be safe. Public administration has to be defended from external intrusion and falsification. Artists need the protection of copyright.

      As the Internet is a global means of communication, national regulation is not sufficient. International and global rules, commonly agreed, are needed as soon as possible. The Parliamentary Assembly contributes to the satisfaction of such needs. Our efforts over several years through regulations in this field have led the way. The two resolutions we are debating today are part of that. I am certain that members of the Parliamentary Assembly will continue on this pioneering route.

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

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – First, let me express my appreciation for the work of both rapporteurs, Ms Jaana Pelkonen and Mr Axel Fischer. Both reports address important matters with great relevancy.

      The subject of Ms Pelkonen’s report concerns the basis of our fundamental rights catalogue: freedom of speech – the freedom to express an opinion, the freedom to distribute information and the freedom to receive and gather information. The rise of ICT has introduced two new elements: there is now no difference in time and place. That means there are no borders being protected by different jurisdictions and the dissemination of information is not limited to communication from one to one; rather, it happens instantly from one to many persons all over the world.

      As we know, many activities in our society are supported by the new technology. We speak about e-commerce, e-work, e-health and also about e-government. If we look around the world, the inevitable conclusion is that the use of ICT is a fundamental right – not the technology itself, but the use of it. Therefore, I want to stress that the common goal for us to realise is access for all to the Internet – I might add that that is also the name of my provider, but I do not want to advertise it now. For that reason, we need to realise the following conditions in the technical field.

      The first condition is sufficient infrastructure to provide communication services. The second is standardisation of the means to ensure interoperability of technical connections and the governance of the Internet. I call on governments to realise strict “net neutrality” in order to prevent discrimination in the treatment of Internet users. Thirdly, we need reliable and payable software with an open architecture. We need to be aware of the power of software producers. As Lawrence Lessig said some years ago, “Code is law,” meaning that the designer of the software prescribes to us, the users, how to behave and what to do or not to do with this important means of communication. There is also the danger of the digital divide: that the costs might become an obstacle to access. I make a plea for a public-private partnership to realise concrete and open access for all. Besides that, we have to be aware that the legal conditions for good and reliable Internet communication must always be in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Mr Fischer’s report covers a wide range of subjects and contains interesting lessons for governments, providers and users. Governments must always respect regulations based on the ECHR and take measures to protect children and persons with special needs. A helpdesk would be a first step. Moreover, I would underline the necessity of using encryption techniques. Finally, users have to be well informed about their rights, but also aware of the dangers of using Information and Communications Technology. Prevention is better than cure.

       The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Shlegel to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I thank the rapporteurs for all the hard work they have done. These are very different reports. They are also very good reports, but I am sorry they are being discussed together, because it gives us that much less time.

      Mr Fischer’s report is about enhancing security in cyberspace. A lot of very deep work has gone into this because of the multiple human rights violations we have seen on the Internet. For users of the Internet in general, and individual countries’ users in particular, there have been many threats. We must be aware that it is not the job of just the State and the users of the Internet to protect people’s security; it is also the duty of suppliers who provide access. We need to ensure that all States act together on this front. It is important that the report says that if they are trying to deal with law-breaking on the Internet, they have the right to use the data of individual users. However, the report also says, quite rightly, that we need full security for the domain name system and that it needs to be under the monitoring of the international community, whereas at the moment it is under ICANN – the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers – which means it is in the hands of just the United States of America.

      However, I do not think we should stop just at recognising that there have been violations of people’s rights, such as the right to privacy. The point is that probably the largest such event this year has been the violation of the rights of millions of people, including under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There has been a massive violation. The secret services have no right to undermine people’s privacy on the basis of the excuses that they use. It is mostly the United States that does that, with the direct support of several countries, including members of the Council of Europe. They have set up a system that is undermining the rights of more than 1 billion people.

      The report also draws attention to smaller violations of people’s rights, including by some founding members of the Council of Europe. However, that should not stop us getting to the bottom of the matter. On the contrary, it should motivate us to do just that. We should not live by the principle that all are equal but some are more equal than others. The Council of Europe is here for everyone, not just for punishing some naughty countries, as is happening today. What is happening should not remain unpunished in the Council of Europe. Our job is to work out why such violations are taking place and who is responsible, and to prevent them from happening in future.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Shlegel. I call Mr Garðarsson to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr GARÐARSSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteurs, Mr Fischer and Ms Pelkonen, for their excellent reports on this important topic. When it comes to the protection of privacy on the Internet, we must face the fact that we have lost almost all control. New, fast-developing technology provides commercial companies, public authorities and private individuals with the ability to track almost every move we make. They know our interests and behaviour patterns, track our locations, tap our phones and read our e-mails and text messages. In one sense, the brave new world of Big Brother is already here, whether we like it not.

      We all want our right to privacy to be respected. As an individual, I want a say in what information about me is gathered and distributed on the Internet. I also want my freedom of expression to be respected. We need to understand how important that is. The Internet of course provides us with numerous possibilities, but the rapidly deteriorating status of user protection and security in cyberspace is a cause of great concern.

      Only yesterday the European Court of Justice declared that European Union law on data retention from 2006 is invalid. The law required telecommunications firms to store citizens’ communications data for up to two years. The ruling States that the law entails wide-ranging and serious interference with the fundamental rights of respect for private life and protection of personal data, without that interference being limited to what is strictly necessary.

      International organisations have tried to tackle the issue with several international conventions, but their efforts have thus far proved insufficient. The question now is this: what can this Assembly do to move the issue in the right direction, towards a safer online environment for the average user? The resolution on cyber-security calls for a global initiative and recommending definite principles to deal with the many different concerns at hand. I believe that these principles, if implemented, could make a difference.

      The problem is a global one that will be solved only with international rules that all governments and national parliaments adhere to.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Garðarsson. I call Mr Jónasson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – Apart from the time dimension, I think that it is very proper to discuss these two reports together. A survey conducted in one of the Nordic countries in the mid-1990s found that directors of companies, when asked what conditions were most important to them when deciding where to base their outlets, said that their employees must have good access to child care, schools and health care. If the same survey was conducted today, I am sure that one of the top priorities would be access to the Internet.

      Access to the Internet is important not only for businesses, but for individuals. It could be argued that people are not part of civil society unless they have access to the Internet. I think that this excellent report is right to define Internet access as a public goal and a social right.

      The report on improving user protection and security in cyberspace is excellent. It is right to emphasise that individuals must be protected online no less than they are protected offline. Reference is made to the revelations made by Edward Snowden. We also need to protect children and minors from the salesmen of violent pornography. There are no easy solutions, but it is a discussion that we should take very seriously. I agree with Mr Flego’s point that national standards are insufficient. We must have international standards, and the report refers to the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

      I am very happy with how the Council of Europe is handling the matter. I was glad to hear Anne Brasseur, President of the Parliamentary Assembly, criticise Turkey for banning the Internet prior to its local elections, stating that it was contrary to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. I was also happy that Edward Snowden was with us yesterday. Rapporteurs, your excellent work bears witness to the good standards of the Council of Europe. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Jónasson. I do not see Mr Recordon, so I call Ms Karapetyan.

      Ms KARAPETYAN (Armenia) – I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs and express my gratitude for their very productive work. As the draft resolution rightly states, the Internet should be available to all, regardless of age, place of residence or income, and stronger efforts are necessary at local, regional, national and European levels to ensure Internet access for all.

      Internet access in Armenia has increased significantly over the past few years due to decreasing connectivity costs and improved network coverage. Over the past decade Armenia has taken radical steps towards liberalising the information and communications technology sector, including introducing a new regulatory framework that eliminated the existing communication company’s monopoly over the market. Today our communications sector is considered to be liberal, and it is very important to us.

      By stressing the importance of the right to Internet access, including the right to access, receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities, we want to express our deep concern about the latest developments in Turkey. The decision to block Twitter was an unprecedented attack on Internet freedom and freedom of expression. It came just over a week before key local elections. After blocking access to Twitter within its borders, Turkey prevented its citizens from visiting YouTube and blocked access to Google overall.

      Those drastic steps and the measures introduced under Turkey’s restrictive Internet laws show the lengths to which its government is prepared to go to prevent anti-government criticism. In this regard, we should not be surprised by the result of the recent elections there, where the current ruling party, despite year-long protests and pressure on judicial and law-enforcement agencies, still managed to win. Some European Union and United States officials condemned the social media blockade, but we believe that the international community, including the Parliamentary Assembly and the member countries, must declare its stance on this topic by resolutions or special statements in order to avoid such situations developing in future in other States.

      In conclusion, I place strong emphasis on paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, which states that the Internet “has revolutionised the way people interact and exercise their freedom of expression and information as well as related fundamental rights. Internet access hence facilitates the realisation of cultural, civil and political rights. Therefore, the Assembly emphasises the importance of access to the Internet in a democratic society in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – I, too, thank the two rapporteurs, Ms Pelkonen and Mr Fischer, and congratulate them on the quality of their report.

      We are extremely concerned today at intrusions into private life and at the organised spying that certain so-called democratic States allow themselves to practise. Some people deliberately give information only to their nearest and dearest but find that that their communications are stocked, archived and compiled for later use. It is possible to keep information on the user permanently for a given service that is provided. It is possible to look into my background and find out what searches I and other Internet users have recently done – in fact, to spy on me.

      This can go further and target users. If I carry out a price comparison, I will be targeted by all the sites I look into. I am the president of an arts and conference centre and went on a site to make reservations; ever since, I have been bombarded and invited to attend associations that are all around me. So I say that we are all involved in this and we have to ask ourselves the following question: if I go on to a site, why should another site know about that without my giving authorisation?

      There have been major steps forward, but as we are talking about international subjects, we need to deal with them at international level, and we need to improve the legal and fiscal conditions that apply across the board in cases of dispute. I do not see why it should be the country of the end user that should settle a dispute. If there is a dispute with a consumer, the consumer should be able to choose the most favourable system – that of either the country of origin or the country of the service provider.

      Online identity theft is another major topic. We need to investigate this. People can use many kinds of identification, including by reference to third parties. I have tabled amendments on that subject.

      As has been said, we need to improve world governance of the Internet. I have tabled amendments to that effect. We need to define an international charter of ethics, with principles and objectives for the Internet that are global. We also need to delegate the attribution of domain names to a new body. States should have to abide by its rulings and provide for the protection of electronic data. We need also to have an international legal charter, as we have for trade – and there should be sanctions on those who do not comply with and respect these international principles.

      Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – Colleagues, I express my gratitude to the rapporteurs for presenting a report that raises a question of great importance in our new age of high technologies. There is no doubt that the Internet has become an important part of people’s lives – a new sphere for expressing opinions, sharing information, getting education, socialising, advertising and even running political campaigns. Most of us cannot imagine our lives without the Internet, yet there are people who do not have even minimal access to it, which means that they are deprived of all the new opportunities it offers – the multiple sources of information, the educational programmes and the new means of entertainment. This is hardly fair.

      Thus we recommend to all States and private stakeholders that they should make the Internet more accessible to the public, to ensure that every region of the State has at least a minimum option for Internet access, and that they should strive to create a faster and more affordable Internet.

      Like any powerful tool, the Internet can become a weapon in the wrong hands. It is very important to have regulations in the Internet sphere, but at the same time the measures recently taken in Turkey are unacceptable. It is deeply symbolic that a member State of the Council of Europe can block access to the Internet – it can block Twitter – in its own political interests.

      Today I will speak about one such regulation that was set out by the ECHR decision in the case of Delfi v. Estonia. I will remind members of this case. The Court found that the Delfi news agency was responsible for the defamatory comments posted on its forum. It found that the mechanism of filtering the comments was “insufficient for preventing harm being caused to third parties”. The Court considered that the applicant company “was in a position to know about an article to be published, to predict the nature of the possible comments prompted by it and, above all, to take technical or manual measures to prevent defamatory statements from being made public”. In the Court’s view, it was a daunting task to identify and remove defamatory comments at the best of times, including for the applicant. It would be even more onerous for a potential victim of defamation, “who would be less likely to possess resources for continual monitoring of the Internet”.

      Although this case has been an important step towards the protection of individuals, it changed the approach to dealing with the issue by placing the responsibility mostly on the media provider, which has now been given the active role in the situation. As a result, it gives people an opportunity to protect themselves in virtual life. It also limits the freedom of speech in a certain way and places the burden on the media provider. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether such a restraint is necessary in a democratic society. My answer is no – but we need to draft specific legal norms to deal with the issue and make sure that the applicable rules are clear and unambiguous and address the specific subject of responsibility.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the rapporteurs on their wonderful report. The subject of the report is very current and important nowadays in the world, because we are living in a so-called “technologically civilised” society. Every small thing we do is technology-dependent. It is very difficult to imagine the 21st century without the Internet, which plays an important role for individuals, groups and States in modern society. I think we can say that today the Internet is a central part of our lives. Today, the Internet is one of the most powerful tools throughout the world, and getting information is probably the biggest advantage that it offers.

      I agree with every paragraph of the draft resolution. The main idea is that the Internet should be available to all, regardless of age, place of residence or income, and that stronger efforts are necessary at local, regional, national and European level to ensure Internet access for all. Everyone should have the right to Internet access as an essential requirement for exercising their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and member States should increase their efforts to ensure Internet access for their citizens.

      On this subject, I am very proud to mention that Internet resources have developed rapidly in my country during the last decade. The Azerbaijani Government is interested in the growth of Internet usage in the population and is implementing a conceptual State policy aimed at providing more easy-to-use Internet.

      A range of sustainable activities is being realised to provide Internet access even in remote mountain villages. As a result, the number of Internet users has exceeded 65% and Azerbaijan has become one of first States in the post-Soviet area to use 3G and 4G Internet. Mobile Internet is also widely used by the population, and of course it is very popular among them. Last year, 2013, was declared in Azerbaijan as a year of information communication technologies. E-democracy has finally been established in Azerbaijan, and President Ilham Aliyev provides direct support for it.

      The establishment of “Electronic Government” in the State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations under the President of the Azerbaijan Republic and its development, the representation of State institutions in social nets, the increasing activity of state officials on the Internet, which is used to communicate with the citizens and answer their questions, and many other activities are examples demonstrating State support for the advancement of the Internet.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. I do not see Mr Stroe in the Chamber, so I call Ms Faber-van de Klashorst.

      Ms FABER-VAN DE KLASHORST (Netherlands ) – The European Commission wants to map out a strategy to render the European online environment the most secure environment in the world, while maintaining and promoting all rights and fundamental freedoms. Allegedly, the Snowden affair caused much fright, especially with regard to eavesdropping practices. European member States are screaming blue murder, but it is naive to think that they did not know about this. Eavesdropping is of all times, and it is an open secret that eavesdropping is common practice, whether you like it or not. The European Union and the United Nations are taking advantage of the Snowden affair to bend Internet issues to their will. To prevent the United States of America from eavesdropping, the German Chancellor Merkel has proposed to screen off a European network, which would create an additional advantage: total control of the European population. Is there a secret longing for the old GDR times?

      Governments are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that they do not have a grip on the Internet. The only institute that has any influence on the Internet is the California-based non-profit organisation ICANN. This company is subject to United States law, and the European Commission does not like that at all. Several member States of the Council of Europe would rather turn their back on the United States of America, in order to weaken Europe.

      The European Commission’s real aim is total control of Internet policy, which it intends to achieve by introducing a strict separation of roles. The Commission claims for itself the entire responsibility for policy making, thus downgrading the private sector and civil society to mere implementers of technical and economic aspects. You can read about that in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.

      People have to become aware that danger is always looming on the Internet as well. Just as parents have to teach their children how to behave in busy traffic, they have to teach them how to deal with the opportunities and dangers in cyberspace. There is no such thing as a risk-free society, but people can learn how to deal with the risks and to limit them as much as possible, without loss of net neutrality.

      The European Commission advocates linking the Internet to human rights. If this link were to be established, things would get out of hand. Human rights could then be misused for all kinds of things, such as restraining the freedom of opinion. The Internet itself should never become a human right; it is merely an instrument to enable people to exercise their rights. Current legislation already prohibits criminal activities. This holds true for cybercrime as well. An instrument such as the Internet also falls within this scope. The development of the Internet should be left to all stakeholders on the basis of equality, and such policy making should certainly not be laid entirely in the hands of the European Union and United Nations.

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

      Mr TRIANTAFYLLOS (Greece)* – I congratulate the two rapporteurs equally and those who drafted the opinions as well. We all know that we are talking about a revolution and a different type of reality from our reality 20 years ago. On the one hand free two-way communication, pluralist information and the possibility that every user can have their own blog, profile and Twitter account give us all infinite potential to communicate, but on the other hand there is unfettered access to information and knowledge through electronic education, reading e-books, using e-commerce to buy and sell. There are many possibilities for those citizens who have access to the World Wide Web to get peoples’ attention and mobilise them.

      All this makes the decision-making process much more democratic, but is everything about this development as positive as the optimists say? I am not sure. Today, perhaps we can measure our democracies as being 2G, 3G or 4G, depending on the number of participants and users in each country. Those citizens who participate in democratic processes know that those who want to eavesdrop have access to everyone who is part of the system and can use equipment to record everything that we do and say.

      Of course, there is no freedom without security, but there is certainly no security without freedom either. We in our nation States discuss this is in our national parliaments, but others out there are working at the global level because the Web is a worldwide thing. Access to the World Wide Web may be cheap, but not everyone has access to our democracy, and the issue should be considered at a higher level than our pan-European level. There is a need to provide security; there is also the issue of this being disembodied. What a long time it has taken to get from Gutenberg to Zuckerberg!

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. I call Mr Jenssen.

      Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – The Internet has become an integrated part of our daily lives, whether we are online or not. Children and teenagers growing up without a smartphone or a tablet is a rare sight. The Internet has fundamentally changed how our societies work. It is a measure of economic progress and welfare and of transparency in society. It can also strengthen and secure human rights. It has been a change maker in facilitating the freedom of expression. However, all the blessings of modern communications must not make us forget that they involve potential and real threats for individuals and society.

      Some regimes consider that the Internet is a weapon to fear, so they shut down the Internet or specific channels. We see Governments and businesses hacking and spying their way to find information on individual people, in direct conflict with fundamental human rights. This is unacceptable and must be dealt with. People should also be safe online. Therefore, both reports are important and very relevant. However, these issues are not new to the Assembly. We should honour the long-lasting engagement of the Council of Europe in general and by our active Secretary General, Thorbjørn Jagland, prioritising this work. Mr Jagland’s position has earned him membership of the global ICANN initiative and the High-Level Panel on the Future of the Global Internet Cooperation and Governance, which are mandated to produce a new order for the Internet.

      Finally, I want to say a few words about two of the amendments that I fear will weaken the strong and clear messages found elsewhere in the draft resolutions. First, on Amendment 4, in the draft resolution on improving user protection and security, specific reference is made to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime and to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals. Both those conventions would be removed by the amendment, and replaced by far less specific provisions in relevant regional treaties. It is hard to understand that in any other way, and if adopted, the resolution will be weakened as a means of developing global technical standards for making the Internet and mobile communications safe. I would regret that, and I will not support the amendment.

      Secondly, in the draft resolution on the right to Internet access, Amendment 6 would suddenly introduce restrictions on software distribution that “might affect human rights or national security”. The context makes me curious – what would be the consequence of the amendment? I fear that if adopted it will be used as a green light for any State to say that any definition of national security will automatically be placed over consideration of human rights. I would regret that, and I will not support the amendment.

      Finally, I, too, congratulate the two rapporteurs, and wish us all the best in following up their important work.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Colleagues, even Pope Francis has said that the Internet is a gift from God conferred upon humanity, and it has become a central part of the life of 2.5 billion users throughout the world. The opinion that prevails today is that access to the Internet should be recognised as a fundamental right. Indeed, our President, Anne Brasseur, even compared the use and democratisation of knowledge to the invention of printing.

      The web is a major tool for us all, and it opens up a tremendous area of communication, meeting and exchanging ideas, and mobilisation. For example, when the ban on Twitter was lifted in Turkey, an appeal was launched by Internet surfers to try to find a little boy just three and a half years old, who was lost in the outskirts of Istanbul. The Internet and Twitter are therefore also used for perfectly beneficial purposes. The effectiveness of the Internet has been proved over and over again in political movements such as that of the Indignados in Spain, Occupy Wall Street in the United States, the Arab Spring, and also the Turkish demonstrations. Many millions of people, who are normally a silent majority and even apolitical, get together on specific issues that affect them directly.

      We also know that the impact of social media is much more intense for young people because they can see topical events on their mobile phones, and they immediately have the possibility of commenting on and criticising those events. They are no longer passive readers; thanks to the Internet they have become active writers, sometimes in 140 characters. The Internet is also particularly important where democracy is jeopardised or where the media are no longer playing their role of informing people. Sometimes, when informing people about power the Internet becomes an area for censorship under different pretexts.

      The two reports by Mr Fischer and Ms Pelkonen raise the fundamental questions of how we can find a model of governance for the Internet that allows us to preserve freedom on the net, and also provide online security while respecting human rights and freedom of expression as defined by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We must also consider the other side of the coin. How can we protect individual users from criminal activities perpetrated online? I am happy to hear that a forum on the governance of the Internet will soon take place in Istanbul, which, I think, is the ideal place for such a meeting.

      The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Ms Quintanilla, so I give the floor to Ms Fataliyeva.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their significant and necessary work on a subject that is a current interest for the whole world.

      The Internet is huge and growing. It is used for communication, socialisation, business, information dissemination, employment, education, government services – the list goes on and on. Clearly, when people are not connected to the Internet, they are missing out. Are they missing out so much that it becomes a violation of their rights? How involved in our lives must the Internet be for it to be considered a necessity, rather than a convenience?

      Let us first consider what is meant by “rights”. As a starting point, we should consider the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the United Nations, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. In this case, “everyone” is specified as including all people worldwide, without exception. Access to basic health care, housing, food, education and social services should be available. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, assembly and expression are included, and all people should have access to a fair and impartial legal system based on the presumption of innocence. That is an inclusive document, but where does technology fit in? When considered in the light of those basic human rights, technology is a tremendous tool. For instance, someone can list and respond to job advertisements, connect with social services and health care, locate housing and – even more importantly – debate issues. Those things could all be done offline, but connection to the Internet simplifies matters significantly.

      Political discussions are becoming the most effective tool, but at the same time a restriction on insults and offensive expressions on the Internet should not be regarded as a violation of human rights. The problem with Internet access is predominantly based on economics – the more money someone has, the more likely they are to be connected. What if such technology is needed? When human rights concerns are about safety and freedom, there is recent evidence that the Internet can support that struggle in a manner that could not be equalled without it.

      Here in the Council of Europe we fight for the rights of children. Children are a special case in this issue because they can be just as vulnerable online as they are in real life. Even the most innocent word when entered into a search engine can throw up links for websites full of inappropriate images. A simple homework task could accidentally give a child access to one of many “how to” websites, such as “How to construct bombs”, “How to conceal anorexia”, or “How to make and take illegal drugs.” The dangers of paedophiles posing as children in Internet chat rooms are well known, yet children still put themselves at risk by giving out their personal details. We should pay special attention to that issue.

      The Internet is undoubtedly one indicator of democracy and freedom of speech and expression in modern life. It is a useful tool for daily life in many places around the globe, and more importantly it is becoming a forum for human rights. That alone can make the argument for the Internet to be a right in itself.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call the last speaker in the debate, Ms Gorghiu.

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I have spoken many times about the power of the Internet and its ability to fight the democratic crisis that many States are dealing with. I support the development of dialogue through online platforms, and I truly believe that if it is thoroughly managed by public, private and civic institutions, such dialogue will help diminish some of the conflicting matters, and even facilitate the inclusion of common issues in national public agendas.

      I thank our colleagues for this joint debate, which is about improving user protection and security in cyberspace and the right to Internet access. The reports present to the Assembly sensitive matters that are generated by new technological changes, and those include ways of protecting users and also potential abuses by public institutions that should monitor the behaviour of users.

      My contribution is based on programmes from the BBC World Service in 2009 and 2010, which were mentioned in Mr Fischer’s report. They showed that most adults – 79% from 26 countries – said that Internet access should be a fundamental right. However, to discuss fundamental rights when the Internet’s monitoring indicators are narrowed down to personal data storage, the number of cyber-attacks, cyber-mobbing and all the other negative effects of that criminal technological phenomenon can pose a problem. Given that, one aspect of cyberspace that we must take seriously is the very advantage of the principle of freedom. We must strike a balance on user rights between the right to information and freedom and the right to a private life. We must ensure that we have a transparent system and protect user anonymity; we must have sanctions for illegal activities but respect rights and freedom.

      To fight any type of crime in cyberspace, States will need to invest in specialist training for public administration and human resources staff so that they can identify and punish such crime. Courts should also have specialised sections exclusively for prosecuting crime in cyberspace. But as Mr Fischer highlights, national and international legislation is sometimes violated by the State itself through use of questionable methods in terms of interception of telecommunications or online activity.

      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 Fischer, rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany) – Thank you, Mr President. I thank most warmly all those who have taken part in the debate. I have noted your positive remarks about the huge importance of the Internet. We take our duty of protecting human rights very seriously in the Parliamentary Assembly, and that duty should apply to the Internet. Private life is important. Members have referred to eavesdropping and spying on the Internet. There will be a report on that, and the information we have gleaned from Edward Snowden, among others, will contribute to that report.

      The clear conclusion to draw is that we need international action. There is no point in one country alone seeking to enact rules – we need a broader approach. International ethics were mentioned in the debate, and that is the kind of approach we should be looking at.

      As for whether Amendment 4 might have a weakening effect, it is possible that taking out the reference to our convention and referring only to regional arrangements could have that effect, but the body of the report will not be weakened. We ought to accept the amendment. The recommendation clearly refers to the points we seek to make, and those points continue to be valid.

      I thank the Secretariat, particularly Mr Dossow, for its co-operative work. I thank you all for your positive contributions in the debate and hope that you will see your way to accepting the report.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Fischer. Ms Pelkonen, you have up to three minutes to reply.

      Ms PELKONEN (Finland) – Thank you, Mr President. I would also like to thank everyone for this lively and constructive debate. It has reminded us all that the Internet has enormous possibilities but also potential risks. That is why it is so important to have a discussion from a human rights perspective. Increased Internet access should be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity for everyone to enjoy their rights, participate in society and prosper. A truly democratic society is possible only when there is equal treatment of all citizens and when all official institutions act openly and transparently.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Ms Pelkonen. Ms Guţu, Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, would you like to take the floor? You have two minutes.

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – Thank you very much, Mr President. The two reports we have discussed today add to the Anne Brasseur report on the Internet that was presented in January. We also had a memorandum on Internet governance in our committee.

      Clearly this subject is and will remain of concern to us all because it affects national legislation in all our countries. The Internet has a double dimension: on the one hand it opens up the world but on the other there are risks for users – in particular, the risk of violations of human rights. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media will remain vigilant.

      We congratulate the two rapporteurs on their excellent work.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much.

      The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented two draft resolutions and a draft recommendation. We will take the draft resolution and recommendation on “Improving user protection and security in cyberspace”, Document 13451, first. Seventeen amendments and two sub-amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution, and two amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled to the draft recommendation.

      They 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.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 7, 10, 13, 8, 15, 9, 16, 17, and 19 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

      I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to what I understand is an error in the printed text of Amendment 17. Instead of “the legal and social system”, it should read “the legal and fiscal system”.

      Ms Guţu, would you like to have these unanimously approved amendments adopted by the Assembly?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) – Yes, indeed,

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      The following Amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, at the end of the last sentence, add the following words: “in order to ensure respect of universal human rights, as well as of national law and of sovereignty.”

      Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, add the following sentence:

“The objective must be an internationally agreed legal framework with appropriate enforcement mechanisms, including protection for whistleblowers who disclose violations.”

      Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Blondin and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence:

“Associations of users and citizens should be represented on this new body.”

      Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Ms Crozon, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.1, after the words “protected online”, add the following sentence: “; users shall always have the possibility of withdrawing data, content and information”.

      Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.1, insert the following paragraph:

“collection, storage and processing of so-called meta-data (data that describes other data, for example information on senders, recipients, timing, key words, movements, contacts) shall be subjected, in principle, to the same rules as the collection, storage and processing of any other personal data;”.

      Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Ms Crozon, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.2, after the words “automatic signs (cookies)”, add the following sentence: “; the duration of the latter should be time-limited”.

      Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6.3, after the words “while law-infringing users must be identifiable” insert the following words: “and criminals must be identifiable by law enforcement bodies subject to the legal safeguards required under the European Convention on Human Rights;”.

      Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.3, add the following sentence: “in order to combat online identity theft, there should be provision for the use of real identification, either by electronic signature, using authentication tools or by a trusted third party;”.

      Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.6, add the following sentence: “the legal and fiscal system applicable to online services should be that of the end consumer, and the consumer rights that apply should be those that are most favourable between the country of origin and the country of service;”.

      Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Blondin and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 6.12, insert the following paragraph:

“Governments and service providers should undertake an ambitious plan to educate users in security operations.”

      We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Blondin and Mr Michel, which is in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentences:

      “Global governance of the Internet will be improved. An international charter on the global principles and objectives of the Internet will be drawn up. It will, in particular, ensure respect for personal data, including biological data, as well as respect for human rights”.I

      I call Mr Le Déaut to support Amendment 11.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – We should have an international ethical charter, and world governance of the Internet should be improved. That would guarantee respect for personal and political data.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentences:

      “The tasks of allocating domain names and email addresses will be transferred to a body that is either newly established or derived from existing structures. This body will comply with the requirements of the future international Internet charter. A world observatory mission will be given the task of analysing the operation, issuing recommendations, recommending standards and labels, allowing users to control and determine the location of their data, and stipulating the penalties which may be imposed by a legal authority established at international level in the event of non-compliance with the charter.”I

      I call Mr Le Déaut to support Amendment 12.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – Amendment 12 is a follow-up to the previous amendment. It says that domain names should be allocated by an independent body, instead of people depending, as they do today, on the United States. The body would carry out all the necessary checks. That would make it possible to have international legal controls.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5, add the following sentence:

      “This process should be supported by the Council of Europe at the level of the European Union and the United Nations in order to guarantee the independence of critical Internet infrastructure from individual governments;”I

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 2.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The amendment refers to the need to speed up the process of globalising ICANN, which is mentioned in the draft resolution.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.2, add the following sentence: “it is necessary to provide Internet users with transparent and accessible information about security measures and mechanisms applied;”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 3.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – We would like to add the words in the amendment to protect Internet users. We do not know what measures are being applied to protect them, but we should, at least in general terms. If we do not, too many or too few measures will be taken.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Durrieu and Ms Crozon, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.2, add the following sentence:

      “Internet access providers may only supply user-IDs with the authenticated authorisation of the persons concerned;”.I

      I call Mr Le Déaut to support Amendment 14.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – The amendment relates to what I said a while ago: we are being tracked, particularly for the purposes of advertising, because people sell our data. The principle in the amendment is that users’ Internet protocol addresses should be passed on only with the authorisation of those concerned.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Le Déaut, Mr Rouquet, Mr Mignon, Mr Le Borgn', Mr Mariani, Ms Bourzai, Ms Blondin and Mr Michel, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.11, replace the words “and in-house ombudspersons” with the following sentence: “and an easily accessible ombudsman with an obligation to respond, should be appointed by each Internet service provider”.

      I call Mr Le Déaut to support Amendment 18.

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – The amendment proposes nominating an ombudsman, who would have to respond to any problem or dispute between an Internet service provider and a consumer.

      The PRESIDENT * – Sub-Amendment 1 has been tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, at the end of amendment 18, add the following words: “or their national association”.

      I call Mr Fischer to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – We agree with Amendment 18, but would like to include a reference to national associations. The mover of the amendment is probably in favour of the sub-amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 18?

      Mr LE DÉAUT (France)* – I am in favour of the sub-amendment.

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

       Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 18, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 10 with the following paragraph:

      “The Assembly invites the International Telecommunications Union to elaborate global technical standards on the integrity, security and secrecy of online and mobile communications, which are based on Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, possibly taking into account the provisions of relevant regional treaties.”I

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 4.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Paragraph 10 invites involvement by the International Telecommunication Union, which is a UN organisation. It seems logical to mention Article 17 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other regional treaties, rather than documents that several member States of the Council of Europe have unfortunately not signed.

      The PRESIDENT* – Sub-Amendment 1 has been tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in Amendment 4, delete the word “possibly”.

      I call Mr Fischer to support Sub-Amendment 1.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – We discussed this a moment ago, and Mr Jenssen mentioned the issue. If we deleted “possibly”, Amendment 4 would be clearer. Of course we want the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime to be binding; we just want the text to be a little more explicit.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 4?

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I support the sub-amendment.

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

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT ⃰ – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13451, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13451, as amended, is adopted, with 120 votes for, 6 against and 0 abstentions.

      We will now consider the draft recommendation in Document 13451. There are two amendments and one sub-amendment to consider. I remind members that the time limit on speeches is 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft recommendation, to replace paragraph 2.4 with the following paragraph:

“assist members States, if requested, in the implementation of the Convention on Cybercrime as well as the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108);”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 5.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The amendment relates to paragraph 2.4 and the need to provide assistance to member States, if requested, in the implementation of the conventions. In other words, assistance should be provided if a country has applied for or appealed for it.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2.8, to insert the following paragraph:

“on the basis of evidence released by Edward Snowden about mass violations of the right to privacy established by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, identify the perpetrators of these violations and determine their responsibility for it.”

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 6.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – As I have already said, this is unfortunately probably the largest violation of human rights and we cannot just pass over it without some attempt to understand how it is possible that such widespread violations took place and who is to blame. This did not happen in space, but in specific places on earth.

      The PRESIDENT* – Sub-Amendment 1 been tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in Amendment 6, to replace the words “identify the perpetrators of these violations and determine their responsibility for it” with the following words: “set up an action plan to prevent these violations”.

      I call Mr Fischer to support Sub-Amendment 1 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – We discussed the matter in committee and understand the approach of Mr Shlegel and his colleagues, but the problem is that the Committee of Ministers cannot comply with or fulfil such a recommendation, so we want it to draw up an action plan. If I have understood him correctly, I think Mr Shlegel will agree with that and will understand that we appreciate the amendment’s intention, but had to present it in a different form.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – It is not exactly what I wanted, because identifying the perpetrators and preventing the problem from reoccurring are different things. We need to find a sensible compromise, however, and Mr Fischer is offering such a compromise.

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

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13451, as amended. I remind the Assembly that a two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13451, as amended, is adopted, with 121 votes for, 4 against and 0 abstentions.

      Our congratulations go to Mr Fischer and Ms Guţu.

      We will now proceed to the consideration of amendments to the second draft resolution on “The right to Internet access”, Document 13434. Seven amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled to the resolution.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1 and 2 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so Ms Guţu?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – Yes, I confirm that.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5.2, to add the following sentence:

“In view of the importance of the Internet for democratic societies, any such limitations should be clearly and narrowly defined;”.

      Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5.2, to insert the following paragraph:

“as the fear of surveillance can engender self-censorship, any such measures should respect the limits set in Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”.

      We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, after the first sentence, to add the following sentence:

“Taking into consideration that the exercise of the freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities according to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these restrictions shall only be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputation of other people as well as for the protection of national security or public order, public health or morality”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 4. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I have not been able to tell Ms Pelkonen that she has prepared an excellent report, which is relevant and far-reaching. I just wanted to say that now.

      The amendment is about the need to provide openness in an organised, managed and un-chaotic fashion with special rules. In Russia, for example, we have a law that defines such activities.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5.6, add the following words: “according to the national law”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 5.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – This amendment also addresses the need to base our approach on national law. We agree that we need net neutrality, but we want to add that it should be consistent with national law.

      The PRESIDENT* – A sub-amendment has been tabled, which is, Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, in Amendment 5, replace the words "according to the" with the following word: "under".

      I call Ms Pelkonen to support Sub-Amendment 1, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Ms PELKONEN (Finland) – The amendment would replace the words “according to the” with “under”.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Sub-Amendment 1? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – I agree with the sub-amendment.

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

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Sub-Amendment 1 is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5, as amended is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 5.7, insert the following sentence:

“The Assembly does not consider blanket restrictions of Internet access for individuals as an appropriate sanction for minor infringements of intellectual property rights;”.

      I call Mr Clappison to support Amendment 3, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The amendment speaks for itself; it is about proportionality. The paragraph of the resolution pertains to access to the Internet, and the amendment suggests that blanket restrictions should not be imposed as a result of minor infringements. There should not be disproportionate limitations on access to the Internet.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5.10 with the following paragraph:

“member States should promote technological research into improving Internet access as well as open access to basic software and services; member States may restrict the distribution of software which might affect human rights or national security;”.

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 6.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – The amendment is about software that might affect human rights and national security and how its distribution may be limited by member States. Member States are supposed to promote technological research into improving Internet access and open access, but they may restrict the distribution of software if it is harmful.

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

      I call Mr Jenssen.

      Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – We all understand that every nation must have the ability to restrict what can be sold and distributed within its borders. However, I do not know what the consequences would be of adopting an amendment that weighs up human rights and national security in one sentence. In the worst case scenario, it will be interpreted to mean that any national security issue can be used to override human rights. I therefore do not support the amendment.

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

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Shlegel, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Romanovich, Mr Sudarenkov and Mr Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5.11 with the following paragraph:

“member States should oblige their public authorities to provide open access to their information and services according to the national law by means of Internet.”

      I call Mr Shlegel to support Amendment 7.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – This amendment proposes a small change to the paragraph. We wish to retain the wording, but remove the phrase “multilingual Internet access.” The Internet is multilingual in itself; if a person has access to the Internet, they have access to the multilingual Internet.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova)* – The committee voted against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13434, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13434, as amended, is adopted, with 125 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet)

3. Address by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now hear an address by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      I am pleased to welcome you to the Assembly. This Chamber and the Assembly are not unknown to you, as you sat here as a member of the Assembly between 1987 and 1991. During that time, our Organisation grew from 21 to 25 member States. Since then, another 22 countries have joined. What a difference in numbers. However, our goals of democracy, human rights and the rule of law remain the same. I hope that your visit will bring back good memories of the Assembly.

      Last month, on the initiative of the Speaker of your parliament, Mrs Prammer, I was honoured to be invited to deliver the opening speech at a timely conference entitled “1914 - the Collapse of a Peace Order: is Democratic Peace an Alternative?” When choosing the conference’s title, the organisers could not have known how pertinent, unfortunately, it would be to events unfolding in Ukraine and affecting not just Ukraine and Russia, but Europe and the rest of the world.

      I thank you and your country for its dynamic and committed delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There are eight committees in the Assembly and Austria has two of the chairmanships. The current president of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Mr Herwig van Staa, is also one of your compatriots. But that is not all. Austria has had three out of 13 Secretaries General of the Council of Europe. Your country even managed to have at the same time Mr Walter Schwimmer as Secretary General of this Organisation and the late Peter Schieder as one of our most highly esteemed Presidents of the Assembly.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      You know that culture enjoys a high value in Europe. Austria is privileged in that regard because your country, particularly your capital, is replete with cultural artefacts. I am sure that this cultural ambience will contribute to the ministerial conference at the beginning of May. It is a great pleasure for us to welcome you to our Assembly. I have the honour of giving you the floor.

      Mr FISCHER (President of Austria)* – I thank you, Madam President, most warmly for your warm welcome and the kind words extended to Austria. The same can be said of your home country, Luxembourg, given its role in and commitment to Europe.

      It is true that I return with great pleasure to Strasbourg and to this debating Chamber. I was here in the 1980s and my respect for the Council of Europe in the intervening 25 years has remained unchanged. What is more, numerous issues discussed at the Council of Europe – for example, constitutional issues, democratic development, fundamental rights, minority rights and foreign policy – have always been of particular interest to me as an Austrian parliamentarian.

      In essence, all those questions are related. It is a matter of European values, our common perception of humankind, how we build a humane society, the rule of law and ethics in politics, and of the primeval question: how we can prevent the tenet that the end justifies the means from applying in politics and society in general? That is a tempting tenet but it can have consequences. For Arthur Koestler, Manès Sperber, Leszek Kołakowski and many others in literature, it was a major issue.

      Austria acceded to the Council of Europe on 16 April 1956 – almost 58 years ago, give or take one week. None of these 58 years of membership has been a lost year. On the contrary, since then Austria has been bound ever more closely to the Council of Europe. Our commitment to it corresponds not least to the conviction, arising from our own history, that the multilateral network of States built up after the Second World War is an important basis for peaceful coexistence in Europe. Active multilateralism, if I can put it that way, is also a cornerstone of Austrian foreign policy, and Vienna is a good place for institutions that serve international co-operation.

      However, Austrian membership of the Council of Europe has also contributed to an improvement in our legal system, because the European Convention on Human Rights is deemed to have the same rank as the constitution – something that I do not think is so common among fellow member States. Given that it has this rank in our legal system – the same as the constitution – every new generation of law students in our country learns the Convention as part of their constitutional law. This is a not insignificant factor for Austrian legal culture as a whole.

      Our interest in and commitment to the Council of Europe are also reflected in the fact that, as the President mentioned, Austrians have in the past been elected as Secretaries General of the Council of Europe. Peter Schieder was President of the Assembly from 2002 to 2006. I was a close friend of his from when we were both members of a youth organisation. Tragically he died last autumn. He was an ardent and eminently well informed champion of the idea of the Council of Europe and the idea of Europe per se.

      Let me take this opportunity to mention a few subjects and results arising from the close relations between Austria and the Council of Europe. The first summit of the Council of Europe took place in 1993 in Vienna. It confirmed the policy of opening up and expanding the Council of Europe, after the events of 1989 and the years immediately following, and created new thematic priorities that fundamentally characterise this institution today – for example, the protection of minorities through the framework convention and the charter for minority languages, and combating racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, through the creation of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. Austria’s commitment to Europe is also clearly reflected in the working programme of our current chairmanship – our sixth – of the Committee of Ministers, which falls in an active and interesting period. Based on the three pillars of the Council of Europe, we are on working on such topical issues as combating human trafficking, protecting freedom of expression on the Internet and combating violence against women.

      Tragically, human trafficking is one of the greatest evils of our society. In Europe, sadly, it is nearly omnipresent. It is a matter not just of sexual exploitation, but of slavery and forced labour. Often, the victims are legal minors. We took up this problem at a major conference in Vienna in February, in co-operation with the OSCE. The conference considered in greater depth many aspects of prevention, victim protection and prosecution, as well as international co-operation in this area.

      The issue of freedom of opinion lies at the heart of democracy. Journalists have a key role in providing information to the general public. You may like the work of journalists more or less, but you cannot have a democracy without an active media society. As the European Court of Human Rights rightly says, journalists are the guardians of society, but guardians also need protection, support and a code of conduct. That is why in December we devoted a special debate among delegates to the Committee of Ministers on the issue of journalists, which led to the specific tasking of the Secretary General.

      The protection of human rights and compliance with fundamental democratic rules on the Internet is also a topical issue that occupies us and, I believe, the whole of Europe. When I think one particular country, I think this becomes very topical.

      Another subject I should like to mention in this regard is combating violence against women. By devising the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe created a standard that is also greatly respected outside Europe, but as you all know, for it to enter into force we need 10 ratifications. At the moment we have eight ratifications. That means that the governments and parliaments of other member States must be called on to act if we are to reach the minimum number of 10 ratifications. I therefore take this opportunity to appeal to others to begin the process of ratification or, where they have already begun it, to accelerate and conclude it, so that this standard can become more effective.

      I would like to share with you one conclusion that I think should encourage us. I am a vehement opponent of the death penalty. At the beginning of the 20th century, the death penalty was considered more or less self-evident in almost all countries of Europe, so I am very proud that at the beginning of the 21th century it has been done away with in almost all States of Europe or no longer exists. It is also apparent from the most recent Amnesty International report that in 2013 not a single death sentence was enforced in the whole of Europe. I thank the Council of Europe for its efforts in this area, which show that measurable, appreciable progress is possible if we work hard enough for it together. This should be a great incentive for us to continue and intensify our efforts elsewhere. Our goals in the 21st century should be to achieve outside Europe what we managed to achieve inside Europe in the 20th century.

      Another important subject that has occupied the Council of Europe since November last year is the situation in Ukraine. As we know, a treaty of association between the European Union and Ukraine was to be signed at the summit in Vilnius on 29 November last year, but five days beforehand, the then Ukrainian President, Yanukovych, came on an official visit to Austria. We had several talks, among them a four-hour discussion. His statements were sometimes confusing and contradictory; it was obviously a very difficult situation for him. However, I cannot say that the atmosphere in the European Union in the weeks and months preceding the planned date for signing was particularly encouraging for Ukraine or indicated a clear wish for the speediest possible signing of the agreement. On the contrary, right up to the eleventh hour additional conditions for signing the association agreement were mooted, including the release of Yulia Tymoshenko, the previous prime minister. Substantial economic and financial support for Ukraine, above and beyond the terms of the agreement, was not countenanced at the time, which in my opinion was a mistake. That was discussed at the most recent ministerial meeting in Athens. We are now aware of the nature of subsequent developments.

      As far as I am concerned, Russia’s actions in Crimea have been, and continue to constitute, a clear breach of international law, as the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has determined. On that point, I share the views expressed by the United Nations Secretary-General and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

      I noted with interest the observations of veteran statesmen of an earlier generation, such as Helmut Schmidt, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Henry Kissenger, on the background to the crisis. In their opinion, and in mine, the situation in Ukraine should not simply be about drawing that large and important country into one camp or another – either the European Union side or the Russian side. You will all know Bertolt Brecht’s “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”. We need a sensible, forward-looking political and economic role for a stable and democratic Ukraine. That would constitute a useful bridge between the EU and Russia. Earlier and more resolute efforts should have been made to achieve that. That goal should still be discussed.

      One might object to the goal of a democratic Ukraine with a constitution containing elements of decentralisation and protection for minorities, with close links to Europe in its economic and social momentum, and at the same time good political and economic relations with Russia, which could exercise a bridging role. One might suggest that it is utopian. On that point, however, I will cite the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski, one of my favourite authors. He held that a utopia ceases to be a utopia when it comes into existence. All the States of Europe want good and peaceful relations with the Russian Federation, and the Russian Federation would certainly seek to enjoy a stable and peaceful relationship with the States of Europe, a relationship of trust. That should not be utopian; it is something to be achieved in practice, step by step, through the Council of Europe.

      To that end, we must deal seriously with all the concerns of the countries involved in the crisis. Resolving difficult political questions involves viewing a situation from the other party’s point of view. An attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO in the foreseeable future would show a clear failure to appreciate the situation from the other point of view. It is not a sufficiently well-developed approach. Indeed, President Obama made it clear in a press conference on 26 March that Georgia and Ukraine would not enter NATO for the time being, and that will not change in the near future. On the other hand, Russia must appreciate the issues surrounding Ukraine from a European and European Union point of view. Further steps taken by Russia to destabilise Ukraine would be utterly unacceptable.

      In that regard, I will venture to comment – I crave the Assembly’s indulgence – on a current issue here: the reconsideration of the credentials of the Russian delegation, which I believe you are due to vote on tomorrow. As I have said, I consider multilateral fora – bodies such as the Council of Europe – to be one of the planks of peaceful co-existence in Europe. In my opinion, dialogue is absolutely the way to approach conflict resolution. There is no way around it. We must keep the opportunities for dialogue open. Closing doors is fairly easy, but opening them again can be far more difficult. I urge you to bear that in mind tomorrow.

      I will make a brief comment on the conflict in the Middle East, which is of great concern to Europe. Last week the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, now in his 90s, undertook a State visit to Austria. It was probably one of his last official visits abroad before his term of office ends. He is a truly experienced statesman, having held important positions for more than 50 years. He is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He is an authority. We discussed developments in the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I believe in his earnest desire, which is shared by many Israelis, to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a two-State solution. He believes that such a solution still has a chance of success. However, only a few hours after he stated his optimism – he claimed that he was far too old to be a pessimist – the talks suffered a serious set-back. Some people felt that it was about to fall apart.

      I believe that Europe and its allies ought to act with greater energy to ensure that the peace process moves along a successful path. Settlement building in the Palestinian territories is a breach of international law and must cease. Similarly, rocket attacks and other attacks on Israeli territory must cease. The Palestinians must understand that compromise means moving away from the entirety of their initial position, and the Israelis need to accept the same message. That is enormously important and would have an effect far beyond the Middle East. At this time, when efforts have moved quite a long way, the talks must be saved from collapse.

      In conclusion, 2014 marks a number of historic anniversaries: 100 years since the outbreak of the First World War; 75 years since the outbreak of the Second World War; and 25 years since the fall of the iron curtain. We should take all of these dates, and others, and use them to demonstrate that we are in a position to learn from history. However, at this time we should also reflect on the fact that so many realities in contemporary Europe would have appeared utopian to Europeans 30, 40 or 50 years ago. We have achieved genuine progress and that, surely, is a major incentive to continue to tackle problems that appear incapable of resolution today, and to move towards solutions step by step.

      I continue to wish every success to the Council of Europe, which very shortly, on 5 May, will celebrate its 65th anniversary. I wish it every success in our collective interest and I thank you for your attention.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, President Fischer, for your address, which made a great impression and showed your great commitment.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      We now come to questions. I will call first our colleagues from the political groups. I remind you that you have 30 seconds to put your question and that you should not make comments. The first speaker on my list is Mr Díaz Tejera from Spain, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Mr President, for being so true to yourself. Thank you for your experience and your address, and for calling us to support utopia. Actions can come from military power; financial power can give rise to crises; and technological power is monitoring millions of people. These are all challenges to democracy – and parliamentary democracy is coming late to the table. What can we do to ensure that we achieve effective protection for the human rights of all the people whom we represent here in the Assembly?

      Mr FISCHER* – There are questions that you can put in a couple of minutes that a politician could spend his whole life trying to answer. In the area of human rights, in the medium term there have been significant achievements. The Declaration of Human Rights explains what our common goal must be in this regard. Article 1 states that we are all born free and equal and should interact in a spirit of fraternity. It is such a good programme that we ensured that it was hewn into the stone over the entrance to our debating chamber back home. Now it is a question of making that come about.

      I do not think that a single country anywhere in the world can claim correctly that it has achieved 100% of that. There are always differences and there is often a kind of pecking order. There is a difference in the degree to which human rights are respected. There are certain competing relations. I know that a greater effort is being made in the United Nations to work on human rights. Certainly the efforts are greater than they were 30 years ago. There is a United Nations special committee on that. However, at the end of the day it is a matter for individuals, and for politicians and their parties, to decide how to address the issue of human rights, and whether they will go along with things such as the idea I mentioned that the end justifies the means.

      As a politician, one is often faced with very awkward decisions, and one has to try to find the best solution, bearing in mind human rights imperatives. These matters are imperative on all of us, but there is no panacea. I cannot say, “Well, life as we know it will change and everything will be fine from 1 January” – that will not be the case. It is up to all of us to do what we can to ensure that these things come about.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Fischer from Germany, who speaks on behalf of the European People’s Party.

      Mr A.FISCHER (Germany)* – Thank you, President, for the very clear words in your address on human rights, and for your support of the Council of Europe. If you had not expressed your views on Russia and Ukraine, I would have asked about that – but as we are talking instead about human rights, I will ask what you think we can do jointly to give greater support to judgments of the Court of Human Rights.

      Mr H.FISCHER* – The rulings of the Court of Human Rights should be respected, as should the judgments of any arbiter. I have noted cases where people thought that they could simply ignore the rulings of a Supreme Court. However, in a highly developed democracy someone who pursues that path should be left on the fringes and should be very much in the minority. In countries such as Germany or Switzerland, it is simply not possible to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court. Anyone who does so is first automatically exposed to justified criticism, not least from voters. It might not hurt that much in a truly developed democracy, but if you wish to achieve consensus, the rulings of the Supreme Court simply have to be adhered to. The rulings have great ramifications, and we would transfer some rights to the European Parliament to ensure that certain red lines cannot be crossed.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Bulajić, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms BULAJIĆ (Serbia) – Mr President, thank you for your comprehensive and frank address to our Assembly. My question, too, will revolve around human rights issues. As you are well aware, we have been holding extensive discussions on the foundations of human rights in the face of crises. My question is this: how do you intend to respond to those challenges, especially in the case of the Ukrainian crisis, and what concrete measures would you propose so that utopia can cease and make way for reality?

      Mr FISCHER* – As the Austrian President, I would say, first, that we need to become very active in the bodies where we are represented, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, in order to promote efforts within the community of democratic States and to have a positive effect in encouraging peaceful and legitimate solutions. Of course, we need to look at the economic and social basis on which we are working for these solutions. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a connection between social cohesion and concern for the weaker and more vulnerable members of a society, and that society’s solidity.

      Austria has a special bilateral dialogue at the moment with senior representatives of Ukraine, who turned to us and asked if we would be prepared to provide our best offices and explain our experience, for example, of neutrality and not belonging to a specific bloc. We hope to be able to make a contribution there.

      Furthermore, Austria has offered Ukraine assistance in framing a constitution. The President of the Supreme Court in Austria has just retired on age grounds and spent a week in Ukraine, where he has been talking to people there about how to create a better foundation for a constitution. This is what we can do bilaterally and what we can achieve as members of the European Union and the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – I call Mr Villumsen, who will put a question on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Thank you, Mr President, for your wise approach to the conflict in Ukraine. How do you think that we in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can contribute to finding a solution to the conflict in Ukraine? How can we de-escalate the situation instead of escalating it? How can we in the Council of Europe be part of finding a solution?

      Mr FISCHER* – According to the information that I have and my observations, the Council of Europe has already made a contribution in recent months and weeks. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe has visited Ukraine on several occasions. On two occasions, he has done so with the Austrian Foreign Minister. I am sure that that has afforded support to Ukraine, but it is also a reminder to observe certain principles. Both those things are valuable.

      Obviously, Ukrainians are seeking security and support, but we need to point the finger at where things may have gone wrong in the past in Ukraine and at what they must be careful of for the future. They have to take account of minorities. They should not make mistakes in language policy. They need to develop their constitution further to address the specific features of Ukraine. One hundred years ago, the western part of the country belonged to Austria, and the situation there is very different from that prevailing in the eastern part of the country. A robust constitution would have to take account of such differences.

      Yes, Russia is a member State of the Council of Europe and we must speak in plain language. In my experience, Russian politicians pay heed to plain language; they often speak it themselves. We must keep the channels of communication open. I tried to express that view in my address. The Council of Europe is fully involved in the decision-making process. A constitution is clearly needed and human rights and the rule of law must be upheld, but we must be able to engage in dialogue with the other side. We must be open as well and not take any opportunistic action.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The Council of Europe, where Austria is now chairing the Committee of Ministers, and the European Union share the fact of being founded on the rule of law and of existing to promote democracy and human rights. However, the European Union has suffered for several years from a crisis of confidence among its citizens. What can the Council of Europe offer the European Union to help to breathe new life into its projects and policies.

      Mr FISCHER* – The Council of Europe was founded in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War – it was constituted in 1949 – and it took shape before the process of European integration took off. It is sensational to have the opportunity to exchange views in this way. Indeed, when I was three years in office, I checked when the first Austrian President undertook a foreign visit. Karl Renner, the first president, never left Austria while in office between 1945 and 1950. Körner, who was in office from 1951 to 1957, never left Austria during that period. The third president, Schärf, visited Belgium in the 1960s, as part of a universal exhibition. In 1945, we Austrians were much more inward looking, and the Council of Europe helped us to show interest in other States and open up dialogue with them.

      The Council of Europe was therefore a forerunner of the whole idea of European integration. Indeed, it was a forerunner of the European Parliament, which started in an embryonic state. Of course, that was way back, and things have developed a lot since then. The Council of Europe’s unique selling point is its attachment to human rights. That message spreads much further than the European Union. We are talking about 47 member States, rather than the European Union’s 28 member States. We are very active in a number of areas, and we have an active membership with rights and duties. We reach parts of the world that the European Union cannot reach. So the Council of Europe’s role, in terms of its history and its pioneering actives, is something that we can claim as unique.

      Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – Mr President, I extend a warm welcome. You mention the death penalty. We have just heard the news of the imposition of the death penalty on a Christian couple in Pakistan for an alleged offence of blasphemy. Do you agree that the freedom of religion is under threat in far too many places in the world today? Do you agree also that member States of the Council of Europe should emphasise the freedom of religion as a core human right? Do you agree also that our governments should take up this issue with other governments, such as that of Pakistan, where persecution is clearly taking place?

      Mr FISCHER* – Of course I agree that the freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Just a few weeks ago, I gave an address at Heiligenkreuz, which is a papal university. I spoke on just that issue and pointed out that, for example – I think that many of you will know this – Austria was the first country in Europe that, 102 years ago, acknowledged Islam as an equal community of belief to Christianity and alongside the Jewish faith. That was a pioneering act when it came to religious freedom, and Vienna is a centre for institutions such as those founded by Saudi Arabia and Spain, including the centre for religious freedom founded by King Abdullah. Some of you may be a little surprised to hear that Saudi Arabia takes part in that, but it has been heavily involved in founding and funding that institution to help ensure the practise and discussion of religious freedom.

      Reference was made to certain events in Pakistan, and of course we must completely and unambiguously condemn such things wherever they take place, be that in China or in any of the five continents. We think that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and such rights are indivisible.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I thank you, Mr President, for your strong support and that of your country in our struggle against Russian occupation. Indeed, your country was the first to arrest one of the most corrupt oligarchs, Mr Firtash, on your territory. At the same time, however, Russian officials, especially Mr Putin, hide Yanukovych and other oligarchs who are engaged in the killing of people and the system of corruption. What can the Council of Europe do to stop the hiding of corrupt criminals in the Russian Federation?

      Mr FISCHER* – I think there are several conclusions here. You said one or two kind things about the Austrian position on this crisis and problem, and I have tried to set out the whole breadth of the Austrian position and its support for a peaceful solution on the basis of dialogue. Secondly, you mentioned the case of Mr Firtash. On the basis of a long-existing agreement I think the United States has applied for that individual’s deportation, and the courts are now looking into the matter to see whether the requirements have been met. That is a question of jurisdiction, so a member of the Austrian Government or the President will certainly not intervene. It is a matter for the courts in our country and everyone will have to accept whatever they decide.

      On Mr Yanukovych’s stay in Russia, again one can consider that issue only on the basis of the rule of law and a ruling from our court. If someone applies for his extradition, the legal system of the country affected will have to consider that, and the Council of Europe can act as an observer and express an opinion about the ultimate ruling of the court. I do not think, however, that there is any question of the Council of Europe taking a position over or ignoring the courts.

      Mr SZABÓ (Hungary)* – The process of integration for central and eastern Europe, and also for the whole of Europe, was about the victory of democracy. Do you think that might be possible for other countries as well? Recently, some people have been opposed to that and their voices have become much louder. Anti-democratic voices are being raised loud and clear across the rest of Europe. What is the danger of that in your eyes?

      Mr FISCHER* – I am pleased that you have raised the issue of the western Balkans. That is an important issue and we think that 2013 was a year of considerable progress. Croatia joined the European Union and Serbia made considerable progress – just two or three weeks ago the Serbian President was in Vienna and left a very good impression regarding the positions he has adopted. Progress is continuing in Kosovo, and I hope that Albania will soon conclude an association agreement. Montenegro is a front runner in its relations with the European Union. Bosnia remains a matter of concern – perhaps I can put it as bluntly as that. There will be elections shortly, which is great, but it means that until well on in the autumn there will be complete inertia on the political scene. Overall, however, the western Balkans are on the right track.

      On the question about extreme or nationalist right wing movements, the process of European integration as a whole is an act against chauvinism and extreme nationalism. If we consider the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we mentioned about equality and fraternity, I think that the type of nationalism that looks down in a condescending way – or worse – towards its neighbours may be linked to some kind of racist philosophy and the idea of a hierarchy of races that are more or less important. That philosophy caused such awful suffering in the 20th century that I would certainly distance myself from it. None the less, there are such trends and an attempt to exploit certain forms of nationalism.

      Time and again, however, those attempts run up against certain limits. That was the case in France, Sweden and in Austria, and the huge majority of differing political opinions are able to contain that form of extremism. Sometimes one experiences a setback in one respect or other, but overall I do not think there is any future for those nationalist ways of thinking, and in 10 or 20 years’ time we will have learned to deal better with such forms of extremism than we have so far been able to do. That is my opinion.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Mr President, you are not only an eminent statesman with great political experience but you also worked as a scholar for many years. For that reason, I kindly ask you to comment on the specificity of Austrian neutrality when compared, for instance, with that of Sweden and Finland.

      Mr FISCHER* – It has changed considerably in recent times. At the beginning of the 1990s, Austria, Sweden and Finland, the three neutral countries, had a lot of contact with one another because of the new situation after the fall of the Iron Curtain. We discussed whether we were in a position to accede to the European Union. The issue was hotly debated in all three countries. I remember discussions with Ingvar Carlsson from Sweden, Paulo Ripponen from Finland and other friends. We decided to accede as neutral States. Since then, Sweden and Finland have considered themselves non-aligned.

      Although Austria remains a neutral country and has not made any major legal changes, we have made minor modifications. Our declaration of neutrality of October 1955 is a brief text. It says that Austria is bound to perpetual neutrality, will not accept any external pressure and will not accede to any military alliance. That short declaration has remained in force unchanged since October 1955. When we acceded to the European Union we said that our neutrality would remain, but we have changed some provisions in our constitution so that we can take part in European discussions on defence. To my mind, that has proved its worth.

      Around the year 2000, both major parties – the Social Democratic Party and the Austrian People’s Party – were at loggerheads. They found it difficult to negotiate to form a coalition. The Austrian People’s Party wanted a statement saying that Austria retained the right to accede to NATO. The social democrats refused that. Since then our defensive doctrine has been hammered out through a consensus between all parties. Its essence is that we are a neutral State, but we can take part in the process of European integration.

      In Finland – although I am sure our Finnish colleagues can explain this better – there are discussions about potential NATO membership. Similarly, in Sweden there is a wide range of opinions on that issue. But that does not stop us going down the avenue that we think has proved best for us and that is accepted by our population. If there were a referendum today on whether Austrians wanted to give up their neutrality, a large majority of the population would vote in favour of retaining it.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, President, for the way you answered –

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I want to ask my question.

      The PRESIDENT* – I am very sorry, but unfortunately the protocol is that we have to finish at 1 p.m.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Madam President –

      The PRESIDENT – We have very rigorous timings here. I am sorry, but we have to finish.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      On behalf of the Assembly, I thank the President most warmly for his address and for the answers given to questions. You have allowed us to benefit from your tremendous experience.

4. 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 at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Personal statement

2. Joint debate

a. Improving user protection and security in cyberspace

Presentation by Mr Fischer of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13451

Presentation by Mr Diaz Tejera of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13481

b. The right to Internet access

Presentation by Ms Pelkonen of the report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13434

Presentation by Mr Clappison of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13465

Speakers: Mr Flego, Mr Franken, Mr Shlegel, Mr Garðarsson, Mr Jónasson, Ms Karapetyan, Mr. le Déaut, Ms A. Hovhannisyan, Ms Gafarova, Ms Faber-van de Klashorst, Mr Triantafyllos, Mr Jenssen, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Fataliyeva, Ms Gorgh.

Amendments 1, 7, 10, 13, 8, 15, 9, 16, 17, 19, 11, 2 and 3, 18, 4, as amended, to the draft resolution in Document 13451, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13451, as amended, adopted

Amendments 5 and 6, as amended, to the draft recommendation in Document 13451, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13451 adopted

Amendments 1, 2, 5, as amended, 3 and 6 to the draft resolution in Document 13434 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 13434, as amended, adopted.

3. Address by Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria

Questions: Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Fischer, Ms Bulajić, Mr Villumsen, Mr Fournier, Mr Clappison, Mr Sobolev, Mr Szabó, Mr Iwiński.

4. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS/Ana Catarina Mendonça

Danielle AUROI/Pierre-Yves Le Borgn'

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Egemen BAĞIŞ/Suat Önal

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT/Pascale Crozon

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Silvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Philippe BLANCHART/Fatiha Saïdi

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN

Gerold BÜCHEL/Rainer Gopp

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Lennart Axelsson

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Tore Hagebakken

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE/Olivia Mitchell

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA/Irena Sokolova

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*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL/Andreas Schieder

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

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/Olga Kazakova

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI/Beata Bublewicz

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marc Spautz

Adam HOFMAN/Zbigniew Girzyński

Jim HOOD

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER/Volkmar Vogel

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Anton Belyakov

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Stella JANTUAN*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Ulrika KARLSSON/Kent Härstedt

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Tomasz Lenz

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Astrid KRAG*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Igor Chernyshenko

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Christophe LÉONARD/Jean-Pierre Michel

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT/Nikolaj Villumsen

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI/Josep Anton Bardina Pau

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER*

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Robert Shlegel

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/ Carmen Quintanilla

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ*

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Iwona Guzowska

Judith OEHRI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS/Andriy Shevchenko

Sandra OSBORNE*

Liisa-Ly PAKOSTA

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI*

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS/Ester Tuiksoo

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER

Laura SEARA

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT/Jürgen Hardt

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Karin STRENZ

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW/Jonas Gunnarsson

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Romana TOMC/Iva Dimic

Lord John E. TOMLINSON/David Crausby

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Spyridon Taliadouros

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN/Jaana Pelkonen

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Morten WOLD

Gisela WURM

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Andreja Črnak Meglič

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN/Naira Karapetyan

Levon ZOURABIAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised

to vote

Barbara ROSENKRANZ

Hans Fredrik GRØVAN

Observers

Sean CASEY

Corneliu CHISU

Percy DOWNE

Ernesto GÁNDARA CAMOU

Michel RIVARD

David TILSON

Nycole TURMEL

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

El Mokhtar GHAMBOU

Omar HEJIRA

Bernard SABELLA

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR