AA18CR21

AS (2018) CR 21

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-first sitting

Tuesday 26 June 2018 at 10 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.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

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

5.       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 Nick, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino. I refer members to the list of candidates and biographical notices which are to be found in Document 14562, and an opinion from the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights in Document 14579, Addendum 2.

      The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair.

      At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m. and will close at 5 p.m. Counting will then take place under the supervision of four tellers.

      I shall now draw by lot the names of the four tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

      The names of Mr Nicoletti, Ms De Temmerman, Ms Hopkins and Mr Aleksandar Stevanović have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

      I hope to announce the result of the election before the end of the sitting this afternoon.

      If needed, a second ballot will take place on Wednesday in the morning and afternoon sittings.

      I now declare the ballot open. 

      In the light of yesterday afternoon’s proceedings, I take this opportunity to remind all members of the rules of the Assembly on the conduct of members. As set out on page 110 of the Rules of Procedure, members should behave in a courteous, polite and respectful manner during debates.

2. The humanitarian situation of refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled “The humanitarian situation of refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria”, Document 14569, presented by Mr Di Stefano on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

      I remind members that there is a three-minute speech limit in this debate. In order to finish by 12 noon, I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.30 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Mr Di Stefano, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy) – First of all, I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about an issue that is central to the European debate at the moment. In these times, there is an unprecedented need for change in Europe and beyond regarding the system for asylum seekers and migration in general. We need to change our approach and rethink the global responsibilities that impose inconsistent burden sharing on countries that are affected by huge flows of migrants. We need to start from the concept that someone who has the right for protection must be able to find a legal and easy way to ask for it in safety and dignity.

      That brings us to some very simple conclusions. First, we have to seriously consider shifting the European borders to the transit and origin countries to provide a way to grant people the rights I have talked about. We have to consistently increase the so-called Valletta fund to balance it with the efforts in Turkey in order to manage both routes of migration. Obviously, we need to establish consistent coverage of these places by the European institutions and the institutions that grant human rights and international law, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration.

      My report, “The humanitarian situation of refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria”, covers Syria’s closest neighbours: Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. They host millions of refugees, who make up a large proportion of the population living on their territory. In some cases, they make up 20% or 30% of the local population. Even before the outbreak of armed hostilities in Syria, the region had one of the densest populations of refugees and their families in the world. These forced movements of people who remain in protracted displacement put enormous strain on the infrastructure and economies of the neighbouring countries.

      The report analyses outstanding concerns relating to the humanitarian situation in the region, respect for the human rights of refugees, the relevant legislation, living conditions and access to services, as well as the management of refugee flows, funding and prospects for the future. It makes recommendations to the authorities of the neighbouring countries, as well as to the international community, with a view to improving the situation.

      I refer to earlier works on the humanitarian situation of refugees in Syria, its neighbouring countries and the whole region, with a particular focus on the rights of vulnerable minorities, such as potentially stateless migrants and minors. It is easy to discover that the region is both the source and recipient of the largest numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons globally. Syria’s neighbours are among the countries with the highest refugee-to-population ration and the highest absolute numbers of refugees. As at 1 June 2018, there were over 3.6 million registered refugees in Turkey, 2.7 million in Jordan, 1.8 million in Lebanon and 267 000 in Iraq.

      The entire region has been subject to mass forced population movements for many years as a result of armed conflicts, including the civil war in Lebanon, the Gulf wars, the war in Yemen and the long-term displacement of third and fourth generation Palestinian refugees. The outbreak of military hostilities in Syria in 2011 and the ensuing influx of refugees overstretched the reception capacities and put enormous strain on the economies, social services and populations of the neighbouring countries. More than 5.3 million Syrian refugees out of the 11 million in total who have fled the country are currently registered in one of the neighbouring countries.

      Confronted with a humanitarian tragedy of this scale, the neighbouring countries have not always been able, despite international assistance, to provide refugees with adequate material reception conditions. To their credit, it should be underlined that they left their borders open for Syrian refugees during the peak arrivals. Regrettably, at present the borders remain closed except for in critical medical cases and there have been reported returns of refugees on an involuntary basis.

       According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 75% and 90% of Syrian refugees in the region live below the poverty line. More than 2.5 million require continuous food assistance and 43% of Syrian refugee children were out of school as of June 2017. Those figures should, however, be considered in the context of the economic situation of the countries concerned, as well as of the living conditions of the local population.

      As I stated at the beginning, greater financial support from the international community is indispensable, and the use of new technologies, including blockchain-based solutions for digital identity and payments, could bring significant financial savings and make the whole assistance process more transparent and accountable.

      It is time to strengthen global action in this region and fix the internal and external issues that we cannot accept anymore. To that end, the report calls on the Governments of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to respect the international standards of the 1951 Geneva convention; to grant basic healthcare and educational assistance to refugees; to maintain an open-door policy for asylum seekers; and to put extra effort into caring for vulnerable categories. We also call on Council of Europe member States to step up their financial contribution, to substantially increase resettlement and to encourage fairer sharing of responsibilities with non-European Union countries, in particular those involved in the Middle East process such as the United States, the Russian Federation and the Gulf states.

      I am more than happy to listen to your suggestions, but I stress again that we need to rethink how this burden and this responsibility are shared globally. We must also think about the actions that our governments and States are playing in these countries in terms of political connections and interference. We must stand together for the idea that human rights must go together with international co-operation. We have to grant these people human rights and dignity. We have to enable our countries and the neighbouring countries to manage these people in dignity and safety. If we do that, we will reach a global solution that works and that is long lasting. I look forward to listening to your interventions and to the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Di Stefano. You have four and a half minutes remaining.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Di Stefano, for his thorough report. With this call for more solidarity in the support of refugees, he departs our Assembly in an appropriate manner. We wish him all the best in his position in the new Italian Government. I hope for good co-operation with him in that capacity as well.

      The report rightly focuses on the humanitarian disaster that the Syrian war has caused for so many refugees and citizens. The largest proportion of them are internally displaced, often in poor and unsafe circumstances. Most of the Syrian refugees who have fled their country are hosted by three of the neighbouring countries: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. The rapporteur rightly praises their hospitality and their willingness to protect and host those refugees. He points out that other countries should do more to support those countries and to ensure that refugees are enabled to build a new future. After all, the war in Syria has been going on for seven years and they have no prospect of returning. The standstill of their lives is unacceptable.

      The refugee convention was ratified by many countries. It contains the common sense that the world has a common responsibility to protect refugees who cannot return to their own country and to give them a new future. The responsibility for this should not only extend to those who reach our territory; we should have a responsibility for all refugees, wherever they are in the world.

      The countries neighbouring Syria, especially Lebanon and Jordan, are completely overwhelmed. They are small countries and face threats to their stability. As Lebanon has not applied a mechanism involving camps, refugees face difficulties in accessing necessary services. In Jordan, the level of poverty is alarming, and that has consequences for both the refugees and the citizens of Jordan. As the war in Syria has been going on for so long, the problem is not only the shortage of food and medical services but refugees’ lack of access to education and the labour market. Jordan already has so many Palestinian refugees and it is now hosting a second group of refugees who have integration needs in such a small and fragile country.

      That shows how important it is that the responsibility for refugees is shared in a fair way; if it is not shared fairly, there is a threat that countries such as Jordan will fall as well. So we need to think of new ways for refugees to build a future in these circumstances, such as by increasing their opportunities to work and study within the camps, for instance, and we could do a lot more with European universities and companies. For now, however, it is urgent that we step up our financial contribution, just to fulfil the refugees’ basic needs in these countries. We talk a lot about receiving refugees in the region, but it will be quite odd if we do not provide sufficient resources for that. In fact, that is one of the causes of refugees travelling further than to neighbouring countries.

      I therefore support the report and also highlight the risk that exists: if we do not do enough, we will see a continuation of the situation now, whereby Syrians cannot even flee the country any more because all three neighbouring countries have closed their borders. That is very concerning, but it is understandable so long as we do not support those countries more. So we need to step up our financial support, but we must also invite vulnerable refugees and the family members of Syrians who are already residing in Europe to come here.

      The PRESIDENT – May I ask speakers to remain within three minutes, as we have a long list of speakers and we should enable as many of them as possible to take the floor?

      Lord RUSSELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I also thank the rapporteur and congratulate him on his promotion into the Italian Foreign Office. I remind him that we were fellow travellers when the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons visited Jordan in March. I would like to put on the record our thanks to the Jordanian Government and Jordanian parliamentarians for the warm and very informative welcome they gave us.

      As other speakers have mentioned, the countries around Syria are bearing a huge and disproportionate burden. Syria, of course, is by far the largest source of migrants, with 11 million refugees, of whom 5.3 million are still resident in neighbouring countries.

      I will focus my remarks on Jordan. Jordan has the highest refugee-to-population ratio almost in the world; 30% of its residents are refugees or migrants. So what were the takeaways from our visit? In Jordan, it is clear that there is a huge generosity of spirit. Jordanians are approaching this problem from a true human rights perspective. They take a quiet and modest pride in doing the right thing and there was absolutely no hint of, “Aren’t we wonderful? Look at us!” One came away with the impression that we were genuinely in the presence of what we in English call “the adult in the room”. However, the situation is putting a huge economic and social strain on the Kingdom of Jordan. There is a cost in terms of tempering its economic growth and sense of material wellbeing, which it is so important in a democracy to try to maintain. We had the privilege of meeting King Abdullah and he told us that one of his fears was about trying to retain the support of the Jordanian middle class. His remarks were very prescient, because within the last six weeks tax rises that were necessitated by supporting the refugee population caused enormous protests in the streets and resulted in a change of prime minister.

      So what should we do to try to help countries such as Jordan? We should support the Jordanian economy. In particular, when we are providing help to Jordan, I appeal to Governments and NGOs to use the existing infrastructure there, particularly the distribution and supply chain, to support the Jordanian economy. Putting in a parallel organisation would help nobody and would not increase Jordanian employment, which is absolutely fundamental. We should listen and we should not preach – and it is not a coincidence that the Queen of England’s eldest grandson, Prince William, is currently visiting Jordan, to demonstrate our strong support of, commitment to and admiration for what the Jordanians are doing,.

      Mr Aleksandar STEVANOVIĆ (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe)* – Ladies and gentlemen, I am very glad to see this detailed report on events that are extremely important and that affect these four countries. The signs are that the situation in the Middle East is very complex and that the challenges before us are large.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      We have a moral obligation to act and we should remember the times when we Europeans were mass refugees and internally displaced persons Europe-wide. That happened in the time of our parents and grandparents, and it is part of our history. We had some safe harbours in that time and somehow we survived. We should never forget that fact.

      For the countries of the western Balkans, it is an even more painful issue. We have experienced something similar in the previous two decades – mass refugees and mass internally displaced persons, in the brutal civil war in the former Yugoslavia.

      For anyone who has ever visited Zaatari and the other places where the refugees from Syria are living some kind of life, which is more decent than many of us can imagine because somehow they believe the future will be better, there is no dilemma – we must act carefully, to achieve something that is realistic.

      We must express our gratitude to these four States, especially Jordan and Lebanon, which host so many migrants. The share of migrants in those countries is really, really big, and they have done a great job for all of us.

      In addition, we should mention what is also clearly stated in the report – Turkey also hosts a lot of migrants, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion. Iraq, too, hosts migrants, although not to such a large extent as other countries, but it has all the problems that exist after its war with ISIS. All these countries are vulnerable and that is why Europe must act.

      The report provides a realistic framework to improve not only the position of refugees but the position of the host countries; we have a moral obligation to act, but it is also a reasonable approach. We definitely do not have the institutional and cultural capacity to absorb more people in Europe without undermining the very cornerstones of our societies. That is a fact.

      We should carefully monitor the situation and denounce forced returns and especially the directing of refugees to Europe. We should enable controlled immigration instead of playing ping-pong. All of this should be done to prevent the rise of extremism and demagogy in Europe. We see it in the creation of almost one-issue political parties. We should also act to prevent isolationism and especially the type of politics in Europe that undermines the fine freedom that made Europe great.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – In the countries neighbouring Syria, one can witness the ugly results of the recent European policies regarding the refugee and migrant issue. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have endured the gradual transition from being countries that offer passage to becoming detainment countries for thousands of people who arrive in them every day. Except for Turkey, the population of refugees as measured against the countries’ actual populations has exceeded any safe proportion or ratio.

      These countries are giving Europe a lesson – a lesson in humanitarian principles, in solidarity and in organising a proper response to such a large-scale crisis. Let us not forget that we are talking about countries that have relatively small populations – with the exception of Turkey – that are poorer than the average European Union country, and that have weak social structures. Yet the entire European continent –  perhaps the most prosperous group of States in the world – has found it impossible to shelter, absorb and integrate even a small fraction of the refugees now resident in those countries. The worst results of that approach were seen in the slave markets of Libya, where people were displayed and sold like livestock.

      One could agree that the social structures of most European States – even the richest and most powerful, such as Germany – are strained to the limit and are already finding it difficult to accommodate the needs of their own populations. Even if we forget the fact that the problems of European social cohesion are the result of neoliberalism and austerity, this is an argument that rings true, especially in countries such as Greece, that have been struck hard by the economic crisis. However, how can one argue that we in Europe are in a worse situation than Jordan or Lebanon? And let us not forget that Greece, regardless of her own serious problems, did offer – and is still offering – shelter to tens of thousands of people, a huge number when compared to her population. What about the rest of Europe?

      What should Europe do? Of course Turkey should be supported, and more aid must be given to the countries neighbouring Syria, to help them cope with the immediate needs. However, these are short-term measures. The tone must be set by the European Union, which could easily decompress the situation by allowing relocation of refugees in its territory and taking up initiatives to stop the war. The “Fortress Europe” approach will not solve the problem; it will further worsen it.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – Dear friends, the Syrian refugee crisis has many aspects, and there is a great humanitarian tragedy surrounding the refugees. Some 6 million people have escaped from Syria since the start of the civil war, about 85% of whom are now located in the neighbouring countries. Turkey has taken the heaviest burden of this humanitarian crisis, having given shelter to nearly 4 million refugees. That is the largest number of refugees in any country, and in any other crisis. The country with the next largest refugee population is Lebanon, which has taken around 1 million, and Jordan hosts more than 650,000. I have visited all those countries this year and met Syrian refugees where they are being sheltered.

      On behalf of us all, I would like to express our gratitude to those countries – especially to Turkey, which has welcomed the biggest number of refugees – for their assistance to these displaced people. As a representative of the country and nation that suffered Armenian occupation, which resulted in nearly 1 million refugees, I value the efforts that have been taken to create good conditions for refugees in a limited timeframe. All of us – all European countries – should express our gratitude to those countries and continue to support them, especially Turkey.

      Turkey, as the border gateway to Europe, neighbouring the Middle East, together with Lebanon and Jordan, has sheltered more than 5 million refugees and stopped them from moving into Europe. This is a burden to share, but European countries have not taken their share and have not given these countries enough support. The situation in Turkey is unique. While dealing with an enormous number of refugees, it worked hard to create a suitable environment. The government provided the refugees with protection and met their basic needs, including health care, education and other relevant services.

      To our dismay, the situation faced by refugees, particularly Syrian refugees in many European countries, does not meet their expectations, neither from the perspective of Council of Europe standards, nor from that of its values. The situation suffers from many deficiencies, particularly with regard to the need to find solutions to integration problems and to meet the refugees’ basic human rights.

      In conclusion, the humanitarian situation faced by refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria is an important issue that we need to handle together, because it constitutes a challenge to the security and safety of Europe. Allow me to pass on to you an appeal from the Syrian refugees I met – an appeal not to shut the doors of hope to your countries. They believe in your continuing support to help them survive.

      Mr MULLEN (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I wish Mr Di Stefano well in his new responsibilities – in bocca al lupo – and congratulate him on this important report. Many reports on the crisis have been produced already, and many inquiries are ongoing, but this one shines a light on a neglected part of our current discussions: namely, the situation on the ground in the countries that are shouldering the burden from the Syrian war. Eight years into the conflict, and despite the defeat of ISIS, the horror continues. We know that 6 million people have been internally displaced in Syria. Of the 11 million who have left that country, half are concentrated in a small number of neighbouring countries, which are bearing an enormous burden, as we have heard.

      I would like to focus on a few themes. I will reflect first on the scale of the problem. It puts into context our current struggles and challenges within the European Union, where we wonder whether we can shoulder the burden of thousands or tens of thousands of migrants in our communities. Some countries are having to deal with considerably larger numbers of refugees, and with much greater strain on their resources and capacities. It seems to me that financial intervention by the European Union and others cannot be based only on stemming the flow of immigrants to Europe; it must be grounded on a real sense of solidarity with others, and a real assessment of the needs of potential migrants, and of refugees in particular.

      Investment in economically impoverished countries is an obvious imperative of the concern for human dignity. We must recognise the pressure on host communities. We must also recognise that there are certain key issues that we must prioritise. We must think, for example, of the 2.5 million Syrian refugees who are children, and they must be core to our concern. We must not forget their right to safe, equitable and quality education. We must also be concerned about sexual violence against women and children, in particular, in situations of mass displacement of people, and indeed in refugee camps. I have mentioned education because when we think of human flourishing it is important to remember that food, shelter and so on might be basic needs, but they are not the only needs. Finally, we must have regard to the concerns about religious minorities in refugee camps, and to ensure that they are secure and safe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mullen. That concludes the list of spokespeople for the political groups. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but do you wish to respond at this stage, Mr Di Stefano? That is not the case.

      I remind delegates that the vote to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights is in progress. The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

      We move now to the list of speakers. The first speaker is Mr Csenger-Zalán.

      Mr CSENGER-ZALÁN (Hungary) – The Syrian conflict has been one of the root causes of the migration crisis in Europe. Apart from the humanitarian issues, the crisis affects European security.

      The ultimate objective with Syria is to enable refugees to return to their homes. If unresolved, the issue has the potential to undermine seriously the already fragile stability of some of Syria’s most vulnerable neighbours. Until the conditions for the return of all refugees to Syria are met, countries hosting the largest numbers of Syrian refugees must be given additional support. The burden on Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon is particularly heavy and the cost they pay is high in economic and social terms. Hungary therefore seizes every opportunity to call on the international community to support them.

      Turkey is a key partner in addressing migration in the eastern Mediterranean. It is regrettable that the report does not sufficiently acknowledge its contribution. Furthermore, the proposed resolution calls on Turkey to follow certain policies pertaining to migration, and that does not fall under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

      Hungary contributes significantly to international efforts to provide humanitarian support to Syria and her neighbours. In 2017, through the Hungary Helps initiative, Hungary provided almost €27 million in bilateral aid to countries of origin and host countries. An additional €17.6 million contribution was made to European Union funds to assist countries of the region affected by the refugee crisis.

      Most of the aid was provided directly to churches and humanitarian organisations operating in the region. That allowed us to provide help on the spot, where it is most needed. A key element of our approach is to support, in various ways, the Christian minority communities of the region. Those communities have been particularly affected by the ongoing violence and face discrimination in a number of countries of the region. Any real solution will, and the help we give does, conform with our European values.

      Mr VENIZELOS (Greece) – The ideal would be for Europe as a political entity to have the political strength and will to undertake substantive international initiatives towards the end of war in Syria and in the search for a political solution – but let us be realistic.

      Europe deals with the consequences of the war in the form of the refugee and migration flows. Even at that secondary level, initiatives should give substantial economic and managerial help in the countries neighbouring Syria. First, with Turkey, achieving the conditions for the real implementation of the European Union-Turkey agreement is much more urgent than the unacceptable plans for the creation of extraterritorial centres for refugees in countries outside the European Union such as Albania or Tunisia.

      The political and social pressure caused in many European countries by the refugee crisis, and its connection with security and identity issues, can be tackled neither with wishful thinking nor with the abolition of the principle of solidarity and the violation of human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Embarrassed choices do not halt nationalist populism and do not protect European liberal democracy. On the contrary, they make things worse.

      The question is therefore whether the pressures that the political systems and governments of many countries face from national social reaction will prevail, or the principle of solidarity will be respected among the member States of the European Union. Furthermore, will the rights under the Convention and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights also be respected? The choices that protect European political and legal culture and humanitarian values are promoted not only by commending countries that neighbour Syria but by commending European countries for provision of economic and practical assistance to countries that neighbour Syria.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The frequent wars in the Near and Middle East have caused a huge number of refugees, mainly Palestinian and Syrian. Many have had to flee their own countries to seek shelter in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.

      The war in Syria that started in 2011 has caused the displacement of 11 million people, 5.3 million of whom have found in the countries neighbouring Syria. Those countries, however, do not apply the Geneva Conventions, because they have not ratified them. Nevertheless, it is important for those refugees to have access to social rights so that they can integrate into the societies of the host countries – the right to work, healthcare and education are indispensible if we wish to promote the integration of the refugees and to prepare for their return to Syria when peace has returned.

      The legislative framework that defines the status of refugees and asylum speakers is insufficient in countries such as Lebanon. As for Iraq, conflicts continue there, and it is difficult to uphold fundamental rights. Unfortunately, those rights are not guaranteed. Jordan, for example, has welcomed more than 2.7 million refugees on to its territory, 2 million of whom are Palestinian and 650 000 Syrian. That accounts for some 30% of the population. With a GDP of €38 billion and a growth rate that struggles reach 2%, it is hard to see how Jordan alone can cope with the mass influx of refugees caused by the flaring up of conflicts in the region.

      In March of this year, members of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and I went to Jordan. We met King Abdullah, who issued an appeal to the international community and to Europe in particular, asking for help. I also visited the Syrian refugee camp there, Zaatari, which has more than 80 000 refugees, making it the fourth city of Jordan. Living conditions are difficult, despite infrastructure provided. Each person tries to lead a normal life, but of course they have one hope and dream: to return to Syria. They want to bounce back and to build projects for the future. It is difficult for them to conceive of a future in the current situation.

      Colleagues, I was very struck by the visit to the camp. I have strong memories of it, and was particularly affected by the children, who remained hopeful despite the appalling situation they were in – sorry, I am rather overcome.

      It is necessary to help those countries. The member States of our Organisation have to provide funding to improve support to refugees. They should also do more to take in refugees and to enable the most vulnerable of them, the unaccompanied minors in particular, to be rehoused in Europe. Other States with greater resources than the countries neighbouring Syria should commit to help the countries neighbouring Syria. I am thinking in particular of the Gulf countries, and I regret that the draft resolution does not place sufficient emphasis on that.

      Mr MADISON (Estonia)* – I thank the rapporteur for his report on the tricky issue of the migrants in the countries neighbouring Syria.

      In September 2014, I visited the area, and I was struck by the thought that we have to focus our attention more on the plight of the countries neighbouring Syria that have taken in millions of genuine refugees. These people are not attempting to come to Europe; their aim is to get back to their home country, Syria, as quickly as possible. However, rather than supporting Syria’s neighbouring countries to receive refugees, we have promoted an open-door policy. In all likelihood, we are coming to a decisive showdown over that failed policy, as part of which millions of euros have been spent despite the reality that the majority of people who try to come to Europe are economic migrants. In 2016, for example, Germany spent more than €21 billion and Italy spent €4.2 billion. Those are just minor indications of a larger picture, and they underline the way we have wasted money that would have been far better used if we had channelled it to the most needy while securing our external borders.

      We have not addressed the questions of political instability or organised crime, and we have not talked about conflicts. We no longer talk about the very real threat of terrorism. The report provides excellent proof that, in most cases, those who have fled the war in Syria are located in its neighbouring countries. We have a duty to help them. That should not be a problem, because a great deal is being done to facilitate uncontrolled migration to Europe. Germany should lead the rest of Europe in ensuring that money is spent on the people who need it. The recently elected Italian Government has made a clear commitment to trying to stop illegal immigration, and Hungary has also made a major contribution. European countries must show they have the courage to close their borders, and they must step up to the plate when it comes to defending the external borders of the European Union and the Schengen area. The next step is to support refugees directly in the countries where they live – Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank Mr Di Stefano for his excellent report, which is not the first but the second – perhaps even the third – on this topic.

      First, let me make an appeal. We European countries see what Syria’s neighbouring States are going through – refugees are coming from Iraq, as well as Syria into Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and they are also going into Iraq – but we are not showing solidarity, so what I am going to say is totally different from what the previous speaker said. In Germany and Austria, we have seen what happens if we do the right thing: we can actually stimulate our economies. I have visited refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and there are massive problems there. Mr Di Stefano’s report came out two days after the United Nations had to reduce humanitarian food aid to Lebanon because of non-payment by member States. We say that we support those neighbouring countries, but we then find out that people are not meeting their commitments to the United Nations.

      The neighbouring countries play a huge part, but we must ensure that the situation is orderly. We talk about guests. Guests are guests. We need to recognise the status of refugees, because there are different legal obligations involved. Above all, we need to focus on Lebanon. Refugees make up one third of the population there and they need aid, particularly in education. Barely any refugee children in Lebanon are able to go to school. As a lot of other people have said, we must recognise that certain refugee camps have to be reconstructed, reorganised and made into real towns. People have fled a destroyed country that will be very difficult to reconstruct, so we will find that refugees often stay for at least 10 years in their host country. It is therefore important that we create the necessary infrastructure and demonstrate solidarity. It is also important that we receive refugees in Europe and that, as Europeans, we commit ourselves to integrating those people.

      Ms HOPKINS (Ireland) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Di Stefano, for his excellent report on the humanitarian situation of refugees in Syria’s neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. As the report describes, this is very much a humanitarian tragedy. We need to do more, and we need to do better.

      Simon Coveney, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, visited refugee camps in Jordan just two weeks ago. He visited one of the largest camps there, the Zaatari camp, which is just a few miles from the country’s border with Syria. He described it as not really a camp at all, but a sprawling town in the desert that is home to 80,000 people from Syria who were driven from their country by a brutal ongoing civil war. He stated that, as far as refugee camps go, Zaatari is as good as it gets. It has technology, education, healthcare and caravan dwellings, which offer those fleeing war a place to be safe and secure. I am very conscious, though, that levels of poverty are exceptionally high among both refugees and the citizens of those countries, as Ms Strik stated.

      The minister was told repeatedly during his visit that far more is needed even to sustain and maintain what is being provided, otherwise many of those services will close. I live in a small town in the west of Ireland, and we currently support more than 200 refugees at a time in our reception centre. However, as the international community, we need to provide greater financial support, in a co-ordinated way, to save lives and support the people who are suffering this humanitarian tragedy. Most especially, as has been mentioned a number of times, the international community must work hard to combat the root causes of migration.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – The Syrian people are a martyr people. They are the victims of political contingencies and geostrategic issues that go beyond them. We are seeing a drama with multiple repercussions and a descent into the depths of hell. These people have been driven into exile in order not to perish.

      Everything began with the contagious enthusiasm of the Arab Spring seven years ago. A despot who was educated in Europe and is allegedly a humanist has been bombarding his own people in order to hang on to his privileges. Despite the desperate situation in Syria, the international community has stood by. The use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people was deemed a red line, but that red line was crossed. We heard empty threats and nothing more. It took Islamic State for us to react and for the Damascus regime – the lesser of two evils – to be strengthened. The Syrian people have been taken hostage. The international community is settling scores on the back of the Syrian people. Already, 11 million Syrians have been driven from their homes, in addition to the many millions who are displaced within the country. They have joined refugees who have fled other countries over recent years, and who have been hosted by countries such as Lebanon and Jordan that are famous for their hospitality. Those countries already grapple with unemployment and poor water resources, but they did not shirk responsibility.

      In March, I visited the Zaatari refugee camp in the north of Jordan, an enormous camp that is home to 80 000 refugees, including many children. Assisted by many NGOs and the World Food Programme, the refugees try to imagine a future for themselves far from the chaos and the sound of bombs. At first, the refugees were lively in spirit, but they have now resigned themselves to the fact that they will be there for the long term.

      Because nobody is tackling the root causes of the situation or upholding people’s fundamental rights, they have to make do with transitional arrangements that often last from one generation to the next. We are dealing with a ticking time bomb, however. Palestinians today live in so-called provisional camps that have existed for 70 years. In the case of Syria, the international community must mobilise further and provide more humanitarian resources and relief on the front line, and we must address the political causes of the situation.

      I call on members of the Assembly to support the report. It suggests some solutions, although more needs to be done.

      Mr ALQAISI (Jordan, Partner for Democracy) – For decades, Jordan has accommodated refugees from neighbouring countries, and since 2011 it has been a major host for refugees from Syria, who make up a large proportion of the population. The refugees place a huge strain on Jordan’s infrastructure and economy. Jordan has provided as much as it can in the way of services for refugees, including healthcare, education and work, as well as respect for human rights. We in Jordan are looking to the Council of Europe to satisfy our funding requirements and set up financial contributions to Jordan. We must encourage all countries, particularly those – such as the United States, the Russian Federation and the Gulf states – that are involved in the Middle East peace process, to meet their responsibilities towards Jordan.

      There are more than 2.8 million registered refugees in Jordan, in addition to the non-registered refugees. There are about 7 million Jordanian citizens, so the refugees represent about 38.5% of our population, not 30%. There are 1 million refugees from Syria, 52% of whom are below the age of 17. Some of them are unaccompanied, and 24 000 Syrian children were born in Jordan in 2017. Access to healthcare in Jordan is free for Syrian refugees who have identity cards; they have access to work; and the children of Syrian refugees have free access to school. All those provisions put an enormous strain on the Jordanian economy, and economic growth may decline to 2% or less. Some US $3.5 billion is being spent on the needs of refugees, and that is negatively affecting the situation of Jordanian locals. Unemployment and poverty have risen, and demand for infrastructure has increased. People are angry about our bad economic situation, which is affecting our social and political life. We need help from our friends.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Alqaisi. I take this opportunity to remind colleagues that the vote is in progress behind the President’s chair to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the State of San Marino. Your participation is appreciated. The poll will close at 5 p.m. and those who have not yet voted may do so by going to the area behind the chair.

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – This report brings our attention once again to the humanitarian tragedy in Syria and neighbouring countries. The numbers are astonishing. According to the UNHCR, between 75% and 90% of Syrian refugees in the region live below the poverty line; more than 2.5 million require continuous food assistance; and, as of June 2017, 43% of Syrian refugee children were out of school. The neighbouring countries have shown overwhelming generosity. It is, however, clear that the great influx of refugees has put an enormous strain on the economy, infrastructure and the social services of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. As the report points out, it becomes more and more difficult for neighbouring countries to offer the necessary assistance to the large refugee population, and there is now a more or less permanent presence of international organisations providing relief aid to, and securing the governance of, the millions of refugees.

      Norway is one of the largest humanitarian contributors to the Syria crisis, with a contribution of 8.7 billion kroner since the beginning of the crisis. Most of Norway’s contributions are applied to immediate measures to save lives, relieve distress and secure the best possible protection for the civilian population, but we have a particular focus on education for children and adolescents. The children are the biggest losers from this cruel war, and a lot of effort will be required to bring generations of children back into a functioning society. Education is of the utmost importance in that regard. Norway is one of the largest donors for education in Syria and neighbouring countries, and we will continue to give priority to education.

      We all agree that only a political solution can bring about long-lasting stability and peace in Syria. It is therefore important that we all support the United Nations peace negotiations in the region politically and economically. It is equally crucial that the parties and their supporters contribute to resuming real negotiations in Geneva. Without political will and support for the peace negotiations, it is difficult to see how the difficult humanitarian situation can be improved.

      Lord BALFE (United Kingdom) – I offer the rapporteur congratulations on the report and commiserations on his joining the Government of Italy, which faces a difficult task in relation to refugees.

      In the Chamber, we often mention the poverty line. Poverty is the root cause of the problem. Millions of people below the poverty line look north and see millions of people above it, and they want to come and join us. Until we manage to solve that dichotomy, which will be done partly by having good aid budgets and improving standards in the rest of the world, we will continue to have such problems.

      I want to mention the country of Turkey. It has not been mentioned very often but it has played a heroic role in this crisis. I have looked at the figures and Turkey spends 15 times as much as Sweden as a proportion of its GDP of its refugee programme, with some $6 billion spent by Turkey on 3.2 million Syrians within its border. I have been a fairly regular visitor to Turkey over the years, and I can tell you that 94% of the refugees living outside camps means that virtually every city there has a refugee population, many of them living on the streets, and the local municipalities, already poor, are fighting hard to try to integrate that population. Although the European Union has been generous to Turkey, it certainly has not been generous enough, nor to the other riparian countries.

      With regard to the role of the international community, our colleague Maura Hopkins has just spoken about the considerable Irish contribution. I was in Dublin at the weekend and I know that Ireland is now taking a further 4 000 refugees. However, we need to do more: we also need to look at who started the war and began the hostilities that we are currently suffering from. I suggest that the United States, the United Kingdom and France have a special duty to contribute to clearing up the tragedy that they started. Translating the cost of the missiles that were recently fired at Syria into aid for refugees from that country might be a good start. We have to rebuild Syria and, as I have said before in this Chamber, the West has to stop interfering on a compulsive basis in countries that it cannot help and knows far too little about.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Blanchart is not here, so I call Mr Fournier.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Dear colleagues, the humanitarian situation concerning refugees in Syria’s neighbouring countries is dramatic. Four countries are affected: Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Iraq is a country that has been completely destabilised by war; even today, the fight against Islamic State means that there is a state of permanent war there, with 2.2 million internally displaced people. In such circumstances, it is difficult to host the 267 000 refugees in Iraq in conditions that comply with the Geneva Convention.

      The situation in Jordan and Lebanon is different because of the large number of Palestinian refugees, 2.1 million in Jordan and 460 000 in Lebanon. Their situation was already a complicated one before the war in Syria. Most of them live in very precarious condition, and the war in Syria has but added misery to misery. Lebanon and Jordan do not have the means to host so many refugees in conditions that meet the terms of the Geneva Convention. It is disheartening to see that we are leaving it up to countries that already face many difficulties to look after so many Syrian refugees. Yes, the European Union has released a number of funds and is trying to set up resettlement programmes, but that is not enough under the circumstances.

      As for the United States, that country is refusing to welcome Syrian refugees. Furthermore, it has announced that it will reduce the amount of money provided to UNRWA every year for assisting Palestinian refugees. Yet the situation is more than alarming, and it is high time that the international community mobilised itself. The Council of Europe should encourage its members to do more, especially the Russian Federation, which could certainly do more.

      Lastly, Turkey is hosting 3.7 million refugees, 3.2 million of whom are Syrian. That is more than a quarter of the Syrian refugees in the world. Even though Turkey is a member of our Organisation, Turkey does not apply the Geneva Convention to non-European refugees. Two laws adopted in 2013 and 2014 established reception procedures and a temporary protection system. Turkey spent more than $6 billion in 2015 alone in order to assist refugees, yet in practice much still needs to be done in order to ensure effective access to basic services such as education and healthcare. The European Union has committed to providing a total of €6 billion in aid. That commitment must be fulfilled and an agreement struck between member States on the financing modalities for the second chunk of €3 billion.

      The difficulties of Syria’s neighbouring countries, but also the difficulties that Italy and Greece are facing, are a matter of concern for us all.

      Mr KERN (France)* – Ladies and gentlemen, since the start of the war in Syria there has been a massive influx of Syrian refugees to neighbouring countries. Estimates suggest that 5.3 million people have fled from that country to neighbouring countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. The situation is extremely alarming, particularly because these countries do not have the financial, social or economic resources to welcome these refugees in acceptable conditions. Jordan’s GDP is €38 billion. Despite that, that country has welcomed some 650 000 refugees from Syria, equivalent to 7% of its total population. Compare this to France, whose GDP is some €2,000 billion but where just 15,000 Syrian refugees have been taken in.

      The situation is unacceptable. The time has come for rich countries to do more to help to welcome Syrian refugees and to help neighbouring countries. States that are members of our Assembly must face up to their responsibilities in this alarming situation. That also applies to the United States and the Gulf countries. The situation is all the more worrying now, given that countries around Syria are no longer able to take in any more refugees and have closed their borders. At the same time, the situation in Syria has done anything but improve. More than 80% of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan are surviving below the poverty line. Estimates suggest that 43% of Syrian children in neighbouring countries are not able to attend school, and obviously that will have an impact on the future of the country and its rebuilding.

      Against that backdrop, it is very tempting for Syrians either to try to flee to Europe, putting their very lives at risk, or to go back to Syria, something that the HCR strongly advises against. Given the fact that certain countries have refused to take in refugees or to help them to resettle, the time has come for us to increase financial support for Syria’s neighbours. The European Union currently pays €1.85 billion to Jordan and Lebanon but that simply falls short of what they need. Turkey has already been given €3 billion, and an additional €3 billion should be released over the next two years. It is true that these countries could be accused of closing down their borders and not implementing the Geneva Convention. However, the efforts that they have made to help these refugees far outstrip anything that our governments have done, given the money and the resources that they have. We should be honest enough to recognise what Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have done and congratulate them on the generosity and humanity that they have shown – something that should act as an inspiration for us.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – Dear colleagues, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr Di Stefano for this evaluation of the refugee situation across Europe and the Middle East. I support the report, but once again I feel obliged to point out that this urgent refugee issue has not come out of the blue, with no root causes or concrete basis. I hope the rapporteur will allow me to point out an aspect that was not properly covered in his report: the root cause for the ongoing humanitarian disaster. Who is responsible for this tragedy?

      I had warned as far back as 2013 – five years ago – that it seemed highly likely that the whole of Syria would soon fall into ruins, leading to a humanitarian disaster on the outskirts of Europe should events continue at their present pace, and that is what happened. I wish I had been wrong.

      That was the price paid by the Syrian people for a miscalculated United States proxy war for “regime change” in Damascus. Unfortunately, the West followed in the footsteps of the United States. In its Resolution 1878 in April 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe too stated that Assad’s regime was “coming to an end” – but it did not. Now there are millions of refugees, some of them fleeing the Assad regime, some fleeing ISIS, and recently others fleeing because of Turkish intervention in southern Syria.

      Given this background, I call on the Assembly to bring the lion’s share of the burden that has stemmed from this disaster to the leading Council of Europe countries in proportion to their political responsibility for the eruption of the “civil war” in Syria. This burden should be shared in proportion to the countries’ financial and economic capacities.

      Most of those affected by this humanitarian disaster are kids, millions of whom are dumped in the slums of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Those kids are forced to beg on the boulevards of urban centres or to work at least 12 hours a day for nothing in remote sweat shops in the industrial areas. Under-age girls are exposed to sexual harassment and exploitation. Millions of kids are without school, medical care or shelter, and are growing up without any hope, in an environment that is hostile to their language and culture. All that should be a concern for the Council of Europe. I would like to warn everyone that, unless enormous efforts are immediately put into effect, Europe and the whole global North will turn into an object of hate in the eyes of the would-be-lost generations.

      Lord TOUHIG (United Kingdom) – More than seven years into the greatest refugee crisis of modern times, there is a very real danger that global attention is beginning to diminish, at a time when life for people seeking sanctuary in countries surrounding Syria is becoming more desperate than ever. The report helps us to refocus and keep the issue alive. There are three areas I believe deserve much greater attention from the international community: first, the exploitation of refugee communities, secondly, the pressure on host communities and, thirdly, the well-being of particularly vulnerable people.

      We know all too well that modern slavery and human trafficking are among the largest criminal enterprises in the world today. Having been driven from their homes in Syria, huge numbers of refugees are living precariously in neighbouring countries, exploited by those who seek to profit from their suffering. An increasing number of refugee children are being forced to work on farms, construction sites, peddling goods or begging on the streets. Large numbers of women and girls have been forced into marriage, domestic servitude and sex trafficking, and face physical abuse. The driving factor behind this exploitation is often the desperation that is born out of the dire circumstances that so many refugees find themselves in. For example, United Nations agencies recently reported that more than three quarters of Syrian refugees in Lebanon are now living below the poverty line. More humanitarian assistance is therefore urgently needed, but we should also be working with national governments on practical steps to tackle criminal exploitation, including anti-trafficking legislation, labour protection and training for law enforcement officials.

      Turning to the impact of the crisis on host communities, I would like to share the words of Father Paul Karam, president of Caritas Lebanon: “The consequences now are worse and worse for the host local community...The first sign of that is the poverty, huge increase of poverty, among the Lebanese people”. Organisations such as Caritas are responding by using their funds to support local communities, many of which are struggling with severe poverty, and I hope that our governments will continue to recognise the importance of this approach. Human Rights Watch has suggested that the recent evictions of Syrian refugees by several Lebanese municipalities are “a warning that the willingness of host communities to tolerate the continued refugee presence has its limits”.

      Finally, I would like to say a few words about refugees who have additional needs. It is estimated that 20% of refugees from Syria have some form of disability. We must do much more to help and support them. Tackling exploitation, supporting host communities and properly assisting refugees with additional needs are integral to this. Colleagues, we cannot afford to wait.

      Mr ZAYADIN (Jordan, Partner for Democracy) – Jordan has been overwhelmed by the influx of refugees. This influx has detrimentally affected our health system, our education system and our transportation system, in addition to the fierce competition that exists in an already small employment market. The massive inflow of refugees has put an enormous strain on the Jordanian economy. Our economic growth has dropped to 2.1% as opposed to the expected normal growth of 4%. The latest protests in Jordan, which you all might have heard about, were a reflection of the unbearable and difficult economic situation the country and its people face. Normal Jordanian citizens are now directly affected as a result of the huge influx of refugees. Their quality of life has been hugely affected.

      It is unfair that Jordan should be left alone. The war in Syria and its direct and indirect effects are the responsibility of the global community as a whole. It is both a human and a humane responsibility that we must all carry, not Jordan alone. Yes, we do proudly and generously undertake our humane responsibilities. That said, the time has come for the global community and the European community, to step up and take action. Jordan is performing its part on behalf of humanity. It is time for the rest of the world – the European Union and other countries – to do their part.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Di Stefano, for this important report concerning the humanitarian situation of refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria.

      Having visited Jordan in March, during our meeting of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, I would like concentrate on Jordan – indeed, it is unfair to leave Jordan alone. I extend a word of thanks to the Jordanian delegation for hosting that meeting. During our presence, we discovered that there were about 1.4 million Syrian refugees in Jordan, who had left their country after the start of the internal conflict. That figure is from official data that the Jordanian authorities presented during our meeting.

      The financial situation of many Syrian refugees is critical. The systematic inflow of refugees has exacerbated the adverse social and economic phenomena in both countries: the increase in the prices of products and the rental of premises, and the increased competition in the labour market. Syrian refugees stay in organised camps, the vast majority of them having found shelter in the so-called host communities. At the same time, the Jordanian authorities have opened up access to public health services and the education system for refugees from Syria. In addition, some of the refugees use the help provided by Jordanian and foreign aid organisations.

      However, as a result of the deteriorating economic situation in Jordan, including the increasingly difficult budgetary situation and the lack of funds for financing the public sector, the country is in a difficult situation. Prime Minister Hani Mulki of Jordan resigned on 5 May due to demonstrations following IMF-backed austerity measures to ensure economic stability, despite the difficult time that the country is going through with millions of refugees. Supporting Jordan is one of the solutions to avoid the movement of people. In addition to combating the root causes, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should emphasise the need for other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, to increase their humanitarian and financial support to countries neighbouring Syria in order to minimise the negative consequences for European countries, as well as minimising human suffering.

      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 for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that type-written texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted, which will be at 3.30 p.m.

      May I remind members about the ongoing vote for a judge to the European Court of Human Rights? I invite you to participate in the vote, which will close at 5 pm, behind the President’s chair.

      I call Mr Di Stefano, rapporteur, to reply to the debate. You have four and a half minutes.

      Mr DI STEFANO (Italy) – I thank everyone for their kind wishes about my new governmental role in Italy.

      Most of the speeches broadly focused on the same concept: we need to do more. However, we also need to do better and look to the longer term, because we have already done a lot. We have put in a lot of money and have shared many responsibilities, but we have never got to the root causes, which is why we are still talking about this problem. It has already been said today, but we have a direct responsibility with regard to the exploitation happening under neo-colonialism in those countries. Once we fix the so-called “primary movements”, the secondary ones will be rendered insignificant, which will help the debate in the European Council that we know is based on that argument.

      I will now respond to some of the speeches, all of which were helpful, but first I want to thank the Jordanian delegation for the great opportunity that they gave us when we visited the country. I say to Mr Stevanović that the problem is not the rise of extremist parties. That rise is the consequence of the failure of the so-called moderate parties, and if we keep on thinking that the political reaction is the cause of the problem, we will lose the chance to fix everything. Ms Kavvadia said that the European fortress will not fix the issue, which is right, but acting on the root causes will. When we go back to our parliaments, we need to talk about corporate social responsibility, for example, because companies are still exploiting resources in the countries that migrants come from. I was in total agreement with Mr Venizelos when he said that we need to stabilise Libya and Syria, but creating external protection centres under UNHCR control is fundamental because we will be able to offer migrants a legal way to enter Europe while respecting human dignity and human rights.

      I say to Mr Madison that it is easy for non-coastal countries to state that we need to close the borders, but if everyone closed their borders, the coastal countries will bear the brunt of an issue that has been going on for decades. I remind the Assembly that we are already outside Schengen rules, because if someone wants to travel from Italy to France or to Austria, they will find closed borders. I thank Mr Schennach for his kind words. This is my third report. One of them was on child migrants and the other was on statelessness, which is why I stress the need to fix the current problem. Mr Kern said that we need to share more, which is why we must stress to the European Council the need for mandatory quotas. This is not just a financial problem, as mentioned by our Norwegian colleague, but one of burden sharing both during times of emergency and more generally.

      In conclusion, I ask you to take this argument back to your own parliaments and take the political risk of losing consensus in favour of good results. I thank the secretariat for doing this extraordinarily impressive piece of work with me, Ms Fiala for the opportunity to work with her, and former President Nicoletti for his good work over the past year. I thank everyone I have worked with during what has been a life-changing experience for me. I will miss you all, but I will take my experiences with me into my governmental role.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the chair of the committee wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – I thank Mr Di Stefano for his dedicated work on the report despite all the complications that arose during and after the elections in Italy. We will certainly miss him, but we are counting on him, and I am sure that we will work closely together in the future. We congratulate him on his nomination as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a role in which he will remain important to us all.

      I welcome the report because it highlights the importance of the heroic actions of some of Syria’s neighbouring States, including Turkey, Irak, Jordan and Lebanon, as has been said several times today, for taking hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees. I always say that once you have seen the situation with your own eyes – many of us have been to Jordan or Turkey – you have lost your innocence and may judge things a little differently. I recall the migration committee’s meeting in Jordan in March, when the visit to Zaatari refugee camp showed just how much Jordan is doing for refugees with the help of organisations such as the UNHCR. I emphasise that the report also shows where the support of the Council of Europe’s member States is needed most and what kind of support is important and appropriate. I stress that helping such countries with economic support and support for governance and development is not only a moral obligation in the face of this humanitarian crisis, but an investment in a more peaceful future. I thank Mr Di Stefano again for his important work.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Fiala. The debate is now closed. We now come to the consideration of the amendments.

      The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draft resolution to which nine amendments have been tabled.

      I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 3 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Ms Fiala?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – That is the case.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      The remaining amendments will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Organisation of Debates and the revised Compendium issued today. We will therefore now consider Amendment 1. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Kobza to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr KOBZA (Czech Republic) – According to the rules and laws of the Czech Republic, the visa procedure can be done only at the embassies. If we add extra-territorial places, that will put a big burden and extra financial costs on the Government. We think that at a time when everybody is facing financial problems, we should not go in that direction. Therefore, we suggest deleting the second sentence of paragraph 11.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      We now come to Amendment 4, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 12.1, insert the following words: “governed by the principle of non-discrimination and guaranteeing freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression.”

      I have been informed that Mr Ghiletchi wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment. This amendment is as follows: “In Amendment 4, leave out from ‘guaranteeing’ to the end and insert ‘fundamental freedoms’”.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

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

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I would like to propose an oral sub-amendment to paragraph 12.1, which would mean that the specific legislation that will be adopted with regard to refugees should be governed by the principles of non-discrimination and guaranteeing fundamental freedoms.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We shall now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour of amendment 4, as amended.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We now come to Amendment 5, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 12.3, insert the following paragraph: “further, to adopt and implement comprehensive policies including but not limited to ease of access and staff training, in order to ensure appropriate assistance is consistently provided to all unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups of refugees.”

      I call Mr Ghiletchi to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Amendment 5 would ensure that staff who work with unaccompanied refugee minors are well-trained – it is to ensure training for those who work with refugee minors.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Jansson wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment. This amendment is as follows: “In amendment 5, insert at the end, ‘in particular women and girls’”.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Jansson to support her oral sub-amendment.

      Ms JANSSON (Sweden) – I only want to add the words “in particular women and girls” because the gender perspective is important here.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We shall now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour of amendment 5, as amended.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 6. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 6 is withdrawn.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 7. Does anyone else wish to move it? Thas is not the case.

      Amendment 7 is withdrawn.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 8. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 8 is withdrawn.

      I understand that Mr Kiliç wishes to withdraw Amendment 9. Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 9 is withdrawn.

      The PRESIDENT – I have received an oral amendment from Ms Jansson, which reads as follows: “In the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 13.4, insert the words, ‘especially women and girls’”.

      The President may accept an oral amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation, and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

      In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7a.

      Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Jansson to support her oral amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr JANSSON (Sweden) – This is the same as for my previous oral sub-amendment. This is about the gender perspective, which is why I would like to add, “especially women and girls”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – The committee is in favour of the oral amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral amendment is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 2. I call Mr Kobza to support the amendment.

      Mr KOBZA (Czech Republic) – Every government has the exclusive right to decide its own immigration policies. Therefore, only government offices are entitled to consider responsibility sharing. We therefore suggest this amendment, which would replace the words beginning “step up” with the word “consider”.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Gavan.

      Mr GAVAN (Ireland) – The amendment goes against the spirit of what is a very fine report and we should oppose it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms FIALA (Spain) – The committee is against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14569, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I congratulate the rapporteur and wish him well in his future responsibilities.

      May I remind you that the vote is in progress to elect a judge to the European Court of Human Rights? The poll will close at 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

(Ms Maury Pasquier, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Nick.)

      The PRESIDENT* – Colleagues, I remind you that the vote for the election of a judge in respect of San Marino is still ongoing, and it is taking place behind the chair. It will be going on until 1 p.m. May I ask you all to vote, if you have not yet done so, before the end of the current session?

3. Address by Mr Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia

      The PRESIDENT* – We will now hear an address by Mr Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia. After his address, Mr Plenković will take questions from the floor.

      Prime Minister, please allow me first of all to welcome you to our Chamber. It is always a great honour to receive a head of government from one of our member States, especially at a time when the State concerned holds the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. Having the chairmanship of the largest and oldest European organisation is a major political responsibility and against that backdrop I commend your European commitment. You are a former Croatian diplomat to the European institutions in Brussels and also a former member of the European Parliament. Your diplomatic and political experience will be a major asset for our Organisation at a time when the partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Union, the two main bedrocks of European construction, is of major importance.

      Prime Minister, please allow me also to commend Croatia’s attachment to the values and standards of the Council of Europe. It is through attachment to those values and standards in particular that Croatia has been able to carry out major reform, which enabled your country five years ago to become the 28^th member State of the European Union.

      Through the activities of the Croatian chairmanship, whose priorities we fully endorse, the member States of the Council of Europe, in particular those in the region of south-east Europe, will be able to take advantage of your experience and the best practice that you have been able to put into place.

      Prime Minister, you have the floor.

      Mr Andrej PLENKOVIĆ (Prime Minister of Croatia)* – Madam President, first of all congratulations on your election yesterday. Secretary General, thank you for this morning’s very satisfactory meeting. Members of Parliaments, it is an honour for me to be here in Strasbourg, a European capital, and it is an honour for me to address you, honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, for this venerable institution, which was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, symbolises more than any other institution the reconciliation between peoples on our continent, peoples who for too long in history tore each other apart.

      Above all, however, this institution illustrates the advantages that our nations can derive from co-operation based on shared and fundamental values, such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are values to which my country has long aspired and the advent of which, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, was for Croatia a synonym of our regained independence in 1991, and marked our return to the large European family of democratic nations.

      Sadly, the first years of our independence were marred by war. Today, that war is far behind us, but the tragic experience of it has helped us to better grasp the full importance of peace and the values defended by the Council of Europe. That is why today I pay tribute to the founders of this pan-European Organisation. I commend them for the pioneering role that this Organisation has played since 1949 in building Europe, while our continent still lay in ruins.

      I also commend all of you who, through your work, continue to make Europe a reference point in terms of democracy and human rights. It is Europe that continues to embody and inspire hope for many men and women around the world whose fundamental rights are trampled over, because those rights are what the Council of Europe stands for, and I thank you for it. That said, we member States of the Council of Europe must all ensure that the standards that we share are implemented unequivocally and everywhere within our States, at the local, regional, national and international levels.

      As you are aware, Croatia took up the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers on 18 May. This is the first time that we have held the chairmanship since joining the Council of Europe in 1996. However, before joining the Council of Europe family, Croatia had to meet a long list of commitments and obligations, which led to a far-reaching transformation of our society and greatly contributed to strengthening democratic standards in my country, to the great benefit of all our citizens.

      Today the image of Croatia – and the position it now holds – reflects the progress we have achieved in entrenching democratic values within our society. It also reflects the results we have obtained through our tireless efforts to solve a number of specific issues. Croatia is not content simply with implementing principles at national level; we actively promote them at European level. Yesterday you heard our four priorities for our chairmanship: the fight against corruption, the protection of minorities, decentralisation and the promotion of cultural heritage.

      The Council of Europe is more important today than ever before, because through its activities it contributed to implementing the many standards it shares with the European Union. Through our active participation in those activities, Croatia has been a living example of the Council of Europe’s transformative power, especially in the light of the efforts made on our path to joining the European Union. I would like to reiterate Croatia’s full support for, and commitment to, the work of the Council of Europe. Its unique role of protecting and promoting the highest European values – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – must not be compromised in any circumstances. That is where the primary responsibility of member States lies. We must uphold those fundamental principles in order to preserve the reputation of our Organisation. Croatia is all the more committed to those principles and democratic values, for my fellow citizens have paid a heavy price defending them.

      Our Organisation faces major challenges, and against that backdrop Croatia fully supports the need to reform the Council of Europe and define a clear and long-term strategy and outlook. It is extremely important to achieve greater unity by better marrying our efforts to regain our citizens’ trust in our work. The Council of Europe has established an effective monitoring mechanism for human rights standards, democracy and the rule of law. Such monitoring will be of the essence if we are to pinpoint non-compliance and address our recommendations to member States. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we preserve those monitoring mechanisms. Furthermore, the interactions and synergies between the main bodies of the Council of Europe could be improved. I believe that member States are duty-bound to work more actively with the Secretariat and the Parliamentary Assembly in order to make the work of the Council of Europe more effective.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Ladies and gentlemen, the European Convention on Human Rights system – one of our most significant mechanisms – has made a tremendous contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights and the rule of law in Europe. We express our deep commitment to the Convention and the obligations under it, as well as to the right of individual application to the Court as a key feature of the system. Full national implementation of the Convention is a prerequisite for strengthening the Court’s subsidiary role. We, as the States party to the Convention, have agreed to abide by the Court’s judgments. Moreover, judgments being binding and executed is pivotal to the credibility of the Organisation. I strongly believe that there is no other way to reinforce our judicial system’s efficiency.

      We need to work jointly to ensure that we have a shared understanding of the law and its implementation. There should be a constructive and continuous dialogue among States, and between national and European levels, respecting the independence of the Court and the binding character of its judgments. The reform process has led to significant developments and improvements in the Convention system. Croatia welcomes the progress made so far and recognises the need for further reforms to strengthen the authority of the Court, its case law and its judges; those are central challenges ahead of us. I would like to express my satisfaction that the State parties express their commitment to undertake efforts towards setting up a system for addressing Convention violations promptly and effectively.

      With regard to the caseload, which is one of the major challenges facing the Convention system, it is crucially important that we introduce measures aimed at reducing the backlog. That could be done by improving the Court’s working methods and co-operation of all the actors involved, and by securing sufficient funds. It is of the utmost importance that all member States meet their obligations as members of the Organisation, including the financial obligations. It is our right and duty to respond appropriately to cases of non-compliance. Otherwise the Organisation will lose credibility and public trust, which holds to these principles.

      Croatia welcomes the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly is seeking to restore its credibility, and that it has taken concrete actions to establish an environment of zero tolerance of corruption of any type. Corruption is a socially unacceptable phenomenon that directly jeopardises human rights, destroys morale and endangers the stability and economic achievement of the State – and in this case, the credibility of the Parliamentary Assembly and of the Council of Europe in general. It is therefore necessary to build awareness of the need continuously to monitor the efficiency of specific solutions. The fight against corruption is strongly supported by Croatia as a fundamental prerequisite for the development of an open, democratic and advancing society.

      That is why we decided to address this negative phenomenon and define the fight against corruption as one of the key priorities of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. In co-operation with the Group of States against corruption – GRECO – we are organising a ministerial conference, to be called “Strengthening transparency and responsibility aimed at prevention of corruption”, which will be held in Croatia in October. Its aim will be to highlight the importance of better co-operation and combined efforts between relevance national anti-corruption bodies in the fight against this especially widespread phenomenon.

      Let me share with you a few words about the Croatian Parliament’s recent ratification of the Council of Europe’s Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – the Istanbul Convention. We have joined the group of 30 countries that have already acceded to that important international instrument. The lesson we have learnt is that this noble convention, with its important goal of protecting women and children, has been put in the context of a wider ideological debate that completely derails the public debate about the issue at member State level. Croatia has endured and persevered in ratifying the convention, especially under the leadership of my government, and we have done so in the full conviction that we are doing a good thing for our society, and for the protection of women against violence.

      However, the entire Organisation should find a common solution to clarify what the convention is about. It is useful to neither the Organisation nor the convention’s noble goals to have an amalgam of debates that contribute to divisions in society, with the focus and the spotlight on issues that are unrelated to the substance. I therefore appeal to you, Madam President, the Secretary General and my colleagues who will lead the Committee of Ministers, to use our recent experience in Croatia as a model of how not only to draft a solid interpretative statement but to clarify as an Organisation the actual objectives of the convention. I will gladly share that experience with all those who plan to embark on the ratification process.

      Let me say a few words about the countries that neighbour Croatia, our friends from south-east Europe. Many of you are present here representing your parliaments. As was said clearly by Ms Maury Pasquier, we, the most recent member of the European Union – still with fresh experience of European Union accession – would like to use the forum of the Council of Europe as another opportunity to support our neighbours in their reform processes and efforts.

      We welcome the recent European Commission report on the countries of the western Balkans. We supported the Bulgarian European Union presidency in organising the summit of the European Union and western Balkans countries in Sofia in May. I committed to organise another Zagreb Summit, because the one that took place 18 years ago, back in 2000, opened up a European perspective for all the countries of south-east Europe. In 2020, during our presidency of the European Union, we shall carry that out in the conviction that such a conference should be periodic, so as to keep the issue of enlargement and those countries on the agenda of European leaders.

      We welcome the recent agreement between our friends in Skopje and in Athens on the Macedonia name issue. We hope that it will benefit our friends in being able to open negotiations for European Union accession, and that it will encourage NATO members to give the invitation to join NATO. In our view, that has been long overdue and long deserved.

      We put particular focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina, which deserves the attention of the entire international community given its history and the responsibility of all of us to support the country’s European reform agenda, especially because of the cohesive nature of the European integration process and its role as a generator of prosperity and reform. From that point of view, we expect further progress after the October elections. We shall take a similar stance vis-à-vis all the countries of the region, in good faith and as a good neighbour.

      I take this opportunity to greet my friends from Ukraine, a country I have held close to my heart since my time as a member of the European Parliament. We shall support your territorial integrity and your efforts with your European-orientated reforms. I therefore very much welcome tomorrow’s conference in support of your efforts, which will take place in Denmark.

      To say a few words on an issue critical to the European continent – illegal migration – we all know how much the big migration and refugee crisis impacted on European politics and the national politics of our member States. During the 2015 and 2016 crisis, refugees arrived by a variety of routes. Whether those are western, central or eastern Mediterranean, this item will remain on our political agenda for many years to come. Given the demographic trends of the countries of Africa, the Middle East and further afield, their poverty, instability, wars and other issues can only lead large parts of their populations to flee their homes and to look for a better future, many in the countries of Europe.

      We all need to look at that jointly, because only a European solution will bring a positive result. We need to be able to share the burden of responsibility and solidarity adequately, but at the same time to be persistent about forging partnerships with non-European countries so as to assist them in alleviating the pressures and solving the problem outside the borders of the European home.

      Another agenda item is to protect the external borders. My country has two immediate European objectives: to join the Schengen zone, the criteria for which we are fulfilling day by day; and to join the eurozone. We want a non-porous and respected external border for the European Union, and to find a common solution to the varied legislation on the internal issues of migration through revision of the Dublin Regulation.

      The process has had ramifications at the national level – the rise of populism, leading to criticism of the European project and of what has been built so carefully over the past 70 years – and we should all learn the lessons and find strength, devising the right policies that can be supported by our people and citizens. In that way we can regain confidence in the ability of the European institutions to deliver solutions and not fall into the simplistic trap of populism, with the change in the tone of rhetoric that has been clear over the past three years.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      In conclusion, since the mid-1990s the Council of Europe has played a key role for Croatia in helping us to achieve European integration. I hope, too, that we can do the same for other countries, helping them along this way. As it was for Croatia, European integration is the best possible incentive for the implementation of economic and political reforms, and those are synonymous with accelerated development and political stability, which are preconditions for prosperity. The first condition necessary to achieving that, however, is the strengthening of democratic values, the rule of law and human rights, in which the Council of Europe is invaluable.

      I take this opportunity to assure you all of Croatia’s full support for the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, both now and in the future. More specifically, we support the Council of Europe’s work in general. The Croatian Parliament has already had the opportunity to host some of you during meetings of the Standing Committee, and later this year a conference dedicated to security in the Mediterranean will take place in Dubrovnik. That will be an opportunity for many of you to become better acquainted with my country and to see how firmly Croatia stands behind the values and goals of this Organisation, which is the most mature and venerable one involved in building Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Prime Minister, for your address, which was of great interest to the members of our Assembly. Some of our colleagues wish to ask you a question. I remind them that a question may be no longer than 30 seconds, and it should be a question and not a speech. We shall start with the spokespersons of the political groups.

      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Prime Minister, it is great to see you here. You are a leading reformer in your region and you have a brilliant record as a human rights defender in the European Parliament and other European institutions. It is fantastic to have you and your colleagues in the Croatian delegation here. I would simply like to ask you how we will fight radicalisation in Europe and the erosion of our values – erosion that, as you said, has occurred in the past 70 years as the result of attacks, which from time to time have been sponsored by non-democratic countries, on our classical system of values and party politics.

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – Thank you very much, Mr Zingeris – my dear, long-standing friend – for your question. I tried to address it pre-emptively in my speech by mentioning the need for us to be fully aware of the consequences of the various global developments that affect Europe, our national policies and the mood of our electorates. It is the responsibility of every national government and political party, but also of multilateral organisations, to stand behind the values and policies that created Europe as a peace project that can be resilient to the various pressures, visible and invisible – you know what I am referring to – on political parties and national governments. My agenda in Croatia is very clear: to strengthen reasonable, solid, pro-European, mainstream-oriented parties. I have not seen that the alternatives offer any sensible or viable solutions, so I will stick to that agenda with full conviction.

      Ms GURMAI (Hungary, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Prime Minister, thank you for ratifying the Istanbul Convention. Croatia is a new member State of the European Union and you are a passionate pro-European. How can you transfer your knowledge and experience to the countries of the western Balkans to promote their accession? During your presidency, how do you intend to remind candidates and members that constantly cross the red line without being reprimanded, even by their friends, of the values of the European Union?

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – Thank you very much for the question, Ms Gurmai. I appreciate your comment about the convention – I would do it again if I had the opportunity.

      As the newest member of the European Union, we have been offering our neighbours our experience, our knowhow, the knowledge of our experts and our knowledge of the political and technical processes for many years. Several Croatian experts have been involved in each of those countries – even our foreign minister was part of a consortium of advisers in Serbia – but what we do at the level of the European institutions is also important. We seek to create a positive and conducive environment, respect the criteria and support candidates to fulfil them, but at the same time we act as a strong advocate of our neighbours, because we feel that their European perspective guarantees the betterment of our own situation.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Prime Minister, what plans do you have to assist your neighbouring States with their candidatures for European Union membership, to encourage bilateral projects to improve the business environment in the region, and – in Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere as relevant – to help to reduce corruption while supporting necessary political and legal reforms?

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – Thank you, Lord Dundee, for those questions. I addressed the first extensively in my previous answer, but that is a consistent policy of the Croatian Government. We follow it up, and we will continue to do everything that it is normal for a neighbour to do.

      On creating a more conducive business environment in the region, one of the key lessons we learned was about the importance of the connectivity agenda and the policy of enabling non-members to adapt more quickly to the financial and economic aspects of the European Union – especially economic governance. You need to be aware that the day after you become a member, you get into the European semester, the excessive deficit procedure and the macroeconomic imbalance procedure. You need to be aware of the real economic and financial pressures of membership. Countries that are negotiating membership are perhaps not as aware of that as they should be.

      GRECO has an important role in the fight against corruption, whether that is in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in other countries. I believe that the part of the Council of Europe’s rule of law work that is dedicated to the fight against corruption should be further used and instrumentalised at national level. We should all try to do more to alleviate the negative perception that sometimes exists about the countries of south-eastern Europe. Economic operators, whether domestic or foreign, should feel at ease in the sense that they can see a credible and reliable legal and tax system, transparent public procurement policies, and an efficient and speedy judicial system. Otherwise, they will decide to invest in other countries. All that might sound easy when you say it in the order in which I have just said it, but it certainly is not in practice. Every negative comment makes it more difficult to attract other investors. I think everyone is aware that being competitive and attractive for foreign investment requires exactly such an approach.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Prime Minister, last June the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Croatian authorities had violated the right to family of a victim of gender-based violence. Not only was the aggressor not prosecuted, but it was said that the victim should have defended herself. Croatia is supposed to have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, but what measures will you take to protect the freedoms and rights of women in Croatia, and when?

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – Thank you for your question. The Croatian legal system protects all the victims of crimes equally, no matter what their gender. Our ratification of the Convention on preventing violence against women and domestic violence sends a clear signal of the government’s determination to establish how to strengthen our legislative framework and institutional capability, what budgetary means are used to do that, and how to effectively control the implementation of our national system. When it comes to the efficiency of courts and the consistency of judgments, our supreme court has a specific role in streamlining the doctrine and practice of courts at lower levels. As I said in my speech, the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the cornerstones of the credibility of this Organisation, so it is the responsibility of all member States, including Croatia, to implement them fully.

      Mr HUNKO (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – Prime Minister, Croatia has the chairmanship of the Council of Europe and will shortly take on the presidency of the European Union. The European Union has not yet acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2014, the process for doing so came to a grinding halt. Will your chairmanship of the Council of Europe or your future presidency of the European Union offer any possibility of revitalising the process? I hope that it will be a wonderful opportunity. It is a real shame that the European Union has not yet acceded to the Convention.

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – I am fully aware of the process, which is of many years’ standing, of European Union accession to the Convention. The institutional exercise in the European Union has been affected by the judgment of the Luxembourg court. That is, as I understand it, part of the reason why the process has slowed down a bit. The matter will certainly be on the agenda of the presidencies of the Council of the European Union – the presidency is currently Bulgarian, and it will shortly pass to Austria and later to Croatia. Croatia’s position is that the process should be completed, and we have advocated for that many times in all the bodies of the European Union when the matter has been on the agenda. We should continue to foster it as an item of priority.

      Ms FILIPOVSKI (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group) – According to international law and the Croatian constitution, agreements ratified in Parliament are legally binding. That includes the Vienna agreement on succession. Are you aware, Mr Plenković, that tens of thousands of persecuted and displaced Serbs from Croatia are still not eligible for pensions for their employment before 1991, because of the unilateral action of the Croatian pensions fund? What is your government’s plan for resolving the pension issues of the 15 000 retired people who remain unpaid?

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – As far as I can remember, the issue has been addressed in a European Court of Human Rights judgment and by the International Labour Organization. I think that Croatia has fulfilled its obligations, and those international forums have already resolved the matter.

      The PRESIDENT* – This brings us to the general speakers’ list. Would you agree, Prime Minister, to our taking two or three questions together, after which I will give you the floor? Thank you; we shall do that.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Prime Minister, we are in a special situation in the Council of Europe when a top official of the Organisation does not force the Russian Federation to meet the obligations that it agreed to when it entered the Council of Europe, but instead tries to convince the Parliamentary Assembly to give in to the Russian Federation when faced with financial blackmail from the Russian side. What is your opinion on the possible consequences?

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom) – After the recent attack on two Russians in the United Kingdom, Croatia expelled a low-ranking Russian diplomat. I thank you for that gesture, but I ask you how meaningful you think it was and how it has affected your relationship with the Russian Federation.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Croatia is the last country that benefited from European Union enlargement. You already touched on the potential accession to the European Union of the western Balkan countries, including Macedonia. I am glad about that, because I am a Council of Europe co-rapporteur for Macedonia. Let me be a bit selfish and ask what you think of the European prospects for eastern European countries, especially the Eastern Partnership – Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – The first two questions are interlinked; they both deal with the relationship with the Russian Federation. I am fully aware of the situation regarding Russian participation in the Parliamentary Assembly since 2014 and the war in Ukraine. I believe that the Secretary General’s recent visit to Moscow was an attempt to address the issue and work out how to go further, especially given the financial ramifications of the Russian Federation’s decision not to contribute to the Council of Europe’s budget. We should also look at the causes of the problem. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have been reintegrated and the situation in Crimea has not, in practice, altered much. We should look at the situation from a comprehensive point of view, which includes respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

      We expressed solidarity with the Government of the United Kingdom after a thorough presentation of the case by Prime Minister May during the European Council. We considered our options and we sent a strong signal that the use of a nerve agent – such a thing has not been seen for many years – is simply not permissible. Such actions required us to make a gesture of solidarity and send a strong message. I do not believe that that has altered our relationship with the Russian Federation much, because it was a joint European response. The key point is that we should prevent any future such actions.

      When it comes to the European perspective for the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and other countries in the eastern neighbourhood, the new framework and policy devised two years ago by the Commission – the neighbourhood policy, the partnership agreements and the implementation of the association agreements – are a step in the right direction. They offer a gradual acceleration along the path towards the European Union and provide guidance on how to conduct the reform agenda. The enlargement process concerning the countries of south-eastern Europe is not going at the pace at which the countries would like it to, and the situation is similar for this process. I think, however, that if the countries receive encouragement to persist in fulfilling the criteria, once the internal conditions are right in the Union, progress will eventually be achieved. Nobody has a crystal ball to enable them to speculate about dates, and I would definitely refrain from doing so in view of our own experience over the last 27 years.

      Mr ŠEŠELJ (Serbia) – It was my understanding that the purpose of the Council of Europe was democracy, human rights, the rule of law and anti-fascism, but we have before us a man who glorifies Jasenovac, a concentration camp for 70 000 Serbs, Jews and Roma, and who glorifies Bleiburg, the leader of a neo-Nazi regime at the heart of Europe where Serbs are second-class citizens, and the leader of a political party whose main ideology is ethnic cleansing. My question is –

      The PRESIDENT* – I am sorry, I must cut you off. You have to respect our Code of Conduct, which means you cannot insult guests to our Assembly. I appeal to you to please change your tone. Thank you for taking account of my comment, otherwise I shall have to ask you leave the Chamber. I call Mr Vareikis.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – My question concerns Croatia’s relations with neighbouring countries. For years I was the rapporteur for the Council of Europe on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croatian community in that country. There are many people there who have Croatian passports and are citizens of your country. How do you see the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Will you support its integration into European structures? How do you see the future of the Croatian community in that country?

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I have a couple of questions. I think you have been an excellent example in showing how you can recover democracy in accordance with the Council of Europe’s values, and in how you have integrated within Europe. Ours is an Organisation in which all States are viable, and this short question is related to a pan-European dialogue: how will you, as Prime Minister of your country, deal with the issue of fake news? We know there have been issues of corruption, but we have also seen various other campaigns and I want to know how you will deal with those.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Mr Prime Minister, I congratulate Croatia on the ratification in April of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. However, I noticed that a lot of people took to the streets in protest against that ratification. How does the Croatian Government plan to provide popular support for the implementation of the convention?

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – First I shall address the comments of the deputy from Serbia, Mr Šešelj. You are a living example of the proverb “The apple does not fall far from the tree.” You represent a political party whose programme and statutes – this is something that all members should know – have the clear agenda of promoting greater Serbia, which would involve the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Even though you are not responsible for his acts, it was precisely because of your father, a war criminal convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, that we had this tragedy in the 1990s. It was because of the policies of Slobodan Milošević that my country suffered, we had 15 000 dead and we received $37 billion of war damages. We are fed up with your policy of trying to disseminate false information. This was an example of fake news, to refer to the question that Mr Xuclà just asked, and of trying to portray Croatia in a negative manner. That is what you have been doing consistently. You may laugh but you will always get a firm answer from a country that is democratic, European-oriented and very much against the policies that led to tens of thousands dead; which led to tragedies for Croatia, where I am Prime Minister, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and, before that, Slovenia; and which ultimately led to tragedy for your own country. The fact that you, as a party, recently orchestrated a similar incident in the Serbian National Assembly during the visit of the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament represents a consistent policy. Despite you, though, we are here to forge good, normal neighbourly relations, address the issues of the past with Serbia, look forward with those who want to look forward and say clearly who was who in the 1990s—and we know who was who. You were the aggressor and we were the victim. With regard to what you said, if you want to know, I personally was at Jasenovac this year and last year. I am as far as could be imagined from what you have just said, and the policy of the Croatian Government vis-à-vis the totalitarian regimes of the 20^th century is clear and will remain so in condemning what is supposed to be condemned.

      To the gentleman who asked about Bosnia and Herzegovina, I say we will of course support that country in its reform efforts and its European efforts. We will not let Bosnia and Herzegovina somehow fall between two chairs. There is a historical responsibility on all of us to help that country function and to make its system of constitutional architecture just and efficient, with all the three constituent peoples being equal. We have done a great deal so far, including the preparation of the atmosphere in the European Union for its formal application for membership, which happened in 2016. I see Davor, who together with me helped our friends from Bosnia and Herzegovina to achieve that objective. Now we will help them to provide the right answers on the questionnaire so that when the avis comes from the Commission it will be in favour of further steps towards European Union integration.

      The fake news issue is something that we are all faced with. There is a dossier on the agenda on the number of economic and political dossiers that we have seen in the first two years of our mandate. It is a global phenomenon that requires a joint European response, including from the Council of Europe and the European Union. We need mechanisms that can make triage easier for citizens and voters of what is right and wrong – that is, better regulation of communication on the Internet, because that is the key. Unfortunately the Internet, for all its positive sides, the benefits that it brings and the knowledge that we can all have access to, has elements that are uncontrolled, in the sense of whether they are verified to be true or false, and therefore are often used for manipulation, including political manipulation. This is something that we should be working together to prevent.

      When it comes to public support for the Istanbul Convention, our President has signed the instrument of ratification and our ambassador has deposited it, so the convention will enter into force for Croatia in October. I think the public are becoming more aware of its consequences for improving many aspects of the legal system, especially regarding certain pieces of legislation such as the criminal law but also in building and strengthening the institutions. We have adequate funds allocated in the budget, and therefore I believe we will manage to use the positive aspects of the convention to erase the negative phenomenon of violence, which unfortunately exists in my country just as it does everywhere else. I read and perceive this as another instrument that will help us to address the issue, and information and a public campaign from the Ministry of the Family, which our ratification law determined as the ministry responsible, will play the leading role in that exercise.

      The PRESIDENT* – I suggest that we take one final question because time is getting on. I give the floor to Ms Aleksandra Tomić from Serbia.

      Ms Aleksandra TOMIĆ (Serbia) – I call on Mr Plenković to please explain something, because that was not an answer for Serbians. You have many open questions in the ECRI report on Serbia. We want to know more about the constitutional law on the rights of national minorities and when it will be presented to the public for consideration. The participation of many Serbian minorities is higher than 5% in 10 counties, and 15% in the 31 cities in Serbia.

      Mr PLENKOVIĆ – It is important that the Parliamentary Assembly is aware that Croatia is a country whose electoral system – its constitutional architecture – has eight fixed seats for representatives of national minorities in its parliament. It is a relatively small parliament, with 151 members, and of the eight representatives of minorities three are Serbian. Plus, to date, the Serbian party, SDSS, is part of the governing coalition of my parliamentary majority. We co-operate in an excellent manner.

      We have a special part of the programme that is called the programme and the plan for national minorities, which we agreed 20 months ago when we started in government. We have envisaged substantial funds for operational programmes when it comes to national minorities. Serbian representatives are included in local and regional governments ex lege; even where they are not elected they are included ex lege, as deputy prefects, deputy mayors or local councillors. We are creating a tolerant and conducive atmosphere, in which all minorities feel good. If they did not, they would not support my government, I can tell you that. They also feel good in Croatian society.

      It is exactly our policy that the higher the level of national minorities protection in Croatia, the greater and easier the protection of the Croatian minorities in our neighbouring countries. This is the policy of inclusion; this is the policy of tolerance; this is the policy of our operational programmes, on which we continually have consultations and have seen improvements. We would like a similar stance to be taken vis-à-vis the Croatian minority in Serbia. That was the subject of our talks during your President’s visit to Zagreb a few months ago and it will continue to be at item at the level of our diplomatic commissions. Every possible suggestion or piece of advice made by international institutions will be duly taken into account.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Prime Minister, and thank you all for a very interesting exchange of views. Prime Minister, you have highlighted a number of important issues. You have talked about unity and reconciliation, and I think that those are things that should mark our exchanges. That is something on which we very much agree. You have highlighted different issues, including combating corruption, which is also one of our flagship actions. I am very pleased to be able to assure you that our members will be supporting you and will co-operate more, so that every measure you take will be more effective. You have the total support of the Assembly regarding those priorities. Thank you very much.

      That brings me to the end of the questions to Andrej Plenković, the Prime Minister of Croatia.

      The ballot for electing the judge in respect of San Marino to the European Court of Human Rights is now suspended until this afternoon’s sitting.

      Voting will reopen at 3.30 p.m. and close at 5 p.m.

4. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino

2.        The humanitarian situation of refugees in the countries neighbouring Syria

Presentation by Mr Di Stefano of the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, Document 14569

Speakers: Ms Strik, Lord Russell, Mr Aleksandar Stevanović, Ms Kavvadia, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Mullen, Mr Csenger-Zalán, Mr Venizelos, Ms Duranton, Mr Madison, Mr Schennach, Ms Hopkins, Mr Fridez, Mr Alqaisi, Ms Schou, Lord Balfe, Mr Fournier, Mr Kern, Mr Kürkçü, Lord Touhig, Mr Zayadin, Mr Munyama

Draft resolution in Document 14569, as amended, adopted

3.        Address by Mr Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia

Questions: Mr Zingeris, Ms Gurmai, the Earl Of Dundee, Ms Rodríguez Hernández, Mr Hunko, Ms Filipovski, Mr Ariev, Mr Howell, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Šešelj, Mr Vareikis, Mr Xuclà, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Aleksandra Tomić

4.        Next public business

Appendix I / Annexe I

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement. Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

AČIENĖ, Vida [Ms] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

APOSTOL, Ion [Mr] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BAKUN, Wojciech [Mr]

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (GALE, Roger [Sir])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BAYR, Petra [Ms] (HAIDER, Roman [Mr])

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms]

BESELIA, Eka [Ms] (KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms])

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BLANCHART, Philippe [M.]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]

BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms]

CAZEAU, Bernard [M.]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.])

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COWEN, Barry [Mr]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DONCHEV, Andon [Mr] (HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr])

DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAILLOT, Albane [Mme]

GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr] (SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr])

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GAVAN, Paul [Mr]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GRAAS, Gusty [M.]

GRAF, Martin [Mr]

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema [Ms]

GURMAI, Zita [Mme]

GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]

GYÖNGYÖSI, Márton [Mr]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Frank [Mr] (VOGEL, Volkmar [Mr])

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HJEMDAL, Silje [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERN, Claude [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]

KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LEIGH, Edward [Sir]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (CHITI, Vannino [Mr])

MADISON, Jaak [Mr] (KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr])

MAIRE, Jacques [M.]

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr] (MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr])

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

MURRAY, Ian [Mr]

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (BERNHARD, Marc [Mr])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POPA, Ion [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])

PUPPATO, Laura [Ms] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

PUTICA, Sanja [Ms]

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ABAD, Damien [M.])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (KRARUP, Marie [Ms])

SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHMIDT, Frithjof [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr] (BARDELL, Hannah [Ms])

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]

STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr]

STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]

TERIK, Tiit [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])

TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

TOUHIG, Don [Lord] (WILSON, Phil [Mr])

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

UNHURIAN, Pavlo [Mr] (YEMETS, Leonid [Mr])

VALENTA, Jiři [Mr] (NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms])

VALLINI, André [M.] (LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.])

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])

VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])

VLASENKO, Sergiy [Mr] (SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr])

VOGT, Günter [Mr] (WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr])

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

ZSIGMOND, Barna Pál [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

ATSHEMYAN, Karine [Ms]

BARDELL, Hannah [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms]

BRENNER, Koloman [Mr]

CANNEY, Seán [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

EIDE, Petter [Mr]

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms]

GOODWILL, Robert [Mr]

JORDANA, Carles [Mr]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr]

MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr]

MASŁOWSKI, Maciej [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]

TILKI, Attila [Mr]

WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr]

ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

LARIOS CÓRDOVA, Héctor [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALQAISI, Nassar [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

BENAZZOUZ, Abdelaziz [M.]

BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]

LEBBAR, Abdesselam [M.]

MUFLIH, Haya [Ms]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

ZAYADIN, Kais [Mr]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

CANDAN Armağan

SANER Hamza Ersan

Appendix II /Annexe II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of San Marino / Représentants ou suppléants qui ont participé au vote pour l’élection d’un juge à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au titre de Saint-Marin

ABAD, Damien [M.]/REISS, Frédéric [M.]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]        A

AMON, Werner [Mr] 

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms]        A

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms] 

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr] 

BAKUN, Wojciech [Mr] 

BARDELL, Hannah [Ms] / SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr]

BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr] / GONZÁLEZ TABOADA, Jaime [M.]

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr] 

BECHT, Olivier [M.] 

BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr] / KOBZA, Jiři [Mr]

BERNHARD, Marc [Mr]/ OEHME, Ulrich [Mr]

BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms] / AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.] / CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr] 

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr] / XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme] 

BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr] / POPA, Ion [M.]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr] 

BURES, Doris [Ms] 

BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms] 

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr] / AČIENĖ, Vida [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr] 

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms] 

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr] 

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme] 

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms] 

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme] 

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme] 

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr] 

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme] 

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady] 

ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr] 

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.] 

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme] 

GALE, Roger [Sir] / BALFE, Richard [Lord]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms] 

GATTI, Marco [M.] 

GAVAN, Paul [Mr] 

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr] 

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.] 

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms] 

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme] /KERN, Claude [M.]

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema [Ms] 

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr] / JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr] / BAYR, Petra [Ms]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr] 

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr] 

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr] 

HEER, Alfred [Mr] 

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms] 

HOWELL, John [Mr] 

HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr] / DONCHEV, Andon [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr] 

JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr] / VITANOV, Petar [Mr]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr] 

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr] 

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms] 

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr] 

KASIMATI, Nina [Ms] / PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms] 

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr] 

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr] / POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr] 

KOX, Tiny [Mr] 

KRARUP, Marie [Ms] / SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr] 

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr] 

LACROIX, Christophe [M.] 

LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.] / VALLINI, André [M.]

LEIGH, Edward [Sir] 

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr] 

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr] 

MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms] / BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]

MAIRE, Jacques [M.] 

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness] 

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms] 

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms] 

MURRAY, Ian [Mr] 

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.] 

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] / VALENTA, Jiři [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr] 

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr] 

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms] 

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms] 

PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms] / PARVIAINEN, Olli-Poika [Mr]

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms] 

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms] 

SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr] / GALATI, Giuseppe [Mr]

SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr] 

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms] 

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr] 

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr] 

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr] / ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

SMITH, Angela [Ms] 

SORRE, Bertrand [M.] / VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme]

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr] 

STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr] 

STIENEN, Petra [Ms] / OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms] 

SVENSSON, Michael [Mr] 

TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]

TERIK, Tiit [Mr] 

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme] 

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr] / MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr]

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.] / VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr] 

VEN, Mart van de [Mr] 

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.] 

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr] / VOGT, Günter [Mr]

WILSON, Phil [Mr] / TOUHIG, Don [Lord]

WOLD, Morten [Mr] / HJEMDAL, Silje [Ms]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr] 

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]