[Documents/Docheader.htm]

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee
(30 April – 21 June 2004)[1]

Doc. 10212
21 June 2004

Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur: Mr Samad Seyidov, Azerbaijan, European Democrat Group

---

INTRODUCTION

1.         The Assembly held the second part of its 2004 Ordinary Session from 26 to 30 April 2004. The Bureau met on 30 April 2004 in Strasbourg, on 24 May 2004 in Paris and on 21 June in Strasbourg.

Chapter I

FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSEMBLY

PROGRESS REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY (30 APRIL– 21 JUNE 2004)

2.         On 26 April, the Bureau appointed Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan, EDG) as rapporteur.

3.         On 21 June, the Bureau approved the Progress report.

2nd PART OF THE 2004 ORDINARY SESSION (STRASBOURG, 26-30 APRIL 2004)

4.         On 30 April, the Bureau took note that in the framework of the progress report covering the period from 30 January to 26 April 2004, the Assembly had approved the Bureau’s recommendations not to proceed with the election of judges in respect of Malta, Portugal and Slovakia during this part-session and to ask the governments of these countries to put forward new lists of candidates.

5.         On 30 April, the Bureau:

• took note of the Assembly’s decision to refer the report on euthanasia back to the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee and give this Committee one year as from 27 April 2004 to adopt a new report;

• following a request from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, referred this matter to this Committee for an opinion on the new report.

THIRD PART OF THE 2004 ORDINARY SESSION (STRASBOURG, 21-25 JUNE 2004)

6.         On 24 May, the Bureau:

• adopted the agenda and drew up the draft order of business;

• following a proposal by the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, decided to invite Mr Jacques Diouf, Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, to take part in the debate on the reports presented by this Committee on Friday 25 June 2004;

• asked the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to give an opinion regarding the procedure followed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the report on “European Federation of Research and Information Centres on Sectarism (FECRIS) (request for consultative status with the Council of Europe)” and decided not to include this report on the draft order of business of this part-session; 

• agreed to discuss a draft agenda of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Thursday 24 June at its next meeting in the light of possible proposals from the Ministers’ Deputies;

• authorised the presence of one observer for each political group at the ballot counting in the framework of the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

7.         On 21 June, the Bureau:

a.         Urgent debates:

• recommended to the Assembly to hold an urgent debate on the “Situation in Iraq” and to refer this matter to the Political Affairs Committee for report and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion, invited Mr Zebari, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, to take part in this debate and proposed that the debate takes place on Thursday 24 June at 10 am;

• recommended to the Assembly not to hold an urgent debate on the “Political, humanitarian, human rights and security situation in the Chechen Republic” ;

• recommended to the Assembly not to hold an urgent debate on “The Council of Europe on the eve of the third Summit: new challenges on the consolidating Europe”;

b.         Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (Luxembourg and Portugal):

• took note that the Sub-committee on the election of judges would interview the candidates for these two countries on Monday 21 June (Portugal at 2 pm and Luxembourg at 7.30 pm) and would draft a report containing its recommendations;

• agreed to carry out a written consultation of the Bureau members on this report with a view to its declassification and distribution to Assembly members;

c.         updated the draft order of business and proposed the following:

• Tuesday 22 June:

• at 12 noon: Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly presented by Mr Jan Petersen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers;

• at 3 pm: vote on the resolutions and the recommendation on “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey” and the “Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights by Turkey”;

• Wednesday 23 June:

• at 3 pm: election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Luxembourg and Portugal;

• last debate in the afternoon (point 4): report on “Europe-wide ban on corporal punishment of children” instead of Thursday 24 June;

• at 7 pm : end of the sitting;

• Thursday 24 June:

• at 10 am: urgent debate on the “Situation in Iraq”;

• at 3 pm: possible 2^nd round of the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Luxembourg and Portugal;

• in the afternoon: separate debates and votes on the reports on the “Monopolisation of the electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy” (point 2) and on the “Italian law on legitimate suspicion” (point 3);

• at 6 pm: end of the sitting and meeting of the Joint Committee;

d.         decided to limit the speaking time on Tuesday 22 June and during the proposed urgent debate on the situation in Irak on Thursday 24 June to 4 minutes;

e.         Joint Committee

• agreed to include on the draft agenda of the Joint Committee the items on Monaco and on the co-operation between the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

COMPOSITION OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE

8.         On 30 April, the Bureau approved the following proposals by political groups for new members for ratification by the Assembly: EPP/CD - Mr Agramunt; EDG – MM. Kristovskis and Kosachev (to replace MM. Dobelis and Rogozin).

9.         On 21 June, the Bureau approved the following proposal by the Socialist group for a new member of this committee, subject to ratification by the Assembly: Ms Saks (Estonia, SOC, to replace Mr Yanez-Barnuevo, Spain, SOC).

RESOLUTION 1370 (2004) ON “CONTESTED CREDENTIALS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO”

10.       On 30 April, the Bureau asked the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Immunities to ensure a follow-up to the Assembly’s decision to “adapt its rules as quickly as possible in a manner to allow that the credentials of individual members can be contested on the grounds of substance so that democratic forces in a given delegation do not suffer from restrictions on credentials”.

RESOLUTION 1371 (2004) ON “DISAPPEARED PERSONS IN BELARUS”

11.       On 30 April, the Bureau took note:

• that “until substantial progress is made regarding the Assembly’s demands under paragraphs 10 and 11, the Assembly does not consider it appropriate to reconsider the suspension of the special guest status in favour of the Belarus Parliament”; 

• that “as long as no substantial progress is made as regards paragraph 11, the Assembly considers inappropriate the presence, even informal, of Belarussian parliamentarians during its sessions”.

RESOLUTION 1374 (2004) ON “HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY ARMENIA”

12.       On 30 April, the Bureau took note:

• that the Assembly instructed the Monitoring Committee to “send its rapporteurs to Armenia to present a report on the situation, particularly on the follow-up of the recommendations set out in sub-paragraphs 9 i to 9 vi as soon as appropriate and well before the opening of the October 2004 part-session”;

• that “if no progress with regard to sub-paragraphs 9.i to 9.vi is made by the opening of the October 2004 part-session, the Assembly resolves to reconsider the credentials of the Armenian delegation in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure”.

RESOLUTION 1376 (2004) ON “CYPRUS”

13.       On 30 April, the Bureau asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to prepare a memorandum on the implementation of the Assembly’s decision “to associate more closely elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and its Committees, beyond the framework of Assembly Resolution 1113 (1997) and integrated to the Cypriot delegation”.

14.        On 21 June, the Bureau:

• took note of the memorandum prepared by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly on this issue;

• decided to postpone its decision until the Bureau meeting to take place on Monday 4 October 2004.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY MR BRAUN AND OTHERS ON “THE LAW ON LOCAL ELECTIONS IN ROMANIA” (DOC 10160)

15.       On 24 May, the Bureau invited the Venice Commission to give an opinion on the conformity of the principles set by the Law with the basic Council of Europe legal instruments like the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Local Self-Government.

PETITION ON “HUMAN RIGHTS OF LINGUISTIC MINORITIES IN THE CANTON OF ZURICH”

16.       On 24 May, following an opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights concluding that the Assembly lacked a “legitimate interest in its areas of competence” in treating this petition, the Bureau declared this petition inadmissible.

PETITION ON THE “EFFECTS OF THE NON-RATIFICATION BY BELGIUM OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES”

17.       On 24 May, the Bureau asked the Secretariat to verify whether an identical petition has been already submitted to the Assembly and decided to come back to this matter at its next meeting.  

18.       On 21 June, the Bureau:

• took note of a memorandum prepared by the Secretariat noting that two similar petitions had been already declared admissible and referred to the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee for report;

• concluded that these petitions were similar and not identical and decided to consult the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the appropriate follow-up to this petition.

LATVIA

19.       On 30 April, in the light of the opinion of the Monitoring Committee, the Bureau decided not to reopen a monitoring procedure as regards Latvia (subject to confirmation by the Assembly at the June Part-Session).[2] (Appendix I: AS/Mon (2004) 13: Draft opinion on the reopening of monitoring procedure as regards Latvia, co-rapporteurs, M. J�rgens (Netherlands, SOC) and Mr Sasi (Finland, EPP)).

references AND TRANSMISSIONS to committees

20.       On 30 April, the Bureau approved the following proposals for references[3]:

• Doc. 10152
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Wohlwend and others
  Position of the Parliamentary Assembly as regards the Council of Europe member and observer countries which have not abolished the death penalty, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for report

• Doc. 10156
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Azzolini and others
  Seal Hunting, to the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, for report and drew attention, in this connection, to the proposal of the parliamentary delegation of Canada to engage a dialogue on this issue

• Doc. 10158
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mrs Ahlqvist and others
  Education in the field of human rights, to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to be taken into account in the preparation of the report “Education for Europe”

• Doc. 10160
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Braun and others
  Law on local elections in Romania, postponed its decision

• Doc. 10166
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Jacquat and others
  A dynamic housing policy as an element of European social cohesion, to the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, for report

• Doc. 10167
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Shybko and others
  Consequences of European Union enlargement for opportunities of the Central and Eastern European states - Council of Europe members – to join the Bologna process, transmission for information to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education

• Doc. 10168
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Severin and others
  Strengthening the collaboration relations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with other international parliamentary organisations having similar competences, postponed its decision until the adoption by the Assembly of the report on the composition of the Bureau

• Doc. 10169
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Lengagne and others
  Student disaffection for scientific studies, transmission for information to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education

• Doc. 10173
  Motion for a Resolution presented by Mr Wilkinson and others
  Policy of return for failed asylum seekers in the Netherlands, to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, for report.

• Doc. 9898
  Euthanasia (modification of the Assembly’s decision of 27 April 2004), also to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for opinion on the new report

21.       On 24 May, the Bureau approved the following proposals:

a.         References

• Doc. 10174 rev.
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Blankenborg and others
  The concept of preventive war and its consequences for international relations, to the Political Affairs Committee, for report

• Doc. 10175
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Toshev and others
  The establishment of a stability pact on the Caucasian region, to the Political Affairs Committee, for report

• Doc. 10176
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Olteanu and others
  Harmonisation of the penal law in Europe – a civil imperative, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for report

• Doc. 10177
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Herczog and others
  Use of national symbols with respect to others, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to be taken into account in the preparation of its report on “the concept of 'nation'”

• Doc. 10178
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr McNamara and others
  Legality of detentions by the United States in Guant�namo Bay, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for report

• Doc. 10180
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Holovaty and others
  The principle of the rule of law, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, for information

• Doc. 10181
  Motion for a recommendation by Mr Bindig and others
  Annual Report on all procedures for the monitoring of compliance with commitments in the framework of the Council of Europe, postponed its decision

b.                   request to extend references

• Doc. 9354, Ref. No 2739, Validity: 29 May 2004
  Motion for an order presented by Mr Jurgens and others
  Political prisoners in Europe, extended until 29 May 2005

• Doc. 9510, Ref. No 2755, validity: 3 September 2004
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Cilevics and others
  Plight of the deported Meskhetian population, extended until 31 December 2004

c.                   requests to modify references

• Doc. 10110 Ref. No 2948
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Vermot-Mangold and others
  The follow-up to Recommendation 1570 (2002) on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population for report (originally transmitted to this Committee for information)

• Doc. 10113 Ref. No 2950
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Goris and others
  Protection of foreign investments in Moldova, to the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for information, in addition to the decision to send this text to the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) to be taken into account in the preparation of its report on the honouring of commitments by Moldova

• Doc. 10086 Ref. No 2934
  Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Jurgens and others
  The case of Igor Sutiagin, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for report (originally transmitted to the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) for information)

d.                   follow-up after consultation:

• Doc. 9602
  Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr van der Linden and others
  Council of Europe activities, following the consultation of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on the possible follow-up to this motion, decided to refer this text to this committee so that it can be taken into account in the preparation of its report on Greater transparency of the decisions of the Committee of Ministers” which has already been referred to it (Doc. 9297 Ref. No 2915 of 26 January 2004).

MEETINGS ELSEWHERE THAN IN STRASBOURG OR PARIS AND AUTHORISATION FOR MEMBERS' OFFICIAL VISITS

Meetings elsewhere than in Strasbourg and Paris

22.       On 30 April, the Bureau authorised the following meetings:

• Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, Budapest (Hungary), 26 May 2004 (European Youth Centre);

• Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment, Limassol (Cyprus), 27-28 May 2004;

• Sub-Committee on Human Rights, Barcelona (Spain), 2-3 July 2004;

• Sub-Committee on Youth and Sport, Poznan (Poland), 15-17 September 2004;

• Sub-Committee on Agriculture and Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy, Chioggia (Italy), 23-24 September 2004.

23.       On 24 May, the Bureau authorised the following meetings:

• Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, Tbilisi (Georgia), 20-21 September 2004;

• Sub-Committee on Migration (of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population), Istanbul (Turkey), 30 September – 1 October 2004.

Official journeys by members of the Assembly

24.       On 30 April, the Bureau appointed representatives of the Assembly for following official activities:

• Meeting of Speakers of the parliaments of the Countries neighbouring Iraq, organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (Amman, 12-13 May 2004):  Mr Gross;

• XXX^th session of “l’Assembl�e parlementaire de la Francophonie” (APF), Charlottetown, 4-7 July 2004):  Mr Legendre without costs for the Assembly;

• 13^th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (29-31 August 2004):  Mr Blankenborg;

• Adriatic-Ionian Initiative, organised by the National Assembly of Slovenia (Portorož, 10 May 2004):  Mr Azzolini.

VISITS OF RAPPORTEURS

25.       On 30 April, the Bureau authorised Mrs Vermot-Mangold, Rapporteur on the “Disappearance and murder of a great number of women and girls in Mexico” to visit the region in the near future.

26.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note of the request by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to authorise Lord Russell-Johnston, Committee rapporteur on “the cultural situation of the Kurds” to visit Dohuk (Iraq) and considered that it was not possible to authorise the visit to Iraq given that the Council of Europe’s insurance does not cover missions to this country.

Chapter II

Relations with the Committee of Ministers and other bodies of the Council of Europe

JOINT COMMITTEE

27.       On 24 May, the Bureau agreed to discuss a draft agenda of the Joint Committee on Thursday 24 June at its next meeting in the light of possible proposals from the Ministers’ Deputies.

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (CPT)

28.       On 30 April, the Bureau took note of the recommendations of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and:

• with regard to Armenia, drew up the lists of candidates in the following order: 1. Mrs Khachatryan; 2. Mr Darbinyan; 3. Mr Arakelian;

• with regard to Russia, given that the Committee considered that it had not been in a position to ensure that the candidates met the criteria established in Recommendation 1323 (1997) due to the lack of information provided by the curricula vitae of the three candidates, requested that the Russian delegation submit a list with more informative curriculum vitae;

• invited the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro to put forward candidates.

WORKING BREAKFAST BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE AND THE BUREAU OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS (13 MAY 2004)

29.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note of the information by the President and agreed that if such a meeting was to be held in the future, it should take place in the formal framework of a mixed working party to be set up by the Bureau and the Committee of Ministers according to Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

ANNUAL PLEANRY SESSION OF THE COOUNCIL OF EUROPE CONGRESS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES (25-27 MAY 2004)

30.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note that the President of the Assembly would address the Congress on 25 May 2004 and agreed to invite its new President to address the Assembly at a forthcoming part-session.

Chapter III

EXTERNAL RELATIONS  AND POLITICAL MATTERS

KAZAKHSTAN

31.       On 30 April, in conformity with the co-operation agreement signed on 27 April 2004 (Appendix II), the Bureau agreed to discuss in June 2005 a report by the Parliament of Kazakhstan on the progress achieved in the promotion of the principles stated in paragraph 1 of the agreement as well as on the issue of the death penalty.

REQUEST FOR SPECIAL GUEST STATUS BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF MONACO

32.       On 30 April, in conformity with Opinion No 250 (2004) and following a request by the National Council of Monaco, the Bureau granted special guest status to the National Council of Monaco and allocated two seats to its parliamentary delegation.

LIBYA

33.       On 30 April, the Bureau:

• took note that, in conformity with a previous decision of the Bureau, Mr E�rsi intended to visit Libya in May 2004;

• agreed that, in the case of the imprisoned Bulgarian medical staff being liberated, the Political Affairs Committee could invite a delegation of the Libyan Parliament for an exchange of views.

34.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note that Mr E�rsi had to postpone his visit to Libya originally planned at the beginning of May 2004 and decided to come back to this matter at its next meeting.

35.       On 21 June, the Bureau took note of the information of Mr E�rsi on the latest developments and of his intention to visit Libya again.

Chapter IV

OBSERVATION OF ELECTIONS

OBSERVATION OF FORTHCOMING ELECTIONS - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SERBIA ON 13 JUNE

36.        On 30 April, in accordance with the guidelines for observing elections, the Bureau decided not to observe this election.

CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE OBSERVATION OF ELECTIONS

37.        On 24 May, the Bureau approved the revised guidelines for the observation of elections (Appendix III).

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN UKRAINE ON 31 OCTOBER 2004

38.        On 21 June, the Bureau:

• decided to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to observe this election composed of 30 members (repartition among political groups according to d’Hondt system: SOC: 11; EPP/CD: 9; LDR:5; EDG:4; UEL:1);

• decided that a pre-electoral mission composed of 5 members should take place one month before the election at the latest (composed of one member from each political group who are at the same time members of the Ad Hoc Committee).

Chapter V

BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

ANALYSIS OF THE USE MADE BY THE ASSEMBLY’S POLITICAL GROUPS OF THEIR ALLOCATIONS FOR 2003

39.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note of a communication prepared by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Chapter VI

OTHER MATTERS

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF PARLIAMENTS (17-19 MAY 2004)

40.       On 24 May, the Bureau:

• approved the conclusions presented by the President of the Assembly;

• agreed to consider at one of its next meetings concrete proposals for a  follow-up to this Conference to be communicated to the Presidents of Parliaments before the end of the year.

MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTS OF PARLIAMENTS OF ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA (17 MAY 2004, ON THE OCCASION OF THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF PARLIAMENTS)

41.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note that the President would present proposals to the Bureau for a follow-up to this meeting during the June Part-Session.

ELECTION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

42.       On 30 April, the Bureau agreed on the modalities of the interviews with the candidates hold on 24 May 2004 in Paris.

43.       On 24 May, the Bureau:

• interviewed the candidates - Mr Terry Davis, Ms Kristiina Ojuland and Mr Walter Schwimmer (by order of submission of candidatures by the Committee of Ministers); 

• authorised the presence of one observer for each political group at the ballot counting.

DEATH PENALTY AGAINST MINORS – POSSIBLE COUNCIL OF EUROPE INTERVENTION BEFORE THE U.S SUPREME COURT AS AMICUS CURIA ALONGSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION

44.        On 30 April, following a letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the Bureau:

• agreed to join, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly, the amicus curiae brief to be submitted to the United States Supreme Court by the European Union and to ask the EU coordinator to attach a “statement of interest of the Parliamentary Assembly”.
• asked the Assembly’s President to contact the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to propose to invite them to join this initiative of the Assembly.

SECOND SAINT PETERSBURG INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE ON PAN- EUROPEAN COOPERATION (ST. PETERSBURG, 16 APRIL 2004)

45.       On 30 April, the Bureau took note of an information document prepared by Mr Cekuolis, the Assembly’s representative at this conference.

MEETING OF THE SPEAKERS OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF THE NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES OF IRAQ CONVENED BY THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION IN AMMAN, JORDAN, ON 12 AND 13 MAY 2004

46.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note of the statement by the Speakers.

FOURTH MEETING OF THE PRESIDENTS AND SPEAKERS OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF THE ADRIATIC-IONIAN INITIATIVE (PORTOROZ, 10 MAY 2004)

47.       On 24 May, the Bureau took note of the final document.

Appendix I

AS/Mon (2004) 13
16 April 2004
amondoc16_2004

Committee on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the council of europe (monitoring committee)

DRAFT OPINION ON THE REOPENING OF MONITORING PROCEDURE AS REGARDS LATVIA

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Erik JURGENS (Netherlands, SOC) and Mr Kimmo SASI (Finland, EPP)

I.          INTRODUCTION

1.       Following a motion for a resolution on the “reopening of monitoring procedure in respect to Latvia”, tabled by Mr Rogozin and others on 27 June 2002 (Doc. 9501), and Mr Rogozin’s repeated request at the Bureau meeting on 10 December 2003, the Bureau of the Assembly invited the Monitoring Committee to appoint two co-rapporteurs, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Monitoring Committee’s terms of reference (Resolution 1115 (1997)), with a view to the preparation of a written opinion that would serve as a basis for the Bureau's decision as to whether to initiate a monitoring procedure.

2.       At its meeting on 3 March 2003, the Monitoring Committee designated two co-rapporteurs and asked them to carry out a fact-finding visit to Latvia as soon as possible in order not to interfere with the Committee’s on-going post-monitoring dialogue with the Latvian authorities.

3.       The visit took place on 29 and 30 March 2004 against the background of continuing heated debates over the education reform in the country. The co-rapporteurs felt a fresh resurgence of post-government-crisis optimism and belief in the competence of the new government to lead the country through the reform process. This sense of enthusiasm was further endorsed by the accession of Latvia to the NATO on 30 March and the forthcoming EU accession, which are clear steps forward in commitment to and integration in the pan-European system of common values.

4.       Notwithstanding the political problems and challenges in the country, the somewhat inconvenient timing of this visit less than three weeks after the formation of the new government[4] and the short notice for organising the requested meetings, the Latvian parliamentary delegation secretariat and the Permanent Representation of Latvia in Strasbourg made a great effort to accommodate all wishes of our delegation. The co-rapporteurs are grateful for the co-operation they received both from the Latvian authorities and from the Russian-speaking and other minorities. They also extend their gratitude to the Council of Europe Information Centre in Riga that made it possible to meet with a great number of NGOs and minority representatives (see programme attached).

5.       During their brief stay, the co-rapporteurs met with pupils and teachers of two Russian-language schools involved in the reform, all major NGOs involved in education reform and general human rights matters, leaders of almost all minority groups (Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Moldavians, Germans, Aeries, Tatars, Jews, Roma, Russian old-believers), EU and Russian Ambassadors, members of the PACE delegation, Director of the Naturalisation Board, representatives of the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs,  Ministers of Education and Society Integration, Vice Prime Minister, Vice-Speaker of the Saeima and President of the Republic of Latvia.

6.       In their discussions, the co-rapporteurs concentrated principally on four issues raised in the motion for resolution (doc. 9501): implementation of the education law; ratification of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities and conformity of the current language and education laws with the principles laid down in the Convention; speed of the naturalisation process; and the use of Russian in communication with legislative and executive authorities, notably in areas where national minorities make up the majority of population. Other problems pointed out in the same motion have either become obsolete since June 2002 (Language Law, language quotas for radio and TV broadcasting) or bear little relevance for this discussion (“political trials against the participants in the anti-fascist movements"[5]).

7.       The co-rapporteurs wish to stress that their opinion concerns only the question of whether the monitoring procedure should be formally reopened as regards Latvia, instead of continuing the post-monitoring dialogue, which was initiated by the Assembly’s Resolution 1236 (2001) and which has been carried out since January 2002. It strives to establish whether new developments have occurred in Latvia since June 2002, which would objectively warrant reopening the monitoring procedure.

II.         CO-RAPPORTEURS’ OBSERVATIONS

8.       The co-rapporteurs welcome the formation of the new government (though in a minority position) in mid-March, which ended the government crisis. The previous government had been criticised for its inflexibility, its failure to communicate the objectives of the education reform to the persons concerned, as well as for its underestimation of the political force of the protest manifestations. The new government seems to be ready to show a more flexible attitude in the implementation of the above reform and willingness to follow the recent suggestions of Rolf Ek�us, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.

9.       However, the current political unrest over the education reform is no news to the government. The EU ambassadors drew our attention to the fact that way back in 2001 when a similar struggle was going on around the Language Law, the OSCE office in Riga at its closure had forecasted that 2004 would see a new wave of protest activities once the Education Law reached the stage of implementation.

10.       All the same, the recent radicalisation of a part of the Russian speaking community should not be overlooked. While in earlier years the political struggle was directed by the more moderate pro-minority political forces (Cilevics, Pimenov), today the increasingly radical forces (represented by Pliner, Zhdanok, Kotov and others) appear to have taken the upper hand in the protests, demanding a moratorium on the implementation of the education reform and recognition of Russian as the second official State language. It is noteworthy that the majority of NGOs and formations claiming to protect minority schools are moreover politically active pressure groups led by MPs and have little to do with civil society or grassroots movements as understood in the western world. The leadership of the radical forces are said to receive strong moral and material support from Russia; there are also strong allegations of some of the most radical forces being directly financed from Russia.

11.       Speakers for the Russian-speaking minority (RSM) argue that the education reform – involving the necessity of bi-lingual schooling – would form a serious impediment for members of this minority to have secondary schooling at the same level of quality as the Latvian speakers. Furthermore, the representatives of RSM argue that no significant progress has been made as to the ratification by Latvia of the Framework Convention for National Minorities or as to naturalisation of the large percentage of the RSM who are still regarded as “non-citizen”. The contention is that these three elements present a danger for peaceful ethnic relations within Latvia, as demonstrated by the large-scale demonstrations, especially against the education reform, since spring 2003.

12.                      The co-rapporteurs do not think that there is a risk for any real inter-ethnic conflict breaking out in Latvia today. Some degree of mutual resentment between the two linguistic communities may be observed, yet it is more based on both communities perceiving themselves as “victims”. The number of protesters has not increased considerably since the first mass demonstrations last year (involving less than 3% of the RSM), apart from where the organisers have sent buses to fetch schoolchildren to these mass demonstrations. Involving children in political manifestations is being strongly contested by teachers and schoolmasters, who, as government authorities told us, are themselves undergoing much intimidation and direct pressure unless “collaborating” with the so-called Headquarters for the Protection of Minority Schools. Further large-scale strikes and demonstrations are planned by the latter on 15 and 16 April and on the day of the accession of Latvia to the European Union on 1 May.

13.       The rapporteurs would concur that the above-mentioned concerns of the RSM representatives are of great importance and merit special attention in the existing post-monitoring dialogue. This has indeed been the case in the discussions twice held by the Chair of the Monitoring Committee with the Latvian authorities. Her second report, of March 2004, will be presented to a forthcoming meeting of the Monitoring Committee.

14.       The co-rapporteurs concede that the strong pressure induced by the kin-state in this matter is all but productive. They have the impression that the RSM in Latvia is well organised, well informed and well-spoken. It is very well able to stand up for its rights and interests. Besides, no less than 25% of the members of Saeima can be seen as representing the RSM.

15.       The Rapporteurs are of the opinion – and said so during their discussion with the Russian Ambassador -, that any further intervention from the kin-state in this matter is counter-productive. The stand taken by the Council of Europe, the OSCE’s very active High Commissioner for National Minorities Mr Ek�us, and the European Union – of which Latvia will be member as from May this year – is more likely to be taken into consideration by the Latvian authorities. These organisations advocate an objective approach based on the rights of sovereign states but also of those of national minorities in order to find an equitable solution. It is clear that direct intervention by the kin-state, however well meant, could tend to force the Latvian authorities into a defensive position, which is not conducive to good relations with the RSM.

Education reform:

16.       Education reform continues to be the most controversial issue in the country. However, it must be underlined that the Latvian Law on Education (LE) has been considerably improved since the opening of the post-monitoring dialogue. The 1998 law foresaw a gradual transition to 100% State language education. Although the second reading of the draft law in January 2004 understandably caused much damage to the credibility of the reform; the final adoption of 5 February resulted in the threshold of maximum 60% of the curriculum being taught in the State language, which not only conforms to the spirit of the Framework Convention but is a measure to integrate the RSM effectively.

17.       The Law on Education (LE) foresees that a gradually increasing amount of subjects at the formerly Russian-language schools will be taught in the state language, i.e. in Latvian. In the first grades from the age of six it would be a small percentage (six hours a week of teaching the Latvian language itself), rising up to 50% of subjects in the ninth grade. Starting from the 10^th grade, 60% of subjects would be taught in Latvian as from 1 September 2004.

18.       The schools have been preparing for a gradual switch-over to bilingual education since 1999. The 9^th graders of today, who will be the first ones directly affected by the reform in the next academic year, are already studying 50% of their subjects in Latvian. The additional 10% thus involves two supplementary subjects in Latvian, to be freely chosen by each school.

19.       However, the contention of some representatives of RSM is that the switch is too onerous for both pupils and teachers. Until 1991 there were two separate school systems, Russian language schools and Latvian language schools. The Russian-language schools have had to transform themselves and, according to many parents and representatives of the RSM associations, are still not prepared for this last phase due to lack of trained teachers and adapted textbooks. The parents are afraid that this will lead to lower quality teaching, reducing the RSM to a second rate position in society. They are primarily afraid that they will lose their Russian identity now that Latvian has become the state language and that their children would have to study part of their curriculum in this language.

20.       All pupils that the co-rapporteurs spoke to agreed that they should have a high proficiency in the use of Latvian. However, they considered that Latvian should be taught more intensively in an increased number of Latvian language classes (compared to the current four hours per week) but not as means of tuition of other subjects. Yet when asked whether they would see it differently if they were taught 60:40 in English and Russian, the answer was an overall “Yes!”, which is a small indication to what extent perception and attitude towards a language play a role in such matter. Also, the co-rapporteurs have no reason to believe that the psychological shift from a majority to minority position for the RSM in Latvia would bring along the gradual eclipsing of the Russian culture in Latvian society. We were told that, according to a recent poll, 81% of the population in Latvia speak Russian either as their mother tongue or as a second language, compared to 78% of those speaking Latvian as their mother tongue or as a second language.

21.       Another complaint stressed by the representatives of the RSM is the lack of constructive dialogue with the (former) government on the matter of the education reform. They feel that the law has been forced on them and that it is not the result of open discussions on the correct way to introduce the use of the official state language into all levels of the education system. 

22.       In the light of the above, one can say that concerns about this reform are partly genuine and partly a political power struggle. Nonetheless, both the government officials and EU Ambassadors seem to be of the opinion that the problem should be manageable if handled carefully. Out of the 159 minority schools, about 15 are currently considered as “problematic”, concerning about 15 % of the minority schoolchildren. Therefore the implementation process in the remaining five months should concentrate on individual problems of every school. The state should guarantee that the quality of education is maintained and that there will be enough study materials from the outset of the implementation of the reform. Substantial collaboration has already been carried out with minority schools in preparation of the reform. The new Minister of Education has further promised that every single school will be consulted on their preparedness through an intensified dialogue with teachers, pupils and their parents. The government line is not to give in to the request of the radical groups demanding a moratorium, but to offer extra support to schools that do in fact have a real problem. The Minister also indicated that all schools have the right to choose – on the basis of their individual preferences and capacities – the subjects to be taught in Latvian, which is essential for the success of the reform. An additional incentive is offered to the teachers that teach bilingual classes in the form of a 30% salary bonus.

23.       It was pointed out to the rapporteurs that bi-lingual education is not just an extra burden for children from minority groups – as it is largely seen by the RSM representatives - but that it also gives an extra advantage, not only in the intellectual development of pupils but also in later possibilities within society for bi- or even tri-lingual citizens.

24.       The co-rapporteurs take the problems round the education reform - as explained to them by the RSM – seriously. They consider that these problems should certainly be focused on in the ongoing post-monitoring dialogue. However, they also maintain that the goal of the education reform is to guarantee that all residents of Latvia would have sufficient knowledge of a common state language, which is essential for integrating the whole resident population in Latvia to the Latvian society. The co-rapporteurs think that further process of implementation of the reform, notably as regards the schools that have real problems, should be closely monitored within the post-monitoring dialogue. They see no ground for reopening of the monitoring procedure for this purpose. 

Ratification of the Framework Convention:

25.       It is quite clear that the ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities by Latvia would be seen as a strong message of goodwill towards the RSM.

26.       After the positive results of the Euro-referendum of 20 September 2003, the previous government reinitiated the discussions on the ratification in parliament. In January, an ad hoc Sub-Committee of the Saeima was set up under the chairmanship of Mr Berzins to look into this matter. This Sub-Committee has started its work on ground analysis. The sub-committee’s composition, which includes 13 members from all parliamentary factions (incl. all the pro-minority groupings), does certainly not facilitate reaching an easy or rapid compromise, yet the lengthy and passionate debates inside the sub-committee may eventually lead to a less painful ratification in the Saeima.

27.       The rapporteurs would think that a further delay would not put across the right message. If the government is indeed – in the interest of nation building – adamant on implementing the LE, then ratification of the Framework Convention at short notice would show clearly in which spirit this would be happening. It could also help to dispel the angst among some of the RSM that their identity is at peril.

28.       On the other hand, the co-rapporteurs are aware that putting too much pressure on speeding up the ratification in today’s context of heated debates among different parliamentary groupings would be likely to have a counter-productive effect, and result, in the best scenario, in ratification with a number of reservations and a restrictive definition of national minorities. In this respect, it is doubtful whether a quick ratification is politically feasible, even if the willingness might be there to tackle the issue through proper analysis and to ratify it once the more pressing issues have been dealt with.

29.       This being said, the co-rapporteurs are convinced that reopening the monitoring procedure for this goal is not founded, for the ratification of the Framework Convention is not among the obligations or commitments that Latvia entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe. Latvia has clearly been given to understand by the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the EU that, especially because of its existing problems with the RSM, it is imperative that it ratifies the Framework Convention. A monitoring procedure would only lead to reiterating this imperative, which has already been underlined within the post-monitoring dialogue.

Naturalisation process:

30.       The third major problem is the large number of “non-citizens” within Latvia, and the slow course of naturalisation. We are speaking of some 480 000 people of mainly Russian origin who were living in Latvia in 1991 (about half having been born there) and who became “non-citizens” in the same year. Forming some 20 % of the total population of less than 2 400 000, it is clear that there is some degree of alienation of this group from the Latvian state.

31.       Only about 10 000 persons per year have been naturalised since 1995. At this pace, it may take a whole generation before non-citizens have either died or have naturalised. The co-rapporteurs are nevertheless hopeful that once the non-citizens start seeing the benefits emerging from EU membership, the number will grow considerably. This positive trend can already be perceived since the Euro-referendum, with the number of applications having steadily grown in the last months. The month of March saw a record number of applications, totalling 1 900 or twice as many as in March last year. The new government has promised allocating additional resources to the Naturalisation Board, which would enable maintaining the current speed of processing applications.

32.       An interesting report commissioned by the Naturalisation Board shows that a very high percentage of the 480 000 non-citizens is either too old to start learning Latvian (as is necessary to pass the naturalisation procedure), or thinks that they should not have to apply, as Latvian citizenship should have been automatically given to them in 1991. All the same, the RSM schoolchildren that we spoke to (born both before and after the “dividing line” of eligibility to naturalisation upon simple request) claimed that they all wanted to apply for Latvian citizenship at the age of 15-16.

33.       It is evident that a more pro-active approach should be taken in this field to alleviate the resentment caused by the alienation of a large and influential part of the population. In any case children born in Latvia of non-citizens should be given citizenship automatically and not – as is the case now – only if the parents so request.  Likewise, it would appear inequitable to expect the elderly (130 000) to start learning Latvian well enough to pass a naturalisation test. If the two groups, the elderly and the newborn were treated more generously, this also could lead to a lessening of the present tension.

34.       In this respect, the co-rapporteurs received positive information on the draft law on automatic registration of newly-born children to non-citizen parents having recently been submitted to the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the information campaign targeting the parents of the 17 000 non-citizen children born after 1991 seems now to have been finalised and ready to be sent out to the target group.

35.       Altogether, although naturalisation of non-citizens should continue to be a matter for specific attention during the post-monitoring period, current developments do not merit the reopening of the monitoring procedure.

III.        CONCLUSIONS

36.       The rapporteurs received a large amount of useful information during their visit. As this opinion only addresses the question in the short term, i.e. whether there is an urgency to reopen the monitoring procedure as regards Latvia, we have not been able to make a full use of all the materials we have gathered. However, we hope that these valuable documents could be used in the process of post-monitoring dialogue.

37.       The motion for resolution tabled by Mr Rogozin and others (Doc. 9501) suggests that Latvia has failed to honour its commitments, and has lagged behind in observing the rights of national minorities. The co-rapporteurs wish to recall that Latvia has fulfilled all its accession commitments undertaken by Opinion 183 (1995) and followed the essential part of recommendations prescribed in Resolution 1236 (2001). Though more flexibility and commitment in real terms would be expected from the Latvian authorities in dealing with issues relating to its minorities, the Assembly should avoid increasing requirements and imposing new benchmarks on the few member states currently under monitoring or post-monitoring.

38.       In the light of the above, the co-rapporteurs are convinced that the recent developments indicate that there is no reason to reopen the monitoring procedure as regards Latvia. All problematic areas in which follow-up is necessary fit into the mandate of the post-monitoring dialogue which has been carried out by the Chair of the Monitoring Committee since January 2002 and which should continue as long as deemed necessary.

Programme

of the visit to Latvia of the co-rapporteurs of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe

29 – 30 March 2004

Members of the delegation:

Mr Erik Jurgens - (Netherlands, Socialist)

Mr Kimmo Sasi – (Finland, People’s Party)

Mrs Ivi-Triin Odrats – Co-Secretary to the Committee

Sunday, 28 March

Arrivals:

Mr Jurgens 21:35 BT 612 from Amsterdam
Mrs Odrats 22:55 SK 9653 from Copenhagen
Check-in at the Hotel “Konventa Seta”
9/11 Kaleju iela tel: +371 708 75 01, fax: +371 708 75 06

Monday, 29 March

8:00 – 9:00               Working breakfast with Mr Falck Lange, Senior Adviser to the OSCE High Commissioner of Minorities

9:55                             Mr Sasi BT 302 from Helsinki

10.30 – 11:40          Meeting with EU Ambassadors, hosted by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

H.E. Mr Nicolaas Beets

Royal Dutch Embassy, Tornu iela 4, Jacob's Barracks, building 1a

12:00 – 13:00        Visit to the Russian Gymnasium

13:15 – 14:15         Visit to Secondary School N� 15

14:30 – 15:00      Briefing and lunch at the Council of Europe Information Centre

15:15 – 16:15       Meeting with representatives of the Russian-speaking community, followed by a

16:15 – 17:15        Meeting with representatives of the Human Rights NGOs

Responsible person Mr Uldis Krastinš (Director of Council of Europe Information Centre)

14 Kr. Barona iela

17:25 – 18:10          Meeting with leaders of National Cultural Societies 

                              6 Skolas iela, Jewish museum

18:20 – 19:10                Meeting with the Ambassador Extraordinary and

Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation

H.E. Mr Igor Stoudennikov

2 Antonijas iela

20:00                           Dinner with the Ambassador Extraordinary and

Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Finland

H.E. Mrs Kirsti Eskelinen

(Ambassador’s Residence, Kalpaka Bulv. 1)

Tuesday, 30 March

7:45                             Departure from the hotel

8:00 – 8:50                   Meeting with the Latvian Delegation to

the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

11 Jekaba iela (Parliament - “Guests’ Hall”)

9:00 – 10:00                 Meeting with the Minister of Education and Science

Mr Juris Radzevics and

Deputy Head of the Latvian Language State Education Programme Centre

Mrs Brigita Silina

2 Valnu iela

10:15 – 11:00                Meeting with Minister for Special Assignment for Society Integration Affairs

Mr Nils Muiznieks

and with the representative from Social Integration Foundation

Mr Nils Saks

20 Elizabetes iela

11:10 – 11:40                Meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister

Mr Ainars Šlesers

36 Brivibas Blv

12:00 – 12:55                Meeting with the Director of the Naturalisation Board

Mrs Eiženija Aldermane

1 Smilsu iela

13:05 – 14:40                Working lunch with representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice

Mr Maris Klisans and Mrs Veronica Krumina

and with Mr Oskars Kastens, Vice-President of the European Affairs Committee of the Latvian Saeima

15:00 – 15:30                Meeting with the State President

H.E. Mrs Vaira Vike-Freiberga

3 Pils laukums / Residence

15:45 – 16:15                Meeting with the Vice-Speaker of the Saeima

Mr Janis Straume

11 Jekaba iela (Parliament)

16:20 – 17:00                Press conference with representatives of the Latvian media

                                    11 Jekaba iela (Parliament -“Red Hall”)

17:00                           Departure to the airport

Delegation accompanied by:

The Secretary of the Latvian delegation to the PACE – Mr Martins Olekss

The First Secretary of the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the PACE – Mr Janis Mazeiks

Interpreters:
Mrs Inguna BEKERE
Mr Juris BALDUNCIKS

Meetings with NGOs

29.03.2004

15:15 - 16:15

Russian speaking NGO’s and NGO’s involved in Educational process:

1. Latvian Association for Support of Schools with the Russian Language of Instruction (LASHOR, Igor Pimenov);

2. Association of Teachers of Schools with the Russian Language of Instruction (Olga Isakova);

3. Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (Tatyana Liguta);

4. Latvian Human Rights Committee (Miroslavs Mitrofanovs);

5. The Russian Community of Latvia (Vjaceslavs Altuhovs);

6. Polish School, Consultative Committee on Minority Education (Anatolijs Kvjatkovskis);

7. Ukrainian School (Egils Vilkaušs)

 16:15 - 17:15

Human Rights NGOs:

1. Latvian Human Rights Committee (FIDH, Tatjana Zhdanok and Genadij Kotov);

2. Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies (Ilze Brands-Kehre);

3. Civil Initiative XXI (Vjaceslav Vasin);

4. Western Russian (Dmitrij Nikolajev)

5. Baltic Insight (Boris Kolchanov)

Appendix II

Appendix III

AS/Bur (2004) 14 rev.
25 May 2004

Bureau of the Assembly

Revised guidelines for the observation of elections by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

I.          Introduction

1.         In recent years, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has observed a large number of parliamentary and presidential elections or referendums in member States of the Council of Europe or applicant States.

2.         The observation of elections plays a crucial role in assessing the level of democracy in a country, whether focusing on the existence of the rule of law, respect for human rights or the rules of pluralist democracy. For the Assembly, this appraisal is central both to membership procedures and to the monitoring of States’ commitments and obligations.

3.         The experience acquired in this field since 1990 allowed the Bureau of the Assembly to analyse these observation missions and, at its meeting in Rome on 29 March 1999, approve guidelines on the criteria and principles concerning the Assembly’s participation in the observation of elections with a view to optimising their effectiveness and results. Subsequent experience made it necessary to revise these guidelines on 13 January 2003 and on 24 May 2004.

II.         The specific nature of Parliamentary Assembly observation missions

a.         Objectives

4.         The observation of elections by the Parliamentary Assembly usually takes place in a broader context, either that of examining applications for membership or monitoring the commitments and obligations of member States. Far from being a single, short-term exercise, observation forms part of an ongoing process carried out within the committees concerned of the Assembly (the Political Affairs Committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Monitoring Committee through the activities of their respective Rapporteurs). The Bureau may further decide to observe elections in States that are the subject to a post-monitoring dialogue.

5.         The aim of the observation of an election is to ascertain whether the country is making progress towards accession or honouring its commitments and obligations as a member State of the Council of Europe.

b.         The political aspect of the observation

6.         Parliamentary observers have first-hand experience of the functioning of democratic systems and so they are able to give a knowledgeable political assessment of the elections.

7.         This political side of the observation influences the working methods of delegations of Assembly observers. On the basis of an exhaustive programme, members of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation have the possibility to have, before the election, political discussions with candidates and officials, so being able to form an opinion on whether the electoral process is democratic or not. Visits to polling stations and observation of counting (if possible) on election day are an essential part of the assessment, but are not necessarily the deciding factor. The small membership of delegations may limit their capacity to monitor the actual voting and counting. Monitoring the process of tabulation, transmission and consolidation of results should also be part of the observation.

III.        Current methods of election observation

8.         It is the responsibility of the Bureau of the Assembly to set up ad hoc committees for the observation of elections and to decide on their composition based on the proposals of the political groups. The membership of these ad hoc committees varies between 5 and 30; larger delegations are exceptional. Their composition is determined according to an appointment system taking into account the numerical size of the political groups. The Rapporteurs from the committees concerned (Political Affairs Committee, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and Monitoring Committee) are normally appointed to the ad hoc committee.

9.         The Bureau of the Assembly appoints the chairperson of the ad hoc committee who also acts as Rapporteur. Bearing in mind the stage that the application or monitoring procedure has reached, the chairperson of the ad hoc committee decides on the programme for observing the elections and assessing the political situation in the country, on the basis of proposals made by the secretariat.

10.       Usually, an observation mission consists of political meetings with high authorities of the country, political parties, candidates and representatives of the media and civil society. On Election Day the members visit polling stations and observe the count if possible, mainly working in pairs. Then the ad hoc committee meets for an evaluation of the observational data as a basis for assessing the democratic nature of the elections and produces a press release which is made public at a press conference the day after the elections. If a second ballot is necessary, a delegation of the ad hoc committee may observe this as well if the Bureau deems that necessary.

11.       If the Bureau deems that necessary, an observation may be preceded by a pre-electoral mission of members of the ad hoc committee or followed by a post-electoral mission of members of that committee.

12.       Following their examination and declassification by the Bureau, the reports on the observation of elections become Assembly documents. Any recommendations arising from the report should be referred, on a proposal from the Bureau, to the Monitoring Committee and be pursued with the authorities concerned.

IV.        Co-operation with other international institutions

13.       Lately, in the overwhelming majority of cases, PACE observers act as part of an International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) composed of parliamentary delegations from PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE (OSCE-PA) and the European Parliament (EP), as well as representatives of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).

14.       Leaders of the three parliamentary delegations and, in most cases, the OSCE/ODIHR, meet regularly to coordinate their findings. Chairmanship of such meetings is rotating between leaders of parliamentary delegations.

15.       The day following the elections there is a final press conference co-chaired by the three parliamentary leaders and an OSCE/ODIHR representative. A joint press statement bearing logos of PACE, the OSCE-PA, the EP and OSCE/ODIHR is issued at the press conference.

16.       Media silence procedure is observed until after the final press conference and parliamentary observers refrain from making any election-related statements to the press before the joint press statement is released.

17.       Co-operation between institutions therefore should be carried out in keeping with the following proposal made in the report of the Committee of Wise Persons: “Co-operation and co-ordination of activities, basically complementary and mutually reinforcing, […] should be on an equal footing, practical and results-oriented”.

V.         Guidelines

18.       Bearing in mind the objectives and the political nature of the Parliamentary Assembly’s observation missions as well as the problems deriving from the past co-operation arrangements with other international institutions, the following guidelines seem appropriate.

a.         Elections to be observed

19.       For the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the observation of elections plays an important role in the assessment of the overall political situation of the country in question.  In practical terms this entails the systematic observation of elections in any state whose parliament has requested or enjoys special guest status, which has applied for membership, or is subject to the monitoring procedure.

20.       Observation of parliamentary and presidential elections as well as of referenda in an applicant State or a State under the monitoring procedure should be an inalienable right of the Assembly. A State’s lack of cooperation with the Assembly, its refusal to accept an election observation mission from the Assembly should give rise to a debate at the part-session or Standing Committee meeting following the elections in question. It may result in sanctions, such as a freezing of the application procedure or the challenge of the credentials of the national delegation concerned on the basis of Rule 8.2.b.(lack of cooperation under the Assembly’s monitoring procedure).

21.       The Bureau may also decide to observe parliamentary and/or presidential elections, as well as referenda, in a State that is subject to the post-monitoring dialogue.

22.       The observation of regional and local elections is the responsibility of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe (the Congress). If the Assembly receives an invitation to observe such elections and the Bureau decides to observe them, the Assembly ad hoc committee shall cooperate with the election observation mission the Congress may deploy. A report on these elections by the Congress, sent to the President, should be referred, on a Bureau’s proposal, to the Monitoring Committee.

23.       The Bureau of the Assembly may decide to observe elections in other States when exceptional circumstances have been brought to its attention.

b.         Regarding observation and co-operation in the field

24.       Considering the role played by OSCE/ODIHR in the field, the Assembly should stress the political objectives of its participation in the observation process: full respect of Council of Europe values and standards. This should be possible thanks to the Assembly’s comparative assets such as the high political level of its delegations and the experience of its members.

25.       Practical assistance to Assembly delegations to observe the elections, particularly the organisation of the programme for the observation mission, should be provided by the national parliament, in order to supplement properly the programme for short-term observers organised by OSCE/ODIHR.

26.       Co-operation with OSCE/ODIHR and other international organisations will be continuous during the observation process in order to ensure, in so far as possible, that assessments of the elections do not differ. However, if, after the election, a joint final assessment cannot be achieved in the framework of the IEOM,  the Assembly’s ad hoc committee reserves itself the right, to hold -if necessary- its own press conference and issue a separate press release containing its own assessment. In this respect, it is essential that the Assembly’s ad hoc committee, when organising briefings, invites the OSCE/ODIHR. Reciprocity is expected in briefings organised by OSCE/ODIHR.

27.       Members of the ad hoc committee will refrain from engaging in public statements or press conferences which could contradict or conflict with the final assessment made by the ad hoc committee.

c.         Regarding the practical organisation of the observation

28.       On the basis of past experience, the following rules will be applied:

i.          the Assembly will observe elections mentioned in para 20 above (any refusal to send an invitation will constitute an evaluation criterion in itself);

ii.         the Assembly observers will receive accreditation from the Central Electoral Commission; the national parliament concerned will be responsible for facilitating the issuing of this accreditation;

iii.         the membership of ad hoc committees for elections will vary between 5 and 30 members and include any already appointed rapporteurs of the Political Affairs Committee, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Monitoring Committee for the country concerned; in special cases the Bureau can decide to increase this number. The composition of the ad hoc committees is determined according to an appointment system taking into account the numerical size of the political groups on the understanding that each political group should be represented;

iv.         a standard programme will be established for observation missions: three days for political meetings (organised by the national parliament), one day for the elections themselves (with cars, guides and interpreters paid for by the Assembly), one day for evaluation/assessment and the press conference;

v.          where the Bureau deems so necessary, a pre-electoral and/or a post-electoral 5-member cross-party mission may be dispatched;

vi.         to enhance the mission’s public profile, the ad hoc committees will be referred to as “delegations” headed by a “leader of the delegation” appointed by the Bureau;

vii.        while every effort should be made to ensure a political balance of ad hoc committees to observe elections, in the event when some political groups fail to come up with candidates while others put forward more candidacies than they are entitled to, the principle of a political equilibrium may be foregone in the interests of having a strong PACE presence during election observation. In such circumstances, a notification by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly will suffice;

viii.       members of the ad hoc committees will abstain from engaging in public activities which could interfere in the electoral process;

ix.        political groups should bear it in mind that any appointment to an ad hoc committee should respect fair geographical representation and be based on the candidate’s express capability, language-wise, to meaningfully participate in the work of the mission, in particular, given that on the spot the Council of Europe only provides interpretation to and from English or French. It should be pointed out that English is the de facto working language of the OSCE/ODHIR election observation mission;

x.         members of an ad hoc committee are encouraged to plan their travel arrangement in a way that would allow them at least to participate in the ad hoc committee debriefing on the morning following the elections. It is understood that those members who are unable to attend the debriefing in the capital because they were deployed outside it may report their conclusions by phone;

xi.        in exceptional cases, the political groups or national delegations may propose to the Bureau to appoint former members of the Assembly from an updated list compiled by them to assist the ad hoc committee. It is understood that the funding of their participation will be covered by the political group or the national delegation concerned;

xii.        members of the ad hoc committee should be aware that as far as the funding of their participation in the work of the ad hoc committee is concerned, Article 38 of the Statute of the Council of Europe shall apply (“Each member shall bear the expenses of its own representation in the Committee of Ministers and in the Parliamentary Assembly”).

---

[1] To be completed with the decisions taken by the Bureau at its meeting on 21 June 2004 in Strasbourg.

[2] This was already confirmed by the Assembly on 30 April 2004.

[3] The Assembly ratified these references on 30 April 2004.

[4] the dates of the visit were deemed important to be maintained regardless of the request of the Speaker of the Saeima addressed to President Schieder to postpone the visit until the new government was fully functional.

[5] After regaining independence Latvian law enforcement authorities have investigated the crimes of war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity of both the Nazi and the Communist regimes. The persons referred to in the motion have stood a fair trial and been convicted for war-time crimes against humanity and genocide: the former head of Soviet Latvia Security police (NKVD) Alfons Noviks was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995 for organising deportations of Latvian population. The former Soviet Security Officer Mihails Farbtuhs was sentenced for the same crime to 7 years in prison in 1999 (later reduced to five years) and Vasilijs Kononovs to six years in prison for the murder of nine civilians in 1944.