Work of the CSCE on the eve of the 3rd Summit (Helsinki, 9-11 July 1992)

5 May 1992

Doc. 6607

Report

on the work of the CSCE

on the eve of the 3rd summit (Helsinki, 9-11 July 1992)

(Rapporteur: Mr SCHIEDER, Austria, Socialist)

SUMMARY

Since the holding of the CSCE Paris summit in November 1990, CSCE membership has increased from 34 countries to 52. States participating in the current CSCE Helsinki follow-up meeting are confronted with two major challenges: to ensure the functioning of the CSCE with enlarged membership and to develop CSCE institutions and structures.

The Rapporteur considers that the Council of Europe has acquired wide expertise in some fields now being dealt with by the CSCE, in particular those concerning the human dimension. Co-operation between the CSCE and the Council of Europe should develop in those fields of mutual interest, thus benefiting all CSCE participating states and avoiding duplications. The modalities of such co-operation should be discussed between the Committee of Ministers and the CSCE's ministerial organ.

The rapporteur is also of the opinion that the CSCE should concentrate on the prevention of conflicts in Europe and play an increasing role in this field.

I. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

1. Since the holding of the CSCE Paris summit in November 1990, CSCE membership has increased from 34 countries to 52. States participating in the fourth CSCE follow-up meeting which began in Helsinki in March 1992, are facing two major challenges: to ensure the functioning of the CSCE with an enlarged membership and to develop and strengthen CSCE institutions and structures.

2. The CSCE must also find ways to cope effectively with current conflicts confronting the continent such as those in former Yugoslavia or in Nagorno-Karabakh. The possibility of giving to the CSCE an increasing role in peace-keeping was discussed by the CSCE Council of Foreign Ministers at its meeting in Prague in January 1992, and it is also being considered at the current Helsinki follow-up meeting.

3. The proposal being discussed in Helsinki to set up a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration aimed at resolving any dispute which has not been settled by diplomatic means in a reasonable period of time is a positive step towards peace in Europe. However its achievement may be confronted with many difficulties. In this respect, the Assemby recalls that before investing energies in the creation of new mechanisms it is necessary to make full use of existing ones.

4. Participants in the Helsinki follow-up meeting are also considering a proposal for the establishment of a High Commissioner for minorities aimed at providing the CSCE with a conflict-prevention mechanism on issues related with minorities.

5. As regards co-operation between the CSCE and the Council of Europe, until now no specific forms have been defined even if during the CSCE Paris summit, the CSCE formally welcomed the Council of Europe's willingness to share its experience with the CSCE. Nevertheless, the Council of Europe made contributions to almost all CSCE experts meetings held in 1991 and the representative of the Council of Europe at the Helsinki follow-up meeting formulated specific proposals for the future development of such co-operation.

6. The Assembly considers that the human dimension of the CSCE could greatly benefit from the expertise of the Council of Europe in this field as demonstrated by the long-standing success and recognition of its human rights protection machinery. Therefore, the CSCE Warsaw Office for democratic institutions and human rights should work closely with the Council of Europe.

7. Co-operation between the CSCE and Council of Europe should also develop in fields related with culture and education, promotion of a multicultural society and rights of minorities.

8. Where the parliamentary dimension of the CSCE is concerned, the Assembly reiterates its willingness to make available its experience to the emerging CSCE Assembly which will hold its first meeting in Budapest in July 1992. Modalities of co-operation must be laid down in a formal agreement to avoid duplication. Willingness to co-operate with the CSCE Assembly has also been expressed by the North Atlantic Assembly and the Assembly of the Western European Union.

9. The Assembly believes that the presence of members of the Assembly in the respective national delegations to the CSCE Assembly could contribute to a better co-ordination of the work of both assemblies.

10. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i. develop in the near future a close co-operation with the CSCE institutions and structures;

ii. negotiate with the CSCE competent bodies the modalities of such co-operation in fields where the Council of Europe plays a leading role, in particular those related with the human dimension;

iii. improve the knowledge of CSCE participating states about Council of Europe activities in order to avoid duplications, waste of resources and possible conflicts;

iv. define the modalities of associating CSCE participating states not members of the Council of Europe with specific Council of Europe projects;

v. ensure that the CSCE makes full use of existing structures in order to prevent conflicts in our continent more effectively.

II. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

by Mr Schieder

C O N T E N T S

Paragraphs

I. INTRODUCTION 1 - 6

II. DEVELOPMENT OF CSCE INSTITUTIONS AND STRUCTURES

a. Existing CSCE institutions and structures 7 - 12

b. CSCE work since the adoption of

Recommendation 1158 (1991) 13 - 18

c. New proposals for CSCE action 19 - 22

III. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

AND THE CSCE

a. at intergovernmental level 23 - 30

b. at parliamentary level 31 - 38

IV. CONCLUSIONS 39 - 46

APPENDIX: List of CSCE member countries

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The last Assembly debate on security and co-operation in Europe was held in Helsinki on 25 June 1991, hosted by the Finnish Parliament. Among the issues discussed were security aspects of the newly emerging Europe, potential links between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and a future CSCE Assembly, and the need to make full use of existing institutions to promote enlarged European co-operation.

2. As a result, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1158 (1991) on security and co-operation in Europe in which it stressed once again the pan-European vocation of the Council of Europe, enhanced by its progressive enlargement and the introduction by the Assembly of the special guest status, as well as its adaptability to the present and potential needs of Europe.

3. Furthermore, Recommendation 1158 (1991) called on the Committee of Ministers to ensure the implementation of the CSCE emergency mechanism regarding Yugoslavia's crisis in order to promote a coherent European institutional order guided by the principles of effectiveness and non-duplication, to seek strong institutional and working links between the CSCE and the Council of Europe taking into account the latter's fields of expertise, and to convey to member governments the need to ensure the capabilities of our organisation, so as to enable it to continue its mission of unifying Europe.

4. The Committee of Ministers replied to this recommendation on 16 September 1991 by recalling its Declaration on Yugoslavia adopted on 5 July 1991 and underlining that the CSCE emergency mechanism has already been put into effect. The Committee of Ministers reiterated its intention expressed at its 88th session (25 April 1991) that "the Council of Europe should continue to contribute appropriately to CSCE activities, particularly in the human dimension and cultural fields".

5. Since the holding of the CSCE Paris summit and Germany's reunification in November 1990, CSCE membership has increased from 34 countries to 52. The newly admitted countries are : Albania (June 1991); Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (September 1991); eleven former Soviet republics, that is Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine, with Russia taking over the Soviet Union's seat (January 1992); Slovenia, Croatia and Georgia on 24 March 1992; and Bosnia-Herzegovina on 30 April 1992. A list of CSCE member countries is appended. Membership for other ex-Yugoslav republics seems likely in the next months.

6. The current problems confronting the continent (i.e. inter-ethnic disputes, recognition of minority rights) stand as a challenge to the CSCE process and its institutional structure. The CSCE must find ways to cope effectively with inter-ethnic armed conflicts such as those in the former Yugoslavia or in Nagorno-Karabakh. In that sense, the move taken by the latest CSCE Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Prague on 30-31 January, towards a consensus-minus-one decision-making approach to respond to "gross" violations of CSCE commitments should be welcomed, even though the need for enforcement mechanisms has become ever increasingly necessary.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF CSCE INSTITUTIONS AND STRUCTURES

a. Existing CSCE institutions and structures

7. With the adoption of the "Charter of Paris" in November 1990, the CSCE process became regularized and institutionalized by means of periodic intergovernmental consultations and the establishment of permanent CSCE institutions.

8. The regularly scheduled intergovernmental consultations, which are the broadest decision-making bodies, take place in the form of:

a. CSCE summits of Heads of State or Government every two years on the occasion of CSCE follow-up meetings;

b. meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers at least once yearly (Berlin, June 1991; Prague, January 1992, Stockholm, December 1992);

c. meetings of the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) at least every three months;

d. subsidiary meetings such as experts meetings, seminars and symposia;

e. meetings of the various CSCE mechanisms (Unusual military activities, Emergency meeting of CSO, Human dimension).

9. The permanent CSCE institutions consist of a secretariat based in Prague, a Conflict Prevention Centre in Vienna and an Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw.

10. The Warsaw Office saw, on the occasion of the CSCE Council's Prague meeting in January 1992, an expansion of its mandate to cover the human dimension. Its original name of Office for Free Elections was changed and became Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

11. The Vienna-based Conflict Prevention Centre, whose main function is to monitor the implementation of confidence- and security-building measures among CSCE member countries, opened on 18 March 1991. The Centre's Consultative Committee, its main decision-making body, met on 13 May 1991 in Vienna, following the beginning of the exchange of military information in mid-April 1991.

12. In the development of the CSCE process, it should be emphasized that in response to the CSCE Paris summit call for a parliamentary dimension, a parliamentary meeting was held in Madrid on 3 April 1991 at the initiative of the Spanish Parliament. Agreement was reached on the establishment of a CSCE Assembly to meet once a year, with the first meeting to be held in Budapest in July 1992. Furthermore the parliamentary delegations attending the Madrid meeting expressed their wish to benefit from the experience and the assistance of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (and of the North Atlantic Assembly) when meeting as CSCE Assembly.

b. CSCE work since the adoption of Recommendation 1158 (1991)

13. As agreed in the 1989 Vienna Follow-up meeting and in the 1990 Paris Summit, three meetings of CSCE experts took place during 1991:

- a Conference on the problems of national minorities was held in Geneva (1- 19 July 1991), adopting a final document on minority rights and protections;

- the third meeting of the Conference on the human dimension of the CSCE took place in Moscow (10 September - 3 October), after those in Paris (June 1989) and in Copenhagen (June 1990). The participating States adopted a final document setting out a mechanism by which member countries could authorise mandatory fact-finding missions into alleged human rights violations even without the consent of the host government;

- a Seminar on democratic institutions was held in Oslo (4-15 November 1991). The Seminar took note of the contributions currently being made in this field by the Council of Europe and areas where an expanded CSCE Office for Free Elections could be helpful.

14. Aside from its regular meetings, the Committee of Senior Officials was convened four times in 1991 to assess the Yugoslav cris within the framework of the above mentioned "Emergency mechanism".

15. The CSCE Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs held its second meeting in Prague (30-31 January 1992). On that occasion, membership was granted to eleven former Soviet Union Republics (see paragraph 5) and observer status to Slovenia and Croatia. The new participating states agreed on "rapporteur missions" to assess their progress in meeting CSCE commitments following the precedent set up by Albania upon its admission to CSCE, in June 1991. The Ministers enlarged the mandate of the Warsaw Office to cover human rights issues, while acknowledging the significant role played by the Council of Europe by instructing the newly renamed Office to work closely with our organisation.

16. But the Ministers' most important step was probably their decision that "appropriate action may be taken by the Council or the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO), if necessary in the absence of the consent of the state concerned, in cases of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of relevant CSCE commitments. Such actions would consist of political declarations or other political steps to apply outside the territory of the state concerned."

17. Ministers also endorsed a plan to dispatch fact-finding and conciliation missions to areas of tension and, on 31 January 1992, they agreed to send the first such mission to the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh within the territory of Azerbaijan.

18. The fourth CSCE follow-up meting began in Helsinki on 24 March 1992 and is scheduled to close in July, with a summit of CSCE Heads of State. The current meeting is considering ways and means to implement the CSCE commitments, as formulated by the CSCE Council of Ministers. Experts from the participating States are discussing measures to strengthen CSCE institutions and structures, new proposals for CSCE action and modalities for the consensus-minus-one decision-making procedure in the event of major violations of CSCE principles.

c. New proposals for CSCE action

19. Among the proposals for CSCE action being considered at the Helsinki Follow-up meeting, three seem to be particularly important:

i. the peace-keeping mandate,

ii. the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration,

iii. the High Commissioner for Minorities.

20. The possibility of giving to the CSCE a role in peace-keeping was suggested in the Prague meeting of the CSCE Council. According to some delegations, Europe cannot take for granted that the United Nations will intervene every time a conflict breaks out in Europe.

21. The French-German proposal for the establishment of a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration aimed at resolving any dispute which has not been settled by diplomatic means in a reasonable period of time is being supported by some of the member States of the European Communities. This Court, which would be an extension of the "Dispute settlement mechanism" devised in the CSCE Valetta meeting (1991) but never used, would be composed of a Commission for Conciliation with a Bureau and an Arbitration Tribunal. The Commission for Conciliation, which would consist of two members for each state party, would rely on a Conciliation Committee to hear the parties, determine the facts of the case, and try to reach an out-of-Court settlement. The Arbitration Tribunal, for its part, would be composed of one judge from each state party and have as its main task ruling on disputes referred to it either bilaterally or multilaterally. Its decision would be binding on the involved parties.

22. The Dutch proposal for the establishment of a "High Commissioner for minorities" is aimed at providing a conflict-prevention mechanism to the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) on issues related with minorities. The Commissioner should be an outstanding international personality with considerable political experience. His role would be that of early warning and early action concerning the outbreak of conflicts involving minorities. To this end, the Commissioner would have the freedom to visit participating states and consult with various parties. It was also pointed out that the Commissioner should not deal with individual cases or a situation that has already developed into an open conflict. He should not be obliged to take up every case brought before him; he should himself select those in which he assesses he could play a positive role. The Commissioner should not be a "defender of minority rights" but rather an "honest broker". Should his good offices and recommendations fail to solve the crisis, the Commissioner would bring the problem to the attention of the Committee of Senior Officials. The role of the High Commissioner would be without prejudice to other CSCE mechanisms.

III. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND THE CSCE

a. At intergovernmental level

23. The prospect for relations between the CSCE and the Council of Europe emerged as a direct result of the profound changes which have altered the political, economic and social map of Europe since 1989. The Council of Europe first participated in CSCE activities in November 1990, on the occasion of the CSCE Paris summit. At that time, the CSCE formally welcomed the Council of Europe's willingness to share its experience with the CSCE as expressed by the Secretary General. However, no specific forms of co-operation were defined either by the CSCE or the Council of Europe.

24. While during 1991 the Council of Europe made contributions to almost all CSCE experts meetings, the CSCE so far has not articulated any proposals for co-operation schemes or "joint ventures" with the Council.

25. As far as our Organisation is concerned, a number of CSCE states non members of the Council of Europe have been invited since 1990 to participate in the so-called "Greater-Europe projects", a step towards enlargement of participation in the Council of Europe activities. Even though these projects do not cover the United States and Canada, both countries have taken part as observers in some committees dealing with legal issues.

26. On 31 March 1992 in Helsinki, the representative of the Council of Europe made specific proposals for the future development of co-operation between our Organisation and CSCE in fields of mutual interest.

27. The human dimension of the CSCE could greatly benefit from the expertise of the Council of Europe in this field as demonstrated by the long-standing success and recognition of its human rights protection machinery.

28. Moreover, in the light of the CSCE Council of of Ministers' decision that the Warsaw Office for democratic institutions and human rights should work closely with the Council of Europe in those two fields, your Rapporteur hopes that the Helsinki Follow-up meeting will formulate specific modalities for co-operation between the CSCE and the Council of Europe.

29. Such a co-operation would also develop in other fields such as those relating to the promotion of a multicultural society and rigths of minorities. In this respect, it should be recalled the activities of the Council of Europe concerning culture and education, which are open to CSCE participating States non members of our organisation through their accession to the European Cultural Convention and their participation in "Greater-Europe projects" such as "Language learning for citizenship", "Research, cultural documentation and technical assistance", and "Action programme for the Cultural Heritage", to mention a few.

30. As far as rights of minorities are concerned, the CSCE may wish to explore ways to benefit from and contribute to the activities being carried out by the Council of Europe. It should be recalled that in Recommendation 1177 (1992) on the rights of minorities, the Assembly considered urgent to elaborate an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights defining the rights to be guaranteed. In addition, the Assembly recommended the drawing up and rapid adoption by the Committee of Ministers of a declaration setting out the basic principles relating to the rights of minorities, on which there is already international consensus.

b. at parliamentary level

31. At present, a large number of parliaments of states participating in the CSCE hold membership or enjoy special guest status in the Parliamentary Assembly. Among the non member countries of the Council of Europe, the parliaments of Russia and Slovenia have already been granted special guest status. Those of the newly independent republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the former Yugoslavia will progressively accede to such status. The parliaments of the United States and Canada are often associated with Assembly debates and activities.

32. The Assembly has played an active role in providing practical assistance to the parliaments of CSCE participating states non members of the Council of Europe. The Assembly organises training seminars for members of parliaments and parliamentary officials from Eastern and Central European countries on the nature, functioning and major activities of the Council of Europe, particularly those of the Parliamentary Assembly. These seminars are held in Strasbourg on the occasion of Assembly sessions and in different capitals within the framework of assistance programmes on legislative issues.

33. Co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly and parliaments of CSCE states non members of the Council of Europe also takes place via the activities of the International Institute for Democracy set up under the auspices of the Strasbourg Conference (1) with the aim of promoting and strengthening parliamentary co-operation on a world-wide scale. The Institute organises seminars for parliamentarians from Eastern and Central European countries.

34. Where the parliamentary dimension of the CSCE is concerned, the Assembly has often expressed its willingness to make available its resources and experience to the emerging CSCE Assembly.

35. With regard to possible co-operation between the CSCE Assembly and the North Atlantic Assembly and our Parliamentary Assembly, a formal agreement between the three assemblies seems necessary to define the modalities of such co-operation. The Parliamentary Assembly could make its contribution on all questions relating to human rights and the human dimension, while the North Atlantic Assembly could provide its assistance on defence and security issues. Moreoever, the two assemblies could supply their expertise on political, economic, scientific and technological issues.

36. The Parliamentary Assembly cannot but welcome the setting up last January 1992 of a working group with the task of preparing this agreement between the three assemblies, which should allow avoiding duplication. The relevant texts from our Assembly on those areas where our expertise is recognised, namely human rights, rule of law and parliamentary democracy, should be transmitted to the CSCE Assembly. Regular contacts between the executive organs of the two assemblies should also be established.

37. As regards practical assistance at secretariat level, the Office of the Clerk of our Assembly has already started and will continue to make a contribution to the upcoming CSCE Assembly meeting in Budapest (3-6 July 1992) under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly.

------

1. The Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy is organised every four years by the Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the OECD countries not belonging to the Council of Europe (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States).

38. In addition to assessing implementation of CSCE objectives, principles and commitments, the CSCE Assembly's Budapest meeting plans to discuss specific items such as Yugoslavia's crisis (should conflict situation persist), protection of minorities, migratory movements and democratic institutions.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

39. The Council of Europe has acquired wide expertise in some fields now being dealt with by CSCE, in particular those concerning the human dimension. Co-operation between our Organisation and the CSCE should aim at ensuring fuller awareness of relevant Council of Europe activities, avoiding duplications and benefiting all CSCE participating States.

40. As proposed in Helsinki by the representative of the Council of Europe, certain current activities of our Organisation concerning culture and education, human rights and minorities could be opened to CSCE participating States not members of our Organisation. The modalities of such association should be discussed between the Committee of Ministers and the CSCE's ministerial organ.

41. With regard to the prevention of conflicts in Europe, your Rapporteur is of the opinion that CSCE should concentrate on this issue and play an increasing role in order to establish a peace keeping system which should become operational as soon as possible. In this field, the willingness to co-operate expressed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Western European Union (WEU) should be taken into consideration.

42. However, the CSCE role in preventing conflict must take particular account of and draw from the efforts and experience of the United Nations in this field. The crisis in Yugoslavia provides an example of the limitations of the CSCE as well as of the European Community in the field of conflict prevention. It is encouraging that the Committee of Ministers, in its (March) reply to the Assembly's Recommendation 1175 (1992) on the situation in Yugoslavia, declared that it "supports efforts to endow Europe with the necessary means for ensuring the maintenance of peace".

43. Although the proposal for a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is a positive step towards peace in the continent, it may be confronted with many difficulties. One should recall for instance that the already existing European Convention for the peaceful settlement of disputes is not yet ratified by all Council of Europe member States. Your Rapporteur is convinced that even some member countries are not aware of the existence of this convention. We must try to make full use of existing mechanisms before investing energies in the creation of new ones.

44. The present participation of Council of Europe representatives in the Helsinki Follow-up meeting should improve the knowledge of CSCE participating States about the activities of our Organisation and increase their interest to be associated with specific Council of Europe projects. Moreover, your Rapporteur expects that the Council of Europe presence at the forthcoming CSCE summit will also contribute to develop among the participants awareness of activities being carried out by our Organisation in fields of mutual interest and to assess already existing possibilities of co-operation.

45. In promoting co-operation between our Parliamentary Assembly and the CSCE Assembly, national delegations have a role to play. Information received by national parliaments on our work should allow parliamentarians members of the CSCE Assembly to concentrate their discussions on specific CSCE aspects and therefore avoid duplication with the activities of our Parliamentary Assembly. Presence of members of our Assembly in the respective national delegations to the CSCE Assembly could also contribute to a better co-ordination of the work of both assemblies.

46. Finally, the participation of our Assembly in the forthcoming Inter-Parliamentary Conference on security and co-operation in the Mediterranean (CSCM) (Malaga, 15-20 June 1992), convened by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), should provide an opportunity to extend the experience of CSCE to parliaments not participating in the CSCE process, and thereby help stabilise this most politically sensitive region.

APPENDIX

LIST OF CSCE MEMBER COUNTRIES

(30 April 1992)

ALBANIA

ARMENIA LIECHTENSTEIN

AUSTRIA LITHUANIA

AZERBAIJAN LUXEMBOURG

BELARUS MALTA

BELGIUM MOLDOVA

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA MONACO

BULGARIA NETHERLANDS

CANADA NORWAY

CROATIA POLAND

CYPRUS PORTUGAL

CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC ROMANIA

DENMARK RUSSIA

ESTONIA SAN MARINO

FINLAND SLOVENIA

FRANCE SPAIN

GEORGIA SWEDEN

GERMANY SWITZERLAND

GREECE TAJIKISTAN

HOLY SEE TURKEY

HUNGARY TURKMENISTAN

ICELAND UKRAINE

IRELAND UNITED KINGDOM

ITALY UNITED STATES OF

KAZAKHSTAN AMERICA

KYRGYZIA UZBEKISTAN

LATVIA YUGOSLAVIA

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.

Reference to committee: Standing mandate

Draft recommendation: Unanimously adopted by the committee on 5 May 1992.

Members of the committee: MM Reddemann (Chairman), Sir Dudley Smith (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Baarveld-Schlaman, (Vice-Chairman), MM Alvarez Cascos (Alternate: Fabra), Antretter (Alternate: Soell), MM Baumel, Bjarnason, Bratinka, Caro (Alternate: Fourré), Cem, Cismozewicz, Espersen, Fahey, Fioret, Fiorini, Flückiger (Alternate: Mühlemann), Gabbuggiani, Galanos (Alternate: Hadjidemetriou), Mrs Haller, Mrs Halonen, MM Hardy, Hellström (Alternate: Mrs Hjelm-Wallen), Irmer, Kelchtermans, König, Mrs Lentz-Cornette, MM van der Linden, Machete (Alternate: Roseta), Martins, Masseret, Mimaroglu (Alternate: Güner), Moya, Oehry, Pangalos, Papadogonas, Psaila Savona, Schieder, Sebej (Alternate: Kobylka), Seeuws, Simko, Mrs Suchocka, MM Szent-Ivanyi (Alternate: Ternak), Tarschys, Thoresen, Ward.

NB. The names of those members who took part in the vote are underlined.

Secretaries of the committee: MM Sorinas and Kleijssen.