|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure
Pour débat ŕ la Commission permanente – Voir article 15 du Rčglement
Doc. 9453
7 May 2002
Draft additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention
Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Jerzy Smorawiński, Poland, Group of the European People's Party
Summary
The Assembly welcomes the draft additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention through mutual recognition of controls on territory of other Parties.
I. Draft opinion
1. The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the decision by the Committee of Ministers to draft an additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention on a binding evaluation mechanism and on mutual recognition of controls on the territory of other Parties. This is the first international text to recognise the new WADA and its out-of-competition doping control programme.
2. The adoption of the Anti-Doping Convention in 1989 created common, high standard foundations for the organisation of a system for fighting doping in member states of the Council of Europe.
3. Further recommendations issued by the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention mark a significant progress as they help develop procedures applied during anti-doping controls, legal as well as structural and programme solutions which facilitate the implementation of the recommendations stipulated in the Anti-Doping Convention by member states.
4. The draft additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention aims to enhance and reinforce the fight against doping through the recognition by member States of the doping controls on their territory on sportsmen and women from other states Parties to the Convention, without having to conclude any separate bilateral agreements.
5. It recognises the competence of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to operate on the territory of the member states, signatories of the Anti-Doping Convention.
6. The Assembly considers the additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention a considerable step forward, which should help increase the effectiveness of the fight against doping in sport.
7. In consequence the Assembly urges all states Parties to the Anti-Doping Convention to sign this protocol on the day of its opening for signature.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Smorawinski
1. For many years the Council of Europe has played the leading role in the fight against doping in sport. This is evidenced by many recommendations and resolutions on this problem, published since 1967. The adoption of the Anti-Doping Convention in 1989 created common, high standard foundations for the organization of a system for fighting doping in member States of the Council of Europe. Further recommendations issued by the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention mark a significant progress as they help develop procedures applied during anti-doping control, legal as well and structural and programme solutions which facilitate the implementation of the recommendations stipulated in the Anti-Doping Convention by member States. Detailed information on the achievements of the Council of Europe as well as those of the Monitoring Group supervising the application and implementation of the Anti-Doping Convention were presented in 2000 in the Report of the Committee on Culture and Education prepared by Mikko Elo from Finland.
2. The draft additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention aims to enhance and reinforce the fight against doping through the recognition by member States of the doping controls on their territory on sportsmen and women from other Parties to the Convention, without having to conclude any separate bilateral agreements. Accordingly, the sports or national anti-doping organisations, to be able to conduct such controls, would have to be certified by the relevant ISO standards for doping control recognized by the Monitoring Group. Such controls would be conducted on sportsmen and women representing the countries between which there was a previous relevant specific bilateral or multilateral agreement.
3. However, it is point 3 in Article 1 that I consider a new and innovatory element of the additional protocol. The Article stipulates recognition of the competence of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to operate on the territory of the member States, signatories of the Anti-Doping Convention. In practical terms this allows out-of-competition anti-doping controls on all sportsmen and women representing member States irrespective of where they are. These controls, as is understandable, should be carried out in accordance with regulations and the national law of the host country as well as comply with relevant ISO standards adopted by the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention.
4. The remaining articles of the protocol describe the procedure and related technical aspects.
5. As said earlier, recognition of WADA is most important in the fight against doping in sport. It is known that the Agency was established pursuant to the private law of Switzerland. Presumably its enforcement through the Convention is to avoid any possible legal conflicts.
6. Recognition of WADA has been the subject of several discussions held by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers expressed its positive opinion on the establishment of WADA; establishment of the later was considered important progress in the fight against doping in sport. However, recognition of WADA is inseparably connected with the need to cover 50% of its costs by national governments, of which 47.5% must be contributed by the states signatory to the European Cultural Convention. The division of costs between continents was discussed by the Inter-Governmental Consultative Group (final agreements in Cape Town in May 2001). Accordingly, in 2002 Europe should contribute USD 4,037,500 to WADA’s budget.
7. On 26-27 February 2002 the Committee of Ministers decided on the way in which contributions are to be divided between the Member States and the methods of payment for the present year but more definitive arrangements are still under discussion. Irrespective of the result of this discussion, for many states this will be an additional and serious financial obligation. Although the additional protocol does not stipulate any financial obligations, it must be clearly said that recognition of WADA entails such an obligation. Consequently, any unknown increase in costs in the following years and how WADA will spend the funds are subject to reservations. Questions asked many times at the meetings of the Monitoring Group of the Anti-Doping Convention about the cost of a single anti-doping test have remained unanswered. Equally unclear is the procedure by which WADA will be identifying and naming agencies to conduct anti-doping controls.
8. As regards the supervision by the Monitoring Group (Article 2), from the practical point of view only a few countries are ready to join this process. The evaluation process is complex and long. However, three parties have already been evaluated and it is planned to evaluate three more in 2002. Other parties have indicated their willingness to be evaluated in 2003 and beyond. Two other Parties have also completed a self-evaluation process and published the ensuing report. In the context of the “Compliance with Commitments” project, four other parties have already received advisory visits, designed to help build up national anti-doping policies of high and consistent standard and several others visits are planned.
9. Despite these reservations, the additional protocol to the Anti-Doping Convention is a considerable step forward and should help increase the effectiveness of the fight against doping in sport.
*
* *
Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Reference to committee: Doc. 9411 and Reference No. 2717 of 22.4.2002
Opinion adopted unanimously by the committee on 23 April 2002
Members of the committee: MM. de Puig (Chairman), Saglam, Baroness Hooper, MM. Prisacaru (Vice-Persons), Akhvlediani, Asciak, Bajrami, Banks, Barbieri, Berceanu, Berzinš, Billing, Birraux, Mrs Castro, MM. Chaklein, Cherribi, Mrs Cryer, MM. Cubreacov, Dalgaard, Mrs Damanaki, Mrs Delvaux-Stehres, MM. Dias, Duka-Zólyomi, Felici, Mrs Fernández-Capel (alternate: Mrs Agudo), MM. Gadiznowski, Galoyan, Gentil, Gierek, Goris, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Higgins (alternate: Kiely), Ianuzzi (alternate: Gaburro), Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Jakic, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli (alternate: Skoularikis), Mrs Klaar, Mrs Kutraité Giedraitiené, MM. Lachat (alternate : Reimann), Legendre, Lekberg, Lemoine, Lengagne, Libicki (alternate: Smorawinski), Mrs Lucyga, MM. Maass, Malgieri, Marmazov, Marxer, Mateju, Mrs Melandri, MM. Melnikov (alternate: Gostev), Mestan, Mrs Milotinova, M. Nagy, Mrs Nemcova, MM. Nigmatulin, O’Hara, Mrs Pintat Rossell, MM. Rakhansky, Roseta, Schellens, Mrs Schicker, MM. Schweitzer (alternate: Jung), Seyidov, Mrs Skarbovik, MM. Sudarenkov, Symonenko, Theodorou, Torbar, Tudor, Vakilov (alternate : Abbasov), Valk, Wodarg, Yürür.
N.B. The names of those present at the meeting are printed in italics
Secretariat: MM. Grayson, Ary, Mme Theophilova, M. Torcatoriu,