For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 9613

31 October 2002

Prevention of recidivism in crimes against minors

Report

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Mr Nikolay Chaklein, Russia, United European Left Group

Summary

This report expresses concern over the increase in the number of crimes against minors, which are often committed by persons who are responsible for the care of the minors involved or who are in positions of authority over them, and/or who, in many cases, have themselves been the victims of abuse and mistreatment.

As regards recidivism in such crimes, its level is difficult to establish due to the absence of distinction under certain penal laws between crimes against minors and crimes generally, its hidden character and the absence of statistics.

The effectiveness of penalties and of traditional penal measures intended to combat this form of criminality may be questionable in most cases, but here again comparative research should be developed further.

Efforts should be undertaken at the international level to limit recidivism. In respect of this, the report recommends a series of preventive measures, whilst also proposing measures intended to help the young victims.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Assembly recalls the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which mentions the need to protect children against neglect, cruelty and exploitation, the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls on states to adopt measures to protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence, and the 1996 Council of Europe Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, which is aimed at helping the Parties to the United Nations Convention to implement this text.

2.       The Assembly stresses in particular that Article 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the contracting states to take all appropriate measures to reintegrate children who have suffered crimes and cruelty, one of these measures being to introduce specialised social and psychological services for under-age victims. The fact is that such services are largely underdeveloped in central and east European states.

3.       The Assembly voices its concern at the huge increase in crimes against minors recorded in many European states, as well as in indecent assaults against and interference with the sexual freedom of children. In an alarming trend, a great many such crimes are being committed by persons who are supposed to be caring for children and who hold authority over them.

4.       The Assembly considers that in order to eliminate the factors that contribute to the perpetration of crimes against minors in an increasingly integrated European environment, it is necessary to encourage national governments to seek the utmost standardisation of national criminal legislation on the age of protection of children’s sexual inviolability, on liability for the production of and trade in articles involving child pornography, on liability for inciting minors to prostitution, and on liability for organising child prostitution.

5.       The Assembly notes that many perpetrators of crimes involving sexual or other violence against children have themselves suffered cruel treatment, and that consequently the legal enshrinement of the requisite compensation for the damage suffered (reparation) and psychotherapeutic treatment would provide a very useful means of preventing violent crimes against minors.

6.       The Assembly is aware that states in a critical economic situation are facing high crime rates in terms of the economic exploitation of children and neglect of their basic needs by their parents and/or other persons responsible for their well-being.

7.       The Assembly stresses the particular danger of non-random, that is to say premeditated, crimes against minors, considering that two categories of crimes against minors must be studied in particular detail, namely cruel treatment of children by their parents, guardians or supervisors, or persons legally responsible for their well-being, and sexual offences, most of which are committed by persons with sexual behaviour disorders.

8.       The Assembly acknowledges that traditional penalties are incapable of effectively preventing re-offending or remedying the personality disorders causing the crimes against minors. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to devise measures capable of preventing re-offending in crimes against minors in order to ensure fuller implementation of the rights of children.

9.       To prevent re-offending, the Assembly stresses the advisability of using legal measures which lie outside the strict framework of criminal law. Such measures may be provided for in civil and family law, as well as under specific laws on the protection of children or texts governing specified occupations in which adults are in contact with and hold authority over children.

10.       Consequently, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite member states to:

i.       adopt all the necessary measures to improve protection of children’s rights, including shielding them from all forms of cruelty and exploitation;

ii.       co-ordinate their efforts to combat the spread of child pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and ratify the Council of Europe‘s Convention on Cybercrime as quickly as possible.

11.       The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i.       provide financial assistance for states which are or had experienced local armed conflicts within their borders, to help them implement programmes to protect minors against all forms of cruelty and exploitation;

ii.       provide help for central and east European states in setting up specialised social and psychological services for under-age victims of crimes;

iii.       develop model legislation and promote the implementation of practical measures to prevent re-offending in crimes against minors;

iv.       formulate and finance research programmes aimed at assessing the potential effectiveness of current and potential prevention measures;

v.       launch training programmes for specialists working on these issues with convicted persons and their victims;

vi.       disseminate information on positive experiences in various states concerning treatment for convicted persons and rehabilitation of victims;

vii.       include re-offending in crimes against minors in the terms of reference of the new Committee of Experts on dealing with sex offenders in penal institutions and in the community (PC-DS), to be set up by the CDPC.

II.       Explanatory memorandum

      by Mr Chaklein, Rapporteur

A.       Introduction

1.       The Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1959 stipulates that “children shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation” (Principle 9). The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires member states to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse…” (Art. 19 [1]). And yet children continue to be the victims of a wide range of criminal offences. In 1996 the Council of Europe adopted a Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights. This European legal instrument is aimed at helping the states Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to implement this text.

2.       A questionnaire was sent out to the national delegations, to which 17 states replied (Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia). Germany, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Russia and Slovenia also provided further data on offences committed against children.

3.       In the year 2000, 104 088 children were the victims of various offences in Russia. The following conclusions can be drawn from the statistics relating to the 1997-2000 period: the percentage of children among the total number (which increased from 1 704 200 to 2 095 504) of victims of criminal offences remained steady at between 4.6% and 5.6%. However, it should be noted that these children disproportionately suffer the more serious types of crime, leaving them dead or disabled. For instance, deaths among children suffering crimes account for 5% to 6%, while the percentage of children among all persons disabled as a result of offences lies between 6.5% and 8.8%. In 2000, 3 802 children died as a result of crimes, and 5 733 children suffered serious damage to their health.

4.       In Germany, 59 138 persons suffered physical violence in 1999, with 28 296 minors suffering grievous bodily harm or life-threatening injuries. In the same year 24 234 children under the age of 14 suffered sexual harassment. In the Czech Republic there were 999 recorded cases of physical violence against children, and 1 057 cases of various forms of sexual violence (rape, incitement to prostitution, incitement of a child to sexual relations with a person holding authority over him/her).

5.       Some European countries are seeing a considerable increase in the number of offences recorded and committed against children. In Slovenia, for instance, 2 114 offences were recorded in 1999, increasing to 3015 in 2000, whereby the number of crimes threatening children’s lives and health increased by 70% and the number of cases of indecent assault increased by 9%. In Croatia, the number of offences against children recorded between 1996 and 2000 increased more than tenfold (from 430 to 5 867). This increase is due to neglect of their basic needs and to their economic exploitation (the number of cases rose from 129 to 3 102), offences which are not actually very serious in terms of public danger. Nevertheless, the number of dangerous crimes also soared: for instance, the number of sexual crimes increased from 206 to 1 377 in five years, and the number of cases of abandonment of a child in danger from 10 to 132.

6.       From the criminological angle all offences against children can be broken down into two groups:

-       random offences: the child falls victim to a crime as the result of a haphazard combination of circumstances, whereby the perpetrator at no point intended to commit the offence in question against the particular child;

-       non-random offences: the perpetrator of the offence deliberately committed it against the child in question.

7.       Non-random offences further sub-divide into two groups of very common offences against children, according to replies to the questionnaires:

-       cruel treatment of children by their parents, guardians or legal supervisor responsible for their well-being. Such offences are aggravated by the fact that the victim is subject to the perpetrator’s authority, which restricts his/her ability to seek assistance; this explains the protracted continuation of such offending and the fact that it remains undiscovered by the judicial authorities;

-       sexual offences, many of which are committed by sexual deviants for whom the child is the sole object of sexual satisfaction.

8.       Traditional sanctions (long custodial sentences, penal servitude possibly accompanied by wage deductions, forfeiture of civic rights, etc) do not eliminate the sexual disorders affecting paedophiles, and therefore re-offending in sexual crimes against children is characteristic of this category of persons, once they have served the sentence imposed for the previous crime. Inhuman treatment of children is often due to abnormal stereotypes assimilated by the perpetrators of the crimes during their childhood, to their own experience of violence committed in their own families, or to dysfunctional relations within their families, and such personal circumstances cannot be eliminated through enforcement of the sentence. Acts of violence against children at home, like sexual crimes against children, are therefore determined by the personal specificities of the perpetrators. This explains why such offences are often characterised by a high incidence of re-offending, as penal and legal measures are generally ineffective in such cases. The inevitable conclusion seems to be that we must now give priority to devising measures to prevent re-offending in the field of crimes against minors. If we manage to do this, we will be able to implement the rights of children much more fully.

B.       Types of cruelty

9.       Domestic law in most of those countries that answered the questionnaire classifies into physical and sexual violence against children, neglect of their basic needs, incitement to child prostitution and child pornography as criminal offences (although Austria has no specific provisions on child prostitution). Mental violence is sometimes treated separately: for instance Armenia, Hungary, Switzerland and Yugoslavia do not provide for criminal liability vis-à-vis this form of cruelty. Family, civil, administrative and media codes embrace specific rules to protect children from cruelty. Furthermore, most countries have adopted special legislation on protecting children’s rights (eg Armenia) or protecting public security (eg Croatia). Such texts provide for criminal liability, which is incurred in cases of the less cruel forms of infringement of the well-being of children that mostly occur in the family context. The importance of the rules included in civil or administrative law as opposed to criminal law derives from their value in preventive terms, because they can help prevent serious crime by restricting contact between the perpetrator of the crime and his/her victim and by imposing community work, and can help offset the damage caused to the victim by means of material compensation (reparation) and/or refunding of the cost to the victim of undergoing psychotherapeutic treatment. Given that available data shows that many criminals who commit acts of violence or sexual offences against children were themselves prior victims of cruelty in childhood, the obligation on repairing the damage and providing access to psychotherapy as enshrined in law represent a means of preventing re-offending in violent crimes against children.

10.       Certain specific pieces of legislation have been adopted to protect children against violence in specified conditions. For instance, the laws on family and marriage (Croatia, Poland, Russia and Yugoslavia) are geared to combating violence against children, whether in natural or adoptive families. The law on education (Croatia) protects children against violence during their school career. The law on the mass media (Germany) is aimed at combating the trade in child pornography and child prostitution.

C.       Separate criminal-law regulations

11.       Criminal law in the various European countries prohibits and penalises any form of cruelty towards children (physical, sexual and mental violence), neglect of their basic needs, and incitement of children to prostitution and pornography. However, in many cases offences against children alone are insufficient for criminal law to consider them as a separate crime, and consequently many countries do not include them in penal statistics. Child pornography, incitement of an under-age person to commit sexual acts and have sexual intercourse, incitement to begging (Bulgaria) and neglect of children’s basic needs are an exception to this rule and are subject to penal sanctions. Bulgaria is the only country which has no criminal rules governing child pornography.

12.       An offence committed against a child is an aggravating circumstance in all the countries consulted, and this can be reflected in two different ways in criminal legislation. Most states consider offences against a child as an aggravating circumstance within the limits of the sanction imposed against such offences. Aggravating circumstances are covered by a specific section of the criminal code, applying to all the offences listed in this section. This section of the penal code may exceptionally comprise a specific rule treating an offence against a child as a qualifying element and sanctioning it more severely than the same offence committed against an adult (Andorra). The only exception to this rule is in the case of very serious crimes, for example when a mother murders her baby (Czech Republic).

13.       Even though the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as a human being below the age of 18 years, the criminal-law protection provided for in domestic legislation in individual states varies in accordance with the child’s age. This applies particularly to the legal age for protecting the child’s sexual inviolability. In most cases criminal law defines children as persons under the age of 14, while persons aged from 14 to 17 are “adolescents”, whereby offences committed against the latter are liable to less severe sanctions than those committed against children. This is the approach adopted in Austria, Germany, Russia and Yugoslavia. The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code provides for severer sanctions for offences against children under the age of 15. Different states set the upper limit on childhood, as the period guaranteeing criminal-law protection, at between 15 and 18 years.

14.       Since criminal law seldom recognises offences committed against a child as constituting a sui generis crime, only six countries were able to reply to the following question: “According to studies and expert opinions, which offences (categories of offence) committed against children are characterised by the highest level of re-offending?” (Armenia, Czech Republic, Greece, the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" , Norway and Yugoslavia). Sexual offences were mentioned as being in this category in all six cases (Norway stressed that incest was an offence characterised by a high level of re-offending). Only Greece mentions physical violence (crimes against children’s life and health) in addition to sexual crimes.

D.       The commonest crimes

15.       As mentioned above, criminal laws seldom consider offences against children as sui generis components of crimes. It is much more common for children to be defined as the potential victims of a given crime in lieu of adults or defenceless persons. Criminal statistics present accurately defined offences and the total number of children who have suffered a certain category of crime (against life and health or against sexual inviolability and/or freedom). This precludes pinpointing the commonest crimes against children. In most cases it is impossible to identify such crimes on the sole basis of criminal or judicial statistics, which derive from either expert opinions or special studies.

16.       The questionnaire endeavoured to analyse the commonest crimes against minors. It emerged that sexual harassment was the commonest offence (listed in first place in five different replies, in second place in another five, and in third place in three replies); the countries that answered the questionnaire considered physical violence as the least common type (listed in first place in three replies, in second place in another three and in third place in six replies).

17.       Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Norway, Poland and Switzerland failed to answer the question on the reasons for social concern about the commonest crimes. It is very important to secure replies to this question because they would help plan any attempts to prevent re-offending in crimes against children. Replies were provided by a range of countries in different economic and social situations, with different recent pasts and different social control systems. This might suggest that the replies provide a fairly objective overview of the situation in Europe. The countries that answered the question emphasised the danger to the victim’s development and social integration. These countries also noted that socio-economic factors directly and indirectly affect the level of crime against children, for instance family destabilisation, weakening of family links, and increasing alcoholism and drug abuse in families (Greece, Slovenia).

18.       Hungary, for instance, mentioned such other causes for concern as the personality of perpetrators of such crimes. Many such offenders have suffered cruelty in childhood, causing permanent emotional disorders or abnormal behaviour patterns, including sexual deviation vis-à-vis the object and means of sexual satisfaction, and dysfunctional stereotypes regarding family relations. Furthermore, the young victims of these offences are liable in turn to abuse minors in the future.

19.       These first two factors are therefore directly linked to the increasing violence against children. However, the crime level does not depend solely on the forceful factors which give rise to it: it is also influenced by the state of the systems used to combat crime. Still on the subject of factors causing the high level of offences against children, most of the countries pointed to shortcomings in the formal social control system used to ensure respect for children’s rights. These shortcomings include the fact that society does not pay sufficient attention to solving violent crimes against children (Croatia), the low level of competence of the staff involved (Hungary), the collapse of, and failure to replace, the old social control system (Slovenia), and underdeveloped social services for providing families and children with the requisite assistance (Yugoslavia).

20.       Some factors leading to a high level of crime against children are due to the specificities of certain countries. For instance, Yugoslavia points to a generally high level of violence in society linked to the recent military operations. This factor is fairly irrelevant to most other European states. On the other hand, it is very important in states which have seen or are seeing local, inter-ethnic or religious conflicts.

21.       In connection with factors having contributed to the growth in offences against children, Greece mentions defective implementation of certain reforms, such as that of education. For a number of European countries the last decade has seen the abandonment of rigid regulation of all sectors of community life and a transition towards more liberal management methods. This process is not yet completed, and many social institutions are currently being reformed. It is time we analysed the mistakes made and endeavoured to rectify the reforms in hand, in order to prevent any negative fall-out.

22.       Where the most problematical types of violence against children are concerned, the countries that answered this question (Andorra, Armenia, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Greece, Hungary, Slovenia and Yugoslavia) spotlight the knock-on effect of social violence. If children who suffer violence are not afforded psychological aid and appropriate treatment, when they grow up they will reproduce the negative behavioural stereotypes they learnt during childhood. This has a negative impact on security and stable development of society.

23.       The significant latent aspect in crimes against children, particularly in cases of sexual or family violence (Greece, Germany) is a further cause for public concern. One result of this latency is a lack of reliable information, which blocks any relevant social policy. Since young people who are frequently abused are in a situation of dependency vis-à-vis the offenders, it is very difficult for investigators to gather evidence. Greece points out that the concern about the proliferation of child pornography in the country is due to widespread use of digital information technologies. Greece is not the only country using such technologies, and so European states must, in due course, take all necessary action to restrict the communication of child pornography via Internet.

E.       Re-offending

24.       The level of re-offending in terms of crimes against minors can be assessed on the basis of either judicial statistics or scientific research results. Such research is currently carried out by psychotherapists treating persons convicted of crimes against minors, as well as by psychologists and psychiatrists studying the personalities of convicted perpetrators of serious violence against minors.

25.       Several states were unable to provide data on the prevalence of re-offending in crimes against minors because their codes only set out a small number of standards in a special section aimed at protecting children against the more specific types of violence, which are a threat to public order precisely because of the victims’ age. In most cases, which also include the commonest types of violence, it is impossible to ascertain whether the victim was a child, an adult or a dependent and vulnerable adult.

26.       Andorra, Austria, Germany, Norway and Slovenia forwarded judicial statistics on the number of persons convicted of crimes against minors who had already been sentenced for the same offence. According to these statistics the rate of re-offending fluctuates between 5% and 35%. Available data highlight some degree of stability in re-offending rates for various types of crime. There are major discrepancies only in the case of uncommon offences, heightening the influence of chance factors. Scientific research results point to a much higher level of re-offending, especially in cases involving the sexual inviolability of very young children with whom any kind of sexual act is prohibited, and the sexual freedom of adolescents. Research results show that re-offending accounts for 40% to 60% of all sexual crimes against minors.

27.       These major discrepancies are probably due to variations in judicial methods of recording instances of re-offending. Data on convictions are only stored in national registers for a limited time. The length of retention of this information usually depends on the seriousness of the crime (maximum length of prison sentence imposed for specific categories of crime). The minimum length of retention of information on a sentenced person or person having served a sentence, which is important for ascertaining whether the person concerned has re-offended, generally depends on the length of sentence, but the maximum duration is twenty years (Germany). Consequently, if a person commits a crime after expiry of the time-limit on storage of the personal information in the national register, it is impossible to ascertain whether he/she has re-offended. In many cases the re-offending rate is calculated on a forecasting basis vis-à-vis persons with a long police record. To that end, usually for a period of three to five years, persons with previous convictions are monitored for any fresh crimes committed. Obviously, increasing the duration of the monitoring period, eg to ten years, would considerably increase the re-offending level recorded.

28.       It should be noted that the re-offending concept is interpreted differently by criminologists and criminal law specialists. From the criminal-law angle, any circumstance relevant to the application of penalties is deemed to be an instance of re-offending. This is why an offence committed by a person previously sentenced to a period of imprisonment as stipulated in the penal code after the imposition of a penalty or after release from prison is considered as an instance of re-offending. This conception of re-offending is known as “legal (or criminal-law) re-offending”. The length of the period during which any further offence is regarded as legal re-offending and has a penal effect is usually determined on the basis of the formal criterion of the gravity of the offence committed. In our view this approach is incompatible with the principle of minimum sufficiency of criminal-law restrictions. It would seem more appropriate to frame specific legislation stipulating a period of time during which the sentenced person is considered to be more likely to commit another similar offence. This period of time could be equated, for each individual crime, with a period after which the re-offending rate (number of crimes of a specific type committed in twelve months by 1000 persons previously convicted of the same crime) is the same as the general crime rate (number of crimes of a specific type committed vis-à-vis 1000 adults). This period can only be established on the basis of scientific research results.

29.       The questionnaire included a specific question on the manner in which national legislation takes account of re-offending. Fifteen countries answered this question. All these countries consider legal re-offending as an aggravating circumstance as set out in the main body of the penal code. Five countries (Armenia, Bulgaria, the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Germany, Estonia and Russia) consider a further offence against a minor as a qualifying element as set out in the purview of the articles of the special section of the penal code.

30.       Crimes committed against minors within their own families and sexual offences are difficult to prove. Where evidence is insufficient for a conviction, domestic law in most countries allows for the establishment of liability in other quarters (by virtue of the rules set out in administrative, civil or family law, or in legislation on children’s rights or education). Such an offence is not considered as an instance of legal re-offending if a person having incurred such liability vis-à-vis a child commits a criminal offence. Nor are persons who have, for a given reason, been cleared of criminal liability or a penalty included in the “legal re-offending” category.

31.       From the criminological angle, re-offending bears witness to the fact that the criminal in question is characterised by immutable personality features or a deep-seated social maladjustment which drove him/her to re-offend and which increase the risk of further re-offending in future. “Criminological re-offending” naturally concerns far more cases than legal or criminal-law re-offending. Criminological re-offending covers fairly common cases of persons who have already committed one or more crimes but have never been charged or sentenced. The broad scope of the “criminological re-offending” concept enables us to pinpoint a category of criminals who are very difficult to deal with in judicial terms and who require specific prison-related measures. Criminological re-offending can be further broken down into formal re-offending (perpetration of any new crime) and real or special re-offending (fresh perpetration of a crime similar to that committed previously). “Real re-offending” is a pointer to an established criminal tendency, making future crimes more likely.

32.       So we can point to a certain contradiction between legal re-offending as a circumstance taken into account in enforcing a penalty, and real re-offending as a circumstance bearing witness to an aggravated risk of perpetration of similar crimes by the person concerned, which necessitates special preventive measures in connection with this person. In our view this problem might be solved by empowering the court to impose on persons guilty of real re-offending, in addition to the judicial penalties, such special preventive measures as the legal enshrinement of mandatory compensation for the damage inflicted (reparation) and psychotherapeutic treatment.

33.       We might lastly point out that the penal codes of twelve countries comprise restrictions or even prohibitions on the exercise of certain activities, certain responsibilities or certain tasks in relation to perpetration of offences against minors. Most penal codes are very severe in this respect. The duration of sentence is prescribed by many of the penal codes, but some of them leave this matter to the discretion of the judge, as in Poland. Length of sentence is often fairly long, though ten years is the maximum; in some cases the prohibition is indeterminate (Hungary).

E.       Conclusions

34.       Re-offending in crimes against minors is a critical problem which is nonetheless of a latent nature. It is currently impossible to evaluate accurately the level of re-offending in crimes against minors, for two reasons. The first is that current legislation in most states draws no distinction between crimes against minors and crimes in general. The second reason is the latency of most offences against minors, whether they involve family violence or sexual violence. Moreover, the lack of statistics makes it difficult to pinpoint the appropriate measures to combat the phenomenon of re-offending in crimes against minors.

35.       The specific nature of offences against minors renders most conventional measures ineffective for combating this form of crime. In addition to the traditional preventive and punitive measures, new rehabilitation approaches should be considered and developed. Very little information is available on the effectiveness of such measures; the only way to secure reliable date on their efficacy is to conduct comparative research in the various states.

36.       The Council of Europe should set about providing assistance for under-age nationals of states that are witnessing conflicts or are in tense economic situations, which are conducive to crimes against minors and re-offending in relation to such crimes. Appropriate programmes should be funded so that rehabilitation centres can be opened in such states.

37.       In the final analysis, the drive to contain the re-offending rate in crimes against minors should be conducted at the international level. It is accordingly necessary to develop model legislation and give concrete shape to new special rehabilitation measures, to organise training for specialists responsible for implementing these measures and lastly to compare the effectiveness of current national programmes for dealing with re-offenders in the field of crimes against minors.

Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Doc 9392, Reference No 2716 of 22 April 2002

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 28 October 2002

Members of the committee: Mr Lintner (Chairperson), Mr Magnusson, Mrs Gülek, Mr Marty (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Akçali, Mr G. Aliyev (alternate: Mr R. Huseynov), Mr Andican, Mr Arabadjiev, Mrs van Ardenne-van der Hoeven, Mr Arzilli, Mr Attard Montalto (alternate: Mr Asciak), Mr Barquero Vázquez (alternate: Mrs Posada), Mr Berisha, Mr Bindig, Mr Brejc, Mr Bruce, Mr Bulavinov (alternate: Mr Shishlov) Mr Chaklein, Mrs Christmas-Møller (alternate: Mrs Auken), Mr Clerfayt, Mr Contestabile, Mr Daly, Mr Davis, Mr Dimas, Mrs Domingues, Mr Engeset, Mrs Err, Mr Fedorov, Mrs Frimansdóttir, Mr Frunda, Mr Guardans, Mr Gustafsson, Mrs Hajiyeva, Mr Holovaty (alternate: Mr Shybko), Mr Jansson, Mr Jaskiernia (alternate: Mr Markowski), Mr Jurgens, Mr Kastanidis, Mr Kelemen, Mr S. Kovalev, Mr Kresák, Mr Kroll, Mr Kroupa, Mr Kucheida, Mrs Libane, Mr Lippelt, Mr Manzella (alternate: Mr Budin), Mrs Markovic-Dimova, Mr Martins, Mr Masson (alternate: Mr Hunault), Mr Mas Torres, Mr McNamara (alternate: Mr Lloyd), Mr Meelak, Mrs Nabholz-Haidegger, Mr Nachbar, Mr Olteanu, Mrs Pasternak, Mr Pellicini (alternate: Mr Naro), Mr Penchev, Mr Piscitello, Mr Poroshenko, Mrs Postoica, Mr Pourgourides, Mr Ransdorf, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Skrabalo, Mr Solé Tura, Mr Spindelegger, Mr Stankevic, Mr Stoica, Mrs Stoisits, Mrs Süssmuth, Mr Symonenko, Mr Tabajdi, Mrs Tevdoradze, Mr Tokić, Mr Vanoost, Mr Wilkinson, Mrs Wohlwend

N.B. The names of those members who were present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Ms Coin, Mr Sich, Ms Kleinsorge, Mr Ćupina, Mr Milner