Doc. 9651

13 January 2003

Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure

Progress report

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)

Rapporteur: Ms Josette Durrieu, France, Socialist Group

Summary

For more than five years now, the committee has been evaluating its activities. This process led to the adoption by the Assembly in September 2001 of Resolution 1260 and Recommendation 1536. Discussion in the committee on the task it has been given of monitoring member States’ obligations and commitments continues.

In this report the committee warns against the risk of duplication of monitoring procedures within the Council of Europe. The existence of competing procedures in the Council of Europe’s different organs serves neither the Council of Europe’s credibility nor its visibility. The dispersal and overlap of activities could create confusion and lead to contradictions.

Moreover, the committee deemed it necessary to fully take up the terms of reference that had been entrusted to it by the Assembly in Resolution 1115 (1997); that is to say to verify the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by all member states. Therefore, the committee should define in more precise terms the criteria as to how a monitoring procedure should be opened or reinstated.

Lastly, the Committee discussed its functioning and, in particular, its composition. Having studied several proposals, the committee expressed the wish that the number of committee seats be brought into line with those of the Assembly’s other major committees, so that this figure is increased to 80.

I.        Draft order

1.       The Assembly refers to the progress report presented by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe.

2.        The Monitoring Committee requests in this report that the number of committee seats be brought into line with those of the Assembly’s other major committees, so that this figure is increased to 80. The Assembly therefore instructs its Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to examine this proposal.

3.       Moreover it instructs its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe to define the criteria used to determine whether a monitoring procedure is opened or reinstated.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Ms Durrieu, rapporteur

A.        INTRODUCTION

1. In accordance with paragraph 13 of Resolution 1115 (1997), the Monitoring Committee is required to report to the Parliamentary Assembly once a year on the general development of the monitoring procedures.

2. Since it was set up in 1997, more than five years ago, the Monitoring Committee has submitted four progress reports¹.

3. In its last report, submitted in September 2001, the Committee sought to analyse its activities and identify future directions for the monitoring of obligations and commitments. It noted a number of problems, particularly the risks inherent in the duplication of so-called monitoring procedures within the Council of Europe. It also set out several proposals intended to strengthen the visibility and effectiveness of its working methods.

4. Its conclusions appear in Resolution 1260 and Recommendation 1536, adopted by the Assembly on 26 September 2001. This approach should be pursued. New proposals have therefore been made, and are set out in sections B and C below.

5. The current report covers the period from September 2001 to December 2002. The Committee is currently monitoring the obligations and commitments of nine member States and maintaining post-monitoring dialogue with six countries for which the monitoring procedure has been concluded (see Appendix A).

6. The state of the procedures in progress is presented in Appendix B. Various tables providing a composite overview of the Committee’s activities are set out in subsequent appendices.

B.        REVIEW OF THE PROCEDURE

7. Reviewing the Committee’s activities has enabled us to draw attention to a number of points that require more extensive analysis.

1. The task of monitoring member States’ obligations and commitments

8. During the review carried out last year, several observations were made regarding the monitoring procedure’s shortcomings.

a. Purpose of monitoring

9. The Committee has reached a clear finding: the monitoring procedure remains limited in its purpose and still takes no account of the situation in the member States of long standing, with the notable exception of Turkey. The monitoring of how specific commitments are honoured concerns only 8 new member States (plus Turkey), and does not extend to the monitoring of the obligations accepted by the other 35 member States. In real terms, Resolution 1031 (1994) ² has never been implemented, and the Committee has to date failed to carry out its task as it is described in Resolution 1115 (1997).

10. Resolution 1115 (1997) charges the Monitoring Committee with “verifying the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by the member states under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties, as well as the honouring of commitments entered into by the authorities of member States upon their accession to the Council of Europe”.

11. The Committee owes it to itself to fulfil the terms of reference that were entrusted to it, and accept its responsibilities. It must reclaim this task for itself. This is not merely a right, it is an obligation.

12.        Obligations and commitments should therefore be equally binding on all Council of Europe member States. Monitoring should concern not only commitments expressly accepted by the newest members of the Organisation – as it does – but all of the obligations that are to be honoured by all 44 member States – something that is not done. One result of this shortcoming is that the monitoring procedure is frequently criticised for its lack of fairness.

13. The Committee must return to its original task, and do its utmost from now on to ensure that states which are not currently the subject of a monitoring procedure actually comply with the Council of Europe’s principles and abide by the obligations imposed on all member States under Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, i.e. the principles of pluralist democracy and the rule of law, and the principle according to which states must safeguard the human rights and fundamental freedoms of everyone under their jurisdiction.

14. If these procedures have not been used to date, the reason is probably that attention has been focused on the those countries which have applied to the Council and become members since 1989. Which country should be monitored first? Which sensitive topics will inevitably raise acknowledged problems? It is necessary and fair to initiate new procedures. On the basis of the existing texts, the Chair will implement the terms of reference set out in Resolution 1115, and will make proposals to the Committee to this end.

b. Initiation or re-opening of monitoring procedures

15. On several occasions this year, the Committee has examined the conditions for initiating or reinstating a monitoring procedure. The existing arrangements, set out in Resolution 1115 (1997), has proved cumbersome, making it extremely difficult in practice to initiate a monitoring procedure³.

16.        In accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), the Monitoring Committee has had an opportunity to discuss the possibility of initiating or reinstating a monitoring procedure:

      - the Bureau consulted it in 1997 on the situation of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (Greece), and decided to recommend to the Bureau not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Greece;

- in 1997 it asked the Bureau for and received permission to initiate a monitoring procedure in respect of Latvia;

- in January 1999 it discussed reinstating the monitoring procedure in respect of Lithuania but decided that the cases mentioned did not justify it;

- in April 2000, the Bureau rejected the Committee’s request to initiate a monitoring procedure in respect of Austria; this decision was endorsed by the Assembly.

17.        During the period covered by this report, the Committee discussed three proposals to initiate or re-open a monitoring procedure:

- at its meeting on 11 December 2001, the Committee agreed that it would not follow up the proposal to reopen the monitoring procedure in respect of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the near future;

- at its meeting on 10 September 2002, the Committee examined a motion for a resolution on reopening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Latvia, and decided not to follow this up, but to step up the post-monitoring dialogue;

- at its meetings on 27 June and 23 October 2002, the Committee examined the case of Liechtenstein. In May, the Chair of the Committee received two memoranda from citizens of Liechtenstein concerning the current revision of their country’s Constitution, and requesting the Monitoring Committee’s assistance with this matter. The Committee decided to propose to the Bureau to invite the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to give a legal opinion on the country's draft constitutional reform. On 6 November, the Bureau decided to ask the Venice Commission to draw up an opinion on this matter as soon as possible.

18. In the past, Order 508 (1995) gave the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which was responsible for monitoring the obligations and commitments of member States prior to the setting up of the Monitoring Committee in 1997, the power to initiate a monitoring procedure.⁴ Since then, it has been for the Bureau to decide on whether or not a procedure is initiated or reinstated. In this case, the Monitoring Committee should be involved in the process and define the criteria used to decide whether a monitoring procedure is opened or reinstated (major political or institutional crisis, persistent failure to honour a remaining commitment for a country in the post-monitoring phase, etc).

c. Competition and complementarity with the monitoring procedure

19. Last year’s report already criticised the risk of duplication of monitoring procedures within the Council of Europe ⁵. The watering down of activities and the dispersal of approaches carry a potential risk of inconsistency. The situation has not improved, quite the contrary.

20. It should be remembered that in November 2000 the Committee of Ministers decided to monitor democratic developments in Armenia and Azerbaijan on a regular basis, following these two States’ accession, and to set up a specific working group for this purpose (the GT-SUIVI.AGO). The Committee of Ministers also decided to instruct the Rapporteur Group on Democratic Stability (GR-EDS), again under the chairmanship of Ambassador Ago, to monitor the progress made by Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to commitments undertaken following that country’s accession in April 2002.

21. This issue – duplication of monitoring activities – was the subject of the Joint Committee’s meeting on 27 September 2001. It was also a central theme in the questions submitted to Ambassador Ago at the Committee’s meeting on 25 June 2002, where the visibility and coherence of the monitoring activities within the Council of Europe were at the forefront of the discussion. The Committee of Ministers says it is asking for full co-operation in this area, but does make this plain. The Assembly believes that duplication of competing procedures is harmful, and serves neither the Council of Europe’s credibility nor its visibility. The Committee of Ministers focuses on the synergy and complementarity of the two procedures. This is not in fact the case, and the approaches continue to be administered separately.

22. At its meeting on 22 January 2002, the Committee examined the Committee of Ministers’ reply to its Recommendation 1536. The Committee of Ministers’ reply validates a complementarity-based approach, but does not address the problem of confusion and competition between the procedures.

23. It is necessary to re-debate the issue and identify clearly the position to be taken by the Monitoring Committee and the Parliamentary Assembly before moving further towards institutionalisation of relations with the GT-SUIVI.AGO and the GR-EDS. It is necessary to return to the original terms of reference as defined in Resolution 1115 (1997), which sets out the responsibilities of each Council of Europe organ in the monitoring procedure.

24. The Parliamentary Assembly and its Monitoring Committee have the task of acting as the driving force in monitoring obligations and commitments within the Council of Europe. There is a considerable political aspect to monitoring. Equally, there is a genuine parliamentary diplomacy in Europe today. It expressed in a remarkable manner through the monitoring procedure and is to be put to the credit of the Assembly. The Parliamentary Assembly’s role, and especially that of its rapporteurs, has been asserted and consolidated in recent years. If we take the example of Moldova, the Parliamentary Assembly played a key role in resolving the political crisis.

25. The existence of competing procedures in the Council of Europe’s different organs requires the introduction of a co-ordinated and constructive approach.

26. From this same perspective, co-ordination and co-operation are necessary with the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights; in the course of 2002, he undertook several visits to countries that are being monitored and to older member States. A method of working in collaboration should be prepared. At its meeting on 6 November 2001, the Committee held an exchange of views with Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles. Such meetings should take place regularly. It would then provide the Committee and the Commissioner for Human Rights with certain information regarding the situation of human rights, both in the countries being monitored and in the other member States. All sides would have a clearer grasp of the complex reality of the situations which we are required to examine. Accordingly, the Chair proposes to meet the President of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the President of the CLRAE, and the heads of the other bodies concerned.

27. The 2000-2001 report also referred to the need to avoid overlapping of responsibilities within the Assembly itself. Accordingly, the Assembly decided, by adopting Order 578 (2001), that “reference to the Monitoring Committee should be considered for all motions concerning the obligations and commitments of member states that are the subject of a monitoring procedure or which cover a specific topic included in the monitoring rapporteurs’ work programme and, when necessary, for an opinion to the Assembly committee with general responsibility for the subject.”

28. We should note that this Order would appear not to have been applied. Thus, the motion for a resolution on the “Armenian-Azerbaijan (Mountainous Karabakh) Conflict” and the motion for a recommendation on “Renunciation of Azerbaijan’s militarist statements on solving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by the use of force” were referred to the Political Affairs Committee for a report, and referred to the Monitoring Committee only for information. The Monitoring Committee is a political committee. It is unacceptable to minimise the Committee’s mission by chipping away at its substance.

2. Post-monitoring – an evolving mechanism

29. The Committee has also undeniably developed its post-monitoring activities over this period. The mechanism, as approved by the Assembly, gives the Committee’s Chair a central role. To date, however, this mechanism has taken the form of a purely formal exchange of views within the Committee, based first on observations submitted by the parliamentary delegation concerned, then on a memorandum drawn up by the Chair. In two cases, the Chair was instructed to submit a written request to the delegation for additional clarifications regarding honouring of one or another commitment.

30. Thus, this mechanism has proved to have certain limitations. Accordingly, the Chairs – Mr Mr Barsony, then Ms Durrieu – have clearly emphasised the need to visit the countries concerned and to hold direct talks with the relevant national authorities in order to assess the situation regularly and accurately, right to the end of the procedure.

31. The philosophy behind the post-monitoring dialogue is the same as that for the monitoring process. It is based on continuous dialogue and co-operation with the parliamentary delegations and heads of the countries concerned. It no longer reflects a “guardianship” role, but responds to a request for assistance. There would be no need for post-monitoring dialogue, if the Committee and the Assembly supervised complete respect for the commitments made at the time of accession, until all the commitments have been honoured. This is not the case.

32. Some members have suggested that a quorum rule be introduced, to ensure that the decision to close a monitoring procedure or end a post-monitoring dialogue is only adopted by the Committee if there is a sufficiently large number of members in attendance at the meeting.

C.        REVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE’S FUNCTIONING AND WORKING METHODS

33. The Monitoring Committee was set up under specific conditions and granted derogations to enable it to meet the requirements stemming from the political nature of its mandate. Its membership, the rules governing the appointment of rapporteurs and the participation of delegates in debates concerning their country are based on the principle of political balance and equal representation of the Assembly’s political forces.

34. The political nature of the Monitoring Committee is a strength that has not been sufficiently exploited.

-       reducing the length of the procedure

35. It must be observed that the deadlines set out in Resolution 1115 (the Committee is obliged to submit a report to the Assembly once every two years on the countries being monitored) are not always observed. Particular circumstances often oblige the rapporteurs to postpone their visits (elections in the country being monitored) or submission of their reports (political crisis, institutional crisis, etc). It must be recognised that the Committee has not always been able to meet these deadlines.

36. The Committee must deal with certain issues within a specific timeframe. Yet new problems are constantly added to the monitoring procedure. When this timeframe is not respected, the rapporteurs then find themselves faced with additional problems that they were not initially asked to investigate.

37. Equally, the time allowed for the delegation of the country being monitored to submit its comments on the preliminary draft report, set at three months, is too long for a procedure that requires rapidity. It would be desirable to reduce this period to two months. Should the delegation concerned fail to submit its observations within this time-limit, it may be assumed that it has no comments to make.

38. Experience has also shown that it is necessary to emphasise to the parliamentary delegations concerned the need for their actual attendance at meetings. Repeated absences of national delegations oblige the Committee to postpone examination of agenda items concerning their respective countries from one meeting to the next. A delegation that has been duly convened and which fails to attend at least two consecutive Committee meetings at which its observations are due to be examined (whether these concern the monitoring or post-monitoring procedure) may be held to have renounced its right to submit the said observations.

-       encouraging better attendance by members

39. The frequently irregular attendance of too many Committee members at meetings jeopardises the principle of equal political representation, established by the Assembly itself in 1997.

40. The Committee rarely functions with its 76 members. The frequency of elections in member States and subsequent re-composition of national delegations, sometimes a long process, means that it loses certain members. At the same time, it must be noted that some members have never attended a meeting. After several un-explained absences, the Committee could indicate the problem to the political group concerned, and suggest that the member(s) concerned be replaced.

- adjusting the Committee’s composition  

41. Several proposals could be made to resolve the problem of insufficient participation in the Committee’s work, and to meet requests from members of the Assembly who are interested in the Committee’s work and wish to become active members of it.

42. A first proposal would be to appoint substitutes. The appointment of substitutes would not change the Committee’s political nature; however it could create further problems. A second proposal would consist in bringing into line the number of committee seats with those of the Assembly’s other major committees, as has already been done in the past, so that this figure is increased to 80, or even to go well beyond by requesting an increase in committee members of one third.

43. The rules regarding appointment by the political groups should be maintained. Should proposals be made to amend the Rules of Procedure, and consider either the introduction of substitutes or the increase in committee members? Some members wished to do so. However the Committee did not follow such proposals. In accordance to Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure, it would first be appropriate to submit these proposals to the Committee on Rules of Procedure.

-       encouraging a responsible attitude in co-rapporteurs

44. It should be pointed out that last year, having on several occasions discussed the principles that should be applied to its co-rapporteurs’ work, the Committee adopted a proper code of conduct⁶. This contains not only a set of criteria for the appointment of co-rapporteurs, but also a number of principles and obligations to guide the co-rapporteurs in their work: they must, for example, undertake to be unbiased, discreet and available when required.

45. In an attempt to achieve total neutrality, we could also add that the co-rapporteurs must abstain from initiating or signing any draft resolutions or recommendations with regard to the country they are in charge of monitoring. It is the rapporteurs’ responsibility to abide as closely as possible to the mandate they have been given. This is not always the case.

46. Equally, the Monitoring Committee clearly cannot function properly if the rapporteurs are not always available. The desired political balance, which is reflected in the decision to have two rapporteurs from different political groups, cannot be achieved if one of the rapporteurs fails to attend meetings or does not take part in the fact-finding visits to the country concerned.

47.        Before accepting this responsibility as co-rapporteur for the Monitoring Committee to monitor the honouring by a member State of its obligations and commitments, each member has to ask him/herself if he/she could give priority to the work involved. Attention should be drawn to the obligation regarding rapporteurs’ availability, as set out in the code of conduct.

48. The co-rapporteurs must be willing to carry out the number of fact-finding visits that the Committee considers necessary for each country being monitored, namely at least one every six months. So far as possible, the visits should be carried out by both the co-rapporteurs. In certain circumstances, the Committee may authorise a co-rapporteur to carry out a fact-finding visit alone, if necessary. In order to avoid complicated situations, the Secretariat is asked to check in advance whether a rapporteur is available for a mission or meeting that involves him or her.

49. If a co-rapporteur is clearly failing, the Chair of the Committee may suggest that the Committee replace him or her, and appoint a new rapporteur. The Chair of the Committee will inform the co-rapporteur concerned in writing.

50. Furthermore, the link between the existence of a monitoring procedure and observation of elections in the member States is essential. Any country that is undergoing a monitoring procedure must accept the principle of an observation mission to its elections. Indeed, this is essential if the rapporteurs are to be privileged observers of changes that occur in the political life of the country which they are charged with monitoring. The rapporteurs’ good knowledge of the country is a key element. Accordingly, their participation in the ad hoc committees for the observation of elections must be guaranteed. The rapporteurs concerned must make a point of doing this, as must the political groups, responsible for appointing members of these election observation committees.

51. Resolution 1115 establishes the principle that rapporteurs remain members of the Committee until the Assembly has taken a decision on the report for which they have been responsible (so long as they are still members of the Assembly). However, there have been many cases where rapporteurs have not stood for election in their country or have not been re-elected: this can lead to an impasse in the procedure, since the rapporteur remains member of his/her parliamentary delegation until such time as the new delegation’s credentials have been ratified, but does not necessarily seek to be actively engaged in his/her activities as co-rapporteur.

52. Under the code of conduct, the Committee may invite a co-rapporteur to resign from his/her post where there are well-founded reasons that would compromise successful completion of the procedure.

53. Finally, with regard to the appointment of the rapporteurs, the Committee’s practice has been that it is usually experienced parliamentarians, or even parliamentarians who were previously rapporteur for a particular country’s accession procedure, who are appointed as rapporteurs. The new members should be encouraged to assume the task of co-rapporteur, if necessary alongside an older member, but without this being obligatory. All members of the Committees is statutorily able to act as a rapporteur.

-        method of operation 

54. The Committee’s work - reports of missions, submission of draft reports, etc - is currently based around its 18 rapporteurs. Thus, there are many members who are not rapporteurs – in theory, 58. They feel somewhat excluded and, lacking good knowledge about the political realities in the countries being monitored, refrain from expressing any opinion or taking any position during the meetings. Accordingly, all members of the Committee, not just the co-rapporteurs, must be encouraged to be actively involved in its work.

55. Three proposals were set out in last year’s progress report:

- to hold Committee meetings in a country that is being monitored;

- to set up a sub-committee ⁷;

- to organise hearings on topics of shared interest to a group of the countries being monitored.

56. These are ways of rekindling interest and encouraging participation. The Committee should take follow-up action on these proposals.

57. On the first point, Resolution 1260 (2001) now sets out the principle that “the Monitoring Committee should […] be able to meet in any member state that so invites it.” The question of holding Committee meetings in countries that are being monitored was raised with the President of the Assembly at the Committee’s meeting on 10 September 2002. Mr Schieder pointed out that there were no formal or theoretical objections, but that it was necessary to avoid any possible pressure on the Committee that might cast doubts on its impartiality. It does not seem that this would be the case. Accordingly, Resolution 1260 should be implemented.

58. The organisation of round tables or hearings on a topic of shared interest in a country being monitored will be proposed to the Bureau. Such an exercise would be useful, particularly in terms of improving understanding of the monitoring procedure, and the Committee’s activities and objectives.

59. Committee members could thus share their own country’s experiences, and the parliamentary delegations of the countries being monitored could benefit greatly from a range of thematic hearings organised by the Committee. The themes selected would refer to commitments made by several of the States that are being monitored (e.g.: situation in the armed forces; alternative civilian service; the ombudsman’s status and activities; parliament’s powers and the task of supervising the executive⁸).

60. The idea that the Monitoring Committee may carry out thematic monitoring of all the member States has been proposed by several members. It should be examined more closely. On the one hand, it might overlap with the mandates of other Assembly committees (on national minorities, refugees, freedom of the media, etc); on the other, such monitoring is carried out by the Committee of Ministers, or other Council of Europe bodies (Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Advisory Committee on National Minorities, the monitoring body for the Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, etc). It is necessary to avoid further confusion, and to analyse this subject, and other topics that have not otherwise been raised, slightly more deeply.

D.       CONCLUSIONS

61. For more than five years now, the Committee has been evaluating its activities. For almost two years, it has been engaged in an internal debate on the future directions of its work. This process led it to review the task it has been given of monitoring member States’ obligations and commitments. The Committee still warns against the risk of duplication of monitoring procedures within the Council of Europe. The existence of competing procedures in the Council of Europe’s different organs serves neither the Council of Europe’s credibility nor its visibility. Moreover, the Committee deemed it necessary to fully take up the terms of reference that had been entrusted to it by the Assembly in Resolution 1115 (1997) that is to say to verify the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by all member states. Therefore, the Committee should define in more precise terms the criteria as to how a monitoring procedure should be opened or reinstated.

62. The Committee also discussed its functioning and, in this framework, considered several proposals related to its composition as set up in Resolution 1115 and the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. It studied several possibilities and approuved a proposal which would consist in bringing into line the number of committee seats with those of the Assembly’s other major committees, so that this figure is increased to 80.

63.        On the basis of the terms of reference set out in Resolution 1115 and other adopted resolutions, the Chair will implement the established principles.

64.        The Chair proposes to meet the President of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the CLRAE, as well as the heads of the other Council of Europe bodies which are involved in monitoring the obligations and commitments of member States.

APPENDIX A

EVOLUTION OF THE MONITORING PROCEDURES BETWEEN

SEPTEMBER 2001 AND DECEMBER 2002

During the period covered by this report the Monitoring Committee met 14 times. It submitted eight reports to the Parliamentary Assembly.

1.       Monitoring procedures in progress

Nine monitoring procedures are currently in progress, one more than last year; this is due to the initiation of a monitoring procedure in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina following its accession to the Council of Europe. No monitoring procedure has been concluded in the past year.

The Committee examined and approved eight draft reports, and adopted eight preliminary draft resolutions and six preliminary draft recommendations. It also examined comments from the national authorities of three countries on preliminary draft reports concerning them. Its co-rapporteurs undertook seventeen fact-finding visits.

Albania

The co-rapporteurs, MM Smorawinski and Soendergaard, carried out three fact-finding visits to the country, from 19 to 21 February 2002, 19-21 June 2002 and 11-15 November 2002 respectively. The two first visits took place against the background of an institutional crisis and the difficult search for a political compromise. The co-rapporteurs submitted their comments to the Committee in two visit reports, and will soon submit a preliminary draft report.

Armenia

The co-rapporteurs, Ms Belohorska and Mr Jaskiernia, carried out their first fact-finding visit to the country on 15-18 October 2001. They presented a preliminary draft report to the Committee, which was approved and transmitted to the national authorities on 10 January 2002. The authorities submitted their comments on 25 April and 20 June 2002. Following their second visit to the country, from 19 to 23 August 2002, the co-rapporteurs presented a finalised draft report.

On 26 September 2002, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1304 on the basis of this report (see Doc. 9542), in which it recognised that Armenia had made substantial progress in honouring the obligations and commitments that it had contracted on becoming a Council of Europe member State. However, the Assembly regretted that certain fundamental commitments, particularly with respect to abolition of the death penalty, had not been respected within the agreed timeframe.

Azerbaijan

The co-rapporteurs, MM Gross and Martinez Casañ, carried out their first fact-finding visit to the country from 29 October to 3 November 2001. They presented a preliminary draft report to the Committee, which was approved and transmitted to the national authorities on 10 January 2002. The authorities submitted their comments on 22 April 2002. Following their second visit to the country, from 15 to 22 July 2002, the co-rapporteurs presented a draft report.

On 26 September 2002, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1305 on the basis of this report (see Doc. 9545 rev), in which it recognised that Azerbaijan had made formal progress in honouring the commitments that it had made on becoming a Council of Europe member State. The Assembly expects the authorities to make significant progress, particularly in terms of improving the situation with regard to fundamental rights and freedoms and developing a genuinely pluralist and democratic society.

In parallel with the monitoring procedure, the Bureau decided on 25 March 2002 to set up two ad hoc sub-committees of the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the implementation of Resolution 1272 (2002) on political prisoners in Azerbaijan. The working group has met twice, on 25 April and 26 June 2002.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

On 24 April 2002, Bosnia and Herzegovina became a member of the Council of Europe. In accordance with Opinion N° 234, adopted by the Assembly on 22 January 2002, the Assembly decided to monitor the situation in this country from accession onwards, under the provisions of its Resolution 1115 (1997). On 25 April, the Committee appointed two co-rapporteurs, Ms Akgonenc and Mr Surjan. Mr Surjan undertook a first visit to the country from 1 to 4 December 2002.

Mr Surjan was a member of the ad hoc committee for observation of the elections on 5 October 2002.

It should be noted that the Committee of Ministers decided to monitor honouring of commitments by Bosnia and Herzegovina as of its accession and has instructed the GR-EDS to submit a quarterly report on the subject.

Georgia

The Assembly debated the first report on honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia during the part session in September 2001 (see Doc. 9191). In its Resolution 1257, adopted on 25 September 2001, the Assembly noted that Georgia had made certain progress, but that it was far from honouring all the commitments that had been made. Respect for human rights remained a major concern.

On 6 November 2001, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr Weiss; on 23 October 2002, it appointed Mr Kirilov to replace him.

On 22 January 2002, the Committee examined the Committee of Ministers’ reply to Assembly Recommendation 1533 (2001).

Moldova

During the first four months of 2002, Moldova experienced a political crisis, prompting the co-rapporteurs, Ms Durrieu and Mr Vahtre, to visit the country on two occasions, first from 27-29 January 2002 (a visit that was extended to include a meeting in Moscow on 30 January with the Russian authorities responsible for the Transnistria question), then on 8 and 9 April 2002. Following these visits, the co-rapporteurs presented a draft report to the Committee on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova, drawing attention to all the full range of political problems in the country and proposing a number of solutions.

In Resolution 1280, adopted on 24 April 2002 (see Doc. 9418), the Assembly expressed its grave concern; it invited the Moldovan political forces to pursue constructive dialogue and called on the authorities to introduce a number of measures in a spirit of political compromise, and set out specific deadlines for some of these measures.

On 11 and 12 September 2002, the co-rapporteurs again visited Moldova, to assess what measures had in fact been taken by the Moldovan authorities in application of Resolution 1280. Their conclusions were set out in a new draft report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova, submitted first to the Committee on 23 September 2002, then to the Assembly on 26 September 2002 (see Doc. 9571 and Resolution 1303).

On 23 September 2002, the Committee examined the Committee of Ministers’ reply to Assembly Recommendation 1554, adopted on 24 April.

The co-rapporteurs are due to visit the country again in the beginning of 2003.

Russia

The co-rapporteurs visited the country on two occasions: they went first to St-Petersburg, Pskov and Novgorod, from 1 to 6 October 2001, then to Moscow from 20 to 23 November 2001.

On 6 November 2001, the Committee examined the Russian delegation’s comments regarding the preliminary draft report, which were received on 25 September 2001. On 15 January 2002, the Committee approved the co-rapporteurs’ revised draft report. This report was submitted to the Assembly during its part session in April 2002 (see Doc. 9396).

Resolution 1277, adopted on 23 April 2002, welcomed the undoubted progress and significant efforts made by Russia in honouring its obligations and commitments. Nonetheless, it expressed its concern regarding a number of major obligations and commitments, in connection with which progress remained inadequate.

On 26 September 2002, the Committee took note of the Committee of Ministers’ reply to Assembly Recommendation 1553, adopted on the same day.

The co-rapporteurs paid a visit to Moscow again from 24 to 27 November 2002.

Turkey

On 22 January 2002, the Committee examined the Committee of Ministers’ reply to Assembly Recommendation 1529 (2001).

On 23 October 2002, the Committee appointed Mrs Delvaux-Stehres as new co-rapporteur. She took part in the observation mission of the elections on 3 November 2002.

On 11 December 2002, the Committee appointed Mr van den Brande co-rapporteur.

Ukraine

Following the fact-finding visit to Kiev by the co-rapporteurs, Ms Severinsen and Ms Wohlwend, from 9 to 12 September 2001, the Assembly discussed a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine at its part session in September 2001.

In Resolution 1262, adopted on 27 September 2001, the Assembly noted that substantial progress had been made since the adoption of its previous resolution in April 2001 and called on the authorities to pursue their efforts.

In addition, the co-rapporteurs participated in observation of the parliamentary elections which were held in Ukraine on 31 March 2002, and in the two pre-election (27 February -3 March) and post-election (9 -10 May 2002) missions organised by the Bureau.

The co-rapporteurs visited the country again from 13 to 16 October 2002. On 11 December 2002, the Committee considered and approved a preliminary draft report.

The Committee examined the Committee of Ministers’ replies to Assembly Recommendations 1513 (2001) and 1538 (2001) on 27 September 2001 and 22 January 2002 respectively.

2.       Post-monitoring dialogue

During the period concerned, the Committee examined the comments submitted by six national delegations as part of the post-monitoring dialogue: Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Romania.

The Chair of the Committee, who is responsible for the procedure, carried out two fact-finding missions, to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (27 February to 1 March 2002), to Romania (6 to 8 May 2002) and to Bulgaria (9 to 10 October 2002).

The Committee declared itself satisfied with its post-monitoring dialogue with Lithuania and Romania, and decided to recommend that the Bureau conclude this dialogue.

Consequently, the Committee is currently pursuing dialogue with six States: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Slovakia.

In parallel to the process of post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia, the Committee has discussed the issue of re-opening the monitoring procedure in respect of Latvia. At its meeting on 28 June 2002, the Bureau of the Assembly asked the Committee to examine, in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), the motion for a resolution regarding re-opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Latvia. At its meeting on 10 September 2002, the Committee examined this motion, along with a memorandum submitted by the Russian parliamentary delegation in support of the motion, and containing detailed comments regarding Latvia’s failure to honour the commitments that had still to be satisfied on conclusion of the monitoring procedure in 2001.

APPENDIX B

PRESENT STATE OF PROCEDURES

1. MONITORING PROCEDURES

MEMBER STATE	Accession date	References related to accession	References related to the origin of monitoring	Rapporteurs	Visits		Monitoring Committee Documents	Parliamentary Assembly Documents
ALBANIA	29.06.1995	PA Opinion 189 (1995) CM Resolution (95) 8	Order 508 (1995) Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mr Smorawinski Mr Soendergaard	29-30.06.1998 22.11.1998* 24-26.02.1999 05-07.07.1999 24-28.05.2000 19-23.02.2001 24.06.2001* 08 and 22.07.01* 19-21.02.2002 19-21.06.2002 11-15.11.2002		Minute of the visit: AS/Mon (2001) 07 Minute of the visit: AS/Mon (2002) 15	Report (Doc. 8771) and Resolution 1219 (2000) adopted on 28.06.2000 Reports (Doc. 9150 and 9193) on the observation of the legislative elections respectively presented on 28.06.2001 and on 24.09.2001
ARMENIA	25.01.2001	PA Opinion 221 (2000) CM Resolution (2000) 13	Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mrs Belohorska Mr Jaskiernia	15-18.10.2001 19-23.08.2002			Report (Doc. 9542) and Resolution 1304 (2002) adopted on 26.09.2002
AZERBAIJAN	25.01.2001	PA Opinion 222 (2000) CM Resolution (2000) 14	Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mr Gross Mr Martínez-Casañ	29.10 - 4.11.2001 26-29.12.2001 (joint visit with Mr Clerfayt, rapporteur of AS/Jur on political prisoners) 15-22.07.2002			Report (Doc. 9545 rev) and Resolution 1305 (2002) adopted on 26.09.2002
RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS				Ad hoc Sub-Committee: Mr Gross Mr Martínez-Casañ Mr Soendergaard
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA	24.04.2002	PA Opinion 234 (2002) CM Resolution (2002) 5	Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mrs Akgönenç Mr Surjan		05.10.2002 * 01-04.12.2002
GEORGIA	27.04.1999	PA Opinion 209 (1999) CM Resolution (99) 4	Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mr Eörsi Mr Kirilov		10-13.05.2000 31.10-5.11.2000		Report (Doc 9191), Resolution 1257 and Recommendation 1533 adopted on 25.09.2001

* observation of referendum or elections.

Abbreviations: “PA” for “Parliamentary Assembly” and “CM” for “Committee of Ministers”.

MEMBER STATE	Accession date	References related to accession	References related to the origin of monitoring	Rapporteurs	Visits	Monitoring Committee Documents			Parliamentary Assembly Documents
MOLDOVA	27.06.1995	PA Opinion 188 (1995) CM Resolution (95) 7	Order 508 (1995) Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mrs Durrieu Mr Vahtre	27-30.10.1998 03-05.12.1998 02-03.11.1999 27-31.01.2002 08-09.04.2002 11-12.09.2002		Information note on fact-finding visit 2-3 November 1999: AS/Mon (1999) 29 rev. Report on visit 27-31.01.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 09		Report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova (Doc. 9418), Resolution 1280 and Recommendation 1554 adopted on 24.04.2002 Report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova (Doc. 9571) and Resolution 1303 (2002) adopted on 26.09.2002
RUSSIA	28.02.1996	PA Opinion 193 (1996) CM Resolution (96) 2	Order 508 (1995) Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mr Atkinson Mr Bindig	12-15.05.1999 11-14.02.2001 01-06.10.2001 20-23.11.2001 24-27.11.2002				Information Report (Doc. 8127) examined on 22.06.1998 Report (Doc. 9396), Resolution 1277 and Recommendation 1533 adopted on 23.04.2002
CONFLICT IN TECHCHNYA			Recommendation 1444 (2000) Doc.8630 on 27.01.2000	Mr Moreels	09-13.03.2000 (Mr Bindig and Mr Sinka)			Opinion of the Monitoring Committee (Doc 8705) Submitted on 06.04.2000
TURKEY	13.04.1950		Order 508 (1995) Recommendation1298 (1996) Resolution 1115 (1997)	Mrs Delvaux-Stehres Mr van den Brande	06-09.09.1998 26-30.03.2000 23-26.05.2001				Information Report, Doc. 8300, examined on 25.01.1999 Report (Doc. 9120), Resolution 1256 and Recommendation 1529 adopted on 28.06.2001 ____________________________________
THE SENTENCING TO DEATH OF A. ÖCALAN _______________ POLITICAL SOLUTION TO THE KURDISH QUESTION IN TURKEY			Reference by the Bureau (Doc. 8500) on 20.09.1999 _______________________Reference by the Bureau (Doc. 8574) on 4.11.1999		Various visits in 1999 to ensure the presence of the Assembly at A. Öcalan’s trial

UKRAINE

09.11.1995

PA Opinion 190 (1995) CM Resolution (95) 22

Order 508 (1995) Resolution 1115 (1997)

Mrs Severinsen Mrs Wohlwend

15-18.09.1998 09-12.05.1999 16-19.02.2000 18-21.06.2000 10-12.01.2001 28-30.03.2001 09-12.09.01 Pre-electoral mission: 27.02- 3.03.2002 Parliamentary elections: 31.03.2002 Post-electoral mission: 9-10.05.2002 13-16.10.2002

Reports (Docs 8272 & 8424), Resolutions 1179 (1999) &1194 (1999), Recommendations 1395 (1999) & 1416 (1999), adopted on 27.01.1999 & 24.06.1999 respectively Report (Doc. 8666) on the reform of the institutions in Ukraine and Recommendation 1451 adopted on 04.04.2000 Report (Doc.8945) on freedom of expression and functioning of parliamentary democracy, Resolution 1239, Recommendation 1497 adopted on 25.01.2001 Report (Doc 9030), Resolution 1244 and Recommendation 1513 adopted on 26.04.2001 Report (Doc 9226), Resolution 1262 and Recommendation 1538 adopted on 27.09.2001

II.       POST-MONITORING DIALOGUE

MEMBER STATE	Closing of the monitoring	Request for information	Replies [Confidential]
CZECH REPUBLIC	22.09.1997 – Recommendation 1338(1997)	Letter from the Chairman on 4.05.2000; new letter from the Chairman on 17.11.2001	Reply received on 08.07.2000: AS/Mon (2000) 29 Memorandum by the Chairman: AS/Mon (2001) 28
SLOVAKIA	21.09.1999 – Resolution 1196 (1999)	Letter from the Chairman on 19.12.2000	Reply received on 18.07.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 37
BULGARIA	26.01.2000 – Resolution 1211 (2000)	Letter from the Chairman on 7.03.2001 Visit by Chair: 9-10.10.2002	Reply received on 22.01.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 10
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA	5.04.2000 – Resolution 1213 (2000)	Letter from the Chairman on 4.05.2001. Visit by Chairman: 27.02-1.03.2002 (AS/Mon (2002) 16), transmitted to the Bureau on 25.04.2002	Replies received on 25.09.2001: AS/Mon (2001) 32 27.06.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 35
CROATIA	26.9.2000 – Resolution 1223 (2000)	Letter from the Chairman on 6.11.2001	Reply received on 07.02.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 08
LATVIA	23.1.2001 – Resolution 1236 (2001)	Letter from the Chairman on 11.03.2002 Motion for a resolution on the reopening of monitoring procedure in respect to Latvia (Doc. 9501) referred to by the Bureau on 28.06.2002	Reply received on 06.06.2002: AS/Mon (2002) 33

APPENDIX C

STATE OF SIGNATURES AND RATIFICATIONS OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS BY STATES UNDER MONITORING

Council of Europe Conventions referred to in commitments	albania	armenia	azerbaijan	bosnia herzegovina	georgia	moldova	russia	turkey	ukraine
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)	R 2.10.96	R 26.04.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 20.05.99	R 12.09.97	R 5.05.98	R 18.05.54	R 11.09.97
Protocols 1,2 and 11 to the ECHR	R 2.10.96	R 26.04.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 7.06.02	R 12.09.97	R 5.05.98	R	R 11.09.97
Protocols 4 and 7 to the ECHR	R 2.10.96	R 26.04.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 13.04.00	R 12.09.97	R 5.05.98	S	R 11.09.97
Protocol 6 to the ECHR	R 21.09.00	S 25.01.01	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 13.04.00	R 12.09.97	S 16.04.97	_	R 4.04.00
European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT)	R 2.10.96	R 18.06.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 20.06.00	R 2.10.97	R 5.05.98	R 26.02.88	R 5.05.97
Protocols Nos. 1 and 2 to the ECPT	R 2.10.96	R 18.06.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	R 20.06.00	R 2.10.97	R 5.05.98	R 17.09.97	R 7.11.01
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities	R 28.09.99	R 20.07.98	R 26.06.00	R 24.02.00	S 21.01.00	R 20.11.96	R 21.08.98	_	R 26.01.98
European Charter for Local Self-Government	R 4.04.00	R 25.01.02	R 15.04.02	R 12.07.02	S 29.05.02	R 2.10.97	R 5.05.98	R 9.12.92	R 11.09.97
European Charter for Local Self-Government		R 25.01.02	S 21.12.01			S 11.07.02	S 10.05.01	_	S 2.05.96
Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters	R 4.04.00	R 25.01.02	S 7.11.01		R 13.10.99	R 4.02.98	R 10.12.99	R 24.06.69	R 11.03.98
European Convention on Extradition	R 19.05.98	R 25.01.02	R 28.06.02		R 15.06.01	R 2.10.97	R 10.12.99	R 7.01.60	R 11.03.98
Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons	R 4.04.00	R 11.05.01	R 25.01.01		R 21.10.97	S 6.05.97		R 3.09.87	R 28.09.95
Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of proceeds from crime	R 31.10.01	S 11.05.01	S 7.11.01		S 30.04.02	R 30.05.02	R 2.08.01	S 27.09.01	R 26.01.98
Criminal Law Convention on Corruption	R 19.07.01			R 30.01.02	_	_	_	_	_
Civil Law Convention on Corruption	R 21.09.00			R 30.01.02	_	_	_	_	_
(Revised) Social Charter	R 14.11.02	S 18.10.01	S 18.10.01		S 30.06.00	R 8.11.01	S 14.09.00	R 24.11.89	S 7.05.99
General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities	R 4.06.98	R 25.06.01	R 16.01.02		R 25.05.00	R 2.10.97	R 28.02.96	R 7.01.60	R 6.11.96
Protocol on the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities	R 4.06.98	R 25.06.01	R 16.01.02		R 25.05.00	R 2.10.97	R 28.02.96	R 7.01.60	R 6.11.96
Second and fourth Protocol to the Agreement	R 4.06.98						R 28.02.96	R 7.01.60 1.06.62
Third Protocol to the Agreement (open to member states of the Resettlement Fund)	non pertinent						non pertinent	R 16.01.75	non pertinent
Fifth Protocol to the Agreement	R 4.06.98						R 28.02.96	R 1.06.94
Sixth Protocol to the Agreement	R 4.06.98	R 18.06.02			R 20.06.00	R 27.06.01		S 15.02.99	S 3.11.98

“R”: ratified

“S”: signed but not ratified

“-” no specific commitment undertaken upon accession or merely a commitment “to study with a view to ratification"

APPENDIX D

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSEMBLY AND THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ON MONITORING ISSUES

(October 2001 – December 2002)

Assembly Recommendations related to monitoring		Replies by the Committee of Ministers
Title	Date of adoption	Date of adoption	Délai
Recommendation 1529 (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey	28 June 2001	16 January 2002	6 months and 3 weeks
Recommendation 1533 (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia	25 September 2001		3 months and 3 weeks
Recommendation 1538 (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine	27 September 2001		3 months and 3 weeks
Recommendation 1536 (2001) on progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure	26 September 2001	9 January 2002	3 months and 2 weeks
Recommendation 1553 (2002) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Russia	23 April 2002	11 September 2002	4 months and 3 weeks
Recommendation 1554 (2002) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova	24 April 2002	18 September 2002	4 months and 4 weeks

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) of 27 January 1997

Draft order unanimously adopted by the committee on 11 December 2002

Members of the committee: Mrs Durrieu (Chairperson), Mr Pollozhani, Mrs Severinsen, Mr Frunda (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Akgönenç, Mr Akhvlediani, Mr B. Aliyev, Mr André, Mr Arzilli, Mr Atkinson, Mrs Belohorska, Mr Bernik, Mr Bindig, Mr van den Brande, Mr Budin, Mr Cabrnoch, Mr Cekuolis, Mr Christodoulides, Mr Cilevics, the Rt.Hon.T. Davis, Mr Debono Grech, Mrs Delvaux-Stehres, Mr Dobelis, Mr Einarsson, Mr Eörsi, Mrs Feric-Vac, Mr Frey, Mr Glesener, Mr Gligoroski, Mr Gross, Mr Gürkan, Mr Gusenbauer, Mr Hancock, Mr Haraldsson, Mr Hegyi, Mr Holovaty, Mr Jakic, Mr Jansson, Mr Jaskiernia, Mr Jurgens, Mrs Kautto, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Kirilov, Mr Landsbergis, Mr van der Linden, Mr Lintner, Mr Magnusson, Mr Martinez Casan, Mr Medeiros Ferreira, Mr Mollazade, Mr Neguta, Mr O’Keeffe, Mr Olekas, Mr Olteanu, Mr Pangalos, Mr Rakhansky, Mrs Ringstad, Mr Rivolta, Mr Rogozin, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Saglam, Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya, Mr Shishlov, Mr Slutsky, Mr Smorawinski, Mr Soendergaard, Mrs Stoyanova, Mr Surjan, Mr Tepshi, Mrs Tevdoradze, Mr Vahtre, Mr Vanoost, Mr Vella, Mr Weiss, Mrs Wohlwend, Mr Yanez-Barnuevo, Mr Zacchera, Mr Zierer

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

Secretariat of the committee: Mrs Ravaud, Mr Mezei, Mrs Clamer, Ms Mathey

¹ See Doc. 8057, Resolution 1155 and Recommendation 1366 (April 1998), Doc. 8359 (April 1999), Doc. 8737 (May 2000), and Doc. 9198, Resolution 1260 and Recommendation 1536 (September 2001).

² Under Resolution 1031 (1994), the Assembly stipulated that "all member States of the Council of Europe” were required to “respect their obligations under the Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other conventions to which they [were] parties”, thus extending the scope of Order 488 (1993), the so-called “Halonen” Order.

³ An application to initiate a monitoring procedure may originate from:

i.       the general committees of the Assembly and from the Monitoring Committee by reasoned written application to the Bureau;

ii.       not less than ten members of the Assembly representing at least two national delegations and two political groups, through the tabling of a motion for a resolution or recommendation;

iii.       the Bureau of the Assembly.

Applications (other than those made by the Monitoring Committee itself) are to be considered by the Monitoring Committee which, after the appointment of two co-rapporteurs and after carrying out the necessary investigations, will prepare a written opinion for the Bureau. In the light of the committee's opinion, the Bureau will take a decision on whether to initiate a monitoring procedure and if that is the case will refer the matter, subject to ratification by the Assembly, to the Monitoring Committee for report. (…) A negative decision by the Bureau needs to be confirmed by the Assembly.

⁴ “To start the procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights must take such a decision, in accordance with normal committee procedure.” (paragraph 6 of Order 508).

⁵ See Recommendation 1536 (2001).

⁶ This code was approved by the Committee on 6 September 2001, and is set out in the Appendix H to the Committee’s last progress report for 2000-2001 (see Doc. 9198).

⁷ In its last progress report, the Committee considered setting up a sub-committee on conflict settlement in member States. At its meeting on 6 November 2001, the Committee decided to return to this question at a later date.

⁸ In this connection, see Resolution 1305 on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan, paragraph 4.ii of which mentions the Committee’s intention “to help this process [reinforcing the Parliament’s role] by undertaking a more detailed evaluation of the current powers of Parliament and their exercise”.