1. In March 2006 the Assembly
Bureau seized the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and
Men for report on the motion for a resolution entitled “Abduction
and ‘re-education’ of Muslim women and children who have become
too ‘Western-minded’”. The motion stated that women and girls of
immigrant communities in Council of Europe member countries were
being abducted to their countries of origin (the Maghreb, Turkey, Syria,
Iran, etc.) by family members who thought they had become too modern
and too emancipated or because they rejected their families’ marriage
choice. The committee appointed Ms Bousakla (Belgium, SOC) as its
rapporteur.
2. At its first discussion of the subject on 14 September 2006,
the committee agreed to give thought to a change of report title
and to base its work on specific cases and fact-finding visits.
On 6 September 2007, at the suggestion of its Chair, Ms Bilgehan,
it decided to reword the title to read "Abduction and illegal confinement of
women and children motivated by practices contrary to human rights”
so as to widen the topic and take in communities settled in Europe
where traditions persisted which were being used to justify infringements
of women's basic rights. This refocused the report on human-rights
violations suffered by women and girls of communities which, notably
abductions and illegal confinements, whether in the host country
or the country of origin, aimed at imposing, in the name of tradition
or religion, practices which were contrary to human rights (in particular
forced early marriage and female genital mutilation).
3. As Ms Bousakla was no longer able to continue as rapporteur,
the committee appointed me as rapporteur on 4 October 2007 to continue
the newly reoriented work. The committee decided to organise, on 11
March 2008, an exchange of views on the means of action and prevention
that member states might develop in order to promote respect for
the fundamental rights of girls and women who were at serious risk
for reasons of gender. This exchange of views was attended by Ms Hanna
Siddiqui, joint co-ordinator of “Southall Black Sisters” (United
Kingdom), Mr Svenn Joar Bjerkern, Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Norway, Consular Services and Security Section, Ms Christine
Jama, Director of “Voix des Femmes” (France), and Ms Gül Ayse Basari,
adviser to the “Orientexpress” women’s association, Austria
.
4. In order to gather additional information, I have invited
the national delegations to the PACE to answer a questionnaire
. The delegations of Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey
did reply to this questionnaire noting that they do experience such
problems. Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco and Poland have indicated
that the problem does not occur in their countries. During a fact-finding
visit to Morocco on 28-29 October 2008, the Co-secretary of the
PACE Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Ms Sylvie
Affholder and myself, were informed by the Moroccan authorities
and non-governmental organisations of the progress made on women’s
rights and of the difficulties that still exist when it comes to
implementing new measures on equality issues. During the visit,
we had also the opportunity to exchange views with consular officials
from 12 Council of Europe member states organised under the auspices of
the Swedish Ambassador
, Mr Odevall, and
to compare consular practice regarding victim support.
5. During a fact-finding visit to Morocco on 28-29 October 2008
, the Co-secretary of the PACE Committee on
Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Ms Sylvie Affholder and myself
notably met Ms Latifa Akherbach, State Secretary of Foreign Affairs
and Co-operation, Ms Nouza Skalli, Minister of Social Development,
Family and Solidarity, Ms Bassima Haqquaoui, Chairperson of the
Standing Committee in charge of social affairs of the Chamber of
Deputies, Ambassador Bruno Dethomas, Head of the EU Delegation to
Morocco, as well as representatives of the Democratic League of
Women's rights (LDDF), the Association of Women's Rights in Morocco
(ADFM), the Ytto Foundation and UNIFEM. We were informed by the
Moroccan authorities and non-governmental organisations of the progress
made on women’s rights and of the difficulties that still exist
when it comes to implementing new measures on equality issues. During
the visit, we had also the opportunity to exchange views with consular
officials from 12 Council of Europe member states organised under
the auspices of the Swedish Ambassador
, Mr Odevall, and to compare consular
practice regarding victim support.
6. My priority task, therefore, is to frame the problem and gauge
its extent. The problem is a serious one, in some countries, even
though it may prove to be marginal in others. It seems hard to evaluate,
how many women and girls fall victims to abduction and/or illegal
confinement and are at risk of serious interferences with their
basic rights, because the victims are often returned to the country
of origin or placed with relatives and vanish from the statistics.
The second task of this report is to pay more attention to how member
countries, at the national level, can prevent such occurrences and
protect women and girls from grave interference when custom, tradition
or religion pose a threat to personhood and also at the international
level, how they can take preventive and protective action when women
or girls – whether nationals or habitual residents – fall victims, or
risk falling victims, to such practices.
7. Exact statistical figures are not readily available and, indeed,
are sadly lacking. In Switzerland however, 17,000 forced marriages
are estimated to have already taken place or be in progress, while
some 7,000 women and girls have apparently been victims of genital
mutilation or have been threatened with it. The likelihood is, moreover,
that such offences also involve individuals being abducted and/or
illegally confined
. The
“Women’s Earth” association in Germany comes across between 170
and 190 women victims of forced marriages every year. In 2007, 48
of them were abducted and/or illegally confined in order to be forcibly
married abroad. According to the report produced by the Bundestag
in 2006 based on estimates by NGOs, 30,000 women could be at risk
of female genital mutilation
. The Forced
Marriage Unit in the United Kingdom deals with 400 cases every year
. In France, some 70,000 girls between
the ages of 10 and 18 are at risk of forced marriage and 65,000
women and girls are mutilated or threatened with mutilation
. Although they are only estimates,
the above figures do suggest that thousands of women in Europe are
at risk of serious human rights violations, because of their gender
and origin.
1. Context and scope of the report
8. First of all, I would like
to describe the context of such abductions and illegal confinements
and to identify how they can be averted or remedied. The report
restricts itself to cases of abduction or illegal confinement possibly
resulting in practices classed as serious contraventions of basic
human rights, such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation,
slavery or gender-related violence (notably rape). It does not deal
with abductions of children of mixed-nationality partnerships in
which the partners are in dispute over custody, because that is
a matter dealt with by other legal instruments.
9. The practices contrary to human rights, under consideration
in this report, are mainly attributable to the great pressures exerted
in some immigrant or other communities with markedly patriarchal
cultures which regard preserving family honour or maintaining ancestral
customs (forced marriage, female genital mutilation, etc.) has taking
precedence over basic human rights and which view the group as taking
precedence over the individual. Needless to say, this has a paralysing
effect on integration and emancipation of women and girls (particularly
in Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities)
in the host countries.
10. Abduction of women and girls may be accompanied by isolation
in the country of origin, illegal confinement or “resocialisation”
to make them adopt ways regarded as compatible with local customs.
Parents who arrange such abductions may be planning a forced marriage.
In extreme cases daughters may be returned to the country of origin
in order to undergo genital mutilation in the name of tradition.
This particular form of violence also renders them more vulnerable
to HIV/Aids.
11. Two cases need distinguishing. When the breach of human rights
takes place on the territory of a Council of Europe member state
any infringement of basic human rights should be punishable, with
no difference of treatment in the name of cultural relativism. No
attempt to justify such an infringement on the ground of a particular
practice or custom is acceptable.
12. The question becomes more complex when the infringement takes
place in a third country, the woman or girl being returned to a
country of origin where the practice contrary to human rights persists
and is tolerated, whether in law or fact. In such cases what scope
is there for Council of Europe member countries to protect and assist
victims of human-rights infringements, given that they may have
dual nationality and given also the rules of public international
law on, for example, consular protection? Faced with a woman’s disappearance
in such cases, the immediate entourage often feels powerless to
assist. A school can but note a pupil’s absence at the start of
a new term. Relatives cannot instigate an official search or investigation.
The crime goes unpunished.
13. Abductions or illegal confinements involve removing adult
women, or girls, from their life setting, in some cases sending
them to family in the country of origin, because their behaviour
is judged to have become inappropriate to the role which traditional
society assigns to them. The aim is to resocialise them in accordance with
the parents’ life choices.
14. There have been cases of countries taking steps – possibly
in response to a wave of public protest – to assist victims and
facilitate their return to the host country. I have taken two examples,
one involving a girl, the other an adult woman.
15. In February 2000 the parents of Fatoumata, a pupil at a
lycée in France, decided they could
not tolerate her associating with a young man who was neither Muslim
or Senegalese. Feeling betrayed by his daughter, the father had
stopped speaking to her. While on holiday at her grandparents’ home
in Senegal she was persuaded by her father to let him have her passport,
supposedly so that he could arrange for a week’s extension of her
visit. Instead she was taken to the family’s remote village in the
Casamance region, a place without telephones or electricity. Her
father admitted to her that he had joined her to prevent her from
returning to France, a country which he said had destroyed his family
and hopes. In France Fatoumata’s school, which had no trace of her,
went into action, appealed to the home affairs minister and collected
600 signatures among her fellow pupils. The petition was handed
over to Viviane Wade, the wife of the Senegalese president, while she
was on a visit to the Senegalese embassy in Paris. Thanks to the
combined efforts of the French and Senegalese authorities, Fatoumata
succeeded in returning to France in July 2000, probably thus escaping
a forced marriage
.
16. In August 1997 Nadia F., an 18-year-old with dual Norwegian
and Moroccan nationality living in Norway with her family, was drugged
by her parents and taken by force to the Rif region of Morocco.
Her father was unable to accept the way of life Nadia had adopted
in Norway. Though held against her will, Nadia managed to get to
a phone and alert her former employer, who reported the matter to
the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian foreign ministry asked
the Norwegian embassy in Rabat to have the matter investigated.
This was the sixth such case in the space of 18 months. The Norwegian
and Moroccan foreign ministries and home affairs ministries co-operated
on the case. The Norwegian ambassador contacted Nadia’s father in
an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate. An Interpol arrest warrant
was issued. The case received media coverage in both Morocco and
Norway. The father was forced to let his daughter return to Norway,
where the authorities found her a job in the education ministry.
Because she then came under pressure from her community of origin the
Norwegian authorities transferred her to a secret location. Her
husband and employer made a complaint against the parents for abduction,
illegal confinement and attempted forced marriage, though the third
of these grounds had to be dropped for lack of evidence. On 10 November
1998, allowance being made for the family context and after Nadia
had pleaded for leniency, the father and mother were given suspended
prison sentences of 15 months and 12 months respectively, fined
and ordered to pay the costs of the case
.
17. In these two cases, a solution could be found – but is it
always the case? Even these two examples show how difficult it is
for the authorities to identify the danger situations facing women
and girls, if necessary instigate an official search and enlist
a third country’s co-operation, assist the victim and find a solution
to the family conflict.
2. The
authorities’ role in protecting the victim and preventing abduction
and confinement
18. Whereas it is difficult to
assess how many abductions and confinements are committed against
women, I would like to recall the figures mentioned by Ms Rosmarie
Zapfl-Helbling (Switzerland, EPP/CD), Parliamentary Assembly rapporteur
on forced marriages and child marriages in 2005: “Today in France,
70 000 persons are estimated to be at risk of forced marriage. This
is believed to affect mainly girls of foreign origin living in France,
either in early adulthood or underage, in some cases very much so.
(…) Several communities are concerned by these practices: Africans,
Maghrebis, Asians and Turks. This estimate has been taken up by the
GAMS (Group of women for the abolition of genital mutilation). GAMS
for its part sets the number of adolescent girls aged 10 to 18 who
are potentially threatened at 70 000 for all communities; they are
resident in Île-de-France and six French departments with a high
immigrant population (Nord, Oise, Seine-Maritime, Eure, Rhône, Bouches-du-Rhône)
.
19. I regard it as member states’ duty to do everything in their
power to protect victims or potential victims and prevent gender-related
infringements of basic rights.
20. I would draw attention to the Assembly’s work on forced marriage
and child marriage
and on female genital mutilation
, which are practices contrary to human
rights. In particular Ms Zapfl-Helbling pointed out states’ responsibilities
and said that “governments should make adequate efforts to guard
against such marriages”
.
21. Council of Europe member countries have a duty to take action
and protect women in this matter under the United Nations Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
and the European Convention on Human Rights. In this connection
it is worth drawing attention to:
- article
4 of the 1993 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
against Women, which calls on states to “pursue by all appropriate
means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against
women” and, for that
purpose, “exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance
with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women
whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons”;
- article 2.2 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child: “States Parties shall take all appropriate
measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms
of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities,
expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians
or family members”. Article 11.1 adds: “States Parties shall take
measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children
abroad”. Article 11.2 provides: “To this end, States Parties shall
promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or
accession to existing agreements;
- the legal instruments of the Hague Conference on Private
International Law (the 1996 Convention on the Protection of Children
for example) also shed light on the issues for us in terms of the
child’s best interests.
22. When offences are committed in a third country against a national
of a Council of Europe member state, consular protection, which
is governed by the 1930 Hague Convention, may sometimes, given developments in
public international law, allow a state party, in exceptional cases
and subject to the rules of public international law, to give diplomatic
or consular protection or assistance to any of its nationals who
also has another nationality, for example in cases of child abduction
.
23. However, in spite of international obligations taken on by
member states, the risks run by women and girls who undergo the
burden of customs and traditions are still misunderstood or misinterpreted.
We are reminded of the furore caused in Italy by the Supreme Court
ruling in August 2007 which acquitted Fatima’s parents, a young
girl who had been tied up, kidnapped and beaten by her father “not
for reasons of persecution or contempt” said the Court but because
“the girl’s behaviour was judged to be incorrect”. Bologne’s prosecutor,
who had sought to appeal against the acquittal, considered for his
part that Fatima had been kidnapped and tied to a chair, “then liberated
only once she had be brutally beaten by her parents who wanted to
punish her for spending time with a male friend and more generally
for her lifestyle”
.
3. Encourage
member states to combat breaches of human rights and remedy cases
of abduction and illegal confinement
24. In this Parliamentary Assembly
report I would like to highlight the good practices developed in
Council of Europe member countries. As illustrated by the two examples
already given, the public authorities and civil society have a role
to play in exposing, combating, preventing and, in appropriate cases,
punishing acts of violence. I would like to suggest three focuses
for our work:
Development of intervention measures for
assisting victims or potential victims of breaches of basic rights. Such
measures could include:
- in
the Council of Europe member countries, the aid available for victims
(shelters, telephone lines, protection measures for victims of practices
contrary to their human rights) and training programmes for the
police, magistrates and social workers aimed at helping them to
better understand the risks run by women and girls and the traditional
practices that go against a person’s human rights and put women and
girls’ physical and mental well-being in danger. Creating networks
between all the parties involved is likewise essential to ensure
detection, assistance and full support for victims ;
- in third countries, co-operation with embassies or consulates
and local NGO networks; gender training for foreign affairs staff;
allowing consulates to be proactive and seek national authorities'
help in tracing women or girls who are suspected victims of infringements
of human rights; closer legal cooperation both between European
countries and with the authorities in countries of origin and the
host countries; and providing police and judges in countries of
origin with training in action to combat forced marriage, female genital
mutilation and other practices contrary to human rights;
- attention should be drawn here to the good practices identified
while preparing this report. Finland has plans to provide assistance
to persons in distress who ordinarily reside in Finland and are
temporarily in a third country. Particularly in cases where this
distress is caused by illegal confinement, the diplomatic mission
can inform the competent authorities in the third country and also
the competent Finnish authorities, facilitate communication between
the competent authorities and the person who has been unlawfully
deprived of their freedom and also their family and follow up the
case with the authorities in the third country .
Introduction of prevention measures,
in particular targeting younger women and their families. Prevention might
include producing a practical guide for dual nationals on victim
assistance measures, including diplomatic protection; assistance
to NGOs active in promoting women's rights in the countries of origin
and in the host countries; awareness-raising campaigns and information
drives on forced marriage and female genital mutilation; setting
up victim assistance facilities in the Council of Europe countries
and countries of origin; setting up mediation and conciliation facilities
to facilitate dialogue with parents if that is at all possible.
Some states have opted for an active
policy of action against forced marriages and arranged
marriages. During the committee discussions, I was told that Austria
has introduced stringent administrative requirements in an effort
to prevent marriages of convenience. In the United Kingdom, with
the entry into force on 25 November 2008 of the Forced Marriage
(Civil Protection) Act 2007, the minimum age at which a person can
obtain a marriage visa to enter the United Kingdom has been raised
to 21 , as has the minimum age for British nationals
wishing to marry abroad. The prior permission of the Home Office
will be required if the marriage is contracted before the minimum
age.
During my fact-finding visit to
Morocco, I observed that consulates often admit to being
powerless when victims of forced or arranged marriages also have
Moroccan nationality. In some cases, where a victim is able to be identified
by the consular services, a “case-by-case” approach can lead to
the girl being repatriated. According to NGOs working in the field,
however, such cases are extremely rare and are merely the tip of
the iceberg. Several consular officials, moreover, said they had
to “improvise”, the most they could do in some cases (marriages
involving under-age girls, for example ) being to delay the granting
of a visa until the spouse reached the age of 18.
Verification protocols in consulates,
however, could help to combat forced marriages for the purpose of migration.
The French consulate, for example, has introduced procedures for
vetting civil marriages, which include interviewing the spouses
separately if one of them is under age. In case of doubt, or if
there is sufficient evidence, the consul can refer the matter to
the Prosecutor of Nantes who has the power to annul the marriage, within
a time-limit of 5 years, in case of lack of consent or if the marriage
was contracted fraudulently .
Lastly,bilateral agreementscould be concluded or revised so
that, for example, consular authorities of a country of which a
woman or girl had the nationality or was a habitual resident could
take protective measures. This would include having access to them,
being allowed to interview them face to face in private, and arranging
for legal representation. It is worth noting here that under the
bilateral convention between Belgium and Morocco, the two countries’
ministries of justice have set up a joint commission to enable the
Belgian consular authorities to work with the local Moroccan authorities.
In the event of a family dispute (e.g. between a father and a mother habitually
resident in Belgium concerning the custody or place of residence
of their child) ,
the joint commission can be asked to request the Moroccan authorities
to begin mediation with the family concerned, and in particular
to apply the provisions of the family code adopted in 2003, which
represents a major step forward in terms of women’s rights in Morocco.
A similar procedure should be introduced to enable friends and relatives
of victims of gender-based violence habitually resident in Europe
to alert consular officials and initiate co-operation with the authorities
in the country of origin.
4. Some
possible courses of action
25. The Parliamentary Assembly
should make it clear that any abduction or illegal confinement of
women or girls in the name of practices contrary to human rights
is to be firmly condemned and must give rise to countermeasures:
no physical or mental endangerment of a woman or girl is excusable
in the name of cultural relativism.
26. The Assembly should call on member states to do everything
in their power to reinforce prevention of forced marriage and any
practice contrary to human rights in the host country or the country
of origin, alert public authorities and consular authorities to
the serious risks to which women and girls forcibly or arbitrarily returned
to their countries of origin are exposed.
27. In particular the Assembly could call on member states to:
- amend, if they have not already
done so, their legislation prohibiting and penalising forced marriages
(in accordance with Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1468 (2005)), female genital mutilation and any other gender-based
violations of human rights;
- prosecute abductions, illegal confinements and forced
returns of women or girls when there is a known risk of their being
subjected to practices such as forced marriage or female genital
mutilation which are contrary to human rights and Council of Europe
values;
- introduce procedures at consulates to facilitate the identification
of victims and speed up the granting of a return visa to any woman
or girl victim of a violation of human rights, particularly when
the original residence permit has expired;
- implement preventive measures, which might include:
-
i. awareness and training
programmes for women and girls and their family circles on respect
for fundamental rights, the promotion of equality between women
and men and the fight against practices contrary to human rights,
particularly where these are based on gender;
ii. provision of information about the laws in force, made
available in the languages of the communities concerned, highlighting
the risks incurred by offenders and the protection arrangements
that exist;
iii. provision of information targeted at girls in the communities
concerned about the protection arrangements available in the host
country;
- make arrangements to
assist victims so as to ensure their protection (shelters, helplines)
or their social and occupational reintegration after their return
to their home country;
- set up awareness and training programmes on gender-related
violence for police forces (including border police), courts, health
systems and consular authorities;
- support non-governmental organisations in host countries
and countries of origin, which play a vital role in prevention and
assistance in this sphere;
- facilitate networking among social and political players
with a view to concerted public action;
- reinforce co-operation with the authorities of the countries
of origin and encourage them to:
-
i. amend their legislation,
if they have not yet done so, to prohibit any ritual or customary
practices contrary to human rights in accordance with international
legal instruments, particularly the United Nations Declaration on
the Elimination of Violence against Women, and pursue vigorous policies
to ensure the application thereof;
ii. prosecute gender-based violations of human rights;
iii. locate and identify victims and facilitate their access
to the consulate of the country where they are habitually resident.
28. The Parliamentary Assembly
should encourage the Council of Europe to draft as soon as possible
a Convention to combat the most serious and widespread forms of
violence against women, including forced marriages, according to
Recommendation 1847 (2008). It should also promote in collaboration with the North-South
Centre, the issue of gender equality (notably in civil law) as well
as concerted action against gender-based violence through closer
co-operation between emigration and immigration countries.
29. In respect of the principle of gender equality in civil law,
I would finally like to recall the Assembly’s notice, in its
Recommendation 1798 (2007), that is: "Regarding the principle of gender equality
in private international relations, rules of private international
law providing for attachment to the husband’s or father’s national
law are especially worrisome, as is the inequality resulting from
the application of discriminatory rules of foreign law". It therefore
invited the Committee of Ministers to "draw up a new protocol to
the European Convention on Human Rights enshrining gender equality
as a fundamental human right with pre-eminence over any provision deriving
from, or applicable under, private international law agreements
or conventions".
30. Arguing that "several legal instruments aimed at combating
both all forms of discrimination against and violence towards women,
have already been adopted", the Committee of Ministers replied that,
at that stage, it did "not see the need for drafting a new protocol
to the European Convention on Human Rights”, as the Assembly proposed
in paragraph 9.1 of its recommendation.
. I do not share this view. The reality
faced by abducted women subject to human rights violations show
that these instruments are not sufficient to provide adequate protection
of the victims. I strongly believe that such a Protocol would enhance
the protection of women and prevent the importation of discriminatory
practices from abroad, which may be contrary to the principle of
gender equality or even constitute a violation of human rights,
as explained in this report. Therefore the Assembly should reiterate
its demand to the Committee of Ministers that a new protocol on
gender equality to the European Convention on Human Rights be drawn
up.
Reporting committee:
Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men
Reference to committee: Doc. 10753, reference No. 3200 of 17 March 2006, extended on 29
May 2008
Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted
by the committee on 5 December 2008.
Members of the committee: Mr Steingrímur J. Sigfússon (Chairperson),
Mr José Mendes Bota (1st Vice-Chairperson),
Mrs Ingrīda Circene (2nd Vice-Chairperson),
Mrs Anna Čurdová (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Frank
Aaen, Mr Francis Agius, Mr John Austin,
Mr Lokman Ayva, Ms Marieluise
Beck, Mrs Anna Benaki (alternate: Mr Ioannis Giannellis-Theodosiadis),
Mr Laurent Béteille, Mrs Oksana Bilozir, Ms María
Delia Blanco Terán, Mrs Olena Bondarenko, Mr Pedrag Bošcović,
Ms Anna Maria Carloni, Mr James
Clappison, Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Ms Diana Çuli, Mr Ivica Dačiċ,
Mr David Darchiashvili, Mrs Lydie Err, Mrs Catherine Fautrier, Mrs Mirjana
Ferić-Vac, Ms Sonia Fertuzinhos, Mrs Alena Gajdůšková,
Mr Guiseppe Galati, Mrs Claude Greff, Mr Attila Gruber, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mrs Fatme
Ilyaz, Ms Francine John-Calame, Ms Nataša Jovanoviċ, Mrs Birgen Keleş, Mrs Krista Kiuru, Mrs Angela
Leahu, Mr Terry Leyden, Mrs Mirjana Malić, Mrs Nursuna Memecan, Mrs Danguté Mikutiené,
Mr Burkhardt Müller-Sönksen, Mrs Christine Muttonen,
Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Ms Fiamma Nirenstein, Mrs Yuliya Novikova,
Mr Mark Oaten (alternate: Ms Christine McCafferty),
Mr Kent Olsson, Mr Jaroslav Paška, Mrs Antigoni Papadopoulos, Mr Claudio Podeschi,
Mrs Majda Potrata, Ms Mª del Carmen Quintanilla
Barba, Mr Frédéric Reiss,
Mrs Mailis Reps, Ms Maria Pilar Riba Font, Ms Jadwiga Rotnicka,
Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, Mrs Klára Sándor,
Ms Miet Smet, Mme Albertina
Soliani, Mrs Darinka Stantcheva,
Mrs Tineke Strik, Mr Michał Stuligrosz, Mrs Doris Stump, Mr Han Ten Broeke, Mr Vasile
Ioan Dănuţ Ungureanu, Mrs Tatiana Volozhinskaya, Mr Marek Wikiński, Mr Paul Wille, Mrs Betty
Williams (alternate: Baroness Anita Gale), Mr Gert
Winkelmeier, Ms Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mr Andrej Zernovski, Mr Vladimir
Zhidkikh, Mrs Anna Roudoula Zissi.
N.B. The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
Secretariat of the committee:
Mrs Kleinsorge, Mrs Affholder, Mrs Devaux