Speeches January session 2012

Monday, 26 January 2012 at 11 :30 a.m.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Mr KOX (Netherlands), rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on observation of the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (4 December 2011). – Let me give the Assembly a short summary of our observations on the elections to a new State Duma of the Russian Federation, which took place on 4 December. We concluded that they had been prepared for well in technical terms, but, unfortunately, they were marked by a convergence of the state and the governing party, by limited political competition and by a lack of fairness. On election day, voting was well organized overall, but the quality of the process deteriorated considerably during the count, which was characterized by frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulation, including ballot-stuffing.

As the Assembly knows, since the day of the elections, numerous citizens throughout the Russian Federation have expressed great anger about the way in which the elections were organized and, if I may say so, manipulated. Those massive manifestations of distrust and anger have served as a wake-up call for the Russian authorities, parties and institutions, and for society in general. Since then, several suggestions have been made for improvements in the electoral process by the President and the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, the head of the Central Election Commission, political factions and non-governmental organizations.

During our post-election mission to Moscow last week, we observed the widespread call for a change in Russia that would enable it to regain the trust of its citizens. In a statement at the end of our visit, we welcomed that call, but also called for the change to be substantial and sustainable rather than serving merely as a survival mechanism until the presidential elections on 4 March. There is, for instance, a pressing need for an impartial referee to oversee voting in Russia. As we told the Russian and international media, establishing public confidence in the electoral system will require a major overhaul of electoral administration.

The unprecedented anger that was expressed in Russian society prompted an unprecedented, and swift, response from the authorities, which presented proposals for change and improvement in the electoral process. That is the good news from the elections, which contrasts with the bad things that we observed on election day and the days leading up to it. As for whether the change will prove substantial and sustainable, that is – as Shakespeare would say – the question: the question that is at stake in the Russian Federation today.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Dear colleagues, first of all, I thank the rapporteurs for the reports. I also congratulate Mr Çavuşoğlu who did an excellent job, with openness and commitment to Council of Europe values and goals, when he was President of our Assembly.

As we are going to have a separate debate on the recent Russian elections, I shall not spend much time now evaluating what happened. However, having been one of the Assembly’s observers at those elections, I recommend that colleagues should not draw any apocalyptic conclusions. It is true that certain elements of the process raised concern. Also, many people were not satisfied with the results and have protested, and there was excessive use of administrative resources in some territories and regions. As the main opposition force in Russia, the communists should probably be more dissatisfied than anyone else. However, we should also recognise that the elections were well organised, especially taking into account the size of the country. It is true that there are problems, but we should refrain from Cold War-style rhetoric. Instead, we should think about how the Council of Europe might assist the Russian Federation to improve the electoral laws and general electoral climate.

The UEL would like to highlight the situation in the Republic of Moldova, where action by the Council of Europe Assembly is needed. The usurpation of state power by the so-called Alliance for European Integration is a proven fact. The leaders of the ruling parties signed a disgraceful agreement to divide between them the general prosecutor’s office, the secret services and even the high court of justice. What kind of democracy and rule of law is that?

The Moldovan Parliament should have been dissolved in December of last year because it had failed to elect a president in over a year, yet it still sits. It continues to take illegal decisions, to mock democracy and to scoff at the country and its people. Representatives of that unconstitutional regime still sit in this Chamber, not even trying to justify their presence here. What must happen in Moldova before the Assembly takes a position? We call on the Council of Europe to hold debates on the situation in Moldova urgently. Thousands of people recently went out on to the streets to protest throughout Moldova. We cannot be silent, and stand on the sidelines accepting the Moldovan authorities doing whatever they want, neglecting the constitution, neglecting laws, neglecting everything.

Monday 23 January 2012 at 3 p.m.

Communication from Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – Thank you, Secretary General. I understand that there has been an exchange of letters between the Secretary General and the Hungarian Government. I would like to hear about that process and what would be the next step. Furthermore, I understand from international media that the Conservative majority in Hungary is trying to make the main opposition party responsible for the crimes of the former dictatorship. I would like to know what the Secretary General thinks of this situation.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Jagland?

Mr JAGLAND – As I said, I got a letter from a Mr Martonyi on Friday. It was positive, looking for a dialogue, and for using our instruments to look into the laws that have been discussed publicly for quite a long time. We will of course start working on this immediately so that we can come forward with our recommendations. We are in a positive process.

I do not have a position on the internal situation in Hungary. It is very important for me and for us to have an experience-orientated or non-politicized, convention-based approach to everything that is happening in Hungary. I will say one thing that is important – some say that no one has the right to intervene in law-making in Hungary. All the 47 member countries in the Council of Europe have obligations towards the Convention and the Council of Europe; therefore we have the right to have this dialogue and it is a very positive sign that the Hungarian Government wants to have it.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – Moldovan MPs have not been able to elect a president for more than two years. For more than a year, a majority in the parliament has deliberately blocked the process. A year and a half ago, a referendum, supported by you, was organized to amend the constitution, but it contradicted the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and it eventually failed. The ruling alliance recently announced its intention of organizing a new referendum using your name and saying that you support it. Is that true, and do we have to support the Venice Commission’s recommendations or not?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Jagland?

Mr JAGLAND – The Venice Commission did not oppose the referendum. I have asked the political leaders in the Republic of Moldova to offer expertise now that they have begun the process again. If they wish, we can offer non-political expertise and contribute our views and recommendations. The time has come for all political processes to reach a conclusion.

This is a good example of what happens in a country without functioning institutions. A parliament that is supposed to be an independent, autonomous force in the country has failed to elect someone to the highest position, namely that of President of the Republic. How can we have a parliament that cannot persuade the parties to come together and set aside all party interests? I find that extraordinary. If the parliament cannot succeed in this respect, how can people trust it to deal with other matters? We have been trying to ensure that it will be able to do this basic job in accordance with the constitution.

Free debate

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – This honourable Assembly was created to prevent the horrifying events of the Second World War from ever happening again and to stop racism and tyranny from ruling our continent. This obligation is more relevant now than ever. Recent events under the right-wing government in Hungary call for our attention. We see not only the ugly face of extremism with marching men in uniform, but a wide range of democratic and human rights violations – violations that all democratic forces must address.

The European Union has criticized developments according to the Lisbon Treaty, but the European Commission has not addressed the entire range of undemocratic events that are happening in Hungary right now. The Council of Europe has a crucial role to play in addressing the limitations on freedom of speech, abuses of media law and the attack on democratic pluralism, as well as the rights of minorities and the lack of respect for freedom of religious beliefs.

The issue of Hungary must not be reduced to a debate about how to solve the economic crisis; we need to address what is becoming ever clearer – the stepping back from democracy and the move towards more and more totalitarian rule. The Council of Europe must take action on that.

Mr LECOQ (France) said he had questions for two delegations. He asked to what extent the Moroccan delegate could claim to be respecting human rights when people protesting about the Western Sahara had been imprisoned by a military court. Churchill had said that the mark of a democratic regime was that when you heard a knock on the door at 5 a.m. you knew it was the milkman. The President of the Palestinian Parliament had recently been arrested by Israel, and 20 of the 74 Hamas members of the Palestinian Parliament were also currently under arrest. The second question was how the principle of personal freedom was being respected by Israel. The Assembly had to speak out on this point, and Morocco and Israel had to answer these questions. Democracy was not optional.

Tuesday 24 January 2012 at 10 a.m.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I thank Karin Woldseth for her report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I agree with her conclusion that they are not functioning properly. As a result, we are now having to decide what to do with a non-functioning member state. No matter how much we would like Bosnia and Herzegovina to be a flourishing democratic state, the reality is that that is not the case. The fact of the matter is that there are two states and three entities. Things would not be so bad if those two states were functioning properly, but they are not. They do not want to work together, but they are not able to survive alone. That leads to the third entity – or ethnicity – also wishing to form a kind of state. As the rapporteur rightly pointed out, these processes did not begin today or yesterday; rather they date back to the Dayton Agreement and the creation of the state.

We all know that Dayton ended the war, which was great, but it did not start the creation of a more or less normal, democratic state in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must take into account the fact that the wish to have the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not correspond to the reality on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In my opinion, it never has been a state. It was a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and when that disappeared, a lot of things disappeared.

The issue is how to solve these problems. To accept the de facto situation that there are two states is not the answer, because up until now it has not appeared that these two states can coexist. There have been festivities in Banja Luka, commemorating the 20th anniversary of Republika Srpska. The President of Serbia came along and received a medal from Mr Dodik, and everybody spoke about “the state”. In that part of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, Republika Srpska is seen as a state. The reaction in Sarajevo was, of course, very different. People wondered how they could once again go against all international rules.

The problem is clear, but finding answers is very difficult. We in this Assembly could say, “If you don’t live up to your obligations, we will take measures.” One such measure might be not to allow them to participate any more in the Assembly. I agree with Karin that we have to make things clear to them. If we do not ask them to respect their obligations, we do not respect their country. We cannot say to them, “Do whatever you want and continue as you are”, yet excluding them from our Assembly and the Council of Europe is not the solution either. Although we had a bad experience last time, the international community must again try to help not only the politicians of Bosnia and Herzegovina but, especially, its people, because they deserve better, especially in these times of crisis – things are going very badly for its citizens.

I propose that we again offer all our services and ask Bosnia and Herzegovina at least to participate in the body of which it is a part. I also propose that we at least investigate the possibility of sending the Presidential Committee of this Assembly to Bosnia and Herzegovina to see whether it could be of any assistance. Our former President, Mr Çavuşoğlu, has already put in a lot of effort there, but sending the committee could be of some help. I thank the rapporteur again for her report.

Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) – Thank you for the report. It is important to acknowledge the change that has occurred since the report of the Monitoring Committee was produced. It was disturbing that it took so long after the general elections of October 2010 for a government to be formed. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina had spoken in the elections, and those elected have responsibilities to the electorate and should form a government to put the interests of the country before their own political ends or personal vested interests.

The positive side is that on 28 December 2011 the leaders of the six political parties agreed on the formation of a state government with Mr Bevanda who has stated his support for EU integration and has hopes of EU candidate status for Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that the new government will play a full and active role in the Council of Europe, with representatives from the country taking up the various positions as suggested in the report.

With April 2012 marking the 10th anniversary of the country’s accession to the Council of Europe, perhaps Mr Bevanda and members of his government will have an opportunity to be here to address the Assembly and to answer questions. He has many challenges facing him. There is the bitter futile bargaining about ethnic distribution of posts going on instead of concentrating on the most suitable person for a post. There is the right of all citizens to stand for election and the authorities should implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. There is the right of citizens to vote for their candidate of choice and not to be precluded from doing so. When nominations are made with majority backing, we need to tackle the problem of them not being allowed to proceed. Overall, there are the complex and unwieldy decision-making processes and the further complication of vital national interest veto, with the majority of political parties being essentially ethnic parties. Those are challenges for Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is also the continuing fight against organized crime, drugs, trafficking and money laundering.

Recently, as my parliamentary colleague mentioned, we had a joint meeting of the European Affairs and Foreign Affairs Committees in Dublin, which was addressed by Lord Ashdown. He referred to Bosnia and Herzegovina as an “abscess” which has to be contained. This process should begin by respecting the integrity of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He called on the EU to be more energetic and to stop undermining the dynamic of unity through attempts at decentralization and the work of separatists.

There are particular issues relating to the Republika Srpska. The EU committee of our parliament expressed its strong support for progress towards EU membership for the countries of the western Balkans. Central to that is respect for human rights, including the protection of minorities.

The report’s conclusion mentions that the current crisis might have serious consequences for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its membership of international organizations like the Council of Europe. I think, however, that the consequences for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are more serious, and they have suffered enough. The onus is on those elected by the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to play their part in ensuring that democracy will function, but there is also an onus and responsibility on the Council of Europe and particularly on the EU to support that and not to abandon the people. As Lord Ashdown mentioned in an article a few days ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot become “a black hole of dysfunctionality”. The people deserve far better.

Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by the Rt Hon. David Lidington, Minister for Europe, United Kingdom, representing the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The Minister did not understand the question: it was about the fact that parliamentarians are imprisoned. He answered on media freedom, so perhaps he could answer my colleague’s question.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lidington?

Mr LIDINGTON – There is no Committee of Ministers position on that.

Tuesday 24 January 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

The right of everyone to take part in cultural life

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. –Thank you Mr Hancock. I call Ms O’Sullivan to speak Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) – Thank you Mr President. The idea that it is a human right to freely participate in culture has had very little discussion really, so I welcome the report. It is an interesting report but also a challenging one for the members of the Council of Europe. Respect for and tolerance of culture is basic to democracy. It would contribute to, as the report says, “harmonious living together and peace between peoples.”

The other challenge is for the members of the Council of Europe to take the guidelines and use them to inform national policies and translate them into action. National governments need to provide space to allow groups to organize, develop and participate in cultural expression. Cultural expression and participation will foster respect, inclusion, democratic participation, principles aligned with democracy, as well as protection of alternative forms of identity, minority identities and historic forms of identity. What is important is to promote the culture which is all-inclusive and will embrace all forms of identity contained within a country, including the identity of its diaspora.

Governments also need to promote equal access to cultural participation for all their citizens, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, social economic status and health status. No one culture has the right to dominate another in terms of leading the other cultural expression to obscurity, extinction or even secrecy. Culture is also about identity – our culture expresses who we are but it also has to be cognisant of the identities and cultures of others.

The debate this morning on Bosnia and Herzegovina – a country with a variety of cultures – is a good example of where it is vital that there is respect for diversity and the ability to live with diversity, but there can be a thin line between cultural identity and cultural supremacy. It is sad that culture and identity have been instruments of division and have contributed to feelings and expressions of supremacy and acts of aggression. My own country – Ireland – has also seen culture being used to create and sustain barriers between people. That is not what cultural identity is about.

Many countries in Europe, including my own, are facing budgets of austerity and cutbacks, and culture, cultural events and the arts are often among those areas to experience significant cuts. However, those areas can do so much to promote feelings of self-worth and self-esteem and be a force of positivity in difficult times.

There is also a particular inequality in the participation of culture. I refer to those who are physically, intellectually and mentally challenged, the impoverished elderly, low-income families, minority groups and also women in certain countries. For those who are physically and mentally challenged, there can be barriers to attending cultural events, visiting places of interest, historic sites and buildings. Plans for new buildings must take that into account. The UN Enable project as it stands has done major work in this area, recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities to take part on an equal basis with others. Apart from the access aspect, Article 30 states the rights of persons with disabilities, “to utilise their creative, artistic and intellectual potential.” There are challenges here for us, but I welcome the parts of the report that deal with young people and foster their talent.

Finally, there are so many areas of conflict, aggression and discrimination, and I believe that culture and cultural activities can and should be a bridge to dialogue and mutual respect.

Ms BACKMAN (Iceland) – Let me first thank the rapporteur for this timely report on the right of everyone to participate in cultural life.

I strongly agree about the importance of culture and cultural life in the development and well-being of people. It is particularly important for young people to grow up in a cultural environment and to have the opportunity to participate in forming their cultural surroundings. Children need to be raised in a positive and fertile community and to be encouraged to develop their artistic talents.

However, I feel that more attention could have been devoted in the report to the right of people with disabilities to participate in cultural life. Most European countries still have a long way to go in ensuring that disabled people have full access to cultural events and activities. A large group of people is thus prevented from full access to cultural events. These people have as much right fully to participate in cultural life as anyone else. Attitudes and prejudices towards the abilities of people with disabilities are as great an obstacle as lack of access to buildings.

Indeed, the needs of people with disabilities tend to be forgotten in the design of buildings and acoustics. In this respect, the concept “Design for All” can open up cultural life not only for people with disabilities but for such important social groups as the elderly. “Design for All” is a new approach to fashioning our human environment, and it should be promoted.

The cultural participation of people with disabilities should be supported in the same way as other cultural activities. In doing so, we will strengthen the communities and citizens of Europe and promote cultural diversity. The media need to reflect the contemporary world in all its diversity, and this also applies to the artistic creation of people with disabilities.

Thank you for your attention.

Guaranteeing the authority and effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left congratulated the rapporteur on a highly technical and important report, and said that the European Court of Human Rights played a key role in the visibility of the Council of Europe and placing European democracy alongside national identities. It was important to subscribe to the philosophical principles of Habermas and to be a part of the new constitutional order. The new constitutional order was universal in scope and required debate in national parliaments. It was important to keep the 800 million citizens involved.

The reform was reminiscent of Montesquieu in its form. In order to achieve the reform it would be necessary to give the European Court of Human Rights the publicity it deserved and to help it to emerge from the obscurity of technical details.

Wednesday 25 January 2012 at 10 a.m.

The situation in Belarus

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left said that the Group of the Unified European Left unequivocally condemned the continued use of the death penalty in Belarus, and the hounding of the political opposition. Its sister party in Belarus, the “Left Party”, had been a victim of oppression.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe needed to consider its approach to Belarus. The President of Belarus, Mr Lukashenko, had said in December 2010 that he was in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. There had been some other signs of hope, including the release of some prisoners. However, more recently there has been a reversal of these signs of progress and new death sentences had been passed.

The European Union had imposed sanctions on Belarus and there had been calls to strengthen these sanctions. However, it was not clear how effective the sanctions were. While there were sanctions on the one hand, on the other, European police forces, including the German police force, were helping Belarus to train its border security forces. Such an approach called into question the credibility of the European Union’s stance on Belarus.

Belarus had a history of suffering. There was parallels with Israel: 25% of the population had been killed by the Wehrmacht during the Second World War so a certain degree of sensitivity was needed.

The Assembly should condemn the persecution of the political opposition in Belarus. The beacon of hope for political change should be kept alight and the channels of dialogue had to be kept open. The Assembly needed to look for clear signs from President Lukashenko that he was willing to make progress on reform.

Mr SOBKO (Russian Federation) noted that in any democracy one would expect different opinions on a subject, but on the issue of Belarus the opposing views were difficult to bridge. The topic had been discussed many times before by the Assembly but an agreement supported by all sides had yet to be achieved.

The Russia Federation and Belarus were kindred nations and the Russia Federation was working to address the issues in Belarus. It was unacceptable to go down the path of intimidation – dialogue was the best solution. Dialogue was best conducted in the presence of Belarusian representatives, and if not the president then the democratically elected members of the Belarusian Parliament should be invited to participate. It was not appropriate to discuss the affairs of a country without allowing that country to convey its views.

The effectiveness of sanctions on Belarus was doubtful; the country had not been cowed by Nazi fascism and so was unlikely to be overly concerned by the European Union’s imposition of sanctions. A path of co-operation should be embarked upon and the Council of Europe should engage in dialogue with the Belarusian Parliament.

Address by Mr Grigol Vashadze, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Georgia

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– I welcome your statement that Georgia will try to solve the problems regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia only by peaceful means. But this Assembly has an ad hoc committee to promote dialogue between Russia and Georgia. Until now, unfortunately, that could not function because the Georgian delegation has not been willing or able to participate. How can we promote any form of dialogue between the Russian Federation and Georgia, because, whatever you think, they are there and will be there? How can we ensure a dialogue between these two countries?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Vashadze?

Mr VASHADZE – Please let us not forget that we are having Geneva talks, where all interested sides are represented. Three states are participating – alphabetically they are Georgia, the Russian Federation and the United States – and the co-chairmanship is undertaken by three of the most respected international organizations: the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations, although I do not know whether you can call the European Union an organization. The working groups contain personal representation of the divided communities as well. Unfortunately, the Geneva talks have been stalled in both working groups because our Russian partners are explicitly refusing to discuss security arrangements in the first working group and in the second group they are explicitly refusing to discuss the voluntary, dignified and safe return of IDPs and refugees.

So, in our discussions in all other forums, notwithstanding whether they are here in Strasbourg or anywhere else, we are never saying no, because the Georgian position is clear: any place, any time, any level, any subject, with no preconditions. However, we would like first clearly to understand what we are aiming those negotiations towards and what their structure will be. Even more importantly, will they hamper the Geneva talks? Our Russian partners are trying to decrease the frequency of our meetings there. We started by meeting at least once a month and, rarely, once every two months. Now, we are meeting once every three months. The next stage will be meeting once every six months, and then they will kill those negotiations. We simply cannot afford to do that.

So we are not saying no. We are open to dialogue at any level at any place, but let us prepare it, as I said to the Secretary General today, in a good, Scandinavian, thoughtful way. Let us discuss the idea before jumping into the water

Wednesday 25 January 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

Address by Ms Tarja Halonen, President of Finland

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Elected parliamentarians are the basis of democracy. Nevertheless, we see in several European countries that elected MPs are imprisoned because they are said to have abused the law. We see this contradiction between the electoral will of the voters and the law. As a wise person, could you give us guidance? Is it right to put elected parliamentarians into prison, or should we deal with this issue in another way?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Ms Halonen?

Ms HALONEN – I am not trying to flatter you just because you are the Parliamentary Assembly – I held ministerial positions, including as Minister for Foreign Affairs – for a long time so I am familiar with the ministerial side – but the Assembly is the best place to discuss such issues. Many of you represent your own parliaments, and you also have all your own contacts here with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, so there are different ways in which you can act. You know how elections work. Of course, ministers make good critics and they are democratic, but they need their colleagues.

My advice to you is to take primary responsibility for the democratic system, to draw attention to the difficulties that may arise in certain countries and to work together with the OSCE so that you can find more effective ways to monitor elections. The media are the watchdog of free and fair elections, but as we see in many countries, not everything that gets printed in the newspapers is true. Let us be realistic and pragmatic and try to achieve better co-operation with the EU, the UN and other actors, so that we can achieve a more effective result. Please do not wait for the miracle; it will take time.

Address by the Rt Hon. David Cameron MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Thank you, Prime Minister, for your passionate speech on human rights. In times of crisis – when there is an austerity policy, or a wish for speedier decision making – human rights can come under severe pressure. How do you view this threat, and how can we deal with it in order to uphold social and democratic human rights, especially in times of crisis?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Cameron?

Mr CAMERON – Thank you. I think you make an important point. Post-9/11, we have all seen, perhaps particularly in western Europe, huge pressures on governments in dealing with the terrorist threat. It is important to remember how people and politicians felt in the immediate aftermath of those days, and the measures many European governments felt it necessary to take to safeguard their populations. This goes exactly to the point you are making: what is it in a system that helps us to make sure that governments do not overstep the mark and do not override important human rights concerns? That is where, clearly, there is an important role for the European Convention on Human Rights and for what our domestic courts do.

However, there is a balance to that, as well, as shown in the examples I gave. I do believe that you have to have an answer to the issue of the deportation of foreign nationals who come to your country who have no right to be there, and who are threatening your country. You have to be able to try them, deport them or detain them – you have to have an answer. You have to be able to do something to protect your people, and I fear that, at the moment, we do not have a good enough answer, which is why I raised that case. However, I completely agree with you: you need to make sure that government is government under the law, and there are times when governments – even governments with long democratic traditions – can overstep that line. It is important that you have legal and other processes, and checks and balances in your constitution, to prevent that from happening.

The honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. congratulated the Monitoring Committee on its excellent work and noted Serbia’s progress in recent years, in particular since the adoption of Resolution 1661 by the Council of Europe in 2009.

Major reforms had been implemented by Serbia included decentralization and judicial and legal reforms but there were issues still to be resolved. Resolution would require both diplomatic and political means and co-operation with neighbouring countries. The divisions caused by war needed to be bridged. Transparency and fairness in the media were also important.

Serbia had taken considerable strides towards progress and if the Council of Europe accepted and endorsed the report with a strong majority it would help encourage further progress. It was not in Serbia’s or the Council of Europe’s interest for Serbia to be isolated – it needed to find its true place in the Council of Europe.

Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left said that the rapporteur had done a remarkable job in addressing a fraught ethical question.

The issues of euthanasia and the withdrawal of medical treatment were not included in the report. This was to be welcomed. He was very dismayed that Amendment No.4 as tabled by the rapporteur and others sought to include such matters in the resolution. If Amendment No.4 was agreed, the Group of the Unified European Left would be unable to support the report.

The freedom and autonomy of patients was important, as was their ability to choose the type of treatment they would receive if they lacked the capacity to decide later on. Both of these issues which were addressed by the report, were important. The French approach provided a good balance between the duty of the doctor to fulfill his Hippocratic oath and save lives, and the choice of the patient.

Thursday 26 January 2012 at 10 a.m.

Current affairs debate: the Russian Federation between two elections

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Last Monday, I presented the Assembly with my report on the observation of the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation of 4 December. In April, I hope to present my report on the observation of the presidential elections of 4 March. So we are indeed in between elections in our biggest member state. I thank the Assembly for using this current affairs debate to give its opinion on the electoral process. I am sure that we will use today’s input in our upcoming visits to Russia.

On Monday, I said that the parliamentary elections were technically well prepared but marked by a convergence of the state and the governing party, limited political competition, a lack of fairness and the absence of an impartial referee. On election day, we observed frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulation.

After the elections, Russia saw its biggest rallies in decades, in which citizens showed their anger with the way in which the parliamentary elections went. This public manifestation of distrust led to a number of proposals to improve the electoral process.

The President of the Russian Federation proposed to make registration of political parties far easier and demanded an independent public broadcast organization. The Prime Minister ordered the installation of webcams in all polling stations. The Central Election Commission ordered transparent ballot boxes everywhere. The Supreme Court annulled the decision to refuse registration of a certain party, and thereby followed the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights. Yesterday, Moscow’s city hall yesterday granted permission for a mass demonstration and manifestation on 4 February. A league of voters is asking citizens to participate in monitoring the elections. The presidential human rights council asked for changes in the CEC and now calls upon citizens to help ensure fair elections. Golos hopes to have several thousands of observers present on election day.

However, not everything is positive. The Central Election Commission refused the registration of several candidates for the presidency. We will check the arguments and listen to those involved when our pre-electoral mission visits Moscow. The CEC has also announced that 90% of all complaints with regard to the parliamentary elections were untrue. We will check this as well. In Moscow, we hope to meet all presidential candidates, including Prime Minister Putin, who has made it public that he demands free and fair elections for the presidency. We are looking forward to hearing from him and his colleague-candidates how to ensure this. The participation of all candidates in the television debates would be a clear signal, and pressure on the international and national observers should be avoided.

Those who used to say that nothing ever changes in Russia have been proved wrong. Change is happening in Russia. What we do not yet know – as I said on Monday – is whether this change is substantial and sustainable. The Assembly’s debate is a clear message to the Russian Government, Parliament and public that we want change to be substantial and sustainable in the interests of the Russian Federation, its government, and, in particular, its citizens.

Annual activity report 2011 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Allow me to send the compliments of the Unified European Left on the good work that you have done. What would you tell your successor concerning Russia?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Hammarberg?

Mr HAMMARBERG – Nils Muiznieks has the advantage, which I do not have, of knowing the Russian language, and that is a positive factor. I think that he should go there and not only stay in Moscow and St Petersburg, but travel around the country and talk to people. There is a very active civil society community in Russia today; we have of course had visitors here from that community. He could continue the good relationship that the Office has with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mr Lukin, who has been very constructive and helpful to me in my work, and the other regional ombudsmen in Russia. He should build trust, but at the same time continue to have frank, honest and critical reporting. Frankly, I have not had problems with very critical reports when it comes to relationships with the authorities in Russia. As long as there is a feeling that one is fair and that the facts are correct, our reports have been accepted and have been the basis for some good discussions. So Mr Muiznieks has a good basis for continuing work on the many and serious problems on human rights that still exist in Russia.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – First, thank you for the important work you have done. You said in your speech that you were worried about human rights in the fight against terrorism. Yesterday, Prime Minister Cameron visited this Assembly, and he also mentioned this issue. I was a bit worried by what he said. It sounded as if he was saying that it was acceptable to suspend human rights when fighting terror – something I believe has happened in many countries. What would you recommend we do on this issue?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Hammarberg?

Mr HAMMARBERG – To accept that there are red lines when it comes to using methods against terrorism. One is that we cannot allow torture, which we know took place after 11 September, sometimes as a result of co-operation between the United States security agencies and some European agencies. In the United Kingdom, there is the issue of whether people should be deported to their country of origin where there is an obvious risk of torture. There, the human rights position is quite clear: we cannot do that.

I thought that Mr Cameron addressed the issue yesterday quite intelligently. He explained that he was landed with a real problem. He did not wish to allow Abu Qatada to continue to preach hatred, but he could not send him back or put him in detention. The human rights response to this dilemma – there is, of course, a dilemma there – is that he cannot be sent back if there is a serious risk of torture. That is out. As to imprisonment, if it could be shown in a trial that he had committed a crime, he should be put in prison. Evidence is required, however, before condemning someone as a criminal. That is the human rights response on that angle. We talked about hate speech a little earlier. Again, incitement of hatred has to be proven before it can be defined as a crime. There are, therefore, human rights responses to the dilemma that the Prime Minister so eloquently described yesterday. From our point of view, this is not a hopeless discussion.

Thursday 26 January 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

Advancing women’s rights worldwide

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– I thank Ms Bachelet and UN Women for their excellent work. I also thank the rapporteur and the leader of the committee for their excellent work. It is important never to give up.

Gender equality is a core value for the European left. It is also a basic human right, of course. As Ms Bachelet said, it is a necessary requirement for economic development, too. We face a political and economic crisis, and we must look for new solutions, rather than hold to the failed, out-dated models of the past. That is not only true for the economy; we must not accept violence against, and the oppression of, women, whatever that may be based on – culture, religion, customs and so forth. That has to be abolished because it is wrong and immoral, and because it hurts society.

There is a moral and political gap. It must be filled with new politics in the interests of human beings and society, not the failed policies of business as usual. The policies of austerity that are currently being pursued also harm women. They therefore also harm society and human rights. That is why this issue must be at the top of the agenda.

We must ratify the relevant conventions, old and new, of the UN and the European councils, as well as the Istanbul Convention. However, most importantly, we must translate these conventions into real life. That does not happen often enough. I also call on those who have opted out of various parts of these conventions to change their minds, because what they are doing is not in line with the principle of equal human rights.

We need UN Women; we need special bodies to deal with these issues, because mainstream organisations cannot do so on their own. Every country must be able to tackle gender equality issues and make the necessary changes.

Friday 27 January 2012 at 10 a.m.

Enforced population transfer as a human rights violation

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– The UEL supports the construction of an international, legally binding instrument that consolidates the existing standards set out in various international law instruments and defines and outlaws all forms of enforced population transfer. Today, no single instrument deals with this issue, which is covered in part by other conventions. However, we need a specific convention to deal with these terrible political atrocities.

I want to focus on what we can do to prevent such population transfers and to recover the situation. A failure to deal with past abuse can create the potential for a recurrence of violence and human rights abuses, particularly when conflicts have assumed an identity dimension – and we have several of those. These divisions will not automatically disappear under a new democratic order, particularly if it delivers power to a majority group, leaving a minority group feeling vulnerable and marginalized. Nor will these divisions necessarily heal with the passage of time, as we hear in this Assembly every time we gather. Peace processes should result in settlements that offer appropriate protections to vulnerable groups and proper representation in political bodies and decision-making processes. A legitimate reconciliation process must pursue accountability and acknowledge the suffering of victims, not subordinate accountability and redress to an artificial notion of national unity. As we have heard in debates here, such an approach does not work.

A significant risk factor in predicting the outbreak of a conflict is the extent to which an homogenous group is willing and able to monopolize political and economic power. This may even be fuelled by certain electoral and constitutional systems that hand power to majorities without appropriate checks and balances. This body must supervise the approach to such problems. A successful pre-conflict and post-conflict peace-building agenda will have to include political, legal and social measures that guard against the exploitation of the minority by the majority.

Finally, it is important to underline the right of everyone to citizenship, because that can grant people the right to belong to a country. Peace is secured only by respecting the human rights of the populations concerned.