28 януари 2015

ПАСЕ ПРОДЪЛЖИ САНКЦИИТЕ СРЕЩУ РУСИЯ!




ПАСЕ ПРОДЪЛЖИ САНКЦИИТЕ СРЕЩУ РУСИЯ! 




 
РУСКАТА ДЕЛЕГАЦИЯ ОСТАВА БЕЗ ПРАВО НА ГЛАС

И С ЛУСТРАЦИЯ ЗА УЧАСТИЕ В РЕДИЦА ОРГАНИ НА АСАМБЛЕЯТА– С ПРОБАЦИОНЕН СРОК ДО СЛЕДВАЩАТА СЕСИЯ ПРЕЗ АПРИЛ

Късно вечерта на 28 януари 2015г. Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа дебатира оспорените пълномощия на делегацията на Русия в Асамблеята.

Докладчикът на Комсията по мониторинг Щефан Шенах (Социалист от Австрия) внесе доклад по въпроса с който предлагаше смекчаване на санкциите по огтношение на руските депутати, възстановяване на правото им на глас, но запазване на някои лустрационни мерки за тяхно участие в мисии на ПАСЕ.

По доклада му бяха внесени 29 предложения за поправки.

Ключова за решението на Асамблеята беше поправка № 28, внесена от Маргус Хансон (Естония), Кристофър Чоп (Обединото Кралство), Валериу Гилечи (Молдова), Игор Колман (Хърватия), Ром Кощрица (Чехия), Инезе Либина-Енгере (Латвия), Керстин Люндгрен (Швеция), Райт Марусте (Естония), Питер Омциг (Нидерландия), Габриела Пецкова (Чехия), Кимо Саси, (Финландия), Хиора Тактикашвли (Грузия), Еджидиус Варейкис (Литва), Роберт Уолтър (Обединеното Кралство), Свитлана Залишчук(Украйна), Кристина Зиеленкова (Чехия).

С тази поправка в предложения проект за резолюция на ПАСЕ се внасяше изменение възстановяващо досегашното положение.
Съгласно поправката, членовете на руската делегация би трябвало да останат и занапред без право на глас, без право да имат членове на Бюрото на Асамблеята, на Президенската комисия – на председателите на политическите фракции, на Постоянната комисия и на делегациите на ПАСЕ за наблюдаване на избори и делегации по други поводи! 

Мотивът е, че вместо подобряване на положението, Русия продължава агресивните си действия срещу Украйна.

Към това предложение смекчаваща под-поправка внесе Педро Аграмун (Испания, ЕНП), който предложи пробационен период в който санкциите да действат – до откриване на априлската сесия на ПАСЕ. 
 
Ако през този период, Русия отбележи прогрес в подобряването на ситуациията в Украйна, санкциите може да бъдат преразгледани и правото на глас на делегацията да бъде възстановено!

При гласуването под-поправката получи подкрапа от 165 депутати, 27 бяха против, а 17 се въздържаха. 

Така коригираната поправка №28 беше подложена на гласуване и беше подкрепена от 148 депутати, 64 бяха против, а 6 се въздържаха. 

Руската делегация не участва в гласуването, тъй като според правилника на ПАСЕ, делегация чиито пълномощия са оспорени, не може да гласува, когато Асамблеята решава дали да приеме или не, нейните пълномощия.  

Видео на дебатите може да гледате тук : 
 


Поправка №28 беше подкрепена от четирима от членовете на българската делегация (от общо 6 представители с право на глас) - лидерът на българската делегация Джема Грозданова (ГЕРБ), Антони Тренчев (РБ), Валери Симеонов (ПФ) и Хамид Хамид (ДПС). Против беше само един - Валери Жаблянов (БСП).

При гласуването на окончателната резолюция по този въпрос, българските депутати гласуваха по същия начин.
В подкрепа на Поправка №28 и финалната резолюция гласува и Жолт Немет - лидер на унгарската делегация в Асамблеята и останалите 4 членове на унгарската делегация. Нито един унгарец не застана в подкрепа на Русия !

В хода на дебатите докладчика Щефан Шенах внесе устна под-поправка предлагаща, да се допусне руско участие в Постоянната комисия на Асамблеята. 

Това е намален състав на ПАСЕ, който между сесиите може да действа от името на Асамблеята, която после одобрява тези решения. За да се допусне устна под-поправка, която не е внесена по установеният ред, е възможно ако 10 или повече членове на ПАСЕ не възразят на това. 
В този случай със ставане прави, повече от изискуемият брой възразиха на поставянето на гласуване на това предложение и под-поправката на Шенах не беше гласувана!

За окончателната Резолюция 2034/ 28.01. 2015г. на ПАСЕ гласуваха 160 депутати, 42 бяха против, а 11 се въздържаха!


Резултатите от поименното гласуване за поправките и финалната резолюция вижте тук:


(NB: Най-важната поправка е № 28!)



След гласуването, пред руски медии ръководителят на руската делегация в Асамблеята Алексей Пушков заяви, че руските депутати напускат ПАСЕ до края на годината и няма да сътрудничат в нейната дейност! Ако правата им не бъдат възстановени до следващата сесия, ще напуснат окончателно Съвета на Европа.

Със своето решение взето с огромно мнозинство, ПАСЕ защити принципите и ценностите в името на които беше създадена на 5 май 1949г.и отхвърли опитите за превръщането и в организация на политическия опортюнизъм! 

 

 

 

 

Citing Ukraine, PACE renews sanctions against Russian delegation

28/01/2015


http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=5410&lang=2&cat=8



The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has decided to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation, citing the need to “foster dialogue”, but at the same time has decided to suspend its voting rights and its right to be represented in the Assembly’s leading bodies* “as a clear expression of condemnation of continuing grave violations of international law in respect of Ukraine” by Russia.
The Assembly said it would return to this issue at its April 2015 part-session and would consider re-instating these two rights “if Russia has made marked and measurable progress towards implementing the demands of the Assembly”.
In addition, the Assembly also suspended – for the duration of the Assembly’s 2015 session – the right of its Russian members to be appointed as a rapporteur, to observe elections or to represent the Assembly in other Council of Europe or external bodies.

The credentials were challenged on substantive grounds – including “a serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe” – on the opening day of the session by Robert Walter (United Kingdom, EC), supported by at least thirty members of the Assembly.
In its resolution, based on a report by Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), the Assembly said it: “condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing integration into the Russian Federation”. It also condemned Russia’s role in “instigating and escalating developments in Ukraine, including with arms supplies to insurgent forces and covert military action by Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine.”
The Assembly also decided to consider setting up, pending the agreement of the parliaments concerned, a special working group with the participation of the Speakers of the Russian State Duma and the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, or their representatives, “to contribute to the realisation of all the propositions made in the Assembly’s resolution and formulate possible action in support of the Minsk Protocols”.
The Assembly also called on the Russian authorities to release Ukrainian PACE member Nadiia Savchenko “within 24 hours and to ensure her return to Ukraine or to hand her over to a third country”.
---
* The Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
 


ПЪЛНИЯТ ТЕКСТ НА ПРИЕТА РЕЗОЛЮЦИЯ :






Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe


Resolution 2034 (2015)

Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation




Origin - Assembly debate on 28 January 2015 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 13685, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach; and Doc.13689, opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Hans Franken). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2015 (6th Sitting).



1. On 26 January 2015, the still unratified credentials of the Russian delegation were challenged on the basis of Articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly on the grounds that the role and participation of the Russian Federation in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its continued illegal annexation of Crimea was in violation of the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) as well as its accession commitments to the Council of Europe, which, in general, brought into question the commitment of the Russian delegation to the principles and membership obligations of the Council of Europe.

2. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1990 (2014) on the reconsideration on substantive grounds of the previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation. In this resolution, the Assembly considered that the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and the involvement and actions of the Russian Federation in the lead up to this annexation, constituted a grave violation of international law and were a clear contradiction to the Statute of the Council of Europe and Russia’s accession commitments. The Assembly strongly condemned the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian Federation, which required a strong signal of disapproval from the Assembly. At the same time, the Assembly highlighted the need for continuing dialogue with the Russian Federation, including on Russia’s obligations and adherence to the values and principles of the Council of Europe. The Assembly therefore decided not to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation but to suspend, until the end of the 2014 session, the voting rights of the Russian delegation as well as its right to be represented in the Bureau, Presidential Committee and Standing Committee of the Assembly and its right to participate in election observation missions. In addition, in this resolution, the Assembly reserved the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation if the Russian Federation did not de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea.

3. The Assembly condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing integration into the Russian Federation. It is concerned by statements by Russian political leaders that clearly imply that a resolution of this issue in line with international law and principles will not be possible in the foreseeable future. The Assembly reasserts that the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a gross violation of international law, including of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) as well as the Statute of the Council of Europe and Russia’s accession commitments to this Organisation.

4. The Assembly is alarmed about the deterioration of the human rights situation in Crimea, including the deaths and disappearances of political activists who were critical of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It is equally concerned about the threats and actions against independent and critical media outlets. In this respect, the Assembly urges the Russian authorities to:

4.1. reverse the illegal annexation of Crimea;
4.2. fully and transparently investigate these deaths and disappearances as well as allegations of abuse and human rights violations by the police and (para)military forces active in this region;
4.3. disband all paramilitary forces in the region;
4.4. refrain from any pressure and threats of closure of independent media outlets and reverse the closure of the Crimean Tatar Channel, ATR.

5. The situation of minorities in Crimea, in particular the Crimean Tatar community, is of serious concern to the Assembly. It is dismayed by the raids on Tatar organisations and institutions, including the offices of the Tatar Mejlis, as well as the ban on entry into Crimea for the Crimean Tatar leaders, Mr Mustafa Dzhemilev and Mr Refat Chubarov. In addition, the Assembly expresses it concern about reports of the diminishing availability of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea. In this respect, the Assembly calls on the Russian authorities to:

5.1. refrain from any harassment of, and pressure on, Crimean Tatar institutions and organisations;
5.2. allow the return to Crimea, and their free movement across the administrative boundary line, of Mr Mustafa Dzhemilev and Mr Refat Chubarov;
5.3. take all necessary measures to ensure the continued availability of education in the Ukrainian language.

6. The Assembly welcomes that, with few exceptions, civilians continue to move freely across the administrative boundary between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. It calls on all authorities concerned to refrain from any undue measures that could hinder or impede this free movement of civilians.

7. The Assembly is extremely concerned about the developments in eastern Ukraine and condemns Russia’s role in instigating and escalating these developments, including with arms supplies to insurgent forces and covert military action by Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine, which are a gross violation of international law, including the Statute of the Council of Europe as well as of the Minsk protocol to which Russia is a Party. In addition, the Assembly expresses its dismay about the participation of large numbers of Russian “volunteers” in the conflict in eastern Ukraine without any apparent action of the Russian authorities to stop this participation, despite it being in violation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation itself. It takes note of credible reports of burials of soldiers on Russian territory. The Assembly condemns the violation of the territorial integrity and borders of a Council of Europe member State by the Russian Federation. It therefore calls on the Russian authorities to immediately:

7.1. withdraw all its troops, including covert forces, from Ukrainian territory;
7.2. refrain from supplying weapons to the insurgent forces;
7.3. take credible measures to end the influx of Russian volunteers into the conflict in eastern Ukraine;
7.4. adopt amendments to the Criminal Code that criminalise participation of Russian civilians in armed conflicts abroad, also if they are not remunerated for their actions;
7.5. prosecute to the full extent of the Russian law, all Russian citizens who have participated as “volunteers” in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine;
7.6. give its full co-operation to the investigations into the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17;
7.7. bring the Federal Law on Defence of the Russian Federation into line with the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on this law;
7.8. ensure the permanent Ukrainian/Russian control of their joint State border;
7.9. immediately release all hostages, prisoners of war and illegally held persons.

8. In the view of the Assembly, the conflict in eastern Ukraine can only be resolved by political means. It therefore welcomes the Minsk agreement and protocols, signed by the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as by the self-proclaimed people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
It therefore expresses its great concern that the Russian Federation is now denying that it is even a Party to the Minsk Agreement and Protocols, asserting that it is only an observer. It regrets the repeated violations by all sides of the ceasefire regime. It calls on all signatories to respect the ceasefire and fully implement the Minsk protocols. It particularly calls on the Russian authorities to allow and assist the Ukrainian authorities to establish full control, under international monitoring, of its entire border with Russia, which is the basis of the political solution of the conflict as foreseen in the Minsk protocols.

9. The Assembly is deeply concerned by repeated and credible reports of human rights violations, including possible war crimes, by armed insurgents as well as voluntary battalions fighting alongside the Ukrainian armed forces. The Russian and Ukrainian authorities should fully and transparently investigate any reports of human right violations and war crimes committed by their nationals and, where violations are found, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

10. Underscoring the need for a negotiated solution to the conflict, the Assembly cannot but condemn the statement of the pro-Russian rebel leader, Alexander Zakharchenko, on 23 January 2015, that his forces will no longer abide by, or are interested in, a ceasefire agreement, as well as his decision to start an offensive to occupy the rest of the Donetsk region as well as the city of Mariupol.
This represents a serious escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Assembly equally condemns the rocket attack by separatist forces on the town of Mariupol that left at least 30 civilians dead. It urges Russia to use its influence to ensure that the rebel forces return to the negotiating table and fully adhere to the ceasefire agreement as foreseen in the Minsk protocols.
11. The Assembly expresses serious concern about the imprisonment and indictment by the Russian Federation of Ms Nadiia Savchenko, who is now a member of the Assembly. The Assembly considers her transfer by Ukrainian insurgents to the Russian Federation and subsequent imprisonment by the Russian authorities to be in violation of international law amounting to her de facto kidnapping. It demands that the Russian Federation respect its obligations under international law, as a Party to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and its Protocol, according to which Ms Nadiia Savchenko, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, enjoys European parliamentary immunity. The Assembly calls upon the Russian authorities to release Ms Savchenko within 24 hours and to ensure her return to Ukraine or hand her over to a third country.
12. Russia’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate its lack of willingness to honour its accession commitments with regard to its relations with neighbouring countries. The Assembly therefore calls on the Russian authorities to dispel such concerns by:
12.1. implementing Resolution 1633 (2008) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia, Resolution 1647 (2009) on the implementation of Resolution 1633 and Resolution 1683 (2009) on the war between Georgia and Russia: one year after, and reversing the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and allowing access to European Union monitors to these regions;
12.2. removing any obstacles to the free movement of civilians across the administrative boundary lines between South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia;
12.3. implementing without delay its accession commitment to withdraw the 14th Army and its equipment from the territory of the Republic of Moldova;
12.4. promptly implementing the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Catan and others v. the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova related to the right to education in Latin-script schools in Transnistria, and refraining from boycotting Moldovan products with the objective of unduly influencing the Republic of Moldova’s foreign policy choices;
12.5. continuing its constructive engagement in the OSCE Minsk Group in order to find a peaceful solution to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and suspending the sale of offensive weaponry to Armenia and Azerbaijan until such time as this conflict has been resolved.
13. In the view of the Assembly, no solution to the conflict in Ukraine will be possible without the full participation and commensurate political will of the Russian Federation.The Russian Federation therefore needs to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Assembly on this issue as well as on the honouring of its obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe. However, the Assembly emphasises that such dialogue can only take place if the Russian authorities are willing to participate, in good faith and without preconditions, in a constructive and open dialogue with the Assembly, including on those issues where the views of the Assembly and Russia differ. While, to the Assembly’s regret, its offer in Resolution 1990 (2014) for such a dialogue was originally rejected by the State Duma, there have been clear signals that the Duma is now willing to engage in such a constructive dialogue with the Assembly.

14. In order to foster the dialogue with the Russian Federation, the Assembly for now resolves to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation.
But, at the same time, as a clear expression of its condemnation of the continuing grave violations of international law in respect of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, including the Statute of the Council of Europe and Russia’s accession commitments to this Organisation, the Assembly resolves to suspend the following rights of the Russian delegation for the duration of the 2015 session of the Assembly:

14.1. the right to be appointed rapporteur;
14.2. the right to be member of an ad hoc committee on observation of elections;
14.3. the right to represent the Assembly in Council of Europe bodies as well as external institutions and organisations, both institutionally and on an occasional basis.

15. In addition to the sanctions outlined in paragraphs 14.1 to 14.3, the Assembly resolves to suspend the voting rights and the right to be represented in the Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee of the Russian delegation to the Assembly.
However, it resolves to return to this issue, with a view to reinstating these two rights at its April 2015 part-session if Russia has made marked and measurable progress towards implementing the demands of the Assembly formulated in this resolution in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.9, paragraph 11 and paragraphs 12.1 to 12.4; and has given its full co-operation to the working group mentioned in paragraph 17 of this resolution.

16. The Assembly resolves to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation at its June 2015 part-session if no progress is made with regard to the implementation of the Minsk protocols and memorandum as well as the demands and recommendations of the Assembly as expressed in this resolution, in particular with regard to the immediate withdrawal of Russian military troops from eastern Ukraine.

17. The Assembly invites the Bureau of the Assembly to consider setting up, pending the agreement of the parliaments concerned, a special working group with the participation of the Speakers of the Russian State Duma and the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, or their representatives, to contribute to the realisation of all the propositions made in this resolution and to formulate further possible action by the Parliamentary Assembly in support of the implementation of the Minsk protocols.

 


ПЪЛНАТА СТЕНОГРАМА НА ДЕБАТИТЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКИ ЕЗИК :




Provisional version




2015 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(First part)
REPORT
Sixth sitting
Wednesday 28 January 2015 at 3.30 p.m.




In this report:
1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.
2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.
3. The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.
(…)


(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Giovagnoli.)
4. Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation
      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation”, Document 13685, presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, with an opinion, Document 13689, presented by Mr Hans Franken on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.
      I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by 8 p.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.20 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
      I call Mr Schennach, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) For the second time in less than a year, I have been called upon as Chair of the Monitoring Committee to present a report on the issue of the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation. In my April 2014 report, I recommended to the Assembly that we suspend those credentials until the end of the year. One measure advocated was the creation of an ad hoc committee on Russia’s neighbourhood policy. It took some months to move from the boycott of the Russian delegation to some kind of dialogue with it.
      I have written the report under pressure of the events taking place in Crimea now. We know how the situation has evolved. A member state of the Council of Europe, Ukraine, has been destabilised. We know what form that destabilisation has taken. Thousands of people have paid for it with their lives. We know that the rule of law is absent. Persons described as “volunteers” and military forces are in part of a member state of the Council of Europe. The border of a member state of the Council of Europe is being violated. The border is not being respected as we understand the term, given the sovereignty of individual member states of the Council of Europe.
      Despite that, I have come up with a report addressing the issue from a different perspective. I wanted a strong report, one that stands for strength. It is important that the impetus for dialogue, which needs to thrive in the Council of Europe, should not flounder following the boycott.
      Some things would not tolerate any delay. I am thinking of the liberation of Nadiia Savchenko, for example. We will dispatch a team on behalf of the Monitoring Committee to Crimea with a view to ascertaining the situation in respect of human rights and the persecution of minorities. We cannot afford to waste any time. That is why I said to the Monitoring Committee that we need to show strength. In a monthly progress report, we need to state clearly what our demands are to the Russian Federation. The demands are in the report.
      In the committee, I heard from all sides the language that is expressed clearly in the monitoring report. We have stated clearly what our demands are. To comply with those requirements in such a short time will be difficult for the Russian Federation but it is only right that we come forward with those demands. As I say, time is of the essence. We could all decide to annul or withdraw the credentials to appear as heroes. For me, what is important is to achieve results.
      Only yesterday, we discussed the report on the consequences of the situation for refugees in Eastern Ukraine. It is important that we act. However, I have understood the comments made by the committee. That is why I am prepared to make a compromise in the form of an oral sub-amendment that I wish to move. It is important that the Assembly is not divided. All those who attended the Monitoring Committee meeting will know my position on the amendments to improve the wording. I think that the committee accepted my position unanimously. However, I refer you to Amendment 28 and the sub-amendment that has been tabled by Axel Fischer. I make this plea. We need a substantial majority to back that proposal but at the same time we need to appeal to the Russian Federation to understand that something has shifted in terms of the discussion since April. Therefore, it should not be tempted to fall into the reflex of closing shop and rejecting Amendment 28 and the oral sub-amendment. We were right to table that amendment in the light of the situation in Ukraine. Axel Fischer talks about the period until April – the period into the next part-session. However, we need a process where we at the level of the Parliamentary Assembly can continue with that dialogue. We and the Russian side have to find some middle way to uphold the values of the Council of Europe so that we can move forward together.
      If we look at the events in Ukraine, we are talking about the destabilisation of a member state of the Council of Europe. The scale of the conflict could be compared with that in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. There are serious military consequences as a result of destabilisation. If we enter into this compromise, the Russian Federation has to take that major step in our direction. I do not think we are asking too much of the Russian Federation. We have to understand the context. In this report – this is new compared with the report I presented in April – we mention Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The description of the situation is therefore far more detailed. That is why it is important that we now engage in that dialogue. If we are prepared to enter into the compromise in respect of Amendment 28, together we can show strength and proceed from a position of strength. However, in order for that to happen we have, first, to insist on the release of Nadiia Savchenko. Secondly, we would need to dispatch a delegation to Crimea straight away, and I am prepared to go along with what the Russian delegation has called for – that we send a similar delegation to Eastern Ukraine. That is something we will certainly do.
      We can ensure that the corresponding decision is taken in the Monitoring Committee, and that we will be ready to go in that respect. So I appeal to Mr Pushkov: if we can enter into this compromise together, we can get somewhere, rather than standing at the margins looking on and being tempted to fall prey to a reflex.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now ask Mr Franken to present the opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. You have three minutes.
Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee on his interesting report, which presents an in-depth analysis of the grounds that justify the challenge to the credentials of the Russian delegation. For the second time in just one year, our Assembly is called on to play its role of arbitrator and defender of democratic values and human rights in the framework of a challenge to the credentials of a delegation in this Assembly.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has been mandated to consider whether the proposal contained in the Monitoring Committee’s report on the challenge on substantive grounds of the credentials of the Russian delegation complies with the Rules of Procedure, in particular Rule 10, and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Moreover, at its meeting yesterday, my committee considered one of the issues raised in the report presented by the Monitoring Committee, namely the case of Ms Nadiia Savchenko. She is a member of the Verkhovna Rada and a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for the 2015 session. She has been in detention in the Russian Federation since June 2014.
The Bureau of the Assembly has requested an opinion from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs on the status of Ms Savchenko with regard to Council of Europe immunity or, more precisely, how she may benefit from the protection afforded under the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe and its Protocol.
The principle of parliamentary inviolability – immunity, in the strict sense – as recognised in the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, protects any parliamentarian from arrest, detention or prosecution without the authorisation of the parliament to which he or she belongs or of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Ms Savchenko enjoys European parliamentary immunity as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. This immunity has an absolute nature, in that it is based on international law. The parliamentary immunity of a member of the Assembly must be waived before his or her freedom can be restricted, and the Assembly alone is able to waive the immunity of a member. With effect from the point of the ratification of credentials, Ms Savchenko can no longer be subject to any detention or prosecution measures, and any ongoing proceedings should be suspended for the duration of her term of office.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs therefore decided that these conclusions shall be reflected in the draft resolution, and it approved an amendment in which it demands that the Russian authorities honour their international law obligations and commitments under the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe. This amendment has been unanimously supported by the Monitoring Committee, and we are grateful for this.
With regard to the conclusions made by the Monitoring Committee in its draft resolution as to the ratification of the Russian credentials and possible sanctions, the my committee recalls that in September 2014 it approved, at the request of the Bureau, an opinion on rights of participation or representation of Assembly members who may be deprived or suspended in the context of a challenge of credentials. I also refer to this document.
The debate about this particular subject is far from over, and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs will likely continue to reflect further on this important procedure.
THE PRESIDENT* – The rapporteurs have concluded their presentations. We now start the debate.
I call the first speaker, Mr Xuclà, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – On 5 May 1949, following two world wars, the Council of Europe was founded, and it has since been extended to 47 countries. We now find ourselves facing the most dangerous conflict on European soil since the Second World War.
I think we can safely say that many of us suffered because of the wars in Yugoslavia and Ukraine, if not in the previous world wars, because those are the two wars that have marked our lives, and they test our values and the channels of dialogue.
The International Court of Justice condemned the use of force on the part of the Russian Federation. ALDE stands shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, who are the first victims of this war, and we believe that the Assembly and the Council of Europe are duty-bound to play a role in helping to alleviate a humanitarian crisis that is afflicting many thousands of Ukrainians. We believe that this is one of our duties. We need to send an unequivocal political message to Russia, and we very much hope that we will be able to arrive at consensus on this.
There are different currents of opinion in ALDE, as in all the other political groups, about the way to approach this issue of verifying the credentials of the Russian delegation. This morning, ALDE decided that the suspension should be extended, but some felt that the best way of being helpful and useful, under the constraints within which we work, is to follow the road map presented to us by Mr Schennach – namely, to await June and see what progress has been made by then.
All of us here know that there is far more than unites us than divides us. We must not fragment. We must maintain our principles and we must retain our commitment to dialogue, in the face of violations of international law. On 5 May 1949, the founding fathers of the Council of Europe took steps to turn the Council of Europe into a venue for dialogue and exchanges and for restoring lost trust. We have lived through tragic events and, at the moment, peace seems a long, long way off. We should never, ever forget that the Council of Europe is where aggressors and victims should meet. This is where we meet, and it is where men and women from the war in Yugoslavia met.
Russia needs to face up to its responsibilities once again, and we must make it possible for it to remedy the harm that it has caused. We should do as was done on 5 May 1949.
      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Walter, on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – There is a real danger that, at the end of today, this Assembly will look stupid and supine. Mr Schennach is a much respected member of this Assembly and Chair of the Monitoring Committee. His report is concise and clear. In April, we imposed sanctions against the Russian delegation, following their enthusiastic support for the annexation of Crimea and their failure to recognise the territorial integrity and sovereignty of another member state. We did not close off dialogue. The Russian delegation have been welcome to attend our meetings and explain their position, but for nine months they chose not to attend.
      The report is clear that nothing has changed. In fact, Russian military involvement in Eastern Ukraine is a further violation of its sovereignty. Madam President, why should we now weaken the sanctions? Mr Schennach, why should we now restore the Russian delegation’s voting rights? The Russian delegation is still in breach of the basic principles of this Organisation. This is not the time to weaken our stand. The Russian delegation have shown no contrition, no apology and no remorse. On the contrary, they have continued to threaten their neighbours.
      I consider myself a good European. I believe in European solidarity. I remind colleagues from all 28 European Union countries, and from Norway, Iceland, Albania, Montenegro and Switzerland, that together our governments, with the support of our parliaments and our peoples, have supported sanctions and reinforced them. Let us today across the whole of Europe show real European solidarity with the people of Ukraine, as well as those of Georgia and Moldova, in defence of the rule of law and the values of the Council of Europe.
      Colleagues, I implore you to keep the sanctions on Russia until they show some remorse and restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Mr Schennach, and colleagues from across Europe, please support us. Remember: if you feed the bear, he might eat your hand.
      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Walter. I call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I will not follow Bob Walter in suggesting that this Assembly might look stupid tonight. I cherish this European platform for parliamentary diplomacy and had thought that Bob Walter was on my side. I am sorry that he appears to have lost that idea.
      The political group to which I belong is by far the smallest, so we cannot use our votes to really influence the Assembly’s decisions; we can only use our arguments. I will therefore explain why we are in favour of this resolution and why we oppose any amendments that would change its very nature.
      First, we think that it is important to signal that any member state that does not respect the territorial integrity of another is in clear breach of international law. If the resolution emphasises that, it will have our support.
      Secondly, we think that it is important for our biggest member state to do its utmost to help end the gruesome civil war in Ukraine, and that it is important to signal that this Assembly is not convinced that Russia is doing its utmost in that regard. If the resolution underlines that, it will have our support.
      Thirdly, we think that it is important to signal that other players, notably the European Union and the United States, should refrain from anything that might escalate the conflict and do more to help end the armed confrontation. If the resolution supports that, it will have our support.
      Fourthly, we think that it is important never to forget that the first responsibility to end the armed confrontation and return to the negotiating table lies with the Ukrainian Government and those who are rebelling against it. We think that it is important to recall President Poroshenko’s solemn declaration that there is no military solution to the conflict. If the resolution acknowledges that, it will have our support.
      Fifthly, the resolution is a result of long and difficult negotiations between members and political groups, and it has the support of four or five leaders of political groups. A compromise reached in that way should be dealt with very carefully. If the resolution is protected in this way, we will support it.
      Sixthly, as the resolution is a compromise, we have big problems with amendments that, according to the rapporteur, will change its very nature. We ask those who want to propose such amendments to consider carefully whether they want to make the change and, in so doing, threaten the whole project.
      Seventhly, if we change the nature of the resolution, it might send a message to the Russian Parliament to suspend its co-operation with this Assembly, which would not be wise but could easily happen. That could stimulate Russia to take a more negative position overall towards the organs of the Council of Europe, first and foremost our European Court of Human Rights, which protects 130 million Russian citizens. Let us not forget that that, too, is at stake.
      Eighthly, this week the Chair of the Committee of Ministers explained in this Chamber that there are no limitations sought or imposed upon the functioning of the Russian Government in that statutory body of the Council of Europe. If all our governments find it necessary to maintain their diplomatic platform, why should we parliamentarians deprive ourselves and the other statutory body of this Organisation of the most important international arena for parliamentarians in Europe? As long as our governments maintain their dialogue with Russia, we should not refrain from it.
      Ladies and gentleman, now you know my group’s arguments. I will listen carefully to all your arguments.
      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.
      Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – The Socialist Group thanks Stefan for his tremendous work, the painstaking way in which he went about it and his innovative approach. Over the past few days, we have had three opportunities, six hours and 50 participants to try and form an opinion, and the majority supports the report and the new rationale. The rationale is self-explanatory. We are the home of democracy, and we do not throw out the miscreants as though they were pupils being expelled from school. Rather, we are like a hospital for democracy. If anyone is ailing, you do what you can to cure them and help them overcome a crisis. That is what we are here for. That is what we need to do in the face of this conflict.
      We are seeing all kinds of rights being ridden over roughshod, but there is no solution if we go down the road of conflict. Only a peaceful solution is possible. If we are to have a peaceful solution, we have to talk to one another. We have to convince those on the other side that they have made mistakes and ensure that they are confronted with the consequences of their actions. We must extend a helping hand, and the only way to do that is by engaging with those who hold different opinions. That is precisely what we do here. It is not about chucking people out. Rather, it is about being savvy, showing them that what they are doing is simply not on. If we want that badly enough, we must adopt Stefan’s road map.
      The Assembly is now willing to work together. We need to look at the situation in Crimea and Donbass and show the Russian delegation that the situation is intolerable. We have to work in the interests of the ordinary people and overcome the war. That is why we need the Russians here alongside us. Throwing them out would be the simplest solution, but that is like a really bad teacher simply giving his pupils very poor marks. We do not just want to stand up and say that we were very strict just so as to be able to have clear consciences. Rather, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work together. We should not think that we would be showing our strength by punishing the miscreants. That is not the way to make progress; if you do not even try to do that at the start, that is to capitulate and to be weak.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Agramunt to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Resolution 1990, passed last April, as is well known, gave the conditions under which Russia could come back into the Assembly. I trusted that the Minsk agreement would be the basis for return to normality through respect for the cease-fire and for dialogue. However, the reality is very different.
Hopes for the Minsk solution were dashed, with thousands killed, including women and children – people were dying each day on both sides of the conflict – and with refugees amounting to more than 1.5 million, both in Ukraine and outside it. The situation for the Crimean Tatars is appalling; there has been a crackdown on the press in the Donbass and Crimea. There have been terrorist acts in Odessa, Kiev and Kharkiv and there has now been an attack on civilians in Mariupol, with 30 dead and 100 injured. We have also seen other attacks on the civilian population in Mariupol and Donetsk. How can a country such as Russia, which knew that this week we were going to have an important debate on its credentials, have done nothing to reduce the tension? Instead, it has increased it.
Russia is party to the Minsk agreement and it has the authority to release Nadiia Savchenko, who has parliamentary immunity that Russia has not respected, as we have heard today. Russia has the power to protect the border with Ukraine and prevent the passage of mercenaries, soldiers and arms across the border. It has the power to exert its influence on the rebels in Ukraine and to stop the war right now. For all these reasons, the Group of the European People's Party, which I represent here, must note the lack of will on the Russian side to reduce tension and comply with the Minsk agreement and stop the war. I am a fervent advocate of dialogue, consensus and above all peace. 
The Assembly is the right place for the representatives of the Russians and Ukrainians, together with us, to have a dialogue and debate the issues. For that, we need the conditions that were rightly listed by Mr Schennach in his excellent report. Our group, by an overwhelming majority, proposes that there is no objective reason for returning the voting rights for the Russian delegation and that if there is no progress between now and April – or if there are positive changes – we can have another debate and reconsider the issue.

 Our group will reject all the amendments except for Amendments 13, 29, 27, 28, so long as the oral sub-amendment is adopted, 23 and 22. We will also listen to the proposal made by the rapporteur, Mr Schennach, about a new oral sub-amendment on the position to be taken in due course.
      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. I see that the rapporteur wishes to respond at the end of the debate, so I call Ms Vėsaitė.
      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – Nine months ago, we adopted the resolution by which the Russian delegation's voting rights have been suspended. Is that not enough time for Russia to do at least something positive to solve the conflict? All they did was arrogantly leave the Assembly and escape having a dialogue with us.
That resolution said that the Assembly reserved the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation if they did not de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea. Have they done anything about that? No, nothing. The situation is dramatically deteriorating while there are efforts to soften the sanctions. That looks like a mockery of the whole essence of the Assembly and of the Council of Europe as a whole.
Does anybody in this Chamber still believe that Russia stands aside from the war in Ukraine? Thousands of people have been killed and more than 1 million have become refugees. How would you vote today if they were your relatives or friends? Even now, as we are speaking, people might be being killed. If we soften the sanctions on the Russian delegation, what will the Ukrainian delegation say to their people when they go back? Are they being left alone? Is Europe – Europe, in whose democracy the Ukrainians believe so much – supporting them? I will have doubts about that if we vote to lift the suspension of Russia's voting rights.
The suspension of voting rights does not mean the suspension of participation or of having a political dialogue. It was the Russian delegation that decided not to have the dialogue, not us. Now they dare to blackmail the Council of Europe by saying that they will leave this institution if we do not return their voting rights. While we are making concessions and trying politely to suggest political dialogue, Russia is trying to stretch the limits further. When they finish with Ukraine, you never know which country might be next. Might it be Moldova, Georgia or perhaps the Baltics?
In his report, Mr Schennach is sending a strong political message to the Kremlin. The Monitoring Committee has found a very clever political solution, so I support the report and urge you to vote for Amendment 28.
      Ms DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – Since last April, when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to suspend the voting rights of the Russian delegation, the Russian Federation has frequently been mentioned in discussions on many topics, but in the absence of its elected representatives. One of the main topics of this part-session is the question of the credentials of the Russian delegation and this is the first time that I have applied to speak and express my opinion, as I do not want my silence to be interpreted as support for those who are louder in expressing theirs. The fact that they are louder does not mean that they are right.
All of us in this Chamber are not just the MPs of the countries we come from but members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which involves not just certain rights but certain obligations, including an obligation to maintain the relevance and reputation of the Council of Europe as an institution. Secretary General Jagland has always emphasised that his main priorities include increasing our visibility and strengthening our reputation and relevance. That is primarily achieved by obtaining results in tackling conflict situations, such as that between Ukraine and Russia.
MPs of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have obviously understood that better than us, as they have not even discussed the suspension of the voting rights of the Russian delegation but have rather promoted dialogue. Today, they can boast of the results that they have achieved, which have enabled the OSCE further to strengthen its global position. We should ask ourselves what we have done and whether we have done anything to strengthen the position of the Council of Europe in any way. I am afraid that we have not. Instead of learning from previous mistakes, there are even new proposals not to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation. That is, in my opinion, exactly opposite to the fundamental principle that the Council of Europe is based on and is certainly contrary to the principle of dialogue, and it would diminish the Council of Europe’s position as an institution.
      I might never agree with the positions taken by MPs of the Russian Federation or of any other member state, but I will always fight for their democratic right to express their opinion. I will never vote for the exclusion of any PACE member from any country. MPs are elected representatives of the citizens of the countries they come from. By excluding them, you are excluding the citizens of that country, which is not in line with the Council of Europe’s spirit. We should bear in mind that it was established with the aim of promoting democracy and human rights.
      I will vote for the ratification of credentials and voting rights of the Russian delegation. I invite all members not to be led by their personal feelings when voting, but to vote, as responsible politicians, in line with the Council of Europe’s interests, and this interest is definitely dialogue.
      Mr BOROWSKI (Poland) – This report contains deep and precise analysis, but its conclusions are completely contradictory. Paragraph 16 of the resolution of April 2014, which limits the powers of the Russian delegation said: “The Assembly reserves the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation, if the Russian Federation does not de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea”. I stress the use of the word “annul” – cancel, not lift or soften. Crimea is still occupied by Russia. Instead of de-escalation, the violence has been stepped up and spread.
      Immediately after grasping Crimea, Russia began to encourage and support separatists in Eastern Ukraine by dispatching weapons and troops there. The separatists and disguised Russian soldiers permanently break the Minsk agreement and attack not only the Ukrainian army but civilians, as happened recently in Mariupol. Chauvinist and slanderous propaganda is being spread in Russia, and the democratically elected Ukrainian Government is denounced as a junta and labelled fascist.
      All these facts convince us that Russia cannot accept the fact that Ukraine can choose its own way – the path to Europe. In April, Russian delegates assured us that the so-called “small, green people” in Crimea had nothing to do with the Russian army and that their weapons were bought in the shops. After three months, Mr Putin admitted lying. Yesterday, our Russian friends were trying to convince us that there are no Russian soldiers or Russian weapons in Donbass. Dear friends, please do not insult our intelligence!
      In conclusion, the restrictions imposed in April should be maintained and a clear sign should be sent that the Council of Europe expects that the Russia Federation will assure a real cease-fire, start to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from Donbass and allow the Ukrainian authorities to control their borders. Only these steps can provide reasons to lift or limit the sanctions. There is no need to insert into the report 21 partly unrealistic conditions, while easing the sanctions. The Russian delegation threatens withdrawing Russia from the Council of Europe. If that happens, we will regret it, but free democratic countries defend their values and cannot give in to blackmail. We must say loudly and clearly that the Council of Europe will never accept any aggression. If Russia wants to be a member of the Council of Europe, it has to observe common rules and values.
      Mr ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Today, we are facing a decision about a very clear issue: a member of the Council of Europe has attacked another country. Mr Gross, who is a good democrat and dear friend of democracy throughout the world, has just said that our Organisation is like a hospital. If it is like a hospital, Andreas, I shall cite one of Russia’s obligations when it entered this great hospital, the Council of Europe, in 1996: “to ratify, within six months from the time of accession, the agreement of 21 October 1994 between the Russian and Moldovan Governments, and to continue the withdrawal of the 14th Army and its equipment from the territory of Moldova within a time-limit of three years from the date of signature of the agreement”.
      Have the problems of the Transnistria region been solved or have the wounds of the Georgian war healed? No. So, Mr Gross, most of your 28 points have not been fulfilled after entering the hospital. In a hospital, you cure the patient, but he has not been healed since 1996. I am sorry, Andreas, but 19 years have passed and we should not turn this hospital into the cemetery of European values.
      I have been here since 1993. I remember the brave Russian democrat, Sergei Kovalev, and other friends of mine and yours, Andreas, who were in the Russian delegation. What has become of them now? They have become foreign agents under the law on foreign agents and NGOs in Russia.
      Where is our diversity of opinion? Even yesterday, the Ukrainian delegation expressed absolute diversity of opinion about the military situation in Ukraine. They expressed all possible opinions. Now we have only one opinion: everything is all right with our dear friends from Russia.
      Finally, what should we do with the Helsinki Act and with points about the stability of the borders? All the agreements relate to the post-war order. Should we open the Pandora’s box of negotiating our European borders? What about the European Union? Ukraine would like to become a member of the European Union. We hope that Russia will become one in the future. I hope that Ukraine has the right to become a member of the European Union and it should not be punished for doing so. From my point of view, we should support the report and vote in favour of Amendment 28.
      Ms BECK (Germany) – We are not talking about Ukraine and Russia only today; we are talking about the Assembly’s authority. In April, the Assembly decided that if the annexation of Crimea was not reversed and if the situation did not get better, we would consider removing these credentials. No one is now talking about taking away Russia’s credentials totally. We are talking now about the question whether they should get all their rights, including the right to vote in the Chamber, or whether should ensure the Assembly’s authority.
      Since the resolution in April, which we all decided together, nothing has got better; everything has got worse. We not only have the annexation of Crimea; we have the undercover war in Donbass. The Secretary General of the OSCE said today that the weapons are coming from Russian. We had the shooting down of MH17 and 300 civilians lost their lives. We had the rockets on Mariupol just a few days ago.
      In such a situation, our colleagues from Russia are not patients. I think that we should respect them and take them seriously as adult, responsible parliamentarians. Until now, however, they have not shown that they want to debate with us. I can say that from a German perspective because I think that no Chancellor or Foreign Minister has had such close contact with the Russian Administration as those from Germany. There have been hundreds of telephone calls, tens of meetings, different formats – the Geneva format, the Normandy format, the Minsk format – and every time, the Russian delegation backed away from what it promised and signed. That is a terrible situation, and I think, dear Andy, that our colleagues – indeed, dear Russians, you are here; you must be held responsible for what you are doing. If we do not hold you responsible and instead treat you like children, that is not correct. I respect you.
      Dear colleagues from Russia, if you want the delegation to stay, please do not threaten us. Do not tell us that you will leave if we do not do what you want. Yes, you are invited to come back, but you must accept that voting rights will be returned to you only when things have really started to change for the better.
      Mr ROMANOVICH (Russian Federation)*For today’s debate, I had prepared a carefully crafted text, but I now have to change what I was going to read out and answer some of the questions that have been asked and address points that have been raised. I say to the distinguished member of the German Parliament – if we are to talk as adults and respect one another – that what this measure really amounts to is an attempt to exclude our country from pan-European dialogue, and that is a very serious matter.
      Another serious issue is that we are in danger of opening up Pandora’s box. We talk about Ms Savchenko – I fully respect the woman, but unfortunately she is in prison and the situation is a Pandora’s box. We will end up with members of our Parliamentary Assembly who are subject to serious judicial sentences and have been found guilty. Mr Lugovoy is subject to an arrest warrant in the United Kingdom, but what about Viktor Bout who was illegally moved out to the United States? Could he find himself on the list, and then be able to participate in the Parliamentary Assembly? No. What are the real reasons for excluding the Russian Federation from pan-European dialogue? I appeal to all members of the Assembly to assess the situation in which we now find ourselves. Nobody is blackmailing anybody. We are holding out a hand. We want to engage in dialogue with a view to bringing to an end a conflict with a country that is our fraternal neighbour.
      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – To tackle the substance of this issue, we must consider three elements: first, the status of parliamentarians in the Committee of Ministers; secondly, the effectiveness of the sanctions that our Assembly voted for in April; and thirdly, the overall political and diplomatic situation.
      We suspended the voting rights of our Russian colleagues last year, but what was the result? First and foremost, we deprived ourselves of the possibility of discussing issues with our colleagues in both the plenary session and the committees, and our President had to make the greatest of efforts to keep open the channels between Strasbourg and Moscow. I note, moreover, that the Russians continued to participate normally in the Committee of Ministers. Why should we parliamentarians cut ourselves off from any kind of room for manoeuvre and thereby bring about the doom of parliamentary diplomacy?
      We are all parliamentarians, and I am shocked that the sanctions that were decided by the European community and parliamentarians should affect other parliamentarians in this way. I am shocked that our Assembly’s Rules of Procedure mean that people can demand the suspension of voting rights of other parliamentarians. I am shocked that those Rules of Procedure are used against human rights and the separation of powers. I am shocked because suspending the voting rights of a parliamentarian is a trend that is out of line and too close to an authoritarian or even totalitarian concept of the way that a Parliamentary Assembly should exercise powers. I am also a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Russians are still members of that assembly, and the OSCE has been much more effective in trying to resolve this conflict than the Council of Europe – let us think about that.
      My second point concerns whether we think that sanctions have in any way changed the way things are on the ground. I do not think so. Fighting in Donbass has started up again over the past few weeks, and the report of the Astana summit and the Normandy format, which was initially expected on 15 January, does not augur well. Discussions on the future status of the separatist regions in the east of Ukraine – one aspect of the Minsk agreement – are getting nowhere.
      In spite of everything, I remain convinced that it is in the interests of both Ukraine and Russia to de-escalate the situation. Kiev is aware that it is impossible to retake the Donbass by force of arms, especially given the fact that the ongoing war is ruining its economy and preventing it from implementing the structural reforms that the country so badly needs. Moscow is isolated on the international scene, and its economy is suffering from European Union sanctions, even though the dramatic fall in the price of oil has contributed to the situation. Parliamentarians must have freedom to vote; that is the most important thing I have to say.
      Ms L’OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – Many of you know that the south-east of Ukraine, the Donbass region, and Crimea, did not participate in the parliamentary elections that were held in Ukraine, and those regions are under-represented in the Ukrainian Parliament, and completely unrepresented in the Ukrainian Government. I belong to the political force that represents south-east Ukraine, and I want to emphasise to the Assembly that some people are directly suffering from the conflict – I mean those who stay in Donbass, Luhansk or the occupied territory of Crimea. The rest of the people in south-east Ukraine – Kharkiv, Odessa, Zaporizhia, Dnipropetrovsk and other cities – are simply afraid of war coming to their doors.
      As a representative of south-east Ukraine in this Assembly, I wish to say that the people want nothing but peace. Peace is essential for the people of Ukraine. However, I must also be frank and open and say that there are political forces in Ukraine that request and promote war, and I believe that the Assembly should discourage the ancient-style initiatives of our Prime Minister, such as building a wall between Russia and Ukraine.
      We should discourage the desire for war of Mr Turchynov, the head of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. He makes open political statements saying that only war and victory will resolve the situation in the east of Ukraine. He even has a nickname, “bloody bastard”, in Ukraine, and I believe that such things are done to distract the Ukrainian population from the government’s economic failures, ongoing corruption, and the lack of reforms. I agree with the rapporteur, who said that dialogue is needed, but dialogue is also needed within Ukraine – comprehensive constitutional reform should be the basis for dialogue among the regions of Ukraine. There must be a dialogue between us and the Russian Federation at the presidential level, at the parliamentary level and at the government level. However, I also agree with the rapporteur that pressure must be kept up. I believe that we should keep the sanctions in place to encourage Russia to engage in meaningful and essential dialogue with Ukraine and the whole of Europe.
      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – As we have confirmed quite a few times, Russia is interested in keeping up a dialogue and co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly. That is why, even after the sanctions were introduced against our delegation, in contradiction of the principles of parliamentarianism, Russia still had contacts with the Parliamentary Assembly. Although we could not take part in the workings of the Assembly as an equal partner – sanctions precluded that – we still maintained contacts and we had a number of meetings with the Presidential Committee, in Paris, in Strasbourg and in Moscow, we took part in the workings of some committees of the Parliamentary Assembly and we accepted the monitoring missions in Russia.
      Therefore, in the spirit of dialogue and co-operation, the Russian delegation is willing to address the Russian authorities to allow representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly, if they wish, to visit Ms Savchenko in the place of her detention, to have a clear idea of her physical state and to be able to exchange opinions with her. I want to let you know that Ms Savchenko is not just a member of parliament; she is a military person who is accused of the serious crime of assisting in the killing of two Russian journalists. In spite of that, we are quite willing to make this move.
      We are also willing, as we informed the Presidential Committee, to let a mission of the Monitoring Committee visit Crimea to prepare a report on human rights there. At the same time, we insist on a report being prepared on the violations of human rights in Eastern Ukraine. We heard just now that there is a war party. Yesterday, when we discussed the issue of refugees, we bypassed the question of why about a million people have left Eastern Ukraine – to a large extent, they were running from the devastation that was brought to the area by the Ukrainian army. The Minsk agreement calls for a cease-fire on both sides. I think that it is well known that at least a large part of what happens in Eastern Ukraine is the responsibility of the Ukrainian military forces.
      We are not blackmailing anybody and I suggest that we refrain from using such offensive language. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should take a balanced opinion. Without Russia, will the old European inter-parliamentary dialogue be more productive or less productive? Will it help to bring about a solution to the crisis in Ukraine? Who wins from ending such a dialogue? What will prevail, finally – emotions or reason? It is up to you to give the answer.
      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – May I make a little digression to 2009, when we discussed a similar issue? At that time, the then President, Mr de Puig, who I think was a great parliamentarian, asked us all a question: “Have we done everything we can to deal with the situation?” That is the right question to ask today, too. As I see it, all of us – I include myself; I am criticising myself first and foremost – have taken up positions that are not consistent with the main aim of this Organisation, as expressed by our Secretary General, to represent all sides of the question. I do not see all sides of the question being represented. One side, yes, but what about the other side? How can we have dialogue with only one side represented?
      If we have dialogue, we do not have to assess the situation in the virtual world, on the Internet. We do not have to talk about the people living in Russia who are former Ukrainians. Let us talk about who is undermining the Minsk agreement. Let us talk about who is preventing a settlement from being achieved. As I see it, the Parliamentary Assembly did not understand the situation in Ukraine when it was developing. The key to any conflict is in the roots – the beginning – of that conflict. At that time, nobody wanted to look into what was happening and we see the results today.
      If we adopt a hard-line resolution, it will not change anything. It will keep things one-sided, as they have been so often before. We should bear in mind the fact that up to 75% of my fellow Russians have no objection to the idea of Russia no longer being a part of the Parliamentary Assembly. That is a matter of concern for me and, I think, not just for me alone.
      Mr MARIANI (France)* – In three weeks, I will be present – like a number of you, perhaps – in Vienna for the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. The OSCE exists to deal with questions of security; that is its purpose. At the OSCE, I have met Ukrainians, Russians, Americans and Europeans – all members of parliament. Despite the situation, in the OSCE, dialogue is on-going. As Mr Pozzo di Borgo said, the governments are continuing to engage in dialogue. Other international organisations and diplomats are continuing with the dialogue. What do we want to do? Do we want to be the only Assembly where the dialogue has been completely broken off for a whole year?
      Let us look at the results of the last nine months. The result has been zero – nothing. Who in this Assembly could think for one second that depriving a delegation of the right to vote would bring about peace? If that were the case, of course I would deprive the delegation of the right to vote. However, like you, I am familiar with history. I know that the blockade of England by Napoleon and the sanctions against Cuba by the United States led to nothing. If sanctions were to bring about peace, then okay – let us wait and see. The fact is, however, that sanctions lead each time to a loss of dialogue and a loss of confidence.
      If we give a chance for dialogue once again for a short period, would that bring about peace? I do not know, but at least it would give peace a chance. We can all list massacres and say, “Remember Mariupol and Odessa.” Is that a solution or might we in a few months’ time find ourselves in a position where we could add a few more towns to that list? Twenty-four hours ago, Mr Sheridan reminded us that a million people have been displaced in Ukraine and that many lives have been lost. How many refugees are there? I do not know, but, unlike Mr Walter, I do not think that this is a matter of being brave or pusillanimous. I want everyone to defend their deeply held convictions, whether they support Mr Schennach’s report or not. On Monday, Mr Reynders stressed that Russia’s involvement in the Council of Europe is crucial, not only for Russia, but for us. I am convinced that it would be counter-productive to vote against Mr Schennach’s report, because we would then continue in our current position of ignorance. We need to remain in dialogue. Sometimes it is difficult to understand one another. Mr Schennach, I will support your report.
      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – This is a moment of truth in our Parliamentary Assembly, of which I have been a member for 14 years. We have been together on many difficult occasions; when blood was shed in Chechnya, we worked hard on that and found a solution. We were deprived of our right to vote then, too, but that did not help. Any sanction, split, or undermining of parliamentary diplomacy will not work. We need to unite our nations, look for the points on which we can agree, and use that as a basis for finding a solution.
      The same thing happened in 2008-09, when the whole world laboured under the illusion that the Russian Federation had attacked poor defenceless Georgia. Once again, we worked hard on that, as we did in the case of the Chechen Republic, and of South Ossetia. You will recall Frank Judd, Andreas Gross and Rudolf Bindig; Andreas Gross is still with the Assembly. Now Mr Schennach is proposing something constructive: setting up a working group and having a special report on the situation in Crimea. We are talking about taking steps together that will allow us to find the truth and do away with the lies polluting the political sphere – lies that those who want to build a unipolar world are interested in telling. That is resulting in blood being spilled in the Russian world.
      The Russian Federation is a great power; it will not hold out its hands, begging for its credentials to be ratified. We want to participate in the most all-encompassing organisation of Europe, which is the Council of Europe, and in particular in its Parliamentary Assembly. Today more than ever before, we must find a way that will either bring us closer together or divide us and send us in different directions, resulting in a split of Europe. I think we must stay together to build our common European house on the basis of the great Council of Europe values. I call on you to vote in favour of the Schennach report and against the destructive Amendment 28.
      Ms ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – In response to the occupation of Crimea, we withdrew Russian voting rights and deprived Russia of all leading positions within the Parliamentary Assembly last April. We also reserved the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation if Russia did not reverse its annexation of Crimea. How has the situation evolved since then? Russia, illegally and illegitimately, made Crimea part of its territory. As a consequence, an atmosphere of fear was established. Human rights violations, murders, kidnappings, imprisonments and intimidation of not only direct opponents of the occupation but all Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians have become part of daily life in Crimea. Tens of thousands of people have fled, having been deprived of their dignity, property and homeland.
      We all know what followed: Russia tried to apply the same scenario to the area of Donbass. As with the Crimean crisis, Moscow claims that it has nothing to do with this annexation of Ukrainian territory. However, we all know that Russia is the initiator and administrator of the armed rebellion against the Ukrainian state. Our observers, journalists and secret services daily inform us of convoys of armoured vehicles, including fighting vehicles, weapons and dozens of Russian soldiers heading from Russia to the Ukrainian territories, which are under attacks from rebels.
      We are aware that this war chased hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. We are aware that it caused a lot of hatred, and that it will be long before these people can again live together peacefully. We are also aware that no one hurt the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine as much as President Putin. We are aware that without Russian support, the war would be long over. We must annul the credentials of the Russian delegation today, rather than simply renewing the recent limitations in the Parliamentary Assembly because Russia has just started a new war. Russia must also realise that if it continues with its expansive politics, it will not be welcome in the Council of Europe any more.
      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur for his very balanced report. We are in an extremely difficult situation. What is the right thing to do? I wish I knew. What I do know is that we have an obligation towards the people of Ukraine, and we must strongly condemn Russia’s lack of respect for international law. Through its actions, Russia has inflicted unbelievable pain and suffering on innocent people. War is unacceptable, as is annexation of the territory of another country.
      In this tragic situation for Ukraine, Europe, and even Russia itself, many speakers in the Assembly have called for the Council of Europe to show its strength. We can all agree on that, but what is strength in this most dangerous crisis for Europe since the Second World War? In my opinion, it would be showing strength to contribute to a peaceful solution, which is something that, unfortunately, no one has been able to achieve – in other words, to make a difference. We have a common goal: peace in Ukraine. We differ, though, when it comes to effective means. Last year, we tried to force a solution by limiting the Russian credentials, but that did not work. The suffering of the Ukrainian people is growing, and the war continues to escalate.
      The report suggests another solution, based on the work done in the ad hoc sub-committee on Russia’s neighbourhood policy. The Russian delegation took part in discussions in these meetings. They gave some limited signals of being willing to take part in further dialogue and in setting up a special working group with high representatives from the Duma and the Verkhovna Rada, as well as independent international experts. I find this road map worth trying. A precondition for the Russian delegation is that their credentials are not limited this time. Some have called this giving into Russian blackmail. It could also be seen as an attempt to keep the dialogue going in hope of finding a solution for peace. The benefit of bringing in independent experts might be that this working group could go deeper into the conflict than we have been able to so far.
      For this Assembly, human rights are at stake. For Russia, I think this war is more about naval bases in Crimea and access to the Black Sea. If independent experts could contribute to finding solutions to the underlying conflicts, perhaps we could gradually manoeuvre into a better position to end this tragedy. In that sense, I think the resolution represents a balance between head and heart that is worth trying until June.
      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Before distinguished colleagues vote, I call on them to look at some photos I have of Mariupol. Of course, you could visit Donbass and speak to the relatives of people killed by Russian weapons, but the photos might help you understand the situation from a distance. If you want further evidence of Russian involvement in Ukraine, you could look at the photos of Russian soldiers in Donetsk pictured with the leader of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic”, or at the photo of that same person’s military ticket, which was issued by the Russian Federation’s ministry of defence. We have enough evidence of the Russian military’s presence on Ukraine’s territory.
      I have been asked why we have to impose sanctions on Russian parliamentarians, if perhaps it is not fair, but I remind the Assembly that they are guilty of many things. First, they voted for the annexation of Crimea – people present in this Chamber voted for that. They also voted for Russian troops to invade Ukraine – they gave permission for that. We have heard no regrets from them and they have not taken a step back. Has there been any dialogue since Resolution 1990 was adopted last April? Yesterday we heard definitions of the word “dialogue” and I called on the President to stop it, because it was offensive to Ukrainians and contained elements of hate speech. Paragraph 16 of Resolution 1990 reserved the right of the Assembly to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation. We do not insist on that, but it is illogical that sanctions be kept at the same level, because the Russians have not taken a step back.
      The report is full of impressive quotations and facts, but there is a lack of coherence. It is like giving a €15 fine for murder. If there are clear facts, they must be met with corresponding sanctions. As a compromise, I call on the Assembly to support Amendment 15 and only one of the oral sub-amendments.
      Mr BELYAKOV (Russian Federation)* – We have heard a lot of criticism today of the Russian delegation, but the delegation is not uniform in its composition. I represent an opposition party and we have often worked with European institutions on accusations of falsification of election results. Over the past five years, at least two of my colleagues have suffered: one was killed by firearms and the other was seriously wounded.
      When a large number of declarations started to appear in the mass media about the supposed presence of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory, as the chairman of an anti-corruption committee in the Russian Federation, I was very interested in finding documentary evidence. I very much regret, however, that I did not manage to find anything. Many have talked about supposedly thousands of Russian soldiers crossing the Ukrainian border with tanks and artillery, but where are the dead and wounded Russian soldiers? Where are the prisoners of war? I have looked for proof of their supposed activities on Ukrainian territory, but I have not found any.
      The European media constantly report that military aircraft and tanks are entering Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but there is no factual evidence for that. Apparently there are photographs. Show them to us – I would like to see them on the television, but that does not happen. There is a flow of propaganda.
      The situation reminds me of what happened in Iraq. We will discuss media liberty tomorrow. All the media said there were weapons of mass destruction and even nuclear weapons in Iraq and that we had to take over Iraq in order to save democracy, but that turned out to be completely untrue. That is exactly what is happening today to the Russian Federation.
We are in favour of parliamentary dialogue. We have participated in a lot of meetings and have included Sergey Naryshkin, the speaker of our parliament, in the Russian delegation. How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that we want to engage in dialogue? It is deplorable that so many lies are being repeated. A lot of people in this Chamber do not understand that they are under the influence of mendacious propaganda.
Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The main argument we hear now is that we need dialogue. We Ukrainians have waited for that dialogue for the past one to two months. We have even waited for that dialogue these past three days, not only with those present in the Chamber, but with the speaker of State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mr Naryshkin, who had the opportunity to attend a round-table meeting.
We are referred to as the Ukrainian junta. The speaker of State Duma – a state servant – does not recognise the Ukrainian President, Government or parliamentarians, and yet they want dialogue? What are we waiting for? We are waiting for Russian delegates to apologise for their decision to send Russian troops. That was the decision of their State Duma, but they do not see what they voted for – troops in my country. Thousands have been killed, tens of thousands wounded and 1 million have lost their homes. Perhaps you should apologise for that. Perhaps you should apologise for the annexation of Crimea. But all you say is, “No, they’re not our troops. There are no tanks in Crimea.” Please go to Crimea to see them. You say, “There are no dead or wounded Russian soldiers,” but who are we giving each day to your government? Who now controls 220 km2 of Ukrainian land? Russians and the terrorists they finance.
Please answer this question: what are these “humanitarian” convoys passing through our land? Why are more and more people being killed by your weapons after the convoys have been through? You give no answer. I am sorry, but that is not dialogue.
I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report, which includes all the facts about Russian troops, but we want the compromise offered by Amendment 28. It is an excellent amendment, which gives Russia three months to fulfil its obligations to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. We will see how things stand in April. If progress has been made, we will go forward. If not, then sorry – this Organisation has principles and we will not change them because somebody wants to kill somebody else.
      Mr KVATCHANTIRADZE (Georgia) – A week ago, I had the chance to visit Ukraine, and I can confirm that the situation in that country is extraordinarily worrying. It has regressed since this Assembly’s previous session. Russia continues cynically to challenge the international community and violate all the basic principles of the Council of Europe and its Assembly. There is no reason not to maintain the status quo for the Russian delegates, at least until the next session.
      Unfortunately, nobody in Russia’s political establishment understands the imperatives of democracy – we have witnessed that in this Chamber. Russian policy towards Ukraine, which is not the best example of democracy, reflects nothing other than the relationship between a sovereign and their vassal. Russian stirred up separatist tensions and provided military support. Like Mr Slutsky yesterday, Mr Belyakov said that there is no evidence of a Russian military presence on Ukrainian territory. But why have Russian soldiers stated that there are hundreds of Russians graves in Russian cities far from Ukrainian territory?
      If the Assembly does not vote to maintain the status quo for the Russian delegation, Ukraine will be returned to the Russian sphere of influence. Perhaps not all of the Assembly’s resolutions and recommendations have historical value, but the one that we are debating today certainly does. People have a growing sense of disappointment and irritation about the wavering of the European institutions and their member countries towards Russia’s militaristic policy. We must be firm in our support for the peaceful resolution of all conflicts.
      If we were to reinstate full membership for the Russian Federation today, we would be violating our principles under pressure from the Russian military machine. Since the previous session, the situation in Ukraine has worsened and become more unpredictable. It will be difficult, but freedom and life are never easy; to die or to become a slave is easier. If we fail to maintain the status quo today, we will be victims of the situation. I call on all of you not to make that historical mistake.
      Mr JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – Membership of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly is a privilege, not a right. Member states subject themselves to its jurisdiction and its decisions. If the Parliamentary Assembly is to have any meaning, its members must accept its rules. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation, by its actions in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere, has shown that it has no intention of living according to those rules. It illegally annexed Crimea, it encouraged and supported the separatists in east Ukraine and it has been occupying Georgian territory since 2008.
      Ironically, members have been arguing that the Russian delegates should be allowed to take part in the Parliamentary Assembly again at a time when Russia’s military pressure on Ukraine is increasing. It is more evident today than it was when Russia was first banned from voting in Parliamentary Assembly sessions nearly a year ago. Since then, nearly 5 000 Ukrainians have died as a result of Russian aggression. Recently, Russia agreed so-called treaties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is clear that Russia tramples on democracy and basic human rights wherever it goes.
      Our Assembly stands on commonly accepted, normative foundations and beliefs. Russia’s successive violations of the national sovereignty of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and its illicit use of force show clearly that it has no intention of honouring our common principles. Restoring the credentials of the Russian delegation would legitimise the use of force and would indicate that violating the norms and principles that make the Parliamentary Assembly a meaningful forum is acceptable. It would undermine the political and moral standing of our Assembly.
      If and when the Russian authorities show that they are willing to live by the rules accepted by the Parliamentary Assembly, we can reconsider the situation. That should be the compromise that you urge us to think about, Mr Schennach.
      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The issue of the credentials of the Russian delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly pertains to our self-respect and our respect for our Organisation and the principles on which it was built.
      On accession to the Council of Europe, Russia committed itself to the general obligations in the Statute of the Council of Europe, according to which, “the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital”. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years, the Assembly has constantly reproached Russia for its relationships with its neighbouring states, including its failure to return diplomatic property to the Baltic states and its aggressive conflicts in Moldova and Georgia.
      Russia is trying to prove that the rule of force is above the rule of law. At stake today is not merely the credentials of a particular delegation of a particular state, but the viability of the Council of Europe. We forgave Russia for its hostilities in Transnistria, and we got a war in Georgia; we forgave it for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and we got its annexation of Crimea and a war in Donbass. If you forgive it for Ukraine, be ready to be next. If we allow Russia to ignore the key principles of the Council of Europe, we will destroy the Council of Europe by depriving its existence of meaning.
      Putin’s Russia has set itself in opposition to the whole world. We applaud all the states that have introduced sanctions against the aggressor; they are supporting not only Ukraine but the basis of world order. Modern international law suggests that aggressors should be called to account not only by the victims of the aggression but by any member of the international community. That is what the European Union, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Japan and many others are doing now. The Council of Europe must join the single voice of the civilised world.
      Angela Merkel said in her new year address: “There can be absolutely no doubt that we want security in Europe with Russia and not against Russia.” She said that there can, however, be no question “of Europe accepting the law of the jungle where the stronger side violates international law. We cannot accept this, and we will not accept it.” Please keep that in mind and do not bring the jungle into the Council of Europe.
      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* A year ago, the Council of State of the Russian Federation voted for its troops to burst into the territory of Ukraine. The Russian politicians who are in the plenary hall today voted for war against Ukraine. They have allowed Ukrainian women and children to be killed.
      Some people in the Russian political arena have suffered visa sanctions; they have been refused the right of entry into European Union countries. However, they are here today in Strasbourg as if nothing had happened because they have diplomatic immunity as members of the delegation of this Assembly. At the same time Ukrainian MP Nadiia Savchenko, who also has diplomatic immunity, remains in a Russian prison.
      Today, we see that Russian policy is based on a lack of respect for any standards or rules. A year ago, Russian President Putin declared to the entire world that there were no Russian troops in Crimea. Then he acknowledged the presence of the Russian army on the territory of the peninsula. Every day, we receive information about repression against the Crimean Tatars. Our colleague, the leader of the Crimean Tatars, does not have the right to enter occupied Crimea.
      The President of the Russian Federation has also stated that if necessary he would put women and children in front of Russian troops. At the moment, pro-Russian terrorists are setting up weapons on the roofs of civilian districts, in school playgrounds and hospitals. Women and children are suffering the most from the war in the Donbass. Terrorists have subjected a Boeing aircraft, a bus close to Volnovakha and the civilian district of Mariupol to attacks using Grad rockets. The Russian authorities are blackmailing the world and Ukraine and demanding the opening of negotiations with the terrorists, the national republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. They are doing the same with the shield made up of women and children.
      That is why today we ask the entire world, as well as this Assembly, to show solidarity with Ukraine. We are grateful to all those who say, “I am Mariupol, I am Ukraine. I am against the terrorists and the countries that support the terrorists.”
      The Ukraine President, the Ukrainian authorities and the people of Ukraine are for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbass, but is dialogue possible under the shelling and the firing of Grad rockets? We appeal for an immediate return to the Minsk protocol. Those agreements should be enacted. We need a genuine cease-fire. The Russian Federation and the terrorists must free all prisoners and hostages. Ukraine alone must control its borders. Our army is on the territory of Ukraine. It is doing its duty. What are Russian soldiers and weapons doing in Ukraine? That is why we demand first of all a return to the agreements signed in Minsk. Only afterwards will we be able to talk about the return of the rights of the Russian delegation.
      Ms KHIDASHELI (Georgia) Mr Slutsky has become my inspiration in this session. I agree with you when you say that today is the moment of truth for the Parliamentary Assembly. Ms Beck said correctly that this is not about Georgia or Ukraine but about the Council of Europe. The vote that will take place here is about the words that we love to say so much here all the time about our values. Today, in the vote, we will show whether those values are still there, or they are just words.
      For the past three days, I have kept hearing words of solidarity: “We know, we regret, we understand the feelings of Georgians and Ukrainians.” I am sorry to say to my colleagues that this is not about Georgians and Ukrainians. This is about the whole of Europe. This is about every European sitting in this Chamber. When we talk about the aggression in the middle of Europe and the bombs falling in the middle of Europe, this is not about the feelings of Georgians or Ukrainians. It is about all of us. It is about every European, regardless of how many kilometres they live from Mariupol, Tskhinvali, Sukhumi or the other cities that have been occupied by the Russian Federation.
      In this debate, we are still hearing questions about the possibility for dialogue. The door to dialogue was open for nine months. I underline that over and again. It has been said here many times. The dialogue has been offered to Russia every day, morning and evening from April, when the resolution was passed, but the Russians decided to go away and not be part of the dialogue. Today, I am hearing that we need to have them on board. Yes, we Georgians also want them to be on board, but please do not forget that the board that the Russians see is cleansed of Georgians. The board they see is cleansed of Ukrainians. That is the alternative they are giving to all of you. Either you agree with that or you disagree. Today’s vote will answer that: whether you want just Russians on board, or you want everyone sitting in this room, including Georgians and Ukrainians, on board, where that dialogue should take place.
      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) How do I follow such a fine speech? Our rapporteur has made an honest and strenuous effort to find a way through but I believe that his report is based on an illusion. Paragraph 13 states, “there have been clear signals that the Duma is now willing to engage in such a constructive dialogue with the Assembly.” Where is the evidence?
      We are told that we can visit the imprisoned member of parliament. Is she to be a bargaining counter? She should not have been imprisoned in the first place. She is under parliamentary immunity. We are also told that a delegation can visit Crimea. What could it possibly find? The key point is that Crimea has been annexed by Russia against all international norms. Can any visiting delegation gainsay that? Russia and her allies are in total control of Crimea.
      Voting rights have achieved great symbolic significance here, as if, if we were to drop the voting ban on the Russian delegation, suddenly all doors would open and President Putin would say, “Fine, I can now have compromises.” Everyone believes in dialogue. Dialogue is the raison d’être of our Assembly, but dialogue assumes that there is a willingness to engage in serious dialogue. If our Russian colleagues want to have dialogue, they can have dialogue now. They are here. Is there a serious dialogue? It is they who have chosen to boycott the Assembly. If they want dialogue, let them do it.
      I pose this question: why did we impose sanctions in the first place? It was because of Crimea and the destabilising efforts of Russia in Eastern Ukraine. Those tanks were not bought in shops. They were imported from Russia. Has there been any change since we imposed that sanction? No. It has become worse. I invite colleagues to read the defiant speech of President Putin in his state of the nation address in December.
      Why should we move? It is Russia that should move. Of course we expect concessions also from the Ukraine Government. What message would be sent if we were now to dilute the sanctions and say to our Russian colleagues, “Yes, you can have voting rights”? It would be counter to what is being done in other international forums. It will encourage Russia and reduce this Organisation’s credibility. It would send the wrong signal. Surely we should maintain the status quo.
      What we are talking about is very serious. Yesterday, it was Georgia and Ukraine. Perhaps it is far from your doorsteps. Tomorrow it might be Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. The next day it might be Poland. We are not far away from the moment we have all seen with the iron curtain. Let me reiterate. Today saying no to those sanctions means that we apologise to the Russians. Every one of us who voted in April will be apologising for the mistakes we made in April. I strongly advise you not to do that and not to give them the green light for another occupation and military advance.
      THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
      I call Mr Schennach, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank all who have spoken this afternoon on a decisive issue for this Assembly. Something has changed from when I was here in April. We have all discussed the matter and we have also heard from the Russian Federation – I acknowledge that.
We must conduct this dialogue, but at the same time we have concluded that there is great mistrust. A decision before the Monitoring Committee provides for acceptance of Amendment 28, which states that we will decide on voting rights later. Axel Fischer from Germany made the proposal not in June, but in April.
We could try to secure confidence by achieving five things: the immediate right to visit Nadiia Savchenko; immediate set-up of the monitoring committee or group for Crimea; deployment of the group between the Rada and the Duma; right of entry for the Crimean leader; and setting up the ad hoc committee. The opportunity to prove the willingness to do these things was provided. There was an oral amendment. We thought about deleting “Standing Committee”, so that that dialogue could be conducted – and then we could create something together.
I appeal to the left – to my own political group, the Socialist Group – and to national delegations, such as yours Ms Djurović, to view all of this as an opportunity for a compromise. Then it will be not 51% to 49% or 55% to 45%, but 80% or 90% of us here saying yes to dialogue, as we realise that what is happening in Ukraine is one of the most terrible situations that we are witnessing currently in Europe.
I urge you all to lend your support to such a compromise. If we do that we will be strong, and we can use the full clout of this Assembly for good. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT – Does one of the vice-chairpersons of the committee wish to speak?
I call Mr Cilevičs. You have two minutes.
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Thank you, President. We are all politicians and this means that our responsibility goes beyond just naming and shaming. In many cases, including this one, it is not so difficult to say who is responsible and who is guilty; it is much more difficult to ask what we can do to find some ways to improve the situation. We are all united in a strong wish and determination to do our best to stop violence and human suffering and – let’s call a spade a spade – to stop war in the heart of Europe. However, we have quite different views, as we heard in this debate, about how to achieve this in practice and about what our Assembly can do to ameliorate the suffering of Europeans – of our people.
Our rapporteur, Mr Schennach, has been working really hard. He prepared an excellent report that many speakers praised, even if they disagreed with the conclusions.
We had heated and emotional but, generally, in my view, very constructive debate in the Monitoring Committee. Now the decision is in your hands. The future will show whether we were correct when taking decisions and whether, indeed, we helped to resolve this problem and contributed something, or whether we were guided just by emotions. It is very difficult. When we vote, we always do so partly with our hearts and partly with our brains. So let us try to find the proper proportion between the heart and the brain. Thank you, President.
THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.
The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, Document 13685, to which 29 amendments have been tabled. However, I must inform the Assembly that amendments 14 and 2 have been ruled out of order and will therefore not be considered.
I understand that the Vice-Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 29, 27 and 22 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so?
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?
There is no objection.
Amendments 29, 27 and 22 are adopted.
The remaining amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the revised compendium, which was issued this afternoon. Colleagues, I remind you that speaking time for each amendment is restricted to 30 seconds.
We come now to Amendment 3. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – In paragraph 2 we want to add the idea of setting up an investigative sub-committee to look at all the events occurring since August 2013. I think the work of such an investigative sub-committee could make it possible for the Parliamentary Assembly to get a better sense of the origins of this conflict and therefore make it easier to find a solution.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – We are against the amendment, because we do not need this now: we have a lot to do. That was a proposal from 2014 and now we have other political actions to achieve. The time will come when somebody has to investigate – in about 10 years – but we do not need it now and it makes no sense to have it in this report.
THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
      We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – There is all sorts of information in the mass media, and it is not always verified. We must base what we do on proven facts, which is why we propose inserting the word “alleged” before “deaths and disappearances”.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – For the Council of Europe, facts are set out in the report of our Commissioner for Human Rights, and as rapporteur I used exactly those words.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 4 is rejected.
      I call Mr Aleksandrov on a point of order.
      Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation)* – My voting machine is not working. Is that deliberate?
      THE PRESIDENT* – It is because your delegation does not have the right to vote.
      Amendment 5 falls because Amendment 4 was not adopted.
      We come to Amendment 6. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We once again suggest inserting the word “alleged”, this time before the words “arms supplies”, because once again we are convinced that what is written in the draft resolution is based on a lot of hypotheses, not facts. If we want to preserve our self-respect, we must base what we do on facts. If those facts later turn out to be untrue, we will have egg on our faces.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ariev.
      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) Last year we heard a speech here from our colleague the leader of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Dzhemiliev, who clearly proved the disappearances and deaths of activists in Crimea. It is an absolutely proven fact, so the word “alleged” should not be used.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 7. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We propose that what is required of the Russian authorities should be extended to the authorities of other Council of Europe member states and observers, because there are many confirmations that the volunteers in eastern Ukraine include citizens of many states, not just the Russian Federation.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am against the amendment. Some volunteers from other states might be there illegally, but we are talking about responsibility and no other states are involved.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 7 is rejected.
      We come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We propose broadening the drafting by using the term “opposing forces”, rather than “insurgent forces”, so that the requirement not to supply arms is imposed equally on all sides, because that is the best way to de-escalate.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The amendment would weaken my report, which has very clear wording already.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 8 is rejected.
      We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – I once again insist that it is a fact that there are people from different member states engaged in military activities in eastern Ukraine, not just from the Russian Federation, and we need to ensure that they all leave.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) It is possible that there are about a dozen volunteers from other countries, but I am using the wording of the OSCE. If 98% of the volunteers are Russian, the text we have is correct.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 9 is rejected.
      We come to Amendment 10. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We are talking about criminalising participation by civilians in armed conflicts abroad, but such criminalisation is something that other Council of Europe member states should do in equal measure, not just the Russian Federation. That could de-escalate this conflict and many others. We therefore propose deleting the word “Russian”.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Paragraph 7.3 is very clear that this is about Russian volunteers, so clearly 7.4 should refer to “Russian civilians”.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 10 is rejected.
      We come now to Amendment 11. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – The amendment suggests that the prosecution to the full extent of the law of participants as volunteers in the armed conflict should apply to all citizens in all states under all laws. If the provision were limited only to Russian citizens, that would reduce the effectiveness of the decision and citizens of other states would be able to participate in such armed conflicts. Would that not be slightly paradoxical?
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – My report makes it very clear who has responsibility and who has to do something. This is a battle about the wording, not about reality.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 11 is rejected.
      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Chope to support the amendment.
      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment expresses our grave concern that the Russian Federation is now denying that it is even party to the Minsk agreement and protocols. Both Mr Naryshkin and Mr Slutsky assert that, as Russia is only an observer, it is under no obligation to honour the Minsk agreement and protocols. That is outrageous, and I hope that people will support the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone want to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.
      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As the rapporteur states time and again, we should ensure that we have facts in the report. I follow the situation closely, but I am not aware that that is the official position of the Russian Government. It is the idea of our colleague Mr Chope, who says that other people have said that. We should stick to the facts and this is not factual. Surely President Putin does not see himself as a simple observer of the Minsk accord. The amendment does not make sense.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.
      THE PRESIDENT*– The vote is open.
      We come to Amendment 21. I call Ms Gerashchenko to support the amendment.
      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)We have a lot of proof of military presence in Donbass and we are asking the Assembly to consider the republics as terrorist organisations supported by the Russian Federation.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.
      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We should take care that we do not use terms too easily. The Council of Europe has its own Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which deals with such issues. Introducing that terminology to the report does not help us. The situation is already difficult enough and these organisations are not on the list of terrorist organisations. Let us stick to the text proposed by Mr Schennach.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 21 is rejected.
      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 13. I call Mr Sobolev to support the amendment.
      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – You must understand that Ms Savchenko has had no decision from a Russian court for six months. She is only in detention, so she can be freed in 24 hours. If Russian prosecutors want to take action, they can, but she is not guilty and no Russian court has approved this.
      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 13, which was tabled by Mr Schennach, which is, at the end, to insert the words “and hand her over to a third country”.
      The oral sub-amendment is admissible, provided there are no objections. If anyone thinks that it should not be considered, please indicate that by standing. Ten full members or substitutes would have to object to the oral sub-amendment. That is not the case
I call Mr Schennach to support the oral sub-amendment.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)We need a solution about Nadiia Savchenko within a very short time and we cannot wait for discussion between Russia and Ukraine. We have international mechanisms – The Hague, Strasbourg and the presidential country of the Council of Europe – so she could be handed over to one of those three countries.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Lord Anderson.
      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Does it make any difference? We are asking for her to be returned, directly or indirectly. In any event, any reasonable third country would pass her to Ukraine, so I do not think the sub-amendment makes any difference whatsoever to the fate of the prisoner.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 13, as amended? I call Mr Kox.
      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Facts are important. It is known that three weeks ago you, Madam President, and the Presidential Committee were informed by our Ukrainian counterparts of this serious problem with the immunity of a member of our Assembly. Since then, you have done a lot, the Assembly has done a lot and there are the beginnings of an agreement with Russia that we should do something about it. Adding that this should all happen within 24 hours does not make the chances of Ms Savchenko’s being released as quickly as possible any better. Let us stick to the facts and not accept the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) The committee is in favour.
      THE PRESIDENT*– The vote is open.
      We come to Amendment 12. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
      Mr ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – The 14th army left Transnistria a very long time ago. A very small contingent of our soldiers, who are there simply to protect the weapons and munitions, is very important to defend the rest of Europe. Despite its obligations, the Ukrainian side does not allow us to move those munitions and that equipment through its territory to Russia, so we have to keep them there.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ghiletchi.
      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In 1995, in Istanbul, the Russian Federation undertook the obligation to withdraw its troops and military equipment from the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Sixteen years later, it proposes to annul this obligation. That is how it views dialogue. Unfortunately, there is a technical problem. We should ask it to withdraw military troops from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, as has been stated several times in the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open. [Interruption.] The noise you can hear is the wind outside, so do not feel afraid.
      Amendment 12 is rejected.
      We come to Amendment 24. I call Mr Kandelaki to support the amendment.
      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The amendment would delete part of the original paragraph that mentions positive signals coming from the Russian Federation. People are dying every day, and this fact cannot be counted as any kind of positive signal. So, naturally, the part that eulogises Russian so-called positive signals should be deleted.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)With this sentence we state our experience. We got these signals as a result of the ad hoc committee, and the Monitoring Committee is following them.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 24 is rejected.
      Mr BAKRADZE (Georgia) – Paragraph 16 of the resolution that we adopted in April says:

 “The Assembly reserves the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation, if the Russian Federation does not de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea”. 

Today, we do not see the reversal of the annexation of Crimea. Crimea is as it was. The situation in eastern Ukraine is more tense now and is escalating. I call on you, dear colleagues, to demonstrate that our words are credible and that we can keep our promises on important political commitments.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The majority in the committee voted for Amendment 28, not for Amendment 26, which is radically against the spirit of the report.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 26 is rejected.
Amendment 15 therefore falls.
      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I do not wish to press the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Amendment 25 is not moved.
      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I want to highlight two main points. According to paragraphs 5, 7, 10 and 11 of the report, Russia has committed flagrant violations of international law because no progress has been made since last April. The report recognises the worsening situation in Ukraine. There are no grounds to lift the restrictions previously imposed on members of the Russian delegation. That is why I propose to add a restriction on voting rights and the right to be represented at the Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee also voted with a big majority against the amendment because, like the previous amendment, it goes against the spirit of the report and would make the compromise in Amendment 28 impossible.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia)The committee is against the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 25 is rejected.
      Identical Amendments 17 and 19 therefore fall.
      Ms ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – Under this amendment, we would reject the Russian delegation’s voting rights.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The same majority said no for the same reasons as before.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Amendment 16 is rejected.
      Identical Amendments 17 and 19 therefore fall.
       We come to Amendment 28, to which an oral sub-amendment has been tabled.
If Amendment 28 is carried, Amendment 20 will fall. I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment.
      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This is the compromise amendment that was mentioned.
Last year, we said we would take away the voting rights from the Russian delegation, but that if things got better they would get them back.

Things have not got better, so the amendment suggests that we take away the voting rights again this session, but that we will be willing to talk later in the year if Russia sticks to its commitments in the Minsk agreement, and by withdrawing its troops, in which case voting rights can be restored. 

It also suggests taking away the places of the Russian delegation in the Bureau, Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
      THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to oral Sub-Amendment 1 that has been submitted by Mr Pedro Agramunt. It goes as follows:
      “In Amendment 28, to delete the word “June” and replace with “April”Th
The Assembly would therefore resolve to return to the issue, with a view to reinstating these two rights at the April 2015 part-session. I consider oral Sub-Amendment 1 to be in order under our rules.
      However, do 10 or more members object to oral Sub-Amendment 1 being debated?
      That is not the case.
      I therefore call Mr Agramunt to support oral Sub-Amendment 1.
      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Oral Sub-Amendment 1 is very simple and concerns the date when we will consider this issue in more detail and see whether we can have greater dialogue in this Assembly. It is not much, but it is at least something, and almost all members of the committee agreed with it.
      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
      What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia)The committee was in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      Mr Schennach has submitted a second oral sub-amendment, which is to delete the words “Standing Committee” from Amendment 28. I call Mr Schennach to support the oral Sub-Amendment 2.
      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Oral Sub-Amendment 2 is a compromise. Mr Agramunt said that this is a question of dialogue, so please delete the words “Standing Committee”, which will mean that we can continue our dialogue in the Standing Committee.
      THE PRESIDENT* – I consider oral Sub-Amendment 2 to be in order under our rules.
      However, do 10 or more members object to oral Sub-Amendment 2 being debated?
      More than 10 members have objected, so oral Sub-Amendment 2 cannot be debated.
      Amendment 28 has therefore been amended by oral Sub-Amendment 1.
      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 28, as amended? I call Mr Kox.
      Mr KOX (Netherlands) This is very difficult for us all. If we reach a compromise, I do not understand why some colleagues ruin that compromise and then amend the amendment in a way that makes it unacceptable for us all. That is not the spirit of compromise and dialogue. Keeping the Russians out of the Standing Committee – the smaller Parliamentary Assembly – but having them here does not make sense. Stefan Schennach’s proposal was correct, but now that we boycott that part of the dialogue, I must ask colleagues to reject the amendment.
      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee of Amendment 28, as amended by oral Sub-Amendment 1?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee was in favour.
      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      We now come to Amendment 23. I call Mr Gross to support the amendment.
      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The amendment states what the working group is allowed to do, which is to help realise everything in the resolution.
      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.
      What is the opinion of the committee?
      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee was in favour.
      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13685, as amended. A simple majority is required.
      The vote is open.
      I thank rapporteurs and members of the Assembly for a good debate.
6. Next public business
      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the Agenda that was approved on Monday morning.