Сесията на Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа 24-28 юни 2019г. беше доминирана от руската тема.
През 2014г. ПАСЕ наложи санкции на руската делегация, които поднови през 2015г. поради анексията на Крим и конфликта в Донбас.
От 2016г. Русия започна бойкот на заседанията на Асамблеята и не изпращаше своя делегация в ПАСЕ. Поради това, че нямаше делаация, не бяха налагани и санкции към нея, след 2015.
Но ПАСЕ прие три резолюции, в които поставяше условия, които Русия трябва да изпълни.
Нищо от тези резолюции не беше изпълнено.
В крайна сметка принципната постановка за споделеният суверинитет е свързана със споделянето на общи ценности.
Иначе, защо да се позволява една страна да се меси във вътрешните работи на друга? Няма основание!
Вижте тук :
Русия без депутати в ПАСЕ от 25 януари 2016
http://toshev.blogspot.bg/2016/01/256-2016.htmlОт две години Русия спря да плаща и своя членски внос в Съвета на Европа.
През миналата година в Асамблеята беше внесен доклад, с който се предлагаше отпадане на санкциите от правилника на Асамблеята.
Докладчик беше Петра де Сутер от Белгия (известна по-рано като Петер де Сутер). След като видя, че предложението и среща огромна съпротива, тя оттегли своя доклад за преработване.
 |
| Петра де Сутер |
Вижте тук :
ПАСЕ не прие руското настояване за промяна на правилника си
След този резултат, апел за връщане на руската делеация в Асамблеята отправиха френският президент Еманюел Макрон и германският бундес-канцлер Анела Меркел, последвани от техните външни министри.
Аргументите им бяха, че на предстоящото тогава френско председателство на Комитета на Министрите на Съвета на Европа предстои избор на Генерален секретар на организацията. Те искаха всичките 47 страни-членки да участват в този избор.
Понеже Русия беше поставила като условие за завръщането си, отпадането на възможностите за санкции от Правилника на Асамблеята, апелът на Франция и Германия, поет и от Финландия се изразяваше в настояване да се промени правилника на Асамблеята и санкциите да отпаднат. Друият арумент беше, че отказът на Русия от Съвета на Европа, ще лиши милионите граждани на Руската Федерация от възмоност да подават жалби в Европейския съд по правата на човека.
Контрааргументът, който се изтъкна бе, че Русия е приела, че ще изпълнява само тези решения, които съответстват на нейната Конституция.
Украйна, Полша, Балтийските страни, Швеция и др. се противопоставиха, като заявиха, че това може да стане само ако Руската Федерация изпълни резолюциите на ПАСЕ по отношение на Крим и отношенията с Украйна.
Армения, която е в най-близки отношения с Русия и има руска военна база на своя територия, се противопостави на предлоението за отпадане на възможността за санкции.
Вероятно, поради желанието си, да се пребори такива санкции да се наложат на друга държава или държави (не се има предвид Русия).
На 30 май 2019г. Комитетът на Министрите на Съвета на Европа (в който заседават външните министри на страните-членки) на заседание в Хелзинки реши, че всички страни-членки трябва да имат право да гласуват и да бъдат представени в органите на Съвета на Европа, като тези им права не могат да се отнемат едностранно от ПАСЕ.
В случай на сериозни нарушения на статута на оранизацията Комитета и Асамблеята трябва съвместно да вземат евентуално решение за изключване.
Това решение беше подкрепено от 39 държави, 6 се обявиха против, а една държава - Русия, се въздържа.
Това открваше път към приемането на редактирания доклад на Петра де Сутер. Той беше приет от Комисията, като предлагаше да се гласува същественото изменение на правилника на ПАСЕ и беше вклюен в дневния ред още в първия ден на юнската сесия - 24 юни.
Русия заяви, че ако докладът бъде приет без именения, ще изпрати делегация в ПАСЕ за 2019г. Ако не - ще напусне Съвета на Европа изобщо.
Тъй като пълномощията на делегациите се гласуват през януарската сесия, за Русия, щеше да бъде направена дерогация за да се ратифициарт през юни.
Същите текстове се отнасяха и за Босна и Херцеговина, която дълго време не може да намери съгласие за състав на своята делегация.
Всъщност на тази сесия на Асамблеята не отпаднаха санкции срещу Русия, тъй като такива нямаше!
Как така - би запитал някой?
Санкции се наложиха през 2014 и 2015г. Да!
Но след това Русия не изпращаше делегация на която да се налагат санкции.
Просто нямаше на кого да се налагат санкции.
Затова, към момента санкции нямаше.
Имаше резолюции, които заявяваха, че санкциите върху руската делгация няма да се налагат, ако тя изпълни една поредица от изисквания.
А Русия не беше изпълнила тези изисквания.
Опасението на руските власти беше, че ако изпратят делегация без да са премахнати възможностите за налагане на санкции от Правилника и процедурите на ПАСЕ, такива ще се наложат веднага.
Съвсем основателно !
И затова Русия заяви, че ако не се премахнат възможностите за санкции от Правилника, не само няма да се върне в ПАСЕ, но и ще напусне избщо Съвета на Европа.
Затова първата битка в Асамблеята беше за премахване на възможностите за санкции от Правилника.
Този е контекста в който се проведе юнската част от сесията на ПАСЕ за 2019г.
В навечерието
Преди откриването на сесията на ПАСЕ, на 22 юни, вестник Льо Монд излезе със статия на Жак Фолору съобщаваща за изгонването на руския Генерален Консул в Страсбург за шпионаж вкл. в Съвета на Европа.
Става въпрос за Валери Левицки
Вижте тук :
L’espion
russe du Conseil de l’Europe
Par
Jacques
Follorou
Publié
le 22 juin 2019 à 10h24, mis à jour hier à 11h16
Темата нямаше как да се избегне в дебатите за Русия и беше повдигната няколко пъти.
Дори Генералният секретар Торбьорн Ягланд беше предизвикан да дава обяснения в залата.
По въпроса дали трябва да се приема делегацията на Русия преди да е изпълнила изискванията на ПАСЕ, преди началото на дебатите в една от залите на Двореца на Европа беше организирана дискусия - по инициатива
на депутатите Еджидиус Варейкис (Литва, ЕНП) и Боряна Оберг (Швеция,
ЕНП), които са против отпадането на възможностите за санкции от
Правилника на Асамблеята.
Дискусията не беше организирана официално от ПАСЕ, а от споменатите членове на ПАСЕ.
Шведската депутатка Боряна Оберг, която е Вицепрезидент на ПАСЕ от януари, както и новоизбрана за Ръководител на делегацията на Швеция в ПАСЕ, е българка.
У нас Боряна Оберг е известна с това, че през 2017г. и тя - като шведски депутат, номинира Българската Православна Църква за Нобелова награда за мир.
Дискусията не беше организирана официално от ПАСЕ, а от споменатите членове на ПАСЕ.
Шведската депутатка Боряна Оберг, която е Вицепрезидент на ПАСЕ от януари, както и новоизбрана за Ръководител на делегацията на Швеция в ПАСЕ, е българка.
У нас Боряна Оберг е известна с това, че през 2017г. и тя - като шведски депутат, номинира Българската Православна Църква за Нобелова награда за мир.
Във второто заседание на ПАСЕ на 24 юни започнаха дебати по доклада на Петра де Сутер, които продължиха до първите часове на следващия ден - 25 юни.
Бяха внесени 222 предложения за поправки, като с изключение на една малка редакция, нито едно от другите не беше прието.
Поддръжниците на доклада печелеха всички гласувания с мнозинство 2:1.
Това вероятно беше причината, че много депутати напуснаха залата.
Ето стенограма и видео на дебатите по тази "гореща " тема :
Текст на стенограмата
– първа част :
Monday, June 24, 2019, afternoon
Текст на стенограмата
– втора част
Видео на дебатите на оригинален език и на английски :
Приетата резолюция
Resolution 2287 (2019)
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=27980&lang=en
Поименно гласуване :
Vote on Resolution
Депутатите от България, Унгария и други страни не взеха участие в това гласуване.
Представяне на пълномощията на новата руска делегация
Russian Federation
18
representatives / représentants - - 18 substitutes / suppléants
Ръководител на делегацията е руският депутат Пьотр Толстой.
Той е известен у нас с това :
Руският депутат Пьотр Толстой: "България ще я изкупим цялата"; институциите не реагират
Георги
Кадиев: МВнР да пита дали това е официална
позиция на партия "Единна Русия";
Ивайло Калфин: "България не е за
продан!"
19
сеп 2016
България
ще я купим цялата, половината от
крайбрежието вече купихме.
Не беше изненада оспорването на пълномощията на руската делегация.
Те се оспориха на две основания от двама депутати от различни страни :
По същество и на процедурно основание.
За да се даде ход на процедурата трябваше по първото оспорване да станат прави в подкрепа поне 30 депутати от 5 държави, а за второто поне 10. Станаха повече.
Процедурата беше изпратена в комисиите.
Комисията по мониторинг, определи своя председател сър Роджър Гейл (Обединено Кралство) за докладчик, а комисията по процедурите - Еуджидиус Варейкис (Литва).
Първата комисия прие проект за резолюция, като съществено измени проекта на сър Роджър.
Втората комисия не успя да намери монзинство нито за ратификация на пълномощията, нито срещу ратификацията и не прие проект за резолюзция.
Така дебатите се поведоха само по доклада на сър Роджър.
 |
| Сър Роджър Гейл |
Той самият, в края на дебатите, в заключителното си изказване засегна болезнено и членовете на Комитета на Министрите, без да ги споменава изрино, но посочвайки местата в залата, които те заемат по време на заседание.
Много от нещата, които се случиха в ПАСЕ през тези дни, никога преди не се бяха случвали.
Russian credentials
Стенограма - ОСПОРВАНЕ НА ПЪЛНОМОЩИЯТА :
http://assembly.coe.int/nwbs/verbatim/?sessionid=201906&day=2019-06-25&afternoon=False&lang=EN&contentlang=EN
Стенограма - ВТОРА ЧАСТ НА ДЕБАТИТЕ
Video :
Стенограма - ВТОРА ЧАСТ НА ДЕБАТИТЕ
Debate: Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the
still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian
Federation|According to Rule 8.3 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
ЗАКЛЮЧИТЕЛНАТА РЕЧ НА СЪР РОДЖЪР ГЕЙЛ, ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ НА КОМИСИЯТА ПО МОНИТОРНГ НА ПАСЕ
Sir Roger GALE
United Kingdom, EC, Rapporteur
17:22:00
Thank you, Madam President.
I have listened to this afternoon's debate with a growing sense of disappointment. Earlier this afternoon I walked along the committee corridor past the busts of Václav Havel and Alexander Dubček and past the monuments to Winston Churchill and I just wonder, colleagues, what they would make of what is being done here today in the name of democracy.
I wanted to hold my fire because I wanted to hear this dialogue that was supposed to be taking place. I have listened, this afternoon, carefully, I have taken notes to 6 speeches by representatives of the Russian Federation. I heard no mention, from any of them, about the breach of the Law of the Sea and the 24 Ukrainian sailors held in prison in Moscow. I heard no mention of flight MH17 and any desire to cooperate with those investigating those deaths of men, women and children who have families.
I heard no mention of LGBTI rights in Chechnya or elsewhere. Those violations which lead to people being beaten up, murdered even. I heard no mention, it's in this report, of the investigation of the murder of Boris Nemtsov.
I didn't even, Madam President, hear any mention of the dues payable to this Parliamentary Assembly in law. Not one of our newfound colleagues touched upon any of these subjects.
So, when I think back over the years that I have been here, on the chairs, including that one, that I've sat in, the resolutions that have been passed and ignored, I wonder just what we are playing at this afternoon. Somebody said to me, earlier this afternoon, if you were a man of honour, you would represent your committee, the one that I thought I was privileged to chair, or you would stand down and let somebody else present this report because you're not representing our views. Well, this man of honour can look in the shaving mirror in the morning and knows what he stands for. He stands for Human rights. He stands for democracy.
He stands, yes, for freedom of speech, the speech that might, on occasions, criticise other people. He stands for all of those freedoms that I thought, naively perhaps, that this institution represents.
Out there, in the press that you're going to read when you go home... What did the Belgian papers say this morning? "This is a hobby parliament and they only take any interest when money is at stake" and there is the perception that because we run out of cash because the Russians have withheld these 70 million euros of silver, as I described them the other day, because we run out of the money, we go with a begging bowl, our principles are for sale and, if you don't like them, I've got some more in my back pocket or I needn't have any at all, just so long as we get the money.
Well, one of the speakers this afternoon referred to a blank check.
Forgive me, there's no check at all.
We are at a Crossroads as Ms OZOLA said, this is the moment of truth. Several of my colleagues, all of them socialist, by the way, have stressed the need for some form of restrictions, some form of sanction. So what I wrote into this report, when I drafted it, reflecting the views of the debate that took place on Monday, reaching the conclusion that I was required to reach, what I wrote into that where some safeguards, some suspensions of some liberties, just until we saw the colour of the cloth, until, in fact, January 2020 when these credentials can be challenged again. In fact, they can be challenged before, when any new restrictions would have to be re-imposed. Much more importantly when, as Tom HAMABURG and I discussed –God was it only yesterday?– this new organisation, this new platform, this joint working party, has had the chance to set down whatever new standards we're going to be supposed to live by.
It was a bridging measure and what happened?
The Committee took it out.
So, the Committee said, unlike my colleague and, dear friend, Phil WILSON, who wants conditions, unlike Stella CREASY, who made a truly principled speech this afternoon and drew attention to principles and practicalities and persistence, unlike them the committee, which at the moment I preside, decided it wanted to remove these restrictions because the Russian Federation had said, in terms, "no restrictions or we don't come back" because some of the people in this room, including some sitting on that table
(ПОСОЧВА МЕСТАТА В ЗАЛАТА КЪДЕ СТОЯТ ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛИТЕ НА КОМИТЕТА НА МИНИСТРИТЕ - В СЛУЧАЯ ПОСЛАНИЦИТЕ НА СТРАНИТЕ-ЧЛЕНКИ - Бел. моя Л.Т.)
, believe that we needed the money more than we needed the principles and I'm sorry, it was said this afternoon but the house is on fire. This house is on fire. I can face shame in any manner, in any form. I can look in the mirror in the morning. I don't know how many of my colleagues who vote the other way this afternoon are going to be able to.
So, what I want to say is this, and now I will conclude, the amendments are going to be put before you this afternoon, in a few moments, I hope that, at the very least, this Assembly will have, if not the courage, the common sense, to at least reinstate the safeguards that I built into this report to see us through until January. If that doesn't happen then I'm going to have to advise my friends in this room, as I will myself, to vote against my own report.
Thank you, Madam President.
Ms Liliane
MAURY PASQUIER
Switzerland, SOC, President of the Assembly
17:30:51
Mr GALE, with all
due respect, I must say here, however, that you have completely gone beyond
your role as rapporteur for the Monitoring Committee.
I give the floor
to Mr CILEVIČS, Vice-Chairman of the Committee, to speak also on behalf of the
Committee.
Mr Boriss
CILEVIČS
Latvia, SOC
17:31:15
Thank you Madam
President.
As a
representative of the Committee I must be neutral and I must be formal. I would
like to stress that this is really a very difficult, very emotional and very
divisive issue. Also the issue about principles. We have basically two views.
The first view is we must be inclusive and all parliamentary delegations must
be present here. Including our Russian friends. And I see it is a point. On the
other hand some people are concerned that the unconditional return of the
Russian delegation will undermine the credibility of this organisation, will
undermine the principles of this body. And I see the point too. So I would like
to thank everybody who made contributions to this discussion and this debate.
First of all, Sir GALE of course, who did a very difficult job.
I am very much
concerned about the general atmosphere during this debate. Both in this
hemicycle and in the committee's, which is very far from how it should be in a
decent parliament. But that's also our way of life and our way of thinking.
Which of the views I mentioned before are correct? Will the return of our
Russian friends here facilitate the resolution of the problems we are
discussing here? Will this facilitate peace in the Donbass? The restoration of
rights of people who are currently suffering? Improvement of Human rights
situations in Russia? We will see this very soon in the coming months. The
issue is not closed. We will continue the debates on this issue, and I'm sure
that in several months we will see who
is right and who makes a mistake. Thank you Madam President.
Resolution 2292 (2019)
Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation
Vote on Resolution
Пълномощията бяха ратифицирани.
След гласуването, един депутат от Украйна (Гончаренко) първи застана в средата на залата.
Към него се присъединиха, други и други в знак на протест срещу ратифицирането на пълномощията без условия.
Това прекъсна заседанието.
Застанаха с тях и няколко дипломати, което е акт без прецедент в Съвета на Европа.
Те прочетоха следната декларация :
Statement by Members of Delegations of Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
June 26, 2019 STRASBOURG
The unconditional restoration of the Russian Delegation’s rights without the Russian Federation honouring any of the Assembly’s numerous demands runs counter to the core values of the Council of Europe and its Statute.
This step sends a very wrong signal to the country that has resorted to armed aggression, poisoning of individuals, does not observe human rights of its citizens and does not promote but seeks to destabilise democracies throughout Europe.
Today, we as the delegates of our nations have no answer to our people how exactly the CoE is protecting their rights if it comes across as more interested in protecting the well-being of an aggressor than the victims of aggression and repression.
The future of the CoE is under threat as a whole because the CoE is losing the trust of the people it stands to protect.
We return home to consult our Parliaments and Governments about the joint actions in the Assembly in the next sessions.
We wish good luck to the newly elected Secretary General and hope she/he finds a way to solve this unprecedented crises of trust which was created this week.
Видео от това събитие, беше публикувано в интернет :
Statement by Members of 7 Delegations about situation in Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-XXL2fd6U
По-късно, писмена декларация беше внесена, като докумевнт на ПАСЕ от същата група :
По-късно, писмена декларация беше внесена, като докумевнт на ПАСЕ от същата група :
Линк
ИЗБОР НА НОВ ГЕНЕРАЛЕН СЕКРЕТАР НА СЪВЕТА НА ЕВРОПА
В тази ситуация беше избрана Мария Пейчинович - Бурич от Хърватия за Генерален секретар на Съвета на Европа.
Първа в Туитър я поздрави българският Министър на външните работи г-жа Екатерина Захариева.
Първа в Туитър я поздрави българският Министър на външните работи г-жа Екатерина Захариева.
Украинската делегация заяви че не е участвала в гласуването, но пожелава на новия Генерален Секретар да се справи с възникналата криза в организацията.
Предвиденото отбелязване на 70-тата годишнина на Съвета на Европа беше отложено.
Изборът на Г-жа Бурич срещу кандидатурата на Дидие Райнерс от Белгия беше безапелационен.
159 депутати гласуваеха за нея, а 105 за Райнерс.
Не такава беше съдбата на руския кандидат за Вицепрезидент на ПАСЕ Леонид Слуцкий.
При тайното гласуване той загуби катастрофално :
105-гласа - "за" и 154 гласа - "против" .
Оказа се, че същите депутати, които ратифицираха с явно гласуване пълномощията на руската делеация, при тайното гласуване са гласували против нейния кандидат.
Vice-President in respect of the Russian Federation: the seat remains vacant
- 28/06/2019
- Session
In the context of the election of a Vice-President of the Assembly in respect of the Russian Federation, the Assembly decided on 25 June to hold a vote by secret ballot on the election of the candidate proposed by the Russian delegation, Leonid Slutskiy.
Since Mr Slutskiy did not obtain an absolute majority of the representatives of the Assembly, a second round of voting was held.
In the second round of voting, on 26 June, Mr Slutskiy did not obtain an absolute majority of the votes cast, with more than half the number of representatives having voted.
Therefore he was not elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly.
The seat of the Russian Federation consequently remains vacant until a candidate presented by the Russian national delegation obtains the requisite majority.
According to PACE’s Rules of Procedure, the candidates proposed by national delegations shall be declared elected without a ballot.
However, if there is a request for a vote by at least twenty representatives or substitutes in respect of one or several candidates, they shall be elected by secret ballot.
През януари 2020г. когато всички държави подадат списъците на своите делегации за ратифициране, много вероятно е пълномощията на руската делегация в ПАСЕ отново да бъдат оспорени.
Тогава ще се направи оценка, кой е бил прав при вземането на решението по този въпрос - Макрон и Меркел или тези, които им се противопоставиха.
Дали Русия ще предприеме стъпки, с които да покаже, че занапред ще следва принципите и споделя ценностите на Съвета на Европа ще се разбере скоро.
Свързана тема :
На 6 април 2000г. Русия беше лишена от право на глас в ПАСЕ, заради нарушенията на човешките права в Чечня и Чл.3 от Статута на Съвета на Европа.
Тази санкция продължи до януари 2001г.
Ето извадка от дебатите тогава, под председателството на лорд Ръсел Джонстън :
Lord
Russell-Johnston, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.10 p.m.
THE
PRESIDENT.- The sitting is open.
THE
PRESIDENT.- The minutes of
proceedings of the previous sitting have not yet been distributed. They will be
considered at the next sitting of the Assembly. I remind members that - despite
the introduction of electronic voting - it is still necessary for them to sign
the record of attendance on entering the Chamber.
Before we turn to the voting, I remind
members to make sure that they have inserted their voting cards in the slot so
that they will be ready when we begin to vote. Let us hope that everyone has
got that right.
2. Conflict in Chechnya and
credentials of the Russian delegation
THE PRESIDENT.- We now turn to the votes relevant to this
morning’s joint debate on the reports on Chechnya and the credentials of the
Russian delegation.
The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft
recommendation in Document 8697, to which 55 amendments and three
sub-amendments have been tabled.
(…)
(The sitting, suspended at 5.23 p.m., was resumed at 5.50
p.m. with Lord Russell Johnston, President of the Assembly, in the
Chair.)
THE PRESIDENT.- First, I want to express my appreciation for
the willingness of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to
convene specially and give me advice. It remains the case that I have to make
the final decision. It states clearly and unequivocally in Rule 34.5:
"The President shall decide whether amendments and
sub-amendments are in order."
I will take each amendment one by one. Amendment No. 3, in
the name of Mrs Paegle, seeks to replace the conclusions with the
expression: "the Assembly declines to ratify the credentials of the
Russian delegation."
I accept that that amendment is not in order. At the end of
the day, clearly, the Assembly can vote against the credentials. That is
already possible and does not require an amendment. I rule that Amendment No. 3
is out of order.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation).- On a point of order.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Please allow me to finish my ruling before raising your point of order. This is
difficult enough without people breaking in.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities advises
that Amendment No. 5 is not in order. Having carefully considered what the
committee has said and having taken other advice as well, I rule that Amendment
No. 5 can be deemed in order. I refer members to paragraph 8.5 of the Rules:
"Reports
submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraphs 3 and 4
shall recommend either:
c. depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and in bodies."
There is no specific exclusion of a time element in that paragraph. In fact, one can fairly argue that acceptance of the word "suspending" inevitably means that it will, in some circumstances, mean suspending for a time. My ruling is that Amendment No. 5 is in order.
Amendment No. 1, in the name of Mr Frunda, was accepted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities as being in order. I accept that recommendation.
Amendment No. 4 gives rise to the same kind of problem as Amendment No. 5 because it uses the key word "until", which again implies a time element. As I said when ruling on Amendment No. 5, that is not excluded - although the advice of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities was that it should be.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities accepted
Amendment No. 2 although it also contains the word "until".
While it is true and is clearly stated in Rule 34.3 that an
amendment "which would tend to delete, replace or render inoperative the
whole of a draft text is not in order" that is qualified by the footnote
that was written in by the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, that
"an amendment should not replace all paragraphs … nor the great
majority of the operative part of a draft text unless" - the word "unless"
is most important - "it consists of a single point", my opinion is
that the proposal in Mrs Ojuland’s report is a single point.
I rule, therefore, that Amendment No. 3 is inadmissible and
that Amendments Nos. 5, 1, 4 and 2 can be voted on.
I do not think there is any real point to pursuing a long
argument. I believe that we should just proceed.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian
Federation) said that he was pleased the President had been so scrupulous
in pursuing the Rules. The Russian delegation was not now allowed to vote. Nor
were substitute members of the Assembly, yet the President had allowed a
substitute member to speak earlier in the debate. He asked the President to
make sure that only full members of national delegations were allowed to vote.
THE PRESIDENT.-
That is the case, although I must point out to you that giving people the floor
is not covered by the restrictions. Substitutes can speak - that is the basis
on which I called someone this morning - but they are not allowed to vote,
unless they are properly replacing the people for whom they are substituting.
Mr Van Der LINDEN
(Netherlands).- I repeat my
earlier question, Mr President: can we now vote by electronic means, or is there a political illness in the voting system?
THE PRESIDENT.- I
wish we could. It would then be easier to deal with the very fair point raised
by Mr Zhirinovsky, because only people with cards and accreditation can vote
using the electronic system. However, I am informed that it is malfunctioning.
Oh, I am now informed that it is working. Well, well; one
can never tell what will happen. If we can use the electronic system, it will
deal effectively with Mr Zhirinovsky’s point.
We shall now proceed to Amendment No. 5 -
Mr Van Der LINDEN
(Netherlands).- On a point of order, Mr President. I would prefer to
vote on the most far-reaching amendment - that is, Amendment No. 3 -
first.
THE PRESIDENT.- I
have already informed the Assembly - although perhaps you had not then come
into the Hemicycle, Mr Van der Linden - that Amendment No. 3 cannot be put
to the Assembly. I have not accepted it because, as someone - Mr Schieder, I
think - correctly said, its aim could be achieved by voting against the
credentials on the main question.
We therefore now come to
Amendment No. 5, which is, in the draft conclusion, to replace paragraph 10
with the following text:
"Therefore, the
Assembly should not ratify the credentials of the new Russian delegation until
the outcome of an independent, impartial, international investigation of war
crimes is known."
I call Mr
Atkinson to support Amendment No. 5.
Mr ATKINSON (United
Kingdom).- As the Assembly heard from me this morning, since it passed
Recommendation 1444 in January, it has become aware of the enormity of the
atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by a member state which challenges the
standards of the Council of Europe. As the amendment proposes, that justifies
the rejection by this Assembly of that member state’s delegation. The European
Democratic Group proposes in the amendment that if Russia wished to return to
this Assembly, it would have to agree to an impartial, independent,
international investigation of what has gone on in Chechnya - and that
investigation would have to take place before the evidence had been erased and
the witnesses eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Hancock to speak against the amendment.
Mr HANCOCK (United
Kingdom).- This amendment is a luxury that the Assembly cannot afford to
embrace. In fact, it is absolute nonsense. If I read out the wording, that in
itself will explain the problem. Who will decide when "the outcome of an
independent, impartial, international investigation of war crimes is
known?" Investigations of war crimes in Bosnia are still going on six
years after the crimes were committed, and something similar could happen with
Chechnya. The amendment suggests an endless time limit, and should be rejected.
We have other alternatives, and we should not fall into the easy mode of
accepting an amendment that promises something, yet can deliver nothing.
THE PRESIDENT.-
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United
Kingdom).- The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 5 is rejected.
We now come to Amendment
No. 1, which is, in the conclusion, replace paragraph 10 with the following
text:
"The Assembly
decides to ratify the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation,
but to deprive the members of the delegation of their voting rights in the
Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 8.5.c of the Rules of
Procedure."
I call Mr Frunda to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania).-
It is clear, after more than six hours of debate, that most people who have
spoken have expressed their desire not to leave the delegation of the Russian
Federation isolated, but still to take steps that would allow the Parliamentary
Assembly to remain consistent with its principles and keep its credibility,
while at the same time giving a friendly hand to the Russian delegation, so as
to increase the power of the parties in Russia that favour integration in
Europe. That is why I firmly support our amendment, which says that we confirm
the credentials of the delegation, but suspend its voting rights both in the
plenary session and in committee.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Rogozin to speak against the amendment.
Mr ROGOZIN (Russian
Federation) said that the Russian delegation wanted to work with the
Council of Europe. Certain forces had opposed the arrival of the Russian
delegation, but it had come and had started work. The amendment was
unacceptable as it would negate everything that had been discussed hitherto.
THE PRESIDENT.-
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United
Kingdom).- The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Voting is now open.
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
As a consequence of that, the other amendment falls.
Mr ROGOZIN (Russian
Federation), on a point of order, said that the Russian delegation
regretted that it would no longer be participating in the work of the Assembly.
He wished the Assembly well.
THE PRESIDENT.-
Thank you, Mr Rogozin.
We will now proceed to vote -
Mr SOLONARI (Moldova).-
On a point of order before we vote, Mr President. Could you advise the
Assembly what majority is required.
THE PRESIDENT.- I
am advised that a simple majority, not a qualified majority, is required.
We will now proceed to vote on the conclusions of the
Political Affairs Committee in Doc. 8698,
as amended.
Mr SCHIEDER (Austria).-
As amended?
THE PRESIDENT.-
Yes. The voting is now open.
I am concerned lest members are not clear. They are voting
on the conclusions, as amended, so effectively they are voting again on Amendment No. 1, which has substituted
what was in the original conclusions.
Mr SCHIEDER (Austria).-
Would you be so kind, Mr President, as to tell us what this means? It is clear
what is meant if we vote "Yes". That means that we vote for the
amended text. If we vote "No", do we vote down an amended text or do
we say that the credentials should not be given? Is it "No" to the
proposal or "No" to the credentials? You should tell us the exact
legal meaning of a "No" vote.
THE PRESIDENT.-
To vote "Yes" means to vote again in favour of Amendment No. 1, which says:
"The Assembly decides to ratify the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation, but to deprive the members of the delegation of their voting rights in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 8.5.c of the Rules of Procedure."
Втора съвързана тема
Как Русия беше приета в Съвета на Европа
"The Assembly decides to ratify the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation, but to deprive the members of the delegation of their voting rights in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 8.5.c of the Rules of Procedure."
That is what you will be voting for if you vote
"Yes". If you vote "No", you are voting against that. Voting "No" in effect is
non-ratification.
Mr GJELLEROD (Denmark).-
You said, Mr President, that a simple majority is needed, but are we not voting
on a report? Are we not voting on a conclusion from Mrs Ojuland’s report,
as amended? Therefore, is a simple majority or a two-thirds majority needed?
THE PRESIDENT.-
My understanding and advice is that it requires a simple majority.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania).-
You are right, Mr President, because under Rule 8.5 the Assembly accepted
the amendment of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. In this case
we can vote on two alternatives:
the credentials with the suspension of the right of vote in
plenary and in committee or no credentials.
There is no third way.
THE PRESIDENT.- I
am very grateful to you. That was my interpretation - that the Assembly
votes for the credentials with the suspension of voting or if it votes against
it is voting against ratification.
The voting is now open.
The conclusions,
as amended, are adopted.
I thank members for the patience they have shown during this
long and difficult debate.
По време на гласуването в ПАСЕ за приемането на Руската Федерация за член на Съвета на Европа - 25 януари
1996г. също беше оказан натиск върху депутатите, да гласуват положително.
По това време аз бях заместващ-член в делегацията и нямах възможност даотида на сесията с делегацията.
Не бях командирован от Председателя на Народното
събрание Благовест Сендов.
А и нямах право на глас в присъствието на
титулярите.
В уикенда преди сесията, обаче в един курорт в планината Шварцвалд,
която се намира срещу Страсбург - отсреща през река Рейн, се проведе общ
семинар за изработване на позиция по искането на Русия за членство, в
който участваха групите на Европейската Народна Партия и на
Европейските демократи - т.е. на европейската десница.
Като Вицепрезидент (тогава) на групата на Европейските демократи в ПАСЕ, разходите ми за участието в семинара бяха поети от групата.
Генерален секретар на групата тогава беше г-жа Барбара Норд, а
Президент Халгрим Берг от Норвегия.
Аз си позволих да остана в Страсбург
и в понеделник, за собствена сметка. Отседнах в най-евтиния възможен
хотел - до гарата.
Нямах средства за повече. Така можах да присъствам на началото на сесията.
Общото решение на двете групи беше, че Русия не е изпълнила минималните
изисквания за членство в Съвета на Европа и не би могла да бъде приета в
този момент.
Реши се, че ще се направят редица конкретни препоръки, които когато се изпълнят, въпросът ще бъде подложен на разглеждане.
Вечерта преди откриването на сесията в неделя обаче, делегациите на
Германия, Франция и Великобритания са били подложени на силен натиск от
премиерите на своите страни Хелмут Кол и Джон Мейджър (а в случая с Франция - от Президента на
Републиката Франсоа Митеран) да гласуват "за" по приемането на Русия за член на Съвета на Европа още на тази
сесия.
Така при гласуването редица от членовете на двете групи при поименното гласуване на становището на ПАСЕ гласуваха "за".
При гласуването на решението на ПАСЕ за Русия,
по искане на естонската депутатка, а по-късно Министър на
външните работи на Естония от либералната група, Кристина Оюланд и група
депутати се проведе поименно гласуване със ставане прав и заявяване на вота.
Покойният лорд Джефри Финсберг, консерватор, Вицепрезидент и бивш
Президент на ПАСЕ, тогава при извикването на името му за
гласуване станал и дори отговорил на руски език - "Да!".
Резултатите от това гласуване не можеха да се намерят в интернет до днес.
Това е така, защото през 1996г. вече макар вече да съществуваше интернет, повечето от институциите нямаха още свои сайтове.
Ето защо, публикувам на моя блог, гласуването по приемането на Русия в Съвета на Европа.
При гласуването българската делегация тогава нямаше единно становище.
Филип
Боков и Иван Генов (БСП), Елена Поптодорова(тогава - ЕЛ) и Яшо Минков (БББ) са
гласували "за", г-н Васил Гоцев(СДС) и г-н Юнал Лютфи(ДПС) са се въздържали, а
г-жа Надежда Михайлова, която тогава присъстваше на сесията, не е взела
участие в гласуването, защото като заместващ-член не е имала право да
гласува в присъствието на титуляра.
(Тогава СДС имаше
трима представители в ПАСЕ - Васил Гоцев - титуляр и двама заместващи
членове Надежда Михайлова и Лъчезар Тошев. Делегацията на Народното
събрание в ПАСЕ се състои от 12 членове - 6 титуляри и 6 заместващи
членове.)
От 6 възможни гласа от България, за приемането на Русия в Съвета на Европа са били дадени 4.
СДС и ДПС не са подкрепили приемането на Русия в Съвета на Европа.
(По време на членството ми в групата
на консерваторите (EDG) 1992-1997г. аз бях неин Вицепрезидент от
1994г. (От юни 1997г. станах член на групата на ЕНП, а СДС пое курс към
членство в ЕНП, което стана факт през 1998г.).
Ето протокола от гласуването тук:
AAPV7.96 AS
(1996) PV 7
1403-25/1/96-10-E
1996
SESSION
(First
Part)
SEVENTH
SITTING
Thursday
25 January, 1996 at 3 pm
MINUTES
OF PROCEEDINGS
Mr van
der Linden, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.03
pm.
1. MINUTES
The
minutes of proceedings of the previous sitting not having been
distributed, their adoption was deferred.
2. ATTENDANCE
REGISTER
The names
of the Representatives and Substitutes who signed the attendance
register are given in the Appendix.
3. RUSSIA'S
REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
The
debate was resumed.
Speakers:
MM Masseret, Gricius, Lord Finsberg, MM Büchel, Bergquist.
Mrs
Lentz-Cornette, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair
in
place of Mr Van der Linden.
Speakers:
MM Szalay, Moeller (on a point of order), Lipkowski, Caputo,
Marmazov, Zhirinovsky, Thoresen, About, Guenov, Bühler, Andulatipor,
Jurgens, Mrs Jäätteenmäki, MM Pozzo, Briane, Dionisi, Bauer,
Elo.
Mrs
Fischer, President of the Assembly, took the Chair
in
place of Mrs Lentz-Cornette.
Speaker:
Mr Árnason.
The list
of speakers was interrupted.
Mr
Seitlinger, Chairman of the Committee on Relations with European
Non-Member Countries, Mr Bindig, Rapporteur for an opinion of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and Mr Muehlemann,
Rapporteur, and Mr Bársony, Chairman of the Political Affairs
Committee, replied to the debate.
The
debate was closed.
Mr
Columberg moved to refer the report back to the Political Affairs
Committee under Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure.
Speaker:
Lord Finsberg.
The
motion was defeated.
The
Assembly considered the draft opinion contained in Doc. 7443.
The
President announced that the amendments would be taken in the
following order:
19, 17,
32, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (and sub-amendment), 20, 7, 8, 9, 14, 21, 22, 26,
33, 1, 16, 27, 23, 10, 24, 25, 28, 34, 29, 11, 12 (and
sub-amendment), 13, 31, 30, 18.
The
President announced that Amendment No. 15 had been withdrawn.
Its terms were the same as those of the motion for an order to be
moved following the vote on the draft opinion.
An
amendment (No. 19) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 3, to replace the words "conflict in
Chechnya" by the words "colonial war in Chechnya".
Speakers:
MM Martínez, Muehlemann (Rapporteur of the Political Affairs
Committee).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
An
amendment (No. 17) was proposed by Mr Speroni, in the draft
opinion, at the end of paragraph 3, to add a new sentence worded as
follows:
"However,
due to the obstinate refusal of the Russian Government to recognise
the right of the Chechnyan people to self-determination, this search
for a solution has so far failed to bring the armed conflict to an
end;".
Speakers:
MM Galanos, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 32) was proposed by Mrs Err, in the draft
opinion, after paragraph 3, to insert a new paragraph worded as
follows:
"The
Assembly has followed the events in December 1995 in Gudermes and the
recent events in Pervomayskoye with deep concern. It firmly condemns
the taking of hostages as an act of terrorism and a flagrant
violation of human rights, which no cause can justify. At the same
time, it considers that the Russian authorities did not show
sufficient concern for the safety of the hostages. The apparent
indiscriminate use of force cost the lives of many innocent people
and violated international humanitarian law. The Chechnyan conflict
cannot be resolved by the use of force. There will be no peace in
the region, nor an end to terrorist attacks, without a political
solution, based on negotiation and on European democratic values".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 2) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, in
paragraph 6, to delete the words "able and willing" and to
insert the words:
"clearly
willing and will be able in the near future".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 3) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, in
paragraph 6.v, before the word "functioning" to insert the
word "role".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
An
amendment (No. 4) was, with the leave of the Assembly,
withdrawn.
Another
amendment (No. 5) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, at
the end of paragraph 6.ix, to add the following words:
"in
particular, the practically inhuman conditions in many pre-trial
detention centres will be ameliorated without delay;".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 6) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion,
after paragraph 6.ix, to add a new sub-paragraph worded as follows:
"the
responsibility for the prison administration and the execution of
judgments will be transferred to the Ministry of Justice before the
end of 1998;".
A
sub-amendment was proposed by Mr Bloetzer, to leave out the words
"before the end of 1998".
Lord
Finsberg proposed an oral sub-amendment in place of the
sub-amendment, to leave out the words "before the end of 1998"
and replace them with the words "as soon as possible".
Speakers:
MM Muehlemann (Rapporteur), Bársony, Novák (on points of order).
The oral
sub-amendment proposed by Lord Finsberg was agreed to.
Speakers:
Mrs Ojuland, Mr Galanos.
The
amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 20) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph x, to insert a new
sub-paragraph, worded as follows:
"the
Russian Federation will assist persons formerly deported from the
occupied Baltic States or those belonging to the descendants of
deportees, to return home according to special repatriation and
compensation programmes which must be worked out;".
Speakers:
MM Muehlemann (Rapporteur), Blaauw (on a point of order).
The
Assembly voted by sitting and standing.
The
amendment was agreed to.
Speakers:
MM Špaček, Speroni (on points of order).
Another
amendment (No. 7) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, in
paragraph 7, to delete the words "and control".
Speakers:
Lord Finsberg, Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 8) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, at
the end of paragraph 8, to add the following new sentence:
"In
the context of this joint programme, particular attention should also
be paid to support for and the strengthening of non-governmental
organisations in the field of human rights and to the establishment
of a civil society."
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Speaker:
Sir Andrew Bowden (on a point of order).
Another
amendment (No. 9) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, in
paragraph 9.ii, to delete the words "in the meantime" and
to insert the words:
"with
effect from the day of accession".
Speakers:
MM Špaček, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Amendment
No. 14 fell.
Another
amendment (No. 21) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph vii, to leave out the words
"to seek".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 22) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph vii, at the end, to insert the
words "rejecting resolutely any forms of threat to use force
against its neighbours".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 26) was proposed by Mrs Veidemann, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph viii, at the end, to
insert the words "abiding by the existing international
treaties".
Speakers:
MM Galanos, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 33) was proposed by Mr Speroni, in the draft
opinion, after paragraph 9.viii, to insert a new sub-paragraph worded
as follows:
"to
settle internal disputes, honouring the principle of peoples' right
to self-determination".
Speakers:
Lord Finsberg, Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 1) was proposed by Mr Diacov, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9.ix, after the words "to ratify" to
insert the following words:
"in
a period of six months after the accession of Russia to the Council
of Europe".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Speaker:
Lord Finsberg (on a point of order).
Another
amendment (No. 16) was proposed by Mr Atkinson, on behalf of the
Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries, in the
draft opinion, after paragraph 9.x, to add a new sub-paragraph worded
as follows:
"to
continue to negotiate with the religious communities on the return of
property confiscated since the 1917 Revolution".
Speakers:
MM Schwimmer, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 27) was proposed by Mr Van der Maelen, in the
draft opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph xi, to delete the word
"archives".
Speakers:
Sir Russell Johnston, Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 23) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph xi, at the end, to insert the
words "in respective areas including Caucasus".
Speakers:
MM Galanos, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 10) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion,
after paragraph 9.xi, to insert a new paragraph worded as follows:
"to
return without delay the property of the churches".
Mr
Bársony proposed an oral sub-amendment, to leave out the word
"churches" and insert the words "religious
institutions".
Speakers:
MM Galanos, Gricius, Muehlemann (Rapporteur), Kovakas.
The
sub-amendment was agreed to.
The
amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 24) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph xi, to insert a new
sub-paragraph, worded as follows:
"to
denounce as wrong the concept of two different species of foreign
countries, treating some of them as a zone of special influence
called 'near abroad'".
Speakers:
MM Solonari, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 25) was proposed by Mr Landsbergis, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph xii, to delete the words "to
seek".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 28) was proposed by Mr Van der Maelen, in the
draft opinion, at the end of paragraph 9, sub-paragraph xii., to add
the following words:
",
in particular the archives transferred to Moscow in 1945;".
Speaker:
Sir Russell Johnston, Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 34) was proposed by Mr Severin, in the draft
opinion, after paragraph 9.xii, to insert a new sub-paragraph worded
as follows:
"to
implement the necessary measures in order to facilitate the
repatriation of all those inhabitants of the territories occupied as
a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, who were deported after
1940, and to reimburse them for the damages suffered in connection
with the said deportation;".
Speaker:
Mr Bársony (Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee).
The
amendment was not agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 29) was proposed by Mr Valkeniers, in the draft
opinion, in paragraph 9, sub-paragraph xiii, to insert the following
words after the words "state secrets":
"and
to facilitate the consultation of archives kept in the Russian
Federation".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 11) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, at
the end of paragraph 9.xv, to add the following words:
"in
particular, the right of the Federal Security Service (FSB) to
possess and run pre-trial detention centres should be withdrawn.".
Speaker:
Mr Prokes.
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 12) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion,
after paragraph 9.xvi, to insert a new sub-paragraph worded as
follows:
"to
reduce, if not eliminate, incidents of ill-treatment and deaths in
the armed forces;".
A
sub-amendment was proposed by Mr Bloetzer, at the end, to add the
words:
"outside
military conflicts".
Speakers:
MM Speroni, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
sub-amendment was agreed to.
Speakers:
MM Kovalos, Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 13) was proposed by Mr Bindig, on behalf of the
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in the draft opinion, at
the end of paragraph 9.xvii, to add the following words:
"amongst
other legislation, presidential decree no. 1226 should be revised
without delay;".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 31) was proposed by Mrs Aguiar, in the draft
opinion, at the end of paragraph 9, to insert a new sub-paragraph
worded as follows:
"to
strictly respect the provisions of international humanitarian law,
including in cases of armed conflict on its territory".
Speakers:
MM Bársony (Chairman), Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 30) was proposed by Mrs Aguiar, in the draft
opinion, at the end of paragraph 9, to insert a new sub-paragraph
worded as follows:
"to
co-operate in good faith with international humanitarian
organisations and to enable them to carry on their activities on its
territory in conformity with their mandate".
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (Rapporteur).
The
amendment was agreed to.
An oral
amendment (oral Amendment A) was proposed by Mr Schwimmer, in the
draft opinion, after paragraph 9.xx, to add a new sub-paragraph as
follows:
"xxi. to
confirm the commitments indicated in paragraphs 6 and 9 in a written
form signed by the Russian authorities.".
Speakers:
MM Bársony, Schwimmer (on points of order).
Objection
being taken, this was not permitted.
Speaker:
Mr Muehlemann (on a point of order).
Objection
being taken to another oral amendment (oral Amendment B), in the
draft opinion, in paragraph 10, to leave out the words: "indicated
above: i. invite the Russian Federation" and to insert the
words:
"indicated
above, and as soon as a process to peaceful solution in Chechnya is
achieved:
i. invite
the Russian Federation in due course",
it
was not permitted.
Speaker:
Mr Bársony (on a point of order).
Another
oral amendment (oral Amendment C) was proposed by Mr Berg, in the
draft opinion, in paragraph 10, to replace sub-paragraph iii with the
following words:
"guarantee
that the Organisation's means and capabilities, in particular those
of the Assembly and of the Human Rights Institutions, are increased
to meet the consequences of these decisions".
Speakers:
MM Schieder, Bársony, Schwimmer (on points of order).
The
amendment was agreed to.
Another
amendment (No. 18) was proposed by Mr Schieder, in the draft
opinion, at the end of paragraph 10.iii, to add the following words:
"and
refrain from using the Russian Federation's accession to reduce the
contributions of states which are already members.".
The
amendment was agreed to.
At the
request of Mrs Ojuland and at least nine other members, the Assembly
proceeded to vote by roll-call on the draft opinion.
Votes
cast: 214
In
favour: 164
Against: 35
Abstentions:15
The draft
opinion, as amended, was accordingly adopted (Opinion
No. 193).
The
President congratulated the Russian delegation.
Speaker:
Mr Lukin.
Mr
Pahor, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mrs
Fischer
The
Assembly considered the motion for an order on the creation of an Ad
hoc Committee on Chechnya (Doc. 7475).
The
President informed the Assembly that a small change should be made to
the printed version of the motion for an order. In the last line,
the words "to the Assembly" should be replaced by the word
"back".
The
motion was agreed to (Order
No. 516).
4. DATE,
TIME AND ORDERS OF THE DAY OF THE NEXT SITTING
The next
public sitting was fixed for Friday 26 January at 11 am with the
following orders of the day:
1. Economic
situation in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
- Presentation
of the report from the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
on the economic situation in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (Doc. 7453)
by Mr Blaauw and Mr Novák, Rapporteurs.
- Debate
and vote
on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 7453.
2. Animal
welfare and transport of livestock in Europe
- Presentation
of the report from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
on animal welfare and transport of livestock in Europe (Doc. 7427)
by Mr Michels, Rapporteur.
- Debate
and votes
on the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 7427 and amendments.
3. Appointment
of members of the Standing Committee
The
sitting was closed at 7.46 pm.
ПЪРВАТА РУСКА ДЕЛЕГАЦИЯ В ПАСЕ
ОРИГИНАЛНИЯТ СПИСЪК,
ТАКА КАКТО Е ИЗПРАТЕН НА Г-ЖА ЛЕНИ ФИШЕР
