C Explanatory memorandum,Note by Mrs
In October 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 1633 (2008)
the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia. This resolution
recognises the need for priority to be given to the humanitarian
consequences of the war and called for further work to be carried
out on this subject.
2. In the light of this call, the Committee on Migration, Refugees
and Population was invited to prepare a report and Mrs Jonker was
appointed to carry out this work. In order to gather information
for the report she travelled to the region between 16 and 22 November
2008, first visiting Abkhazia, starting in Sukhumi before heading
down through the Gali district and back to Tbilisi. She then had
contacts with all relevant actors – governmental, international
and non-governmental – in Tbilisi, before visiting the former so-called
“buffer zone” and having contacts with the different organisations
active in Gori and the surrounding region.
3. The rapporteur had hoped to visit South Ossetia and Tskhinvali,
but was informed on the day before her departure, through the Russian
delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, that the South Ossetian
de facto authorities would not permit her to enter South Ossetia
from Georgia and that she should enter instead through Russia. This
was not possible to organise.
This report is based on the findings of the rapporteur during
the course of her visit and on the opinion she prepared and presented
to the Assembly in October on the consequences of the war between
Georgia and Russia (see Doc.11730
5. The rapporteur would like to pay tribute to the different
people she met in the course of her visit who were working to tackle
the many humanitarian needs of those affected by the conflict. She
would like to thank them for the time they took to brief her and
for their professionalism and commitment. She would particularly
like to thank the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
for setting up her programme in Abkhazia, and the Georgian Parliamentary
Assembly delegation and the Special Representative of the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe in Georgia for organising the remaining
parts of the programme.
The focus of this report is humanitarian issues. The rapporteur
has not chosen to examine political issues arising from the conflict.
Neither has she sought to adjudicate on human rights violations
or humanitarian law violations committed by both sides in the context
of the war, such as the intentional or avoidable killing or wounding
of civilians and the destruction of property. These are matters
which are the subject of a large number of individual applications
to the European Court of Human Rights against both sides. They are
also matters dealt with by inter-state cases brought by Georgia
against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights and the
International Court of Justice.Note
rapporteur supports all calls, including by the Commissioner for
Human Rights of the Council of Europe, for an independent and impartial
investigation of violations of humanitarian law and human rights
during the conflict.
2 Statistics on displacement
7. Since August 2008, about 100 000 internally displaced
persons (IDPs) in Georgia have returned to their homes, mostly in
the former so-called “buffer zone” with South Ossetia. There remain
approximately 23 000 IDPs with little prospect of early return and
according to UNHCR approximately 37 500 people will remain displaced
over the winter. Of those who fled to Russia, all but around 2 000
people have returned to South Ossetia.
8. Hand in hand with the plight of these IDPs and refugees, there
exists continuing concerns for 222 000 IDPs from the earlier conflicts
and also refugees whose long-term plight remains in urgent need
3 Persons killed or wounded
9. The total number of deaths and persons wounded continues
to be a controversy. According to the Georgian side they suffered
326 people killed. On the Russian and South Ossetian side, 133 people
have been reported killed.
4 People missing as a result of the conflict
10. The number of the missing as a result of the recent
conflict remains uncertain.
The rapporteur considers that accurate information on the
names of the civilian and military personnel missing on all sides
needs to be made available. It is also essential that the issue
of the missing from the previous conflicts is also taken into account
and that the relevant commissions for missing persons on all sides function.
In this respect the rapporteur considers it important that the commission
on missing persons in South Ossetia is re-established. In Abkhazia
the draft law on missing persons still needs to be adopted and the commission
previously established must be re-invigorated. In Georgia the work
of the commission on missing persons needs to be bolstered and a
new head and deputy head of the commission need to be appointed.
The precise work that these commissions should carry out is highlighted
in Parliamentary Resolution
on missing persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia form the conflicts over the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia
and South Ossetia regions. The rapporteur urges all parties to the
recent and past conflicts to work closely with the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on this issue.
5 Prisoners of war and hostages
12. The rapporteur notes the important work carried out
by the ICRC and also by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human
Rights in arranging for the release and exchange of prisoners of
war and other persons detained as a result of the conflict. The
rapporteur fully supports all calls for the release and exchange of
these persons and calls for action to be taken by the relevant authorities
to eliminate the practice of hostage taking.
13. It is important that cases of hostage taking are not carried
out with impunity and that they are prosecuted by the relevant authorities.
6 The situation in Abkhazia
14. Abkhazia itself was not directly touched by the war
between Georgia and Russia, although the Kodori valley was occupied
by Abkhaz forces in August 2008. Approximately 1 500 persons from
this region fled from the area. Approximately 100 people remained
in their homes and they face a harsh winter, largely cut off from the
outside world. The ICRC and UNHCR have had access to these persons
to ensure that they receive sufficient assistance to tide them through
the winter. The issue of return for those who fled remains, however, uncertain
for the moment.
15. The situation in the Gali region, which is the southernmost
region of Abkhazia populated almost entirely by Georgians remains
precarious. Even before the conflict erupted Georgians in Gali were
suffering from the closure of the de facto “border” with Georgia,
albeit that the de facto “border” remained porous. Since the conflict,
Georgians in the Gali region have felt even less secure and even
more cut off. It has become increasingly difficult and dangerous
to cross the de facto “border” for family contacts, medical treatment
and commercial purposes or to claim subsidies, pensions or other
sums paid by the Georgian authorities. Furthermore the security
situation remains tense with people reluctant to leave their homes
after dark and with fast moving Russian and Abkhaz armoured vehicles
moving along the roads. There is a fear of military conscription
and discrimination, even if many people pay bribes to avoid this.
There continue to be reports of harassment, with persons being forced
to work without pay or being forced to pay unofficial “taxes” on
their produce. The rapporteur enquired about the issue of “passportisation”
and was led to understand that while many ethnic Georgians feared
not receiving public services, including health care if they did
not take up Abkhaz “passports”, there was no great pressure being
put on persons in the Gali region in this respect. Indeed, amongst
those who had applied for the Abkhaz “passports”, very few had received
16. The rapporteur, when visiting the Gali region as part of a
UNOMIG patrol, was struck by the number of deserted and destroyed
or damaged properties left over from the earlier conflict. From
her contacts in one of the villages it was clear that persons were
once again gradually leaving the region, as evidenced by the falling number
of children in schools. All was not, however, bleak and the rapporteur
also had the benefit of seeing a number of aid projects being carried
out. For example she witnessed the “Shelter Project” being carried
out by the Norwegian Refugee Council which was helping to repair
roofs for damaged houses and a further project to provide running
water to homes in various villages.
17. The rapporteur was, however, concerned to hear that in the
lower Gali region, schools and teachers were coming under increasing
pressure to stop teaching in Georgian and to cease using Georgian
textbooks. In the upper Gali region such teaching had already apparently
18. The rapporteur had the opportunity to meet with school teachers,
civil society representatives, human rights activists and medical
workers, all of whom attested to the different problems outlined
above. There was real concern that the international community might
pull out from Abkhazia and there was a plea for this not to happen.
19. The rapporteur is aware that ethnic Georgians (Mingrelians)
in the Gali region are effectively in a minority situation in Abkhazia.
They are in need of minority protection and minority rights. The
rapporteur considers that the de facto authorities should take full
account of international minority rights including those under the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
20. It is difficult to ascertain how many ethnic Georgians remain
in the Gali region, with UN estimates of about 45 000 people who
had fled but had returned and a total population of between 60 000
and 70 000. The Abkhaz figures are, however, much higher and Georgian
figures much lower. What is clear, however, is that the numbers
are now falling and if this situation is to be stopped, much greater
attention needs to be paid to the plight of those living in this
region by the international community. As already noted, people
in the region are becoming increasingly fearful that the international
organisations, governmental and non-governmental, will gradually
withdraw. Of most concern at the moment is UNOMIG and the question
of its continued presence in Abkhazia. It is currently operating
without a mandate since the Moscow agreement was made null and void.
21. In the view of the rapporteur, it is essential that a new
mandate is worked out for a UN presence in Abkhazia and in particular
for the Gali region where the mere presence of UN observers and
patrols provides some welcome security for the local people.
22. The rapporteur considers it extremely important that the Council
of Europe be further involved in Abkhazia and provide support for
the United Nations in any future mission it undertakes in this region
as a follow up to UNOMIG. Furthermore, the rapporteur considers
that there is an urgent need for the Council of Europe Commissioner
for Human Rights to visit the region again to raise awareness of
the problems still being faced by people living in this region and
to establish ways in which to tackle the human rights problems of
7 The Kodori Valley
23. Abkhaz troops attacked the Kodori Valley on 9 August
2008 and took over the area after the local population and Georgian
servicemen fled the area. Approximately 5 100 ethnic Georgians (Svans)
fled the occupied area and it is thought that about 100 people remained.
24. It is not clear whether those who fled the area will be able
and allowed to return after the winter. For those persons who did
not leave the area, the winter will be long and harsh. The rapporteur
understands that the ICRC and UNHCR have had access to these people
and that they have been able to provide some assistance to them.
25. The rapporteur considers that return of the people who fled
should be a priority for the spring and that pressure should be
put on the de facto Abkhaz authorities and the Russian authorities
to ensure that this return takes place in safety and in dignity.
8 The situation in South Ossetia
26. The rapporteur was unable to visit South Ossetia
notwithstanding her request passed on by the Russian delegation
of the Parliamentary Assembly to the de facto authorities in South
Ossetia. She was informed that there were no cross-over points at
the de facto “border” with Georgia and that foreign delegations
had to enter South Ossetia from Russia. The rapporteur was invited
to find a possibility to enter South Ossetia from the territory
27. The rapporteur received this information the day before she
was due to fly to Georgia on her visit and it was not possible for
her to change her programme in the way suggested by the de facto
South Ossetian authorities.
28. As a result of this, the rapporteur is not able to comment
in any detail on the current situation in South Ossetia, either
in terms of the humanitarian situation of the few Georgians still
remaining in South Ossetia or in terms of the situation of the population
at large and the refugees who have returned from Russia after the end
of the conflict.
29. The rapporteur did, however, visit the region briefly with
the ad hoc committee of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Bureau on 26
September 2008. It is clear to the rapporteur that the situation
in South Ossetia remains extremely complicated for the remaining
Georgian population. They are cut off from the rest of Georgia with
little access to international humanitarian aid and with little
international human rights monitoring of their situation. Many are
reportedly being pressurised into taking South Ossetian passports.
One of the few human rights actors able to have regular access to
the region has been the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human
Rights and the rapporteur commends him for his work and public statements
on the situation in the region.
30. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) led an inter-agency mission to South Ossetia from 16 to 20
September 2008 to obtain an overall picture of the humanitarian
needs and this included representatives from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World
Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The
ICRC is the only international organisation to be present on the
ground in Tskhinvali and has been providing humanitarian aid from
the first days of the conflict through to the present.
31. The population as a whole in South Ossetia is facing great
hardship during the winter months with food and non-food items,
electricity and gas being in short supply. Those with damaged or
destroyed housing are in a particularly difficult situation. The
rapporteur is greatly concerned by this situation and encourages
the de facto South Ossetian authorities to allow humanitarian aid
also from Georgia, and for the Georgian authorities to ensure that
the recent Law on the Occupied Territories is not applied in such
a way as to prevent humanitarian aid reaching people in need in
9 The situation in the former so-called “buffer
zone” with South Ossetia
32. The rapporteur visited the former so-called “buffer
zone” and spoke with international organisations and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and a number of locals in the area. She saw
many destroyed properties, in particular as she approached the de
facto “border” close to Tskhinvali.
33. The withdrawal of the Russian troops, the deployment of the
EUMM, the monitoring by the OSCE and the deployment of Georgian
police in the former so-called “buffer zone” have all contributed
to improving the security in this region. The security, however,
close to the de facto “border” remains problematic, to such an extent
that many people are unable to return and those that have returned
continue to feel extremely insecure. There are continuing incidents
of sniper fire, kidnappings and roaming militia from South Ossetia
intimidating locals and demanding food and drink. There were complaints
that the local Georgian police were not sufficiently present and
not patrolling at night and limiting their presence to the de facto
34. The local population continue to express fears about unexploded
ordnance and mines, the difficulties of accessing firewood or fields
close to the de facto “border”. They also express insecurity and
fear at the sound of Russian helicopters flying overhead. The rapporteur
during her visit was informed about a number of shooting incidents
where Georgian police or officials and others were targeted by sniper
fire. The rapporteur was also informed about booby traps, such as
the incident in the Dvani area on 10 November when a booby trapped
South Ossetian flag was taken down by Georgian police, killing two
people and injuring three others.
35. The rapporteur is greatly concerned by the ongoing lack of
security in the zones closest to the de facto “border”. There clearly
needs to be monitoring of the situation on both sides of the de
facto “border” by both the EUMM and by the OSCE monitors (see point
XI). The authorities in South Ossetia need to clamp down on the activities
of militias operating from South Ossetia and the Georgian police
need to provide a stronger presence, in particular at night, not
just at the de facto “border” points, but throughout the villages
in the most sensitive areas.
36. The rapporteur noted during her visit the very real danger
and ease with which confrontations at the de facto “border” could
quickly get out of hand. Many of the de facto “border” points have
armed Georgian police and South Ossetian forces facing each other
at short distances. There is a clear need for another solution,
such as a demilitarised zone or international peace keepers on the
de facto “border”.
10 The situation in the Akhalgori region and in Perevi
37. These are both areas which have been occupied by
the Russian and South Ossetian forces outside of the pre-conflict
de facto “border” of South Ossetia. Russian and South Ossetian forces
have refused to pull back from their positions, notwithstanding
international pressure on them to do so. Approximately 5 100 persons
have already fled the region of Akhalgori and there are fears that
even more people will leave due to the lack of security, combined
with the harsh winter conditions and the lack of food, gas, heating
and financial assistance and income.
11 The role of the European Union Monitoring Mission
38. The rapid deployment of the EUMM on 1 October 2008
has allowed the Russian forces to withdraw from most of the former
so-called “buffer zone”. This has allowed many displaced persons
to return to their homes before the onset of winter.
39. The mission has over 200 monitors working in the field. Monitors
are unarmed and have the mandate of monitoring rather than protection.
They currently cover the Georgian side of the de facto “border”
with South Ossetia and Abkhazia as they have not been granted access
to the other sides.
40. The rapporteur welcomes the prompt deployment of the mission
and the news that they have received and continue to receive human
rights training from the Council of Europe. Their mere presence
in the former so-called “buffer zone” allows many in the zone to
feel more secure and also provides a calming influence at the de
facto “border” points where armed South Ossetian irregular forces
and Georgian police face each other, sometimes no more than 50 metres
41. The rapporteur greatly regrets that the monitors have no possibility
for crossing the de facto “border” into South Ossetia. She also
regrets that the monitors only have a monitoring mandate and not
a protection mandate. She considers it imperative that the monitors
have access to South Ossetia and Abkhazia and that either they be
given a protection mandate or that consideration be given to developing
their mandate into a peace-keeping mandate both sides of the de
facto “border”. Should this not be appropriate, consideration should
be given to providing such a mandate to another body such as the
42. The rapporteur, while understanding the speed with which the
EUMM has had to establish itself, has noted from her meetings with
the EUMM and other persons in Georgia, a number of problems which
need to be ironed out in the operation of the mission. The monitors
are either Russian speakers or have access to Russian interpreters.
While this would be important if they were able to work on the South
Ossetian side of the de facto “border”, what they currently require
is Georgian speakers and Georgian interpreters. The mission suffers
from a lack of institutional memory from past European Union monitoring
missions, the vehicles are from a variety of different countries
creating problems of servicing and spares and the patrols are often
based too widely apart, making it virtually impossible to reach
certain areas during the hours of their patrols. Some commentators
complained that the monitors were never seen beyond their vehicles
and the rapporteur was led to understand that monitors were under
instruction to remain on the roads. The rapporteur noted a certain frustration
from different organisations that the reports of the EUMM were not
made available. The rapporteur shares this frustration as she does
not have access to these reports either. She considers that the
EUMM should be providing at least some of its report to all concerned
actors in the region or providing them with alternative reports
if certain information is considered sensitive.
43. The rapporteur welcomes that the monitors have started to
undertake night patrols alongside day patrols and from her conversations
with a number of monitors she was impressed by the level of their
individual commitment. The rapporteur encourages the European Union
to provide full support to the monitoring operation and encourages
the relevant authorities to facilitate the EUMM in carrying out
its mandate and to revise the mandate as necessary.
12 The monitoring role of the OSCE
44. The OSCE is carrying out valuable monitoring work
in the former so-called “buffer zone” with South Ossetia. The information
available from the reports they prepare provides a good insight
into the ongoing security concerns in this zone. This is particularly
important as the reports of the EUMM are not generally available.
45. The rapporteur considers it important that the OSCE monitors
be given access to South Ossetia to carry out their monitoring and
that their numbers be increased.
13 IDPs and humanitarian aid in areas under the control
46. The Georgian Government has shown a strong commitment
to tackle the humanitarian issues its population is facing, learning
from mistakes made following the earlier conflicts over Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.
47. The government has moved quickly to provide durable solutions
for those IDPs who have little or no prospect of return in the near
future. The building of over 6 000 small family houses can be welcomed.
These houses have a surface area of 65 square metres, gardens of
approximately 400 square metres and some have inside bathrooms.
They are equipped with basic furniture, crockery and the new residents
have each been given a settling in allowance of 200 lari per head.
48. The rapporteur visited some of these houses during her visit
to Georgia and they appear well built. There are, nonetheless, some
criticisms which can be raised, namely the lack of bathrooms in
certain houses and the location of these houses away from basic
amenities and in areas with few economic prospects. There are also concerns
about the lack of clarity as to the criteria for allocation of such
housing. Furthermore, the fact that all the houses are the same
size gives the impression that “one size fits all” when clearly
this is not the case, not only in terms of size of the houses and
families, but also the appropriateness of the houses for certain
people with specific needs, such as the elderly.
49. As many of the people housed in these new homes are unlikely
to return to their homes in the near future, it is important that
the government now works on ensuring amenities and infrastructure
in the vicinity (such as schools, shops and health-care clinics),
that adequate arable land in the vicinity is provided to those with agrarian
backgrounds and that employment opportunities are facilitated in
the areas where the houses are built.
50. Along with the new houses built, the government has been working
on the winterisation of 137 collective centres for IDPs. This is
being done with assistance from many international actors. The rapporteur
visited a collective centre in Tbilisi which housed both old and
new IDPs. The building was a former hotel (Hotel Abkhazeti) where
families were housed in single rooms, some with bathroom and some
without. Cooking was being carried out on balconies and in the corridors.
The collective centre was extremely dilapidated and dangerous and
the rapporteur was informed that a number of persons had been killed
in a fire in the building a few years earlier and that another person
had tragically fallen to his death down the unprotected stairwell. The
rapporteur considers that it is urgent to speed up rehabilitation
work on the collective centres and provide more suitable accommodation
to the many remaining IDPs in these centres whether they are recently displaced
or those displaced from the earlier conflict.
51. For those persons who have damaged property from the recent
conflict and who remained or returned, the rapporteur has concerns
about their living conditions. While much work has been carried
out to “winterise” these properties, providing at least one warm
room, replacing broken windows, making available plastic sheeting,
materials for building, for example, much of this work was carried
out late in the year. This work needs to continue as a priority
through the winter months.
52. The authorities have taken important steps to provide assistance
to the most vulnerable, including those with psychological problems
arising from the conflict. Schools in Georgia, including in the
former so-called “buffer zone” have been re-opened and are functioning
and school supplies have been distributed to the children. Free
primary medical aid has been provided but needs to be extended over
53. The rapporteur welcomes the overwhelming international response
to the humanitarian and protection needs of the IDPs in Georgia.
US$4.5 billion has been pledged as a result of the Crisis Flash
Appeal and the Joint Needs Assessment put together in the aftermath
of the war. In terms of implementation, the government is assisted
by an interagency co-ordination mechanism involving international
organisations and NGOs, based on a cluster approach. Under this
approach there is one lead agency which works with other agencies
on individual issues such as education, food distribution, health,
legal, information and other services, livelihoods, mine action,
non-food items, child protection, shelter, cash assistance to host
families, returnees and others, and water and sanitation. The UNHCR,
for example, has the lead on protection issues, while WHO has the
lead on health issues.
54. Notwithstanding the good work that has been carried out to
date, the rapporteur considers that certain action has to be undertaken
as a matter of priority by the Georgian authorities.
55. It is important to improve the provisions of primary humanitarian
aid including food and firewood to villages in the former so-called
“buffer zone” adjacent to South Ossetia. It is also important to
ensure that those who were not displaced by the conflict, but who
are nonetheless affected by the conflict, receive appropriate aid.
Furthermore there are still serious security concerns in the former
so-called “buffer zone” and it is imperative that the police increase
their patrols in these areas, in particular during the night.
56. One of the priorities for the Georgian Government is to adopt
a revised strategy and action plan for new and old IDPs and ensure
that assistance to these persons is provided on the basis of simple,
rational, clear and transparent criteria of real need and vulnerability
rather than status.
57. One of the complaints that the rapporteur heard on numerous
occasions was that IDPs were not being systematically informed and
consulted about their situation, their future and their entitlements.
The rapporteur considers that it is important that information and
communication channels are improved and that initiatives such as
the creation of an information centre for IDPs in Gori are repeated
elsewhere in Georgia. IDPs must be in possession of all relevant
information in order to allow them to make a free and informed choice
as to whether to integrate locally, return or resettle on a temporary
or permanent basis.
58. The rapporteur also heard during her visit of the dangers
of trafficking of newly displaced persons and that problems of violence
against women existed, notwithstanding that few individuals were
prepared to speak out on the subject. The rapporteur considers that
the authorities must tackle these two issues.
59. The rapporteur also heard from a number of sources, including
from the Public Defender of Georgia, that many persons affected
by the conflict are unable to pay their banking loans. The problem
is particularly acute for those who have lost their homes and their
incomes. Solutions need to be found to help people in this situation.
60. The rapporteur is also greatly concerned by the new Law on
the Occupied Territories which seeks to limit economic and other
transactions with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The rapporteur considers
that it is important that this law is not applied in such a way
as to worsen the humanitarian and human rights situation of those
living on the other side of the de facto “borders” or in any way
to impede the access of humanitarian aid.
61. The rapporteur encourages the Georgian authorities to seek
expertise on the law and any implementing legislation from the European
Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) to make
sure it does not infringe any human rights or humanitarian standards.
62. The rapporteur regrets that at the time of preparing
this report she had not had the opportunity to carry out a full
visit to South Ossetia. She remains ready to travel to South Ossetia
in order to supplement the information in this report, or to prepare
a separate report on South Ossetia, should this be the wish of the Assembly.
63. The humanitarian consequences of the war between Georgia and
Russia are far from solved and the position is changing rapidly
on the ground from week to week, season to season. The rapporteur
remains greatly concerned about the security situation of the ethnic
Georgians remaining in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and in the occupied
zones. She is also acutely aware of the hardships faced by all those
affected by the conflict, whether because of loss of loved ones,
loss of property or livelihood, or because of the extremely difficult
living conditions in collective centres, new homes or destroyed
or damaged homes, where heating and availability of food may continue
to be a problem during the winter months.
64. The rapporteur was, however, heartened by the effort being
made by many to tackle the humanitarian challenges arising from
the conflict and considers that the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe should keep the issue as a priority on its agenda.
Reporting committee: Committee
on Migration, Refugees and Population.
Reference to committee: Bureau’s
decision, Reference No. 3495 of 24 November 2008.
Draft recommendation and draft
resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 11 December
Members of the committee: Mrs
Corien W.A. Jonker (Chairperson),
Mr Doug Henderson (1st Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Pedro Agramunt (2nd Vice-Chairperson),
Mr Alessandro Rossi (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Tina Acketoft, Mr Francis Agius, Mr Ioannis Banias, Ms Donka
Banović, Mr Márton Braun, Mr André Bugnon, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik,
Mr Vannino Chiti, Mr Christopher Chope (alternate: Mr Bill Etherington), Mr Boriss Cilevičs,
Mrs Minodora Cliveti, Mr Telmo Correia, Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr Ivica Dačić,
Mr Taulant Dedja, Mr Nikolaos Dendias, Mr Arcadio DíazTejera,
Mr Mitko Dimitrov, Mr Karl Donabauer,
Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Valeriy Fedorov, Mr Oleksandr Feldman, Mrs Doris
Fiala, Mr Bernard Fournier, Mr Paul Giacobbi, Mrs Gunn Karin Gjul,
Mrs Angelika Graf, Mr John Greenway (alternate: Mr Humfrey Malins), Mr Tony Gregory, Mr Andrzej
Grzyb, Mr Michael Hagberg,
Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mr Davit Harutyunyan (alternate: Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan), Mr Jürgen Herrmann,
Mr Bernd Heynemann, Mr Jean Huss, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Mustafa Jemiliev, Mr Tomáš Jirsa, Mr Reijo
Kallio, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mr Guiorgui Kandelaki (alternate: Mr David Darchiashvili), Mr Egidijus Klumbys,
Mr Ruslan Kondratov, Mr Dimitrij Kovačič, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr
Geert Lambert, Mr Younal
Loutfi (alternate: Mrs Aneliya Atanasova),
Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Jean-Pierre Masseret (alternate: Mr Denis Jacquat), Mr Slavko Matić, Mrs
Ana Catarina Mendonça, Mr Gebhard Negele, Mr Hryhoriy Omelchenko, Mr Morten Østergaard,
Mr Alexey Ostrovsky, Mr Grigore Petrenco, Mr Cezar Florin Preda,
Mr Milorad Pupovac, Mr Frédéric Reiss, Mrs Mailis Reps, Mr Gonzalo Robles Orozco
(alternate: Mr Gabino Puche),
Mr Giacomo Santini, Mrs Michaela Sburny, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mr Steingrímur
J. Sigfússon, Mrs Miet Smet, Mr Giacomo Stucchi, Mr Vilmos Szabó, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Michał
Wojtczak, Mr Marco Zacchera, Mr Yury Zelenskiy, Mr Andrej Zernovski,
Mr Jiří Zlatuška.
NB: The names of the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
Secretariat of the committee: Mr
Lervik, Mr Neville, Mrs Odrats, Mr Ekström.