Honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia
Addendum to the report
| Doc. 11701 Add.
| 09 April 2009
- Committee
- Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
- Co-rapporteur :
- Mr Charles GOERENS,
Luxembourg, ALDE
- Co-rapporteur :
- Mr Andreas GROSS,
Switzerland, SOC
- Thesaurus
Summary
The present addendum takes stock of key developments that
occurred in Serbia between September 2008 and March 2009 and thus
updates the report on the honouring of obligations and commitments
by Serbia (Doc. 11701), which was adopted by the Committee on the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee) on 11 September 2008.
1 Foreword
1. The report on the honouring
of obligations and commitments by Serbia (
Doc. 11701) was adopted by the Monitoring Committee on 11 September
2008 and was due to be debated during the 2008 fourth part-session
(29 September-3 October). However, due to last-minute changes in
the agenda, the debate on our report was postponed until the 2009
second part-session. The committee, therefore, instructed us to
pay another visit to Serbia and prepare an addendum to the report
and propose draft amendments to update the draft resolution in the
light of recent developments. The fact-finding visit took place
on 9 and 10 February 2009 (with only Mr Gross participating as Mr Goerens
was unable to join the delegation due to other commitments).
2. The present addendum aims at taking stock of key developments
that occurred in Serbia between September 2008 and March 2009. It
does not replace in any manner the draft report on the honouring
of obligations and commitments by Serbia (
Doc. 11701) and, in our opinion, the conclusions contained therein remain
to a large extent valid. The addendum was drafted on the basis of
written information we received as well as taking into account the
conclusions of the February 2009 fact-finding visit to Serbia. The
press release issued after the visit is reproduced in Appendix II.
3. In the preparation of this addendum, we were greatly assisted
by the Serbian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, which organised
the programme for our visit. We are also grateful to the representatives
of the diplomatic community accredited in Belgrade for their useful
input into our analysis, as well as to the Special Representative
of the Council of Europe in Belgrade, Ambassador Constantin Yerocostopoulos,
and to his team, for their practical assistance and informed advice.
2 Political developments
2.1 European integration
4. The general commitment of the
ruling coalition to pursue European integration appears to have
been maintained, as exemplified by the adoption of a number of key
laws relating to European integration. This resulted, on 30 January
2009, with the start of the unilateral implementation of the Interim
Trade Agreement, pending its ratification (together with the Stabilisation
and Association Agreement) by the member states of the European
Union.
5. We also welcome the continuation of discussions between the
European Union and Serbia on visa liberalisation and hope that all
technical matters relating to this issue will be solved in the course
of 2009 to enable a political decision to be taken in early 2010.
The eventual abolition of visas will be an extremely important step
forward in making the benefits of European integration accessible
to all citizens of Serbia.
6. We took note of the progress report of the European Commission
on Serbia,
NoteNote issued on 5 November 2008, the main
conclusions of which follow the general lines of our report. In
this progress report, the European Commission noted that, “since
the presidential and legislative elections, there has been increased
stability in government and greater consensus on European integration.
… Serbia made significant progress on co-operation with the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), including the
arrests of Radovan Karadžić and Stojan Župljanin. … Civil and political
rights in Serbia are generally protected. … Serbia has good capacity
in its public administration.”
7. That said, the European Commission also noted that “further
efforts need to be taken to ensure the independence, accountability
and efficiency of the judicial system. Corruption remains widespread
and constitutes a serious problem.”
8. Generally, the conclusions of the European Commission concerning
Serbia’s compliance with the Copenhagen criteria fully join our
assessment of the state of development of democracy, rule of law
and human rights in this country. Many problems identified by the
European Commission are directly related to the implementation of
Council of Europe commitments and obligations. We hope that our
report will help the Serbian authorities define a concrete road
map for strengthening democratic institutions, rule of law and human rights,
in order to implement the remaining accession commitments and general
statutory Council of Europe obligations, thus paving the way for
fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. At the same time, we call on
the member states and the institutions of the European Union to
resolutely continue the policy of European Union enlargement in
the Western Balkans. European integration is an important stimulus
to the continuation of democratic reforms. During times of global
economic crisis, this stimulus should not be weakened.
2.2 Developments
around KosovoNote
9. This issue has continued to
dominate Serbian politics, though in a different manner. We welcome
the fact that, in line with the recommendation contained in our
report, the Serbian authorities have continued to defend their position
with respect to Kosovo by peaceful and diplomatic means. The request
for an advisory opinion addressed to the International Court of
Justice by the United Nations General Assembly, at the proposal
of the Serbian delegation, confirms this.
10. We commend the Serbian authorities for their constructive
approach in the negotiations on the deployment of the European Union
Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo, which culminated in the conclusion
of an agreement between the UN, the EU and Serbia on the modalities
of the operation of EULEX in Kosovo. The UN Security Council, on
26 November 2008, unanimously adopted a presidential statement that
took note of the report of the UN Secretary-General on the reconfiguration
of the UN civil presence in Kosovo, which included this agreement
in its entirety. EULEX is to function as a status-neutral mission,
under the authority of the UN.
11. In our opinion, this constructive move by all parties concerned
is extremely important as it creates the basis for taking a number
of concrete steps in order to improve the situation of people living
in Kosovo, irrespective of their ethnic origin and convictions.
While respecting the positions of all parties, we welcome this pragmatic
approach and hope that it will contribute to greater co-operation
between all sides concerned on concrete issues relating to the well-being
of the population of Kosovo, in line with our recommendations contained
in the draft resolution.
2.3 Domestic politics
12. We would like to commend the
members of the governing coalition
Note for their pragmatic attitude
and constructive co-operation around key priorities of national
policy. The top priorities of the new government are European Union
integration and the defence of the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of Serbia, along with the strengthening of the national economy,
the enhancement of social responsibilities of the government, the strengthening
of the fight against corruption and respect for international law.
Note We welcome the signing, in October
2008, of the Declaration of Political Reconciliation by the Democratic
Party (DS) and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) and hope that
this solemn act will create a concrete basis for developing a strong
and sustainable partnership between these two political forces.
13. We also commend all members of the governing coalition for
their ability to compromise, in the light of national interests,
while preserving their individual political positions, as exemplified
by the lengthy negotiations on the signing of the Energy Agreement
with the Russian Federation and of the contract on the selling of
the national oil company NIS. As we noted in our report, over the
past couple of years, the ruling coalitions in Serbia have suffered
from too many internal divisions, which prevented them from functioning
effectively and led, at times, to pre-term elections. We believe
that Serbia has had too many elections. Now the time has come to preserve
the newly established political stability and move ahead with long-awaited
reforms.
14. That said, we still remain concerned about the fact that the
parliament is not functioning efficiently. In particular, the debate
continues to be affected by obstructionist tactics of the opposition,
while the response of the ruling majority does not always appear
to be adequate. One of the issues at dispute is the live broadcasting of
parliamentary sessions on the second public television channel.
While the majority claims that the opposition is abusing the floor
to address the general public, talking about general issues not
related to the agenda, the opposition asserts that the suspension
of live broadcasting of the sessions would jeopardise the basic democratic
right of the MPs to have their views made known to the electorate.
We acknowledge the importance of live broadcasting of parliamentary
sessions in Serbia, because, historically, this has been seen as
a direct expression of democracy, as opposed to the period of Milosevic’s
authoritarian rule, when the parliament was used to rubber-stamp
legislation. However, we consider that the risks of abusing the
parliamentary process in front of television cameras are equally
very high. Therefore, we call upon all actors to adopt a constructive attitude
in order to find a compromise solution. The discussions about the
establishment of a parliamentary channel, initiated by the Speaker
of the Parliament, could help resolve this issue.
15. Another issue that is preventing the parliament from functioning
effectively is the ongoing conflict between the MPs who joined the
Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and the parliamentary group of the
Serbian Radical Party (SRS). The split of the SRS occurred after
the former leader of its parliamentary group and SRS candidate in
the 2008 presidential election, Mr Tomislav Nikolić, resigned, on
6 September 2008, from the post of group leader. It is believed
that his resignation was motivated by strong disagreements with
the leader of the SRS, Mr Vojislav Šešelj, currently in custody
at the ICTY, regarding, in particular, the issue of the ratification of
the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
16. Mr Nikolić, together with another 21 MPs elected on the list
of the SRS, soon formed a new parliamentary group, “Napred, Srbijo”
(“Forward, Serbia”). Subsequently, on 21 October 2008, he founded
a new political party called the “Serbian Progressive Party”. The
SRS is currently contesting the legitimacy of the mandates of the
members of the “Napred, Srbijo” parliamentary group, claiming that
the MPs who had joined this group should have resigned from parliament,
by virtue of blank resignations given after the elections, according
to Serbian parliamentary practice. In particular, they filed a law
suit against Mr Tomislav Nikolić for destroying official documents
(namely, the blank resignations of MPs).
17. We call upon the members of the Serbian Radical Party to put
an end to the dispute and respect the political choice of individual
MPs who decided to disagree with the party line and form their own
parliamentary group. The spirit of pluralism, dialogue and constructive
co-operation should prevail over formalism and obstructionist tactics.
3 Democratic institutions
3.1 Functioning of
the parliament and pluralist democracy
18. It is regrettable that, more
than two years since the adoption of the new constitution, the parliament
has still not adopted the law on the National Assembly of Serbia.
The Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly of Serbia (hereafter
“rule book”) have not been revised either. We were informed by the
Speaker of the Parliament of the establishment of two working groups
to draft, respectively, the draft law on the national assembly and
the new rule book.
19. During our visit, the parliament was expected to debate a
number of amendments to the existing rule book which are necessary
to streamline the parliamentary debate, pending the drafting and
adoption of a completely new rule book. The discussion on the amendments
started on 10 February 2009, during our visit to Belgrade. The debate
was interrupted several times because of procedural omissions and
obstructionism by the opposition MPs and ended eventually on 17
February 2009 with the adoption of the amendments to the rule book,
without the participation of the representatives of the opposition
(who did not attend the session on that day because they decided
to go to Kosovo to provide support to the Kosovo Serbs on the day
of the first anniversary of the adoption by the Kosovo Assembly
of the unilateral declaration of independence).
20. While we welcome the adoption of the amendments that introduce
more stringent time limits for discussing draft laws in plenary
and streamline the parliamentary procedure, we do not believe that
adopting amendments to the rule book without the participation of
the opposition is a good example of a healthy parliamentary process.
We call upon all political forces in the parliament to participate
constructively in the drafting of the new rule book. We recall our
recommendation to the National Assembly of Serbia to make full use
of PACE’s Parliamentary Assistance Programme in the drafting process.
In particular, we would like the working group responsible for the
drafting of the rule book to make full use of the relevant Council
of Europe expert report that was made available to the national
assembly in summer 2007.
21. More fundamentally, we consider that the transparent and efficient
functioning of democratic institutions, which citizens can trust,
should be a top priority objective of the Serbian authorities. The
adoption of the new legislation on the National Assembly and of
the new rule book is only part of the process of strengthening pluralist
democracy in Serbia. The constitutional provisions introducing a
“party-administered mandate” of the MPs
Note and
the provisions of the electoral legislation on the allocation of
mandates, which make the members of parliament fully dependent on
the goodwill of the leadership of political parties, have to be
revised. As we noted in our report, we consider that the members
of parliament elected by the citizens should act as free representatives
of the electorate and not as mere tools of the political parties
to which they belong. Therefore, a constitutional revision is required
to bring Serbia’s democratic institutions up to the standards of
the Council of Europe.
22. Naturally, we are aware that the constitutional reform is
a time-consuming and complex process, which requires building a
vast consensus among the key actors on the proposed changes. However,
we believe that one cannot sit and do nothing about this problem,
using the stringent provisions governing constitutional amendments
as an excuse. We call on the authorities to start working with the
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
of the Council of Europe, in order to find concrete ways of implementing
the Commission’s recommendations contained in the appraisal of the
constitution (CDL-AD(2007)004), in line with the recommendations
contained in our report.
3.2 Status of Vojvodina
23. In our draft report, we noted
that the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina was expected to
adopt the new statute of Vojvodina, in accordance with the law on
the implementation of the constitution. The statute was adopted
by the provincial assembly on 15 October 2008 and now has to be
confirmed by the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. However,
the statute of Vojvodina and the necessary accompanying law on the
delimitation of competences between the central authorities and
the autonomous province have not yet been put on the agenda of the
parliament. The opposition is strongly opposing the new statute,
claiming that it would give to the autonomous province certain attributes
of the state. The members of the ruling coalition are not in total
agreement on the statute either: while the DS asserts that the statute
contains no incompatibilities with the Constitution of Serbia, the
SPS members of the coalition have so far shown strong reservations
against the current version of the statute, claiming that it would
be in violation of the constitution.
24. We regret that the statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina
has not yet been confirmed and call upon all key actors to resolve
this issue promptly, in the spirit of constructive dialogue. We
believe that possible misunderstandings and alleged violations of
the constitutional order could be eliminated in the law on the delimitation
of competences, in line with the principles of autonomy and with
due respect to the constitutional norms.
4 The rule of law
4.1 The reform of
the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office
25. We note that the national assembly
finally adopted, on 22 December 2008, a whole set of laws on the reform
of the judiciary and of the public prosecutor’s office. The Venice
Commission provided advice on the legislation governing the judiciary.
Note As
we noted in our report, the Venice Commission stressed in its opinions that
the “Constitution of Serbia endangered judicial independence and
created a major risk of politicising the judiciary by providing
for the election of judges and of the High Judicial Council in the
National Assembly, and by creating a discontinuity between the existing
judiciary and the new judiciary to be chosen, once the High Judicial
Council is established”. The recently adopted legislation attempts
to provide a response to these problems. In particular, the law
on the High Judicial Council gives a powerful role to the judges
in the election of the majority of the council. That said, the national
assembly still remains the final decision-making body.
26. The law on judges did not resolve all our concerns either,
as Article 50 of this law provides in its paragraph 4 that “the
High Judicial Council shall propose to the National Assembly one
or more candidates for each judge’s position”. This means that,
ultimately, the national assembly will still be able to exercise
political discretion over the appointment of judges, which puts
the independence of the judiciary at risk. Moreover, despite assurances
given to the Council of Europe experts at the stage of the drafting,
the final version of the law on judges does not include the detailed
procedure and criteria for the initial re-election of all judges
in the country. We were assured by the minister of Justice and her
team that the advice from the Venice Commission would be sought
in the drafting of the criteria and procedure for the re-appointment
of judges. We call upon the authorities to make full use of the
expertise of the Venice Commission in order to establish clear legal guarantees
allowing the serving judges, against whom there are no allegations
of incompetence or behaviour incompatible with the function of the
judge, to remain in office.
27. The laws on the State Prosecutorial Council and on public
prosecution do not provide an adequate response to our concerns
either, as the national assembly will ultimately still have a degree
of discretion in electing public prosecutors. This creates a risk
of politicisation of the appointment process, which is not acceptable
in a democratic country governed by the rule of law. We understand
that this problem can only be resolved by the adoption of amendments
to the constitution, which is a lengthy and complex process requiring, as
we mentioned earlier, a broad consensus in society about proposed
changes. Therefore, we reiterate our recommendation to the Serbian
authorities to work further on the strengthening of legislation
governing the judiciary and the public prosecution, making full
use of the Council of Europe expertise.
4.2 The fight against
corruption
28. We take note of the first and
second round evaluation reports adopted by the Group of States against Corruption
(GRECO) in June 2008. In GRECO’s opinion, approximately half of
the recommendations made were satisfactorily implemented by Serbia;
the remaining recommendations were partially implemented. We learned
from our Serbian interlocutors that they are currently actively
working on preparing the GRECO third round evaluation.
29. We also welcome the adoption, on 23 October 2008, of the law
on the Anti-Corruption Agency, which should increase co-ordination
among different bodies dealing with the fight against corruption.
However, we note that the efficient functioning of independent institutions
requires not only the adoption of good legislation, but also the
provision of appropriate material and financial resources to these
institutions. We, therefore, hope that the Anti-Corruption Agency
will be granted appropriate resources to become fully operational
soon.
30. On a positive note, we welcome the adoption of a series of
laws dealing with various corruption-related issues, namely, amendments
to the law on financing political parties, the law on criminal liability
of legal entities, the law on seizure of property/confiscation of
property obtained through criminal acts, and the law on public procurement.
5 Human rights
5.1 Civil society
31. We note that the co-operation
between the authorities and the NGO sector has substantially improved since
the establishment of the new government, which is a welcome development.
We were particularly pleased to learn that NGOs took a very active
part in the public debate on the national defence strategy at the end
of 2008, which was extended at the request of NGOs in order to give
the possibility for all voices to be heard.
32. That said, we learned with disappointment that, on 19 December
2008, the government withdrew the draft law on associations from
the parliament’s agenda, in order to provide more time for the debate
on the budget law, to make sure that the latter was adopted on time
for the beginning of the new financial year. The adoption of the
law on associations is one of the long-standing commitments of Serbia
which has not been fulfilled yet. While we understand that, in times
of crisis, the imperatives of the national interests may justify changes
in the normal legislative agenda, we regret that the NGO sector
is, yet again, adversely affected by the changing immediate priorities
of the government. We hope that the authorities will very soon put
the draft law on associations again on the agenda and proceed with
its prompt adoption.
5.2 Anti-discrimination
33. We welcome the adoption, on
26 March 2009, of the anti-discrimination law. However, the discussion on
this law was affected by the strong opposition to its adoption by
the religious communities. Reportedly, the leaders of the religious
communities objected to the provisions of this law that concern
the freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination on
the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation. While we welcome
the fact that the authorities resisted well the pressure from the
religious communities and adopted the law, without any substantial
changes, we are concerned by the fact that the issues of freedom
of religion, gender identity and sexual orientation continue to
be a factor of division in society, as the opposition parties proposed
some 450 amendments to the draft law during the parliamentary procedure.
34. In this respect, we reiterate our call to the authorities
to fully implement the recommendations of the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) contained in its report adopted
in August 2008. In particular, we recommend developing a comprehensive
anti-discrimination policy that will help society develop a culture
of respect for diversity.
35. Moreover, we were informed by the representatives of the lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) organisations that LGBT activists
often experience harassment, intimidation, threats and violence. Although
the authorities have always condemned violence against LGBT persons,
it is believed that the law enforcement agencies and the courts
are reluctant to deal with these cases and only a few perpetrators
of attacks have actually been brought to justice and punished. The
LGBT community thinks that the authorities and, in particular, the
police should take more positive actions to protect them. Cases
of hate speech in electronic and print mass media also have to be
publicly condemned and sanctioned. Furthermore, in the view of LGBT
organisations, a general law on gender equality needs to be adopted.
36. Most recently, we learned that, on 24 February 2009, the administration
of the “Sava-Centar” conference centre banned the organisation of
a press conference by the LGBT organisation “Gay Straight Alliance”,
which was supposed to be held on the occasion of the projection
of a film about gay rights activists, within the framework of the
Belgrade film festival FEST. The “Gay Straight Alliance” intended
to present its 2008 annual report at this press conference. Although
the decision of the administration of “Sava-Centar” was publicly denounced
by the State Secretary for Human and Minority Rights, Marko Karažić,
we are extremely concerned by this flagrant act of discrimination
against LGBT activists, which cannot be tolerated in a Council of
Europe member state.
37. We reiterate our call to the authorities to condemn and investigate
all attacks against human rights defenders, including LGBT activists,
as well as develop a comprehensive anti-discrimination policy to
eliminate all forms of discrimination, including against sexual
minorities.
5.3 Rights of national
minorities
38. We take note of the report
by Mr Herrmann on the situation of national minorities in Vojvodina
and of the Romanian ethnic minority in Serbia (
Doc. 11528) and of the relevant
Resolution 1632 (2008), adopted by the Assembly on 1 October 2008, and subscribe
to all the recommendations contained therein.
39. It appears that, since the adoption of
Resolution 1632 (2008), no major developments have occurred with respect to
the enhancement of the legislative framework for the rights of national
minorities. We, therefore, reiterate our call to the authorities
to implement the Assembly recommendations contained in
Resolution 1632 (2008), as well as the recommendations contained in our draft
report.
6 Co-operation
with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY)
40. We welcomed in our report the
clear improvements in the co-operation with the ICTY, which led
in 2008 to the arrest and extradition of two of the remaining most
wanted indictees, Radovan Karadžić and Stojan Župljanin. This was
confirmed by the report of the ICTY Chief Prosecutor, Serge Brammertz,
which he delivered to the UN Security Council on 12 December 2008.
41. On the basis of our recent discussions in Belgrade, we believe
that the co-operation with the ICTY has been significantly improved
and that the political commitment to completing co-operation is
now strong. That said, the co-operation with the tribunal can only
be completed when the two remaining indictees, Ratko Mladić and
Goran Hadžić are apprehended and extradited. We gained the impression
that our Serbian colleagues are aware of this and are working hard
to bring about concrete results. We encourage them to intensify
their efforts.
7 Conclusions
42. As we mentioned in our draft
report, we believe that Serbia is moving forward and making progress
in the process of democratic reforms and European integration. A
great deal of the formal accession commitments have now been completed.
Several issues still remain open, in particular, the ratification
of the revised European Social Charter, the signing and ratification
of the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation
between Territorial Communities and Authorities and its additional
protocols, the adoption of the law on associations, as well as the
adoption of the law on alternative service and conscientious objectors.
We believe that the authorities are capable of, and committed to,
fulfilling these commitments promptly and expect some concrete steps
in this direction to be taken soon.
43. We have noted the strong political commitment of the authorities
to co-operate with the ICTY and that this co-operation has recently
significantly improved. However, we consider that this specific
accession commitment can only be fulfilled when the remaining indictees,
Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić, are apprehended and extradited to
the tribunal. Therefore, we would like to encourage the authorities
to intensify their efforts aiming at completing the co-operation
with the ICTY.
44. That said, although important, the implementation of formal
commitments is only part of the process of building a democratic
society complying with European standards. The democratic functioning
of institutions, the respect of the principles of rule of law and
the effective enjoyment of human rights by all citizens of Serbia are
essential factors in the implementation by the Council of Europe
member states of their obligations and commitments. In this respect,
we have to note that Serbia’s democratic institutions are still
not functioning in accordance with the standards of our Organisation.
In particular, parliamentary democracy has to be strengthened, the
members of parliament have to act as free representatives of the
citizens and not of political parties, the practice of allocation
of parliamentary mandates has to be brought into line with European standards,
the guarantees of independence of judges and prosecutors have to
be strengthened and positive actions enhancing human rights and
the rights of national minorities have to be taken.
45. Appendix I to the present addendum contains a number of amendments
that we propose to table to the draft resolution contained in
Doc. 11701, in order to update it in accordance with recent developments.
If approved by the committee, these amendments will be tabled on
its behalf. With these amendments, the draft resolution will address
a number of concrete recommendations to the Serbian authorities
relating to the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule
of law and human rights. We would invite our Serbian colleagues, on
the basis of these recommendations, to elaborate a concrete road
map for completing the implementation of the remaining obligations
and commitments to the Council of Europe. We believe that the implementation
of this road map will help the Serbian authorities and our Assembly
prepare the way for closing the monitoring procedure for Serbia
and opening the post-monitoring dialogue.
Appendix 1 – Amendments to the draft resolution
on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia (contained
in Doc. 11701) unanimously adopted by the Monitoring Committee
Amendment No.
1
In paragraph 2, last sentence, delete the words “most recently”.
Amendment No. 2
After the third sentence of paragraph 5, insert the following
sentence:
“Moreover, the Assembly
takes note of the decision of the Serbian authorities to apply the
Interim Trade Agreement unilaterally, pending the completion of
the ratification process of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement
by all European Union member states.”
Amendment No. 3
Replace paragraph 7 with the following text:
“The Assembly understands the frustration
of the Serbian people with respect to the developments in Kosovo.
It welcomes the fact that the Serbian authorities are defending
their position by peaceful and diplomatic means, in accordance with
international law, as exemplified by the request for an advisory opinion
addressed to the International Court of Justice by the United Nations
General Assembly, at the proposal of the Serbian delegation. Furthermore,
the Assembly congratulates the Serbian authorities on their constructive
approach with respect to the deployment of the European Union Rule
of Law Mission (EULEX) as an essential step in ensuring the respect
of human rights and rule of law in Kosovo.”
Amendment No. 4
Replace sub-paragraph 9.1 with the following text:
“continue to defend their position
with respect to Kosovo only by peaceful and diplomatic means;”.
Amendment No. 5
In the first sentence of paragraph 10, after the word “establishment”,
add the following words: “, in June 2008,”.
Amendment No. 6
In the first sentence of paragraph 11, replace the word “clear”
with the word “significant”.
Amendment No. 7
Replace sub-paragraph 12.1 with the following text:
“apprehend and promptly extradite
the two remaining indictees, Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić;”.
Amendment No. 8
Delete sub-paragraph 12.4.
Amendment No. 9
After sub-paragraph 13.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“believes that the problems which
the National Assembly of Serbia is facing are, to a large extent,
rooted in the existing constitutional framework, which establishes
a ‘party-administered mandate’ of MPs, as well as in the arrangements
for the allocation of seats in parliament, which make the MPs dependent
on the decisions of their parties’ leadership and prevent them from
expressing their views freely, as democratically elected representatives
of the citizens of Serbia;”.
Amendment No. 10
In sub-paragraph 13.3, delete the words “newly appointed”.
Amendment No. 11
In sub-paragraph 13.4.2, replace the words “the imperative
mandate” with the words “party-administered mandate”.
Amendment No. 12
Delete sub-paragraph 14.1.
Amendment No. 13
After sub-paragraph 14.3, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“takes note of the adoption, in
December 2008, of the legislative package governing the reform of
the judiciary and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; the Assembly
regrets that not all of the recommendations of the Venice Commission
and of the Council of Europe experts concerning these laws have
been taken on board;”.
Amendment No. 14
After sub-paragraph 14.3, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“notes, furthermore, that Serbia’s
constitutional and legal order does not establish sufficient guarantees against
the politicisation of the judiciary and of the prosecutorial service;”.
Amendment No. 15
In sub-paragraph 14.5, replace the words “in particular” with
the word “therefore”.
Amendment No. 16
Replace sub-paragraph 14.5.1 with the following new text:
“continue to work with the Venice
Commission on the establishment of clear legal guarantees allowing the
serving judges, against whom there are no allegations of incompetence
or behaviour incompatible with the function of the judge, to remain
in office;”.
Amendment No. 17
After sub-paragraph 14.5.1, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
“continue to work on the improvement
of the constitutional and legal framework for the judiciary and
the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to establish sufficient
guarantees against political interference in their activities;”.
Amendment No. 18
At the end of sub-paragraph 15.3, insert the following words:
“, while regretting that this draft law was, once again, taken off
the agenda of the parliament in December 2008;”.
Amendment No. 19
After sub-paragraph 15.3, add the following new sub-paragraph:
“welcomes the recent adoption of
the anti-discrimination law;”.
Amendment No. 20
At the beginning of sub-paragraph 15.5.1, add the word “urgently”.
Amendment No. 21
In sub-paragraph 15.5.3, delete the words “enact a law on
anti-discrimination and”.
Amendment No. 22
In sub-paragraph 15.5.7, after the word “against”, add the
word “all”.
Amendment No. 23
In sub-paragraph 15.5.7, after the word “activists”, insert
the words “, including those dealing with the rights of the lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender population,”.
Amendment No. 24
In sub-paragraph 15.5.8, delete the words “publish the report
of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment (CPT) and”.
Amendment No. 25
At the end of sub-paragraph 15.5.8, replace the word “CPT”
with the words “European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”.
Amendment No. 26
In sub-paragraph 16.1, replace the figure “58” with the figure
“59”.
Amendment No. 27
Replace paragraph 17 with the following new text:
“On the basis of the above recommendations,
the Assembly invites the Serbian authorities to draw a road map
for the implementation of the remaining obligations and commitments
in the field of co-operation with the ICTY, the functioning of democratic
institutions, rule of law and human rights. This road map should
help the Serbian authorities and the Assembly pave the way for the
closing of the monitoring procedure and the opening of the post-monitoring
dialogue.”
Amendment No. 28
After paragraph 17, add the following new paragraph:
“Pending progress in the implementation
of the above recommendations, the Assembly resolves to continue
the monitoring procedure with respect to Serbia.”
Appendix 2 – Press release on the results
of the fact-finding visit to Belgrade on 9 and 10 February 2009
Serbia: Transparent and efficient functioning
of democratic institutions, which citizens can trust, is an essential
precondition for closing the monitoring procedure
Strasbourg, 11.02.2009 – “Transparent and efficient functioning
of democratic institutions, which citizens can trust, is an essential
pre-condition for closing the monitoring with respect to Serbia,”
yesterday said Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly co-rapporteur
on Serbia Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) at the end of a two-day
visit to the country.
“Since the last parliamentary elections of May 2008, Serbia
has made noticeable progress in a number of reform areas -he continued-
commending the current political stability as well as the adoption
of a number of key laws relating to European integration, reform
of the judiciary and fight against corruption.
“However, in a genuine democracy, the country’s future cannot
be decided by the leaders of political parties alone and the members
of Parliament should engage in a constructive dialogue about various
political options, as free representatives of the citizens and not
mere ‘tools’ of political parties. Guaranteeing the rights of the opposition
is an essential element of democracy, but the opposition should
not be able to block the parliamentary process,” he stressed.
“The revision of parliamentary rules of procedure is only
part of the solution. Most importantly, the electoral system should
be reformed to make sure that the views of all citizens of Serbia
are represented in parliament, for example, by introducing open
regional lists,” Mr Gross noted.
“With respect to the co-operation with ICTY, I do believe
the authorities are doing everything possible to apprehend the remaining
ICTY indictees Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić and hope to see this
chapter of the monitoring process closed as quickly as possible,”
he stressed.
The honouring of obligations and commitments by Serbia will
be debated during the April Part-session of the Assembly. For this
purpose, the co-rapporteurs Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) and
Charles Goerens (Luxembourg, ALDE) will prepare an addendum to their
last report dated September 2008. If necessary, they are ready to
pay another visit to Belgrade to talk with the country’s leadership
at the highest level in order to agree on a roadmap aiming at the
closing of the monitoring procedure.
Reporting committee:
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997) and Opinion
239 (2002)
Approved by the committee on 31 March 2009
Members of the committee:
Mr Serhiy Holovaty (Chairperson),
Mr György Frunda (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Konstantin Kosachev
(2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Leonid Slutsky (3rd
Vice-Chairperson), Mr Aydin Abbasov, Mr Avet Adonts, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mrs Meritxell Batet
Lamaña, Mr Ryszard Bender, Mr József Berényi, Mr Luc van den Brande, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik,
Ms Lise Christoffersen, Mr Boriss
Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier,
Mr Telmo Correia, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Juris Dobelis,
Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr Mátyás Eörsi,
Ms Mirjana Ferić-Vac, Mr Giuseppe Galati, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto,
Mr József Gedei, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Michael Hagberg, Mr Holger Haibach, Ms Gultakin
Hajibayli, Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs Olha Herasym’yuk, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Raffi Hovannisian, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr Mladen Ivanić, Mr Miloš Jevtić, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Emmanouil Kefaloyiannis, Mr Hakki Keskin, Mrs Katerina Konečná, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mr Jaakko Laakso, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr Göran Lindblad, Mr René van der Linden, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Mr Bernard
Marquet, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Miloš Melčák,
Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, Mrs Yuliya Novikova, Mr Theodoros Pangalos,
Mr Alexander Pochinok, Mr Ivan Popescu, Ms Maria Postoico, Mr Christos Pourgourides,
Mr John Prescott, Mrs Mailis Reps, Mr Andrea Rigoni,
Mr Ilir Rusmali, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Oliver Sambevski, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mr Christoph Strässer, Mrs Chiora Taktakishvili, Mr Mihai Tudose, Mrs Özlem Türköne, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr José Vera Jardim,
Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Robert Walter, Mr David Wilshire, Mrs Renate Wohlwend,
Mrs Karin S. Woldseth, Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mr Boris Zala, Mr Andrej Zernovski.
NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are
printed in bold
Secretariat of the committee:
Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mr Klein, Ms Trévisan, Mr Karpenko
