Follow-up given by Georgia and Russia to Resolution 1647 (2009)
Information report
| Doc. 11876
| 28 April 2009
- Committee
- Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
- Co-rapporteur :
- Mr Mátyás EÖRSI,
Hungary, ALDE
- Co-rapporteur :
- Mr Luc Van den BRANDE,
Belgium, EPP/CD
- Origin
- Reference
to committee: Resolution
1647 (2009). 2009 - Second part-session
- Thesaurus
Summary
In this information report, the co-rapporteurs of the Committee
on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States
of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) take stock of the
follow-up given by Georgia and Russia to Resolution 1647 (2009), adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly in January 2009.
They conclude that, regrettably, Georgia has not yet fully complied
with all demands of the Assembly and that Russia has failed to comply
with most of the demands of the Assembly and could even be seen
as moving further away from the minimum conditions for a meaningful
dialogue as mentioned in Resolutions
1633 (2008) and 1647
(2009). Convinced that the establishment of a genuine dialogue
is the only way forward for the resolution of the conflict and its
consequences, the co-rapporteurs welcome the modest steps taken
in this direction within the ad hoc committee of the Bureau of the
Assembly on promoting dialogue between the Georgian and Russian
delegations through the Assembly. However, the report stresses that
the work of this ad hoc committee should not be seen as a substitute
for the Geneva negotiations or for a regular assessment by the Assembly
of the compliance of both countries with its earlier demands, but
as complementary to them.
The report therefore reiterates that both countries should
fully comply with the demands made by the Assembly in Resolutions 1633 (2008) and 1647
(2009) and, in addition, asks that both countries implement,
without delay, a series of steps to avoid a deterioration of the
security situation and stability of the region, as well as to ensure that
the minimum conditions for a meaningful dialogue between Russia
and Georgia are met. It therefore considers it essential that the
Monitoring Committee remains seized on this matter and that the
Assembly returns to its assessment of compliance by both countries
with Resolutions 1633
(2008) and 1647
(2009) at its October 2009 part-session, also taking into account
the findings of the independent international fact-finding mission
established by the European Union, if its report has been presented
by then.
1 Introduction
1. On 28 January 2009, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted
Resolution 1647 (2009) on the implementation of
Resolution 1633 (2008) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia.
In this resolution, the Assembly fully reaffirmed its position taken
in
Resolution 1633 (2008) with regard to the consequences of the war, including
its opinion that both member states had violated human rights and principles
of humanitarian law, as well as the Statute of the Council of Europe
and specific accession commitments. It also again calls for Russia
to withdraw its forces to the positions
ex
ante the war, to allow international monitors into the
breakaway regions and to withdraw its recognition of the breakaway
regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which was strongly condemned
by the Assembly.
2. In addition to reiterating its position, the Assembly considered
that, while Georgia had complied with many, but not all, of the
Assembly’s demands expressed in
Resolution 1633 (2008), Russia had regrettably not complied with a significant
number of key demands of the Assembly, not even those that were
not related to, and therefore had no effect on, the status of the
two breakaway regions. In
Resolution
1647 (2009), the Assembly welcomed the establishment, by the European
Union, of an independent international fact-finding mission on the
conflict in Georgia to investigate its origins and its course. However,
it expressed its serious concern with regard to the escalation of
tensions and provocations along the administrative borders, as well
as the ongoing human rights violations and the existence of a human
rights protection black hole in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The
Assembly, therefore, formulated a set of additional demands on both
Russia and Georgia to ensure full compliance by both states with
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009) and provided a concrete and objective road map to enable
both of them to address the consequences of the August 2008 war between
them.
3. Finally, in
Resolution
1647 (2009), the Monitoring Committee was invited to monitor the
follow-up given by Russia and Georgia to
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009) and to report to the Assembly at its April 2009 part-session
about the developments in this respect. Taking into account the
short period between the January and April 2009 part-sessions, as
well as the explicit wish of the Assembly – expressed in both resolutions
– that the Monitoring Committee step up its monitoring procedure
with respect to both Russia and Georgia, the rapporteurs decided
not to make specific visits to Russia and Georgia for the purpose
of this report, but, instead, to follow up the issues mentioned
in
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009) in the framework of visits to these two countries under
the regular monitoring procedure. As a consequence, the co-rapporteurs
for Russia’s monitoring, Mr Van den Brande and Mr Pangalos, visited
Moscow from 9 to 11 March 2009. The co-rapporteurs for Georgia’s
monitoring, Mr Eörsi and Mr Islami, visited Tbilisi from 24 to 27
March 2009. Where relevant, the findings of the four co-rapporteurs
have been included in this report.
4. In
Resolution 1647
(2009), the Assembly tasked the Bureau to set up a special
ad hoc committee, in which both Georgian and Russian parliamentarians
would be invited to participate, to discuss their differences and
to develop concrete proposals to address the consequences of the
war. At its meeting on 30 January 2009, the Bureau of the Assembly
therefore decided to establish an ad hoc committee of the Bureau
on promoting dialogue between the Georgian and Russian delegations
with the Assembly. This ad hoc committee held its first meeting
in Paris, on 12 March 2009, and its second meeting in Valencia,
on 30 March 2009.
5. The present information report outlines developments since
the January 2009 part-session with regard to the implementation
of
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009) by Georgia and Russia. We do not repeat in this report
the findings already included in our last report (
Doc. 11800), which
we presented to the Assembly on 26 January 2009 and which remain
relevant.
2 Implementation
of the ceasefire agreement and security situation
6. A key requirement of the 12 August 2008 ceasefire
agreement is the withdrawal of Georgian military forces to “their
usual bases” and of Russian military forces to “the lines they held
before the hostilities broke out”.
7. While the Russian authorities claim that Georgia is strengthening
its troop presence in the areas adjacent to the administrative borders,
according to the international monitors the deployment of Georgian troops
continues to be in line with the provisions of the 12 August 2008
ceasefire agreement. During the visit of the co-rapporteurs for
Georgia’s monitoring to Tbilisi from 24 to 27 March 2009, the representatives
of the three international monitoring missions (the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union
(EU) and the United Nations (UN)) confirmed that there had been
no increase of troops on the Georgian side and that the Georgian
authorities had started the process of replacing the special police
forces with regular police. However, they noted that on both sides
of the administrative borders, observation and control posts were
being fortified and this was not conducive to decreasing tensions.
8. As already mentioned in our previous report (
Doc. 11800), a major
cause for Russian lack of compliance with the ceasefire agreement
continues to be its assertion that, following its recognition of
the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the deployment of
its troops in these two regions is no longer governed by the ceasefire
agreement, but by bilateral agreements with the de facto authorities
of these regions. We take note, however, of the fact that only Russia
and Nicaragua of the 211 UN member states have recognised the “independence”
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
9. On 2 March 2009, the Abkhaz de facto “Foreign Minister” announced
that Moscow and Sukhumi had reached an agreement on the establishment
of two Russian military bases in Abkhazia, one in Ochamchire, which
would reportedly include a naval base for Russia’s Black Sea fleet,
and one in Gudauta, which would include an air force base. On 6
March 2009, the Abkhaz de facto “President”, Mr Sergey Bagapsh,
announced that Russia and the de facto Abkhaz authorities would
soon sign a military agreement that would include a forty-nine-year
lease for the military base in Gudauta. We regret the recent deployment
of heavy armour, as well as the conduct of military exercises close
to the administrative border by Russia, which raises tensions. We
are seriously concerned about the increased militarisation of the
breakaway regions by Russia. This not only violates the ceasefire
agreement and is in contradiction to the demands in Assembly
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009), but also increases the tensions in this already very
volatile region, undermining its stability.
10. Russia continues to maintain military troops in Perevi, which
is outside the administrative boundaries of South Ossetia. Moreover,
OSCE military monitors have reported regular violations by Russian
helicopters of Georgia’s airspace on the southern part of the administrative
border with South Ossetia.
11. Regrettably, international monitors continue to report tensions
and provocations along the administrative borders. The situation
in the areas around Perevi and the Akhalgori district in particular
remain tense. Despite the ongoing tensions and provocations, the
overall security situation along the administrative borders has
been relatively stable and all sides consider the possibility of
a renewed outbreak of clashes and hostilities at this particular
moment rather remote.
12. On 10 February 2009, an OSCE military monitoring patrol was
detained by South Ossetian forces outside the administrative boundaries
of South Ossetia. Moreover, on 11 February, OSCE monitors reported that
warning shots were fired at them by South Ossetian forces. On 29
March 2009, in an act strongly condemned by OSCE and EU observers,
a bomb blast, caused by what appeared to have been a tripwired mine,
killed a Georgian policeman and injured four others. A second bomb
was set off when a rescue team arrived, injuring a further two Georgian
policemen. We strongly condemn such actions against police officers, civilians
and unarmed international monitors and call upon the de facto authorities
and Russia to bring them to an immediate halt. In addition, these
incidents underscore the need for access of international monitors
to both sides of the administrative borders, as well as the rapid
implementation of the incident prevention and response mechanisms
that were agreed upon in Geneva.
13. In a positive development, on 18 February 2009, all participants
in the Geneva talks agreed on “proposals for joint incident prevention
and response mechanisms”. These mechanisms will involve weekly meetings,
or more often when necessary, between representatives of structures
with responsibility for security and public order in the relevant
areas, as well as representatives of the international monitoring
organisations, according to their mandate (UN and EU in respect
of Abkhazia and OSCE and EU in respect of South Ossetia). The discussions
of these two mechanisms could include, but are not limited to:
- identification and regular review
of potential risks, sharing of information and co-ordination of
relevant measures;
- free access for humanitarian aid;
- follow-up to incidents that occur, including an exchange
of information on the circumstances of their occurrence, and the
rapid sharing of information on the outcome of investigations into
such incidents, as appropriate through agreed joint visits;
- regular provision of information by international missions
on the findings of their routine patrols.
14. We welcome the agreement on incident prevention and response
mechanisms reached at the Geneva meetings as an important instrument
to reduce the tensions along the administrative borders and as a mechanism
to avoid further escalations that could lead to renewed clashes
and hostilities. However, we also note that, to this date, these
mechanisms have not yet been implemented, contrary to the agreement
reached in Geneva that they should be convened “shortly” after the
Geneva talks on 17 and 18 February 2009. In an interview on 13 March
2009, the head of the EU Monitoring Mission, Ambassador Haber, indicated
that one of the main obstacles to the implementation of these mechanisms
was the provision for “joint visits”, which would imply access of
international monitors to the breakaway regions, to which the de
facto authorities object.
15. While the working group on security issues in the Geneva talks
has shown progress with the agreement on incident prevention mechanisms,
the second working group, focused on humanitarian issues and freedom of
movement, has not yet achieved any tangible results. The next round
of Geneva talks is foreseen to take place during spring 2009 and
is expected to focus on “principles of non-use of force” and on
“how to establish new security mechanisms”. We welcome the fact
that, after initial difficulties in finding new dates, the next round
of talks is now scheduled to take place on 18 and 19 May in Geneva.
16. We call upon Russia to fully implement the ceasefire agreement,
and all parties to implement, without delay, the agreement on joint
incident prevention and response mechanisms.
3 International monitoring
missions
17. Despite earlier indications that Russia would veto
an extension of the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission
in Georgia (UNOMIG), which was due to expire on 15 February 2009,
the United Nations Security Council adopted, on 13 February 2009,
Resolution 1866 (2009) in which it extended the mandate of UNOMIG
until 15 June 2009. This extension ensures, at least temporarily,
the presence of UN observers in Abkhazia, in line with the Sarkozy-Medvedev
agreement of 8 September 2008.
18. On 12 February 2009, the Permanent Council of the OSCE unanimously
adopted Decision 883, in which it extended the mandate of the OSCE
military monitors in Georgia until 30 June 2009, which has ensured, temporarily,
the continued presence of OSCE monitors in the areas adjacent to
the administrative border with the region of South Ossetia. However,
this extension of the mandate of the military monitors did not affect
the mandate of the OSCE Mission to Georgia itself, which was not
extended in December 2008. This was the consequence of a veto put
by Russia, as a result of which the OSCE Mission to Georgia is currently
closing down.
19. We welcome the extension of the mandates of the UNOMIG and
OSCE military monitoring missions, which allow the continuing presence
of monitors in Georgia, as,
inter alia,
demanded by the Assembly. However, we would like to stress that
these extensions are only a short-term technical reprieve and not
a long-term durable solution for the presence of UN and OSCE monitors
in Georgia, including in the breakaway regions. Given the importance
of the presence of international monitors for the security and stability
of the region, as well as for the transparency of the situation
to the international community, we find it unacceptable that their
presence remains in question and put in doubt. We would therefore
strongly reiterate the demand by the Assembly, expressed in
Resolution 1647 (2009), that all parties agree upon a formula for the renewal
of the mandate of both the UN and OSCE missions, including their
monitoring components, without prejudice to the status of the two
breakaway regions.
20. The Russian authorities and the de facto authorities continue
to refuse access by OSCE monitors to South Ossetia, in violation
of the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement and Assembly demands, as well
as access by EU monitors to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as requested
by the EU and the international community, including by the Assembly
in
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009). Indeed, when adopting Decision 883 in the OSCE Permanent
Council, several delegations, including the Czech delegation on
behalf of the European Union, made statements in which they stressed
that OSCE observers should be able to carry out their duties in
the entire Georgian territory, including in South Ossetia. According
to the Russian authorities, the question of access is strictly within
the remit of the de facto authorities, who accuse the EU and OSCE missions
of being biased against them and therefore are not inclined to allow
them access to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This refusal to give
access to international observers to South Ossetia and Abkhazia
negatively affects the overall security situation and stability
in these volatile regions, which could potentially lead to renewed
confrontations. As mentioned above, the position of Russia and the
de facto authorities of South Ossetia with regard to access of international
monitors also impedes the implementation of the urgently needed joint
prevention and response mechanisms that were agreed upon in the
Geneva talks. We reiterate our call to all parties, and especially
the Russian authorities, to accept a formula for a continued, long-term
mandate of the OSCE and UN missions, including their observation
missions, that would not prejudice the status of the two breakaway
regions.
4 Investigation into
the precise circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the war, as
well as into alleged violations of human rights and international
law in the course of the war and its aftermath
21. The investigation by the independent international
fact-finding mission into the conflict between Russia and Georgia
is well under way. Since its establishment, its experts have visited
Moscow, Tbilisi, as well as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. The report of this fact-finding mission is expected
in summer 2009. We regret statements in the Georgian press by some
Georgian officials, referring to articles published by some members
of the fact-finding mission prior to taking up their tasks, which
seem to cast doubts on the impartiality of these members. This is
not helpful for the conduct of the work of the fact-finding mission.
22. As mentioned in our previous report (
Doc. 11800), more than 3 300 applications
have been filed with the European Court of Human Rights by ethnic
South Ossetians against Georgia. On 16 January 2009, the Court announced
that it would urgently examine seven applications of South Ossetians
against Georgia, which it considers to be representative of the
over 3 300 similar applications that have been filed with it. These
cases have now been communicated to the Georgian Government under
Rule 54, paragraph 2.
b of
the Rules of Court. In addition, the Georgian non-governmental human
rights organisation “The 42nd Article of the Constitution” has assisted
Georgian citizens in filing applications with the Court against
Russia in relation to the war. On 18 March, we were informed by
the Court that over 100 cases had been filed against Russia, involving
approximately 600 Georgian applicants. Moreover, as we reported
earlier, Georgia has filed an inter-state application against Russia
with the European Court of Human Rights and, on 12 August 2008,
following a request by the Georgian authorities, the European Court
of Human Rights indicated interim measures to Russia and Georgia
under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
23. Evidence and witness testimonies reproduced in several reports
by the OSCE and by organisations such as Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch give credence to the claims that both Russia
and Georgia committed violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law in the course of the war and that Russia closed
its eyes to, and possibly abetted, violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law by the de facto authorities during
the aftermath of the war. It is the responsibility of the state
concerned to investigate violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law committed by persons under its de facto jurisdiction.
24. As mentioned in our previous report (
Doc. 11800), the General Prosecutor’s
Office of Georgia has opened an investigation into deliberate violations
of international humanitarian law in the course and aftermath of
the war, irrespective of the side which has allegedly committed
such violations. However, according to the Georgian authorities,
this investigation is hindered by the lack of access of the competent
Georgian authorities to the former conflict zone inside the breakaway
region of South Ossetia. While we understand the difficulties encountered
by the Georgian General Prosecutor’s Office in the conduct of the
investigations, we nevertheless expect that the investigation will
be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
25. The Investigative Committee of the General Prosecutor’s Office
of Russia has finalised an investigation into genocide committed
by Georgian troops against Russian citizens, as well as into crimes
committed against the Russian military. During the visit of the
co-rapporteurs for Russia’s monitoring to Moscow from 9 to 11 March
2009, the deputy head of the Investigative Committee confirmed that
the committee did not plan to open an investigation into alleged
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during
the war by Russian citizens or Russian military forces.
26. To our knowledge, neither the investigation of the General
Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia nor that of the General Prosecutor’s
Office of Russia have to date resulted in any persons being charged.
5 Humanitarian consequences
of the war
27. The developments with regard to the humanitarian
consequences of the war are dealt with in a separate report by the
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. We will therefore
not extensively deal with these issues in the context of this report.
28. On 28 October 2008, the Georgian Parliament adopted the Law
on Occupied Territories of Georgia. In his report to the Committee
of Ministers, the Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his concern
that some of the provisions of this law may be at odds with principles
of international human rights law, including with the European Convention
on Human Rights. For this reason, the Monitoring Committee, at its
meeting on 17 December 2008, decided to submit this law to the European
Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) for opinion.
The Venice Commission adopted its opinion (CDL-AD(2009)15) on the
Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia at is 78th plenary session,
in Venice, on 13 and 14 March 2009.
29. The Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia prohibits the entry
of foreigners or stateless persons to the territories from any other
direction than from two entry points on the undisputed territory
of Georgia. Entry from any other direction, especially from the
north via Russia, without a special authorisation from the Georgian Government
would constitute a criminal offence under Georgian law. No a priori
explicit exceptions are made in the law for humanitarian aid or
emergency situations. In this respect, the Venice Commission noted
that, under the Hague and Geneva conventions, an occupying power
is obliged to provide aid and shelter to the population in the occupied
territories and that it must not be hindered in fulfilling this
duty. Moreover, the Venice Commission recalls that, in Security
Council Resolution 1866 (2009), which is binding on both Russia
and Georgia under Article 25 of the UN Charter, the Security Council
calls for “facilitating and refraining from placing any impediment
to humanitarian assistance to persons affected by the regional conflict,
including refugees and internally displaced persons, and further
calls for facilitating their voluntary, safe and dignified and unhindered return”.
In addition, this resolution provides for the need “to ensure without distinction,
… the right of persons to freedom of movement”. In its opinion,
the Venice Commission is concerned that irregular entry (that is, without
prior authorisation from the Georgian Government) for humanitarian
purposes and in emergency situations could run counter to these
principles. It therefore concluded that the criminalisation of irregular
entry into the occupied territories under the law, which makes no
explicit exceptions for emergency situations or humanitarian aid,
should not contradict the rule of customary international law that
the well-being of the population in occupied areas has to be a basic
concern for those involved in a conflict.
30. Based on the same principles of customary international law,
namely that the well-being of the population in occupied areas has
to be a basic concern for those involved in a conflict, the Venice
Commission concluded that the restriction and criminalisation of
irregular economic activities under the law should explicitly exempt
those related to humanitarian aid and those that are necessary for
the survival of the population in the occupied territories.
31. Moreover, the Venice Commission expressed concerns, inter alia, with respect to the
retroactive application of the law for property transactions, which
may run counter to international law, including Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of
property). In addition, the retroactive application of provisions
fixing criminal liability is neither compatible with the Georgian
Constitution (Article 42, paragraph 5) nor with international human
rights standards (Article 7 of the Convention). Moreover, criminal
sanctions for irregular economic activities can also be applied
to “related persons”, which is considered problematic by the Venice
Commission.
32. The law explicitly forbids international air traffic, maritime
traffic, railway traffic and international automobile transportation
of cargo on the occupied territories. The Venice Commission considered
that the blanket limitation of the freedom of navigation and overflight
may run against the legal regime of navigation and overflight in
the exclusive economic zone.
33. While welcoming the mechanisms established by the Georgian
authorities for the recognition of certificates and similar documents
issued by the de facto authorities, the Venice Commission considered
that these simplified procedures should be guaranteed through an
explicit provision in Georgian law.
34. We call upon the Georgian Parliament to speedily amend the
Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia, in close co-operation with
the Venice Commission, in order to ensure that the concerns outlined
in its opinion are fully addressed. We welcome the fact that the
Georgian authorities have expressed their clear intention to co-operate
closely with the Venice Commission in order to address all concerns
raised in the latter’s opinion, especially with a view to ensuring
that this law would not hamper the provision of essential humanitarian
aid to the civilian population in the breakaway regions.
35. Russia and the de facto authorities continue severely to restrict
the freedom of movement between the breakaway regions and the rest
of Georgia, including with respect to humanitarian aid and the right
to return of internally displaced persons (IDPs). We would like
to stress that the observations made by the Venice Commission in
its opinion on the Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia with regard
to the principles of international law and the respect of freedom
of movement are, in our opinion, equally applicable to the restrictions
put in place by Russia and the de facto authorities of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia on access of humanitarian aid. The refusal to
allow access of humanitarian aid from the undisputed territory of
Georgia to the two regions therefore would also appear to run counter
to the principles of customary international law.
36. We call upon Georgia, Russia and the de facto authorities
to allow immediately full and unimpeded access of international
aid to the breakaway regions irrespective of the direction from
which it comes. We reiterate that for a more detailed analysis and
recommendations on the humanitarian aspects reference is made to
the report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.
6 Additional demands
by the Assembly
37. In
Resolutions
1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009), the Assembly called upon all parties to work towards
the creation of a new peacekeeping format and internationalised
peacekeeping force. In the view of the Assembly, the establishment
of such a new peacekeeping format and internationalised peacekeeping
force is essential for the security and stability in the region.
We note that the establishment of new security mechanisms is on the
agenda for the next round of talks in Geneva, but no new date for
these talks has been agreed upon. No progress has therefore been
achieved with regard to this important demand of the Assembly.
38. As mentioned above,
Note the ad hoc committee
of the Bureau on promoting dialogue between the Georgian and Russian
delegations met for the first time in Paris, on 12 March 2009. Regrettably,
the Russian delegation could not be represented at this meeting
for logistical reasons. The Georgian delegation was represented
at this meeting and declared its support for initiatives taken by
the Assembly to facilitate the dialogue between the Russian and
Georgian delegations. The Georgian representatives stressed, however,
that such dialogue would be difficult, if not impossible, if Russia
continued not to comply with the demands of the Assembly, in particular
with the minimum conditions for a meaningful dialogue as outlined
in
Resolution 1633 (2008) and recalled in
Resolution
1647 (2009). For that reason, the work of the ad hoc committee should
not replace ongoing debates in the plenary of the Assembly. Moreover,
they warned that the ad hoc committee should not duplicate the efforts
of the Geneva talks or be used as a pretext not to make progress
in these talks.
39. The members of the ad hoc committee agreed that the work of
the committee should not be seen as a substitute for the Geneva
talks, but complementary to them. However, they stressed that they
hoped that Georgian participation in the work of the ad hoc committee
would not be conditional on Russia’s first complying with all demands
of the Assembly since a continuing dialogue was essential. It was
agreed that both Georgian and Russian delegations would be asked
to provide a list of items for possible discussion by the ad hoc committee.
40. The second meeting of the ad hoc committee took place in Valencia
(Spain) on 30 March 2009 immediately before the meeting of the Monitoring
Committee. We welcome the fact that members from both the Russian
and Georgian delegations participated in its work, which is a start,
albeit modest, of a dialogue between the two delegations, as called
for by the Assembly. The main topics for the discussions during
the second meeting of the ad hoc committee were the priorities for
the ad hoc committee, as well as an initial exchange of views on
the modalities for the possible participation of representatives
of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian communities in its work. Further
consultations with both delegations on the list of agreed topics,
as well as the modalities for participation of members of the Abkhaz
and South Ossetian communities are under way with a view to a further
meeting of the ad hoc committee
7 Conclusions
41. We regret that Georgia has not fully complied with
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009), and that Russia has failed to comply with most of the
key demands of the Assembly. Furthermore, Russia even could be seen
as moving further away from the minimum conditions for a meaningful
dialogue as mentioned in the above mentioned resolutions, as well
as in terms of providing an improved security situation in the region.
42. While we welcome the continued presence of OSCE and UN monitors
as a result of the short-term technical extensions of their respective
mandates, we would like to stress that this is not the long-term
solution for the demand expressed by the international community,
including the Assembly, that OSCE and UN observers should continue
to be present in Georgia, including in the breakaway regions. We
therefore reiterate the Assembly’s demand for all parties, especially
the Russian authorities, to agree on the continuation of the mandate
for the UN and OSCE missions in Georgia, including their monitoring
missions, without prejudice to the status of the two breakaway regions.
43. Taking into account the tense situation along the administrative
borders, we deeply deplore the continuing refusal of Russia and
the de facto authorities to allow full and unimpeded access for
OSCE monitors to South Ossetia and for EU monitors to South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. We also note and regret that this refusal would appear
to impede the implementation of the urgently needed incident prevention
and response mechanisms that were agreed upon during the Geneva
talks in February 2009.
44. We fully support the conclusions of the Venice Commission
in Opinion CDL-AD(2009)15 with regard to the Law on Occupied Territories
of Georgia and call upon the Georgian Parliament to adopt, in close consultation
with the Venice Commission, the necessary amendments to the law
in order to address the concerns expressed in this opinion.
45. In line with the opinion of the Venice Commission, we consider
that any restrictions placed, by whatever side, on the entry of
humanitarian aid into the two breakaway regions runs counter to
customary international law. We therefore call upon Georgia, Russia
and the de facto authorities to immediately lift any restrictions
on the points of entry for humanitarian aid into these regions.
46. We continue to be convinced that the establishment of a genuine
dialogue is the only way forward for the resolution of this conflict
and the long-term stability in the region. We therefore regret that
the Russian delegation, even if for logistical reasons, could not
send a representative to the first meeting of the ad hoc committee
of the Bureau on promoting dialogue between the Georgian and Russian
delegations. We welcome the fact that both Russian and Georgian
delegations were represented at the meeting of the ad hoc committee in
Valencia, and express our hope that this will continue to be the
case at subsequent meetings of the ad hoc committee. However, we
would like to stress that the work of this ad hoc committee should
not be seen as a substitute for the Geneva negotiations, or for
a regular assessment by the Assembly of the compliance of both countries
with the demands made by the Assembly in
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009), but as complementary to them.
47. We stand fully by, and fully reaffirm the position and demands
of the Assembly expressed in
Resolutions 1633
(2008) and
1647
(2009) which give an objective and concrete road map to all
parties to address the consequences of the August 2008 war between
Russia and Georgia. However, we recognise that the full implementation
of the Assembly’s demands may take more time than available within
this relatively short reporting period. We are strongly convinced
that the Assembly should follow closely, and assess regularly, the progress
made by both countries with regard to compliance with the demands
made in the relevant resolutions and reports on this subject. We
therefore recommend that the Assembly returns to its assessment
of the compliance with
Resolutions
1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009) during its October 2009 part-session, also taking into
account the findings by the international fact-finding mission established
by the European Union, if this report has been presented by then.
We reiterate the position of the Assembly that both countries should
fully comply with the demands made in
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009). In addition, in order to avoid a deterioration of the
security situation and stability in the region, as well as to ensure
the minimum conditions for a meaningful dialogue between Russia
and Georgia, we consider that the following should be implemented without
delay:
- immediate reversal of
the further militarisation of the two breakaway regions by Russia;
- immediate implementation of the incident prevention and
response mechanisms agreed upon in the Geneva talks, including the
possibility for joint visits;
- immediate halt, by both sides, of any actions that could
undermine the security and stability in the region;
- immediate agreement on the next date of the Geneva negotiations;
- immediate withdrawal by all parties of any restrictions
on the points of entry for humanitarian aid into South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and full respect of the right of return of IDPs as a result
of this conflict;
- full and unimpeded access of international monitoring
missions, including – within their respective mandates – for the
OSCE and EU, to South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
- participation of both Russian and Georgian delegations
in the work of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau on promoting dialogue
between the Georgian and Russian delegations.
48. We consider it essential that the Monitoring Committee remains
seized of this matter and will continue to report on a regular basis
on the implementation of Assembly
Resolutions 1633 (2008) and
1647
(2009), as well as the recommendations made in this report,
in close synergy with the regular monitoring procedure for these
two countries.
___________
Reporting committee:
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).
Reference to committee: Resolution 1647 (2009).
Information report approved
by the committee on 27 April 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 DebonoGrech, 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 Hejibayli, Mr Michael Hancock,
Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Mrs
Olha Herasym’yuk, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr
Mladen Ivanić, Mr Miloš Jevtić,
Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr Emmanouil Kefaloyiannis, Mr Hakki Keskin,
Mrs Katerina Konečná, 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 MotaAmaral, 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 the members who took part in the meeting
are printed in bold.
Secretariat of the committee:
Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mr Klein, Ms Trévisan, Mr Karpenko.
