On 18 February, I addressed the Interlaken Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. In my address, I put emphasis on the following points:
While in Interlaken, I welcomed Russia’s ratification of Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights. I stressed that this ratification illustrated Russia’s will to be a major political player within the organisation, showed Russia’s firm commitment to the Council of Europe’s values and protection mechanisms and encouraged Russian courts to make sure that their judgments take into account the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court’s case-law.
On 22-23 February 2010, I led the delegation of the Presidential Committee together with the rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee to Tirana. The detailed report on this visit is contained in the Bureau document AS/BUR (2010) 22 from 2 March 2010.
On 25 February, I took part in the official ceremony to inaugurate the new President of Ukraine, Mr Viktor Yanukovich. I met the President to congratulate him personally and invite him to address the Assembly. The President accepted the invitation and we agreed to continue contacts to determine whether this visit would be already possible during the Assembly’s April part-session.
On this occasion, I also met the President of Armenia, the Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, the Speaker of the Russian State Duma, the President of the European Parliament, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the European Union's Enlargement Commissioner, the Foreign Minister of Turkey and the State Secretary for European Affairs of France.
On 24 February, I met the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, Mr Lytvin, and members of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation to the Assembly. I stressed my hope that following the presidential elections, which, according to the international observers, met most of the international standards, the political situation in the country will stabilise and that the Parliament will be able to concentrate on the necessary legislative reforms. I also suggested that, in order to accelerate progress on meeting the obligations and commitments of Ukraine, the Parliament could elaborate a road-map with concrete steps towards achieving these objectives.
The official visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of my priorities since the very start of my mandate. As a former co-Rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee on this country, I was aware how important – and urgent – it is that Bosnia and Herzegovina adopts constitutional changes in time for the next parliamentary elections due in October 2010.
Back in 2006, when the parliament failed to adopt the so-called “April package” draft constitutional amendments by just 2 votes, the Assembly had expressed its concern at the way the institutions of the country would function. The last 4 years have only confirmed the increasing difficulty of running the country in the present constitutional set-up. In its Resolutions 1626 (2008) and 1701 (2010), the Assembly called on all political forces to engage in a dialogue as well as draft and adopt a new constitution before the October elections. Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina now also has a legal obligation to revise the constitution following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sejdic and Finci v. BiH.
During the visit, I met the Presidency, the Chair of the Council of Ministers, and the Speakers and collegiums of both chambers of the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as the parliamentary delegation to the Assembly and the leaders of the main political parties in the country. I delivered an address to both chambers of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I praised the efforts of the political class to bring about positive changes in a particularly difficult political context: I mentioned, for instance, the defense reform, the painful but successful establishment of the State Ombudsperson’s Office, or the fact that through the so-called “Prud process” the first constitutional amendment on Brcko was adopted in 2009.
At the same time, I pointed out that progress could have been far greater and that a number of commitments and obligations that Bosnia and Herzegovina had undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe remain pending: making the democratic institutions stronger and more efficient; speeding up reforms, particularly in the field of the judiciary, local government, human rights and media pluralism; and Euro-integration.
Although only 2 months are left for constitutional changes to be made (the deadline for changing the electoral provisions is 6 months prior to elections), I expressed my strong belief that this was still possible. What can be achieved is at least to change the constitutional provisions regulating the election to the Presidency and to the House of Peoples, on the understanding that a wider constitutional reform is needed and that work on it will have to carry on after the elections. The substance is there – there are sound proposals from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, as well as domestic and international initiatives.
During my meetings with the main political stakeholders, I heard diverging, sometimes opposing, views on the content, extent and timing of constitutional changes. But all these meetings confirmed my belief that in the end everything came down to political will. I strongly urged my interlocutors to overcome their differences and to send a powerful signal, both to the citizens of the country and to the international community, that Bosnia and Herzegovina has a political class which can solve problems and move forward. I pointed out that in the long term, this would bring greater political benefits than the defense of narrow party and ethnic interests.
Another major topic of discussions was the need to organise of a population census in 2011, together with all other European states. I referred to the Assembly’s position on this issue expressed in Resolutions 1626 (2008) and 1701 (2010) and called upon the main political stakeholders to resume discussion and adopt the law on census at the earliest opportunity. At the same time, I stressed that the Assembly was closely following the implementation of Annex VII to the Dayton Peace Agreement dealing with the return of displaced persons. The census and the return of displaced persons should be implemented in parallel and not be conditional on one another.
I felt obliged to warn my interlocutors of the possible consequences of a new failure to proceed with urgently-needed reforms. If the institutions which result from the October elections are deemed in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, their legitimacy may be put in question. This would inevitably affect the country’s further advancement on the road of Euro-Atlantic integration. Moreover, this could result in a flow of applications to the Court. Furthermore, the new Assembly delegation could face a possible challenge of their credentials.
I stressed that the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee would soon visit the country and the issue would be on the Committee’s agenda. I personally took great interest in an Action Plan on the execution of the judgment of the Court that the Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliamentary Assembly had tasked the Council of Ministers to prepare. The Action Plan was approved by the Council of Ministers on 4 March and should now be examined by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliamentary Assembly. I urged the domestic political stakeholders to consult the Venice Commission in the process of finalising the Action Plan, before its final adoption at political level. Finally, I urged the Bosnia and Herzegovina parliamentary delegation to the Assembly to be as active as possible in order to place the current challenges that the country faces in a pan-European context.
One of the priorities of my presidency is to strengthen the relations with the European Parliament. This is why I came to Strasbourg on 8-9 March, during one of the sessions of the European parliament, in order to meet its President, Jerzy Buzek.
On the same occasion, I also held a series of meetings with the leaders of the political groups in the European Parliament, namely Joseph Daul, Chairman of the group of the European People’s Party, Martin Schulz, Chairman of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Chairman of the Greens/European Free Alliance and Graham Watson, former Chairman of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
During all the meetings, I emphasized the good existing co-operation between the two institutions – in particular, the annual exchange of views between the EP Conference of Presidents and the Assembly Presidential Committee (although such a meeting could not take place in 2009 due to the elections for the European Parliament); the joint meetings between the Assembly and EP committees, or the co-operation in the field of election observation. At the same time, I pointed out that there was room for further improvement and suggested more regular meetings or hearings between committees, as well as closer contacts between respective Assembly and EP rapporteurs on similar topics and between political groups.
Concerning the substance of cooperation between the Assembly and the EP, the main topics of discussion during the meetings were: the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and other Council of Europe conventions; the role of our two institutions in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, as for instance between Georgia and Russia or in Cyprus, Nagorno Karabakh and the Middle East; the prospect of integrating Belarus and the opening up of the Parliamentary Assembly to non-member countries through the status of a “partner for democracy”; the environment.
During the meetings, I placed a special focus on the need for the two institutions to coordinate their policies and political messages with regard to the countries which are under the Assembly monitoring procedure and, at the same time, are aspiring to join the European Union. In this connection, I insisted that the Parliamentary Assembly should be involved in Euronest, the parliamentary branch of the Eastern Partnership Initiative.
The EP President and my other interlocutors praised the efforts of the Assembly for strengthening democracy and human rights across the continent. They valued particularly the wider scope of the Assembly work, covering almost all the countries of the continent, and the broad spectrum of additional viewpoints and ideas that this could bring to the debate on key European issues.
At the invitation of the Parliament of Kazakhstan, I made an official visit to Astana from 15 to 18 March. During my two-day stay in Astana, I met the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, the Speaker of the Senate Kassym-Zhomart Tokayev, the Speaker of the Mazhilis Ural Muhamedzhanov, Foreign Affairs Minister Kanat Saudabayev, Minister of Education and Science Zhanseit Tuimebayev and the First Deputy Chairman of the Nur Otan party Nurlan Nigmatulin. I also addressed students at the Eurasian National University in Astana.
The main subject of my discussions was the perspective for Kazakhstan to apply for “partner for democracy” status with the Assembly, which would enable a more active participation of the Kazakh Parliament in the Assembly’s activities, including plenary debates and the work of the Assembly's committees and political groups. I explained that the “partner for democracy” status was established by the Parliamentary Assembly in 2009 for the parliaments of neighbouring states of the Council of Europe to upgrade their relations with the Assembly and place them on an institutional basis.
I stressed with the authorities that obtaining this status would be fully in line with the efforts of Kazakhstan to intensify co-operation with Europe and European institutions, as shown by the recent accession of the country to the Council of Europe European Cultural Convention, its current Chairmanship of the OSCE and the ten-year programme "Path to Europe" launched by the President of the country.
On this occasion, I also expressed appreciation for the efforts of Kazakhstan in areas important for the Council of Europe, in particular strengthening intercultural and inter-religious dialogue and the participation of national minorities in the political and social life of the country.
At the same time, I encouraged the authorities to pursue democratic reforms with a view to reinforcing political plurality and fundamental freedoms in the country.
My proposals were accepted very positively and I received assurances from the authorities of Kazakhstan that they will carefully study our proposal with a view to formulating their position as soon as possible.
Together with members of the Presidential Committee, we held a meeting in Paris with the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, the current Chair of the Committee of Ministers, its next Chair, the Foreign Minister of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'' Antonio Milososki, as well as members of the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers, in the presence of Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjörn Jagland.
The topics discussed included enhancing dialogue and co-operation between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers and current political questions, notably the recent visit of the Presidential Committee to Albania, as well as my recent visits to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to Kazakhstan.
First of all, I should like to underline that the meeting took place in a very constructive and positive atmosphere. I should like to thank both Mrs Calmy-Rey and Mr Milososki for their availability, as well as the members of the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. I consider this meeting as the beginning of a new chapter of the relations between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers and all participants expressed the wish to continue this kind of informal dialogue.
At this meeting, both sides presented the measures they have already taken to implement part B (measures or topics requiring a thorough discussion both within the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly with regard to the role and prerogatives of both organs) of the above-mentioned “Proposals” as well as suggestions for future measures to be taken regarding specific issues. Furthermore, I also presented Assembly’s proposals on budgetary issues.
As the discussion on the “Proposals for enhanced dialogue and co-operation” is an ongoing process, I will inform you about the progress achieved at a later stage.
I also hope that the discussion was a useful contribution for the Secretary General for drafting his report on the items listed in part B of the “Proposals for enhanced dialogue and co-operation between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers”.
It was agreed to hold another meeting in this format still within the Swiss Chairmanship during the Assembly April part-session, devoted to discussion on priority political issues for the Organisation, mainly Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Belarus and the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
Moldova is the third member country that I visited as President of the Parliamentary Assembly. The importance that I attached to making this visit as soon as possible was related in particular to the continuing deadlock in the country concerning the election of its President. Two consecutive parliaments have been unable to gather the necessary 3/5 majority in order to elect a President.
During my visit, I met several times the President of parliament and acting President of the country, the leaders of all main political forces in the country and in parliament, with the exception of the Prime Minister, who was in Brussels for a donors’ conference, as well as the Moldovan delegation to the Assembly. I also gave a speech in the parliament.
My approach was not to teach lessons and impose solutions, but to offer friendly advice from the position of the values and principles of the Council of Europe.
The position that I defended during all the meetings was that the present deadlock could not continue and that it was unthinkable to go to yet another election with the present constitutional provisions regulating the election of the President. I stressed that the final decision of which way to go in order to overcome the deadlock belonged to the Moldovan people. However, they could rely on the Council of Europe expert advice, offered by the Venice Commission and supported by the European Union and the OSCE.
I warmly welcomed the setting up, on the very same day when I gave my speech in parliament, of a parliamentary committee which will revise art. 78 of the Constitution which sets the procedure for electing the President. It was also a very encouraging sign that all political forces, including the opposition, had designated representatives to it.
I pointed out that the Council of Europe and the Assembly in particular, were ready to become a guarantor of the agreement on the content of article 78 when it came to vote in parliament, along with other international actors.
At the same time, it is clear that in the longer term a thorough constitutional revision is necessary. I stressed that the process of constitutional reform needs to be as broad and inclusive as possible in order to enjoy mass political and popular support.
Drawing on the conclusions of the Assembly ad-hoc Committee which had observed the 29 July 2009 parliamentary elections and which I had chaired, I insisted on the importance that the new elections are up to the highest democratic standards. This means, in particular, to improve the electoral lists and guarantee far better the possibility of Moldovan citizens abroad to participate in the elections.
A lot of effort during my visit was devoted to help overcome divisions in the parliament. I was particularly glad that the opposition came to parliament to listen to my speech. I urged them not to leave it as a symbolic gesture, but to stay from now and contribute to the parliamentary debate with their ideas and principles. After the speech, the leader of the opposition announced that he was ready to meet the President of parliament in order to discuss the terms and conditions of a possible end of the opposition’s boycott.
I also addressed the issue of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, which is still incomplete because the representatives of the opposition are missing. After talks with the leader and the other members of the delegation, it seemed that the problem could be resolved soon.
Finally, I reminded my interlocutors that Moldova had been lagging behind in the fulfillment of its outstanding obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe, such as the reform of the judiciary, of the Prosecutor’s office, the police, the freedom of the media etc. I welcomed some courageous steps taken by the new government in order to overcome the economic and social crisis and to move towards more democratic freedoms.
I attended the 122nd Assembly of the Interparliamentary Union, which discussed the role of parliaments in political reconciliation and good governance, interparliamentary co-operation in the global fight against organised crime and trafficking in human beings, and the participation of young people in the democratic process.
In my speech, I concentrated on the issue of political reconciliation. I stressed that reconciliation has always been the 'raison d’être’ of the Council of Europe. The fundamental values which the Council of Europe is promoting – democracy, human rights and rule of law – are not an aim in itself but a means to an end: namely, reconciliation and long-lasting peace on our continent. In this connection, I presented to the delegates from all corners of the world, examples of our mechanisms and concrete action on conflict prevention, solution and reconciliation.
In my speech at this Conference, organised by the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), I recalled that the Council of Europe has twice led a process of post-war reconciliation – after the Second World War and the Cold War. I used this occasion to stress that, 65 years after the end of the war, we should not only celebrate the anniversary of a great victory, but also the fact that we have achieved a reconciliation process and have common values of human rights and democracy. It is the universal acceptance and application of these values which is the best guarantee to prevent any further military conflict from happening on our continent, and elsewhere.
I used this occasion to hold a series of bilateral meetings with Mr Mironov, Chairman of Russia’s Federation Council, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Lytvyn and the Speaker of the Council of the Republic of the Belarus Parliament Boris Batura.
During the meeting with Mr Batura, I expressed the firmest condemnation to the Speaker, on behalf of the Council of Europe, of the recent executions of two persons in Belarus. I said that these executions were a serious setback to our aspiration to bring Belarus closer to European values. I also stressed that the Council of Europe was ready to help Belarus but in order to work together, we need a serious signal from the Belarus authorities that they are willing to move towards the values of human rights and democracy. I called on the Speaker to intensify the engagements of Belarus parliamentarians to put an immediate end to the use of the death penalty.
On 8 April, I spoke at an international parliamentary conference on “The future of European security” organised jointly by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
In my speech, I underlined that democracy, human rights and the rule of law were a form of “soft security” that promote prosperity and peace. I expressed my satisfaction that, after long years of ideological division in Europe and the world, countries increasingly look at common problems through the same prism based on our common values. But there should be no slackening in joint efforts to deal with common threats such as terrorism or nuclear proliferation.
At the invitation of the Parliament of Azerbaijan, I carried out an official visit to Baku and Ganja, second largest city of the country. During my visit, I met the President of the Republic Ilham Aliyev, the Speaker of Parliament Ogtay Asadov, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Elmar Mammadyarov and representatives of political parties in Parliament, as well as representatives of parties not in Parliament and NGOs.
The main message that I transmitted to the President and the authorities of Azerbaijan was that holding free and fair parliamentary elections in November would be the best way for Azerbaijan to celebrate its tenth anniversary as a member of the Council of Europe next year.
The aim of this visit was to express support for the continuation of democratic reforms in the country. The Council of Europe, through our monitoring procedure, the Venice Commission’s advice and input from other Council of Europe programmes, is helping the authorities create the best possible conditions for these elections. However, I stressed that these conditions, including guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, independence of electoral commissions and a fair registration process of candidates, can only be put in place through the joint efforts of all political forces, both the majority party and opposition parties.
In this context, I also raised the question of the persons that are considered to be detained for political reasons. I asked the President and the authorities to review very carefully these cases and was given assurances that it will done.
I also stressed the urgency of solving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. “The Assembly has already clearly stated its position on this matter in Resolution 1416, adopted in 2005. I said that it would support the re-constitution of the ad hoc Bureau committee on the conflict, where MPs from both Azerbaijan and Armenia can meet, together with other Assembly members, to move forward on this difficult question. Therefore, I will organise a meeting with the parliamentary delegations both from Armenia and Azerbaijan during the April part-session with a view to finding an agreement on this issue.