mercredi 22 avril 2026 après-midi
2026 - Deuxième partie de session Imprimer la séanceVidéo(s) de la séance 1 / 1
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:34:34
Good afternoon.
The sitting is open.
I remind members that in order to be registered for the sitting, you should insert your badge when you take the seat and keep it inserted for at least 30 seconds.
You should also insert your badge in order to speak or vote.
To request the floor, please press the "request" button, just once.
I also remind the Parliamentary Assembly that members who have not submitted an annual declaration of interests are required to start any intervention with an oral declaration of interests under Paragraph 20 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Before we start with the order, I give the floor to Ms Catia POLIDORI.
Thank you, Mister Chair.
Point of order.
I will speak in Italian.
I'm really sorry, but I would like to point out that I voted incorrectly on two votes in this morning's sitting: I voted against Resolution 16372, 'Promoting the Istanbul Convention', and Resolution 16370, 'Paving the way for a culture of consent'. Instead, I would have liked to vote in favour.
I ask the Chair to take this into account.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:36:16
Ms Catia POLIDORI, thank you very much for your point of order. The voting record cannot be changed, but I take note of your point of order and you have succeeded in putting your point of order to the official record now. Thank you very much for that.
Now, the first item in this afternoon is the presentation of Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, on his annual activity report 2025 COM-HR 2026 3-1. After his address, Mr O'FLAHERTY will take questions from the floor.
So I welcome you very much, Michael, please, you have the floor and we are happy to listen to what you have to tell us about your report.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
15:37:16
Madam President, thank you very much.
Honourable members of the Assembly,
It's a great pleasure to be back with you, in this capacity, to present you with my annual report. The document has been tabled for your attention, and under those circumstances, I will just headline a small number of issues by way of my introduction. I constructed my work last year, and indeed this year, around my four stated priority areas. These have been the same since I took up the position, and they will continue to be the four primary clusters around which I do all of my work.
The first of these is standing up for the human rights of the people of Ukraine. This is, and will remain, my top priority. The focus of my attention in delivering on this priority in 2025 was a focus on embedding attention to humans and to their human rights within the various paths to peace. I felt early last year that we were talking about property and land and minerals and transactions, but not enough about people, and it was important to correct that. In mid last year, I delivered a memorandum to the government of Ukraine laying out 10 areas to which attention should be paid in order to put humans in the heart of all discussions towards peace. And I'm glad that I received the support of the government of Ukraine and indeed of many other member states in this regard. I brought my work on this matter to an expert meeting on human rights and peace, which I convened in Warsaw late last year. And I am continuing with colleagues from other organisations to find ways to promote the issues.
Myself, going forward into 2026, I will focus in particular, within the 10 subject areas, on the matter of displaced people, both those internally displaced in Ukraine and those who are having refugee status in neighbouring states. I will also, of course, never forget the human rights of the people, the plight of the people in the lands temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.
The second of my four priorities has to do with seeking with others, obviously, to embed visibility of the human and respect for human rights at the heart of the great issues that confront our societies. I have focused on four in the past year and they're all obviously enormous. The first is in general migration, migratory flows, migratory policy and seeking to ensure that the human, human well-being, human dignity, delivered through human rights again is to the forefront. The main focus of my attention in that regard has been through drawing attention to the human rights risks associated with the multiple forms of the externalisation of migratory activity or the management of migratory activity, seeking to get third states to undertake responsibilities on the part of a receiving state.
The second of the enormous areas that I've been engaging in the last year in this context is the taming of artificial intelligence. My particular focus has been – and continues to be – on a human-centred oversight of AI. And this is all the more urgent and compelling in a context of a tendency towards deregulation, which is getting far too much attention in inappropriate ways. We need to tame this technology to deliver on its extraordinary potential for good. But left uncontrolled and in the hands of five entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley is very worrying indeed.
The third of the four subject areas of embedding human rights in the great issues of the day has to do with human rights, the triple planetary crisis, and in particular the degradation of the environment. And here I have chosen to deliver my own engagement with this vital issue through promotion of the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and ensuring that these judgments, such as the so-called Swiss case, are not seen as speaking exclusively to one member state, but have very important systemic messages right across the Council of Europe.
And then the fourth and the final of the great issues within which we have to embed respect for the human and dignity and therefore human rights, is in tackling the growing inequality in our societies. The issues are so vast that I have decided to narrow in on one specific sub-component, and that is the sub-component of child poverty, the eradication of child poverty in our member states; a topic which has received my attention on a number of country visits and which will result in a report of mine with all the appropriate recommendations coming up in the next year, if not towards the end of this year.
The third of my four priority areas is quite different to that of putting human rights at the heart of the great issues. It is making sure attention is paid to ensuring that we do not overlook the forgotten people in our societies, the people most pushed to the margins. And as you've heard me say before, I think working for the most forgotten people in our societies is very specifically a task for the Commissioner. And for me, there was no choice at the outset of my mandate. And so for the past two years, my focus in terms of delivering on this dimension is standing up for the human rights of Roma and Travellers. 12 million people across our member states suffering an astonishing degree and array of human rights deprivation, violation, targeted by hate. You're all very familiar with the appalling situation.
What have I done? I've conducted five country visits to look at the issue of standing up for the human rights of Roma. I have published a book called The Unheard 12 Million. It's a different kind of a document from people like me. It's not a report, it's not written in the third person. It's full of stories. The stories I was told by Roma and Traveller people as I journeyed across Europe. And it's retelling to you and to readers what they told me in the hope that we will wake up to their situation. It's accompanied again – in the hope that this will alert us – it's accompanied by powerful photography. Everywhere I went I had professional photographers with me and we will make sure that copies of The Unheard 12 Million are available here so that interested members of this Assembly can take a copy home.
Of course, the Roma is not the only subject of my attention in the context of standing up for the forgotten people. Another preoccupation of mine in terms of people most at the edges, most easily overlooked, is the people in occupied territories. I've mentioned the people in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine and I refer you to a recent United Nations report that spells out in horrific detail the atrocities to which these people are subject every single day. We must never allow them to be forgotten. But there are other occupied territories and I have just most recently, in the last few days, I visited the occupation line in order to look at the situation and better understand South Ossetia, as well of course as Abkhazia, two other occupied territories on Council of Europe geography, the people of which must never be forgotten.
Going forward, the next major attention of mine in terms of forgotten people will be very specifically older people in institutional care across our member states. They again are deserving of our particular attention and focus. And I hope to bring some value there.
The fourth and final area of my thematic preoccupation in this mandate is standing up for, supporting the human rights of, the safety of, the lives of human rights defenders. The scale and the breadth of attack on human rights defenders in particular, and civil society in general, is quite startling, and it's to be found in multiple countries. It has turned out, in reality, to be a major part of my work, a part that involves me engaging with states practically every single day for one problem or another.
There's been one other issue, honourable members of this Assembly, it's not in my list of priorities, but it forced itself to the forefront of my attention. It required that I paid close attention, and that is the defence of the Convention system, a matter I know that you are looking at very closely, and I very much welcome the statement that you issued on this matter yesterday.
Now the process is well underway in preparation of the Chişinău Declaration. My views are well known. I've made them repeatedly in various appropriate fora. I recognise that negotiation of a text is almost complete and, all I would ask now, is that member states and all of us would be incredibly alert in the last stages towards Chişinău and in the subsequent phases, to be very alert to four concerns. Very briefly, I'll just give them to you in headline.
First, we must affirm and reaffirm and repeatedly stand for the independence of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts that adjudicate human rights.
Secondly, we must be no less assiduous in standing up for the universality of human rights. Everybody, regardless of who they are, be they migrant or be they millionaire, I don't care. By virtue of humanity, each of them has their human rights. That's universality. We must hold dear to this fundamental principle of the system.
Third, we must be very careful not to instrumentalise the European Convention on Human Rights for purposes that have nothing to do with the European Convention. We do damage to the Convention and we do not solve the problem we're purporting to solve.
And fourth, and finally, I'll simply say, beware of unintended consequences of what we do today, things that I freely admit nobody is planning, but which nevertheless may come about through carelessness.
I'd like to take a moment now, if I may, to say a word on how I make choices in the work I do. I've been asked by a number of you in recent times why I do this, why I do that, and I think it's appropriate and respectful for me to lay out to you some indicators.
The first indicator is that I have a vast mandate. I am mandated – and I'm not complaining about the mandate – to engage on supporting the delivery of every human right in every member state. In its wisdom, the Council of Europe has given me extremely modest resources to deliver on this mandate. My staff is excellent, but it is tiny. And that means that I must constantly make enormously consequential choices. I cannot do all the things that need to be done, all the things I want to do. I must choose, well aware that for every choice to do something, I'm choosing not to do something else. So therefore, certain principles have to be very much at play as I make my choices. To give you a sense of them, here are the core elements of those principles, beyond legality and mandate, obviously.
The first is co-operation. The second is complementarity. The third is identifying my own unique added value in any engagement. And the fourth is remembering and drawing the consequences from the fact that I work within a community of human rights actors. And who are that community? Well, to take one example, very important members are national human rights institutions. And increasingly, where there is a strong national human rights institution, I take a back seat and I instead work with or help enable and empower the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) to do the job. This, by the way, is an incarnation of the principle of subsidiarity.
Second, civil society and NGOs. They're not just there to be protected, they're on the front line of standing up for human rights. And sometimes, frankly, they'll do it better than me.
The third, we have the international and the regional organisations, the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the other entities that are also playing a role with regard to which and whom, I should be complimentary.
And finally, there's the family of the Council of Europe itself, there's you, the Parliamentary Assembly, there's the treaty oversight bodies, the Venice Commission and others. And sometimes you will do it better than me, I will do it better than you, the Venice Commission, let's say, will do it better than all of us. And I hope this helps you to understand the very difficult context and the criteria within which, and the criteria according to which, I make my choices.
Now, to conclude my opening remarks, which have been rather lengthy and I apologise, I consider, and as you will see from the forward to the annual report, that I consider, that this is a very fragile moment for the honouring of human dignity within our societies. We see more wars than we have in decades, scales of abuse that are astonishingly dark and grim. We see a weakening of legal commitment in many places to human rights. We see a weakening of multilateral systems more generally. We see, as I mentioned, assaults on civil society and on the rule of law itself. And all of this in the context of a broader world crisis, sometimes called the polycrisis. And increasingly within this context of crisis, we are talking not of a changing era, but a change of era. We are leaving an era. We're passing into a new one and we don't know yet what that new one will look like. And we don't know if we will successfully carry our corpus of international law, of international institutions and of human rights law into that new era. It's not automatic that it will survive. We have to be extraordinarily vigilant.
And I want to assure you, by way of wrapping up this introduction, that I look forward to continuing to work very closely with you as we together figure out the ways to make sure that this great achievement, sometimes called modernity's great achievement – human rights – is carried safely into whatever new era we are entering.
I thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:52:30
Thank you very much, Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, for this address.
I absolutely agree that I think, first and foremost, it's important to protect our Convention system, at the core of everything. But also allow me to single out only one other issue. I think to mention the KlimaSeniorinnen-Urteil decision of the Court of Human Rights. It is really something that is guiding for us, because to protect our environment and to work on the human right to live in a healthy, sustainable and safe environment is really key to all of us. To live on this continent, but also on this planet.
So without further ado, I will now give the floor to these colleagues, first on behalf of the groups, and later in groups of three that will pose questions to you. I want to remind you that your questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking one question and not making speeches.
And I first call Mr Max LUCKS on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.
Thank you, dear Commissioner, for your great work that we highly appreciate as a group.
I want to speak about a statement that you made in front of the European Court of Human Rights in February 2026 about the case of Mr Osman KAVALA.
What do you think about the fact that the European Court of Human Rights is so clear about the case of Mr Osman KAVALA, is so clear about the case of Mr Selahattin DEMIRTAŞ, but European governments don't take this judgment for granted and don't pressure Türkiye to fulfil its obligation?
What do you think about that?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:54:11
Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, please.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
15:54:17
Thank you very much, Mr Max LUCKS.
I agree with you regarding the seriousness of the matter. I have met with Mr Osman KAVALA in prison. I've been impressed by the man and his integrity.
The judgments are so clear. This is a unique instance, one of the very few times when there's a double judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. It couldn't be more clear. And so, therefore, it is incumbent, it is duty-bound on all of our member states to work together for the execution of the judgment. To the extent that duty is inadequately being honoured, then we need to challenge our member states to do a much better job.
My focus, however, is on a more direct engagement with the government of Türkiye.
I continue to raise the issue of Mr Osman KAVALA. I continue to raise the issue of the implementation of the judgment.
I locate the KAVALA case in the broader context of the extreme pressures on civil society, the outlawing of civil society organisations, the policing of protest, the pressures on the courts and a number of other dimensions.
These are extensively laid out in the third-party intervention I made at the Court just a few weeks ago in the current KAVALA case.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:55:31
Thank you.
We now listen to Mr Adam BODNAR on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Pologne, PPE/DC, Porte-parole du groupe
15:55:36
Dear Mister Commissioner,
Just two questions.
First, the recent report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Moscow Mechanism in Georgia calls for the “immediate and unconditional release all prisoners held for political reasons” as well as the release of “journalists and other participants of public debate”.
My question is: Do you intend to take any additional steps to support their release?
Secondly: Did you try to meet some of them during your recent visit in Georgia?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:56:09
Mister Commissioner, please.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
15:56:12
I take the situation of human rights in Georgia very seriously indeed. It is one of the few countries that I've visited already twice since I took up this mandate. And as some members of the Assembly may be aware, I've just come back. I was there last week. I was looking, last week, at issues of the investigation of the police brutality that occurred around the 2024 protests – the end of 2024, early 2025 – around the increased pressure on civil society and on the human rights people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
I have issued a statement yesterday in which I have engaged on these issues. I will issue a much more detailed statement in coming weeks and I want to assure you I will continue – oh, sorry, you asked a question about did I meet with people? Yes, of course. I met widely with civil society and with journalists during my visit. And, of course, I meet, outside my visit as well, as I do with politicians here in Strasbourg in particular. I will continue to focus across the range of issues, including with regard to the release of those who should not be in jail.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:57:22
Thank you.
Now, Mr Armen GEVORGYAN, on behalf of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates.
Arménie, CEPA, Porte-parole du groupe
15:57:26
Thank you.
Dear High Commissioner,
Your recent visit to Armenia raised questions about how you shape your agenda in member states.
In my country, many were puzzled that key issues such as politically motivated persecutions of opposition members, illegal actions against the Armenian Apostolic Church, concerns over judicial independence and broader democratic challenges were not of your high priority.
Do you not consider that overlooking these issues in a specifically electoral period of the member state may undermine the credibility of this organisation?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
15:58:01
Mister Commissioner.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
15:58:03
Thank you very much. And thank you, sir.
One of my top priorities and reasons to go to Armenia at this juncture was my concern for the well-being of the people of Karabakh, those who have been displaced and those who are still there. There are not many, as you know, but those who are still there as well. And I told you, I mentioned at the outset that a focus of my work – one of the top priorities of mine – is to stand up for the most forgotten people. And I find that people who are displaced, regardless of the territorial significance, people who are displaced can so easily be overlooked over time. And I wanted to make sure to insist on their human rights, including the right of those who so wish to have the possibility to return home when they choose to go home. So that is not a trivial matter. I consider it a very important matter, a very good fit for me within my mandate.
I did not explore particular issues of politicians and the other issues you dealt with, because I had to make choices, and I applied the criteria that I outlined earlier. And I think that when it comes to issues of human rights, of politicians and things of that nature, I look to you for the lead. I will not abandon my responsibilities. I will do my job, but I will look with high interest and attention to the lead taken on such issues by this body.
On the matter of churches, I'm looking at that very carefully. It's highly complex, and it doesn't lend itself to some easy or quick engagement by me. I also looked extensively at the issue of equality in your country, because 50% of our population is women, 50% of the population of your country is women. It is essential that we achieve equality. And I saw a possibility to nudge the authorities in that direction, including, by the way, towards the ratification of the Istanbul Convention. And so, I think, promoting equality, combating non-discrimination in any society of the Council of Europe is now and always will be a priority. So I'm comfortable with the choices I made, but I assure you I'm not neglecting any aspect of the human rights of your country.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:00:13
Thank you.
Next is Ms Lesia VASYLENKO on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ukraine, ADLE, Porte-parole du groupe
16:00:20
Thank you.
Dear High Commissioner,
The fate of thousands of Ukrainians, such as Mr Oleh PLACHKOVYI, Mr Serhiy TSYHIPA and Mr Oleh SHEVANDIN remains unknown. They are kept in Russian captivity in torture centres.
Similarly, the fate of opposition leader Ms Elene KHOSHTARIA, who is a Georgian opposition leader, also remains unknown as she is subject to degrading treatment in detention.
Both cases are examples of how illegal imprisonment is used to silence dissent. These cases are on the rise.
What measures have you taken to ensure the unconditional release of all those illegally detained?
What is your engagement, if any, with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in these matters?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:01:01
Commissioner.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:01:02
Thank you.
First, I want to agree with you about the barbarity of these practises.
The conditions in which people are held, whether it be in the temporarily occupied territories or abducted to Russia, the Russian Federation itself, is entirely unacceptable.
I condemn now, I have and I will continue to deplore the practises and to demand that these people are returned home in a quick, safe and dignified manner. So you have my assurance there.
That said, I have no magic solution in terms of gaining their release. Like the rest of the world, I invest in the condemnation and in the drawing into the public domain of the details of what's happening to them and the need to keep them on top of the priorities.
You didn't mention the issue of children. But that's another dimension, of course, of the outrage. And we have to keep them as well, at the top of the policy agenda, because we will only ever figure out together a way to fix this if it is at the top of our leader's preoccupation.
The second dimension is, of course, no less important, which is that I join in full and unhesitating support for all of our accountability work. We must hold the perpetrators accountable.
I fully support the prosecution of the crime of aggression. When the right moments come in the right context, I will deliver that support in meaningful and tangible ways.
More generally, as you have seen and as you heard from me a moment ago, I am working hard with others to ensure that human beings, human faces, human stories, human dignity will be embedded at the heart of every initiative towards peace and the end of the aggression.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:02:45
Thank you.
Now, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES.
France, GUE, Porte-parole du groupe
16:02:52
Thank you Madam Chairman.
Commissioner, thank you for your clear words.
You firmly defend the universality of human rights and warn against the erosion of protection for migrants.
However, Secretary General Alain BERSET left our session this week to go to London to discuss adapting the human rights system to the challenge of migration, which would mean lowering protective standards for foreigners.
Legal experts are already talking about an unprecedented regression.
So, in the face of xenophobic paranoia, how do you intend to influence the Chișinău summit so that it does not mark the beginning of the dismantling of our Convention?
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:03:29
Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, please.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:03:31
Thank you very much.
For me, it's very easy. We don't shape human rights law to adapt to our policy goals. We adapt our policy goals to conform with human rights law. This is the principle. This is the core principle against which I will test every action of every entity, every institution and every member state.
I've already spoken about Chișinău. I don't want to reopen debates and discussions around texts that are now largely complete. I don't think that's particularly valuable, but I welcome that what was a sort of a wild debate with statements appearing out of nowhere, letters emerging out of the ether. It's good that that discussion was brought into a structured Council of Europe space. I have sought to work with or encourage the drafters, as language is developed, towards a declaration. It's not over yet. We will only have a declaration when something is adopted by the member states in Chișinău.
What I want to make sure happens is that it doesn't feed into, or is not allowed to feed into, a narrative such as the one that you fear. And it could – a narrative somehow that treating migrants with full respect for their human rights will undermine the safety of our borders, the safety of our countries. I find that unacceptable.
I find repeatedly that I don't see the evidence base for a lot of the claims about the things migration is doing to our societies.
We're a generous people with a vast capacity, and we're not rising to the responsibility of both of those dimensions of who we are.
I will continue to be very vigilant in this context, but other than opening a very complex debate that's already been ongoing for a number of months, I think that would be it in terms of headline approaches.
You can count on my sustained commitment on this issue.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:05:25
Thank you.
I will now group all these three questions in one.
I remind you: 30 seconds, one question, no input.
So the first on my list is Ms Sandra ZAMPA from Italy.
Thank you.
In the context of the new European Pact on Asylum and Migration, I would like to ask you, Commissioner, how will it be possible to guarantee at Europe's borders respect for human rights, the European Convention, the constitutional principles of the member states, in the light of the new European Return Regulation and the other procedures envisaged and, in particular, with regard to unaccompanied foreign minors and the most vulnerable groups.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:06:17
Thank you very much.
Now we come to Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK from Ukraine.
Thank you.
Commissioner, I would like to ask you if you are aware of the fate of the people of Enerhodar. It's an occupied city in the Zaporizhzhia region.
A lot of people there worked at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is now occupied by Russian occupiers.
At least 37 people are illegally detained. I can pass you this list.
There are at least 2 500 people who are blocked in Enerhodar by the Russian checkpoints.
Are you also involved with the International Atomic Energy Agency on this matter?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:07:03
Thank you.
The third one is Ms Bisera KOSTADINOVSKA-STOJCHEVSKA from North Macedonia.
Ms Bisera KOSTADINOVSKA-STOJCHEVSKA.
Macédoine du Nord, SOC
16:07:11
Thank you, Madam President.
Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY,
Are you aware that Mr Toni MENKINOSKI, who is the lawyer of the organisations that fight for almost 20 years to be registered in the Republic of Bulgaria, has been negated entry into the Republic of Bulgaria for 10 years because he is the lawyer who is working on protecting their own rights.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:07:35
Commissioner, you have the floor now to respond to the three questions.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:07:39
Thank you.
First to Ms Sandra ZAMPA: the Pact on Migration and Asylum, in and of itself, contains some merit, in the sense that it finally, after years of a chaotic multi-headed policy across Europe, has put some order on things, which makes it easier for us to engage also in terms of respect for human rights. It also finally makes visible some – inadequate, but some – sense of solidarity. You can show your solidarity with money, which I find problematic, but at least it's something. It's a beginning.
And I think of your country and I think of Greece and I think of other frontline countries who have been left so much alone and have been so heavily criticised in a context where they didn't receive the meaningful help that they needed. Another benefit of the Migration Pact is the requirement to put in place independent human rights monitoring on the borders. We now have to be extremely vigilant to see that this is done. And the obvious way to do it, I've been saying, is to engage the responsibility and give the resources to the National Human Rights Institution.
But that said, there's a lot that's very worrying about the current situation. Staying with the Migration Pact, because of its requirement to do quick processing at the borders, it will put a heavy pressure on our border authorities which could lead to mistakes, to an inadequate, individualised consideration, for example, of asylum claims. There's a possibility of locking up children, which, as you know, is entirely unacceptable. I mean, how many authorities have to say this? The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Children's Fund, the list goes on. We don't lock up children, we shouldn't lock up children.
Then there's the Return Directive, and more generally, the issue of a number of recent initiatives, such as the identification of the category of safe countries. It's fine to have origin countries, it's fine to have transit countries, but this concept of the safe country is replete with risk in terms of the well-being of the person who ends up in the safe country, which could be thousands of miles away from their home. And very closely related to this, then, is the concerns about return hubs, their operation and more generally, as I've covered very widely in that recent report of mine, the so-called externalisation, which I think could very easily become not just a shared responsibility, but a transfer of responsibility from my state to a third state.
Turning to Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK and the specific detentions you mentioned, no, I've not been following it, but I don't have close detail on it. And so if you could share that with my office, I would appreciate that very deeply indeed, albeit, as I said earlier, my ability to engage with the situation in the temporarily occupied territories is so very much limited. I want to say, with apologies, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, I forgot to answer a dimension of the earlier question about the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). And allow me to say a word on this. I met recently with the President of the ICRC with a view to strengthening our own engagement around the necessary actions to be taken, not least given the special access that the ICRC can have in a way that many of us do not, in a hugely sensitive context.
On the International Atomic Energy Agency, no, I've not had direct engagement there, but if that's something that would be of particular worth for the job I do, I'd certainly be open to it.
And then thank you for the question from North Macedonia – from Bulgaria, excuse me – regarding this lawyer. I'm aware of the case. It is certainly something I have to look at very carefully. When, as I understand, a lawyer has been blocked from accessing a country for a number of years, in a context where the lawyer is seeking to represent people in that country. I will look at the matter. And I'm looking forward to having appropriate meetings to gain a deeper understanding of what is at issue here.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:11:56
Thank you very much.
The next on my list is now Mr Koloman BRENNER from Hungary.
Thank you, Madam President.
The right to one's own mother tongue and culture, and to pass them on, is also one of the most important human rights.
My question to you, Commissioner – and I am happy to take up your request – is to what extent you can then also take account of the national minorities and the traditional indigenous peoples in your further work, as well as their rights to educate and pass on their own mother tongue and culture.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:12:36
Thank you.
We'll now listen to Ms Patricia STEPHENSON from Ireland.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
You're obviously two years now into your mandate.
In that time we've seen a very sharp deterioration in the protection of rights in a variety of ways: the violations that we've seen in Ukraine, intolerance towards migrants, effective funding reductions at the Council of Europe, poor rates of execution of judgments, and this talk of sort of rupture of international law, as if we're pulling away from international law instead of leaning into it.
I suppose my question for you is what more can the institutions do to address those serious structural and cultural declines that we're seeing across the environment of human rights protections?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:13:24
Thank you.
Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO from Ukraine.
Commissioner,
The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine caused the worst violations of human rights on the continent after the Second World War.
I understand that your capacity and possibilities to help people on the occupied territory is limited, but I ask you to do the best you can do.
Also, unfortunately, we have internal problems on controlled territories. One of these problems is a violent and brutal mobilisation organised by mobilisation teams, the so-called Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support (TCR).
I want to ask you to pay close attention to this.
I want to ask you to come to Ukraine to pay attention, to help people to defend their rights, maybe establish a permanent mission to do more to help people to defend their rights in this case.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:14:13
Thank you.
Commissioner, the floor is yours.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:14:16
Thank you.
First, thank you to Mr Koloman BRENNER.
I just want to assure you, Mr Koloman BRENNER, that I will stand up for the human rights of everybody, including national minorities. You have my word on that. I will stand up for their human rights on the basis of the international instruments. And I will do it, of course, in close co-operation and in full recognition of the important role that the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and its monitoring system play with regard to national minorities. But in that context, I will, I must say, if you come from Western Europe, as I do, in my case, from the very furthest west of Europe, there may not be as much of an understanding, instinctively, of national minorities and of the significance and the human rights dimensions as there should be. It may have come late to me, but I do get it, and I give you that assurance.
Turning to Ms Patricia STEPHENSON and thank you. What can we do? The question is so big I could spend my whole life answering it. But for me at least, one of the key elements of how we push back against the decline, that I agree with you, is of such a scale, and indeed I would largely describe it just as you did. The first thing is, we must continue to insist that law is law; law is not favours, law is not optional, law is binding, and we must use the full vigour of the binding quality of law to back our claims. That, in turn means we should frame our claims based on law and be careful to make that distinction between moral goods and legal requirements.
Secondly, we have to recognise that the international human rights system, as we have it, is the only universally agreed roadmap to honour human dignity. I'll say that again, it is the only universally agreed roadmap to honour human dignity, universally agreed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no other code of practice on earth that, at least nominally, has the agreement of every member state of the United Nations and beyond. And this means there's no Plan B. If we discard human rights or we diminish it or we damage it, we have no alternative that is capable of delivering for human dignity.
And then another dimension of the work is: we all have to do a better job of telling the story, the story of how so much of what we take for granted is because of human rights protections. So much of the normality, of the everyday life of so many of us in this room is because of the people who went to the European Court of Human Rights and demanded vindication for a human right. My country, Ireland – so much of modern Ireland is constructed around judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and yet not many people know that. And so that's just one country's specific case, but you could roll that right across the member states to great effect.
And so we need to tell new stories and we need to engage the energy of young people who are furious with us. We've let them down so badly. And I see some young people upstairs there, and I don't know if they'd agree or disagree with me, but we have let them down so badly and they see a vision of a better world. And with them, we can engage that roadmap of human rights towards a better future if we don't just tokenistically listen, but we actively partner up for a better world. That's the very short answer to a huge question.
Turning to Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO. Thank you for the question on conscription. As I think you may know, I have been following it. I published an entire section of the Memorandum I delivered to the government of Ukraine on exactly this topic, just last July. It's quite precise. It's Chapter 6 of the Memorandum, which looks at, let's call them "domestic issues of human rights", with a primary focus on conscription. And I called there for an independent monitoring of the conscription practices. So first, I drew attention to the abuses, and indeed the Parliamentary Ombudsman has gone into great detail around the abuses. And so I drew from that and I echoed his findings into a bigger context. Then I called for independent monitoring and, of course, I called for all appropriate support to the relatively recently appointed Ombudsperson for the military. So I will continue to follow the issue. I will come back to your country sooner rather than later. I don't think I'll be establishing a field presence, I don't have one anywhere. I barely have a presence in Strasbourg, never mind in the field. So that would be well beyond my capacity. But you can have my assurance that I will watch this issue very closely indeed.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:19:06
Thank you very much.
The next three speakers.
First is Ms Lise SELNES from Norway.
Thank you, Commissioner, for the report and for your good work.
The war in Ukraine creates human rights challenges. I commend Ukraine on having ratified the Istanbul Convention in 2022, after the full-scale invasion. I am concerned about the situation for war veterans and their families. Post-traumatic stress after being on the front line can result in unsafe home environments for wives, partners and children.
How can the Council of Europe, with the Istanbul Convention as a tool, address this problem?
And how can we ensure better mental health for veterans and safety for their families?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:19:48
Thank you.
Ms Belén HOYO from Spain.
Is Ms Belén HOYO not here?
Then we proceed to Ms Larysa BILOZIR from Ukraine.
Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY,
In the context of so-called peace negotiations, Ukraine has been asked to concede certain territories, but let us not forget that these territories are home for our people.
Commissioner, what should be the human rights red lines in any discussion about peace for Ukraine?
How can Europe ensure that the rights of people in the temporary occupied territories are not pushed aside in diplomatic efforts?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:20:39
Thank you.
Now, Mr Rónán MULLEN from Ireland.
Dear Commissioner,
Would you agree that, in the light of the jurisprudence in Article 2 of the Convention on Human Rights – the right to life – and in light of the constitutional amendment to the Irish Constitution of 2018, it is entirely open to the Irish legislature to pass a law providing extra protection to the unborn child against abortion?
Because, by virtue of their humanity, surely the abortion of millions of unborn children, those unheard millions, "those most forgotten people", to use some of your words, must have a claim on our attention if the cause of human rights is to remain authentic and coherent.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:21:29
Mister Commissioner, please.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:21:31
Thank you.
First, to Ms Lise SELNES, thank you for your question. I think it's really important to never forget the sequelae of conflict, including in terms of the damage done to veterans, the scale and extent of post-traumatic stress disorder and the extent to which these problems persist for a lifetime if they're not properly engaged.
So that's why in my memorandum that I've referred to already, I draw particular attention, actually, more particularly, in the outcome of the gathering I convened in Warsaw in November. I drew particular attention to the situation of veterans as a community that requires particular focused and dedicated attention. I can assure you that I will continue to advocate for that in the Council of Europe, but also more broadly. It's a very important issue. I appreciate that you raised it. Thank you.
It also raises multiple other issues, Ms Lise SELNES, such as family reunification. What does a meaningful, respectful family reunification mean when the reunification will take place outside Ukraine, where the supports may not automatically be in place to support a veteran who is the beneficiary of such reunification. So it's even a dimension of the bigger question of the movement of refugees and displaced people following the conflict.
Turning to Ms Larysa BILOZIR, forgive me for mispronouncing your name. I consider that it isn't useful for me to take a position around such issues as who gains authority over what territory in any peace discussion. My interest is in standing up for the human rights of the people impacted by such decisions. It's clear to me that everybody's human rights must be 100% honoured and implemented, regardless of whatever outcomes might emerge from discussions to which I play no part. I will continue to insist on that in every context.
As I said earlier, forgive me if I missed – because I wrote a rather brief note here – if I missed part of your question, but I will continue to shout out in every possible way, for the well-being, the human rights and the dignity of people in the temporarily occupied territories. Their human rights are no less important than those of you or me or anybody else. If I've misanswered you by not hearing correctly, I apologise.
Turning to Mr Rónán MULLEN. Mister MULLEN, you said, would I agree, and then you proposed a very complex legal formulation. So, like any good lawyer, I would have to tell you I'd need to consider your question, but what I can tell you without hesitation or prevarication is that I will follow assiduously the guidance and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:24:31
Thank you very much, Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY.
Due to your concise answers, I think we can take another round of three.
That starts with Ms Lesia ZABURANNA from Ukraine.
Thank you so much.
Dear Commissioner,
This winter Russia deliberately targeted electricity, infrastructure and all heating systems in Kyiv.
For example, in my constituency in Kyiv, on the left bank of Kyiv, almost one million people were living almost without heating, electricity and in some cases without water.
This is not only about infrastructure damages. This is a systematic violation of fundamental human rights, including the right of life, dignity, housing and basic living conditions.
Will the Council of Europe recognise this as a specific form of human rights violation?
What formal tools can follow, not just statements?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:25:32
Thank you.
Mr Yuriy KAMELCHUK, also from Ukraine.
Mr Yuriy KAMELCHUK?
Mr Yuriy KAMELCHUK doesn't seem to be here.
Then we proceed to Ms Sevilay ÇELENK.
Do you consider the absence of an assessment of violations affecting those dismissed under emergency decrees (known as "KHKs"), and the Academics for Peace, a significant gap in your Türkiye report?
And will your office conduct a deeper investigation into these cases, which have impacted hundreds of thousands directly and millions indirectly for nearly a decade?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:26:19
Thank you. And Mr Armağan CANDAN.
Could you repeat the question? The Commissioner didn't understand. The question only.
Assessment of violations affecting those dismissed from their jobs under emergency decrees and the Academics for Peace are a significant gap in your Türkiye report.
Will your office conduct a deeper investigation into these cases which have impacted hundreds of thousands directly and millions indirectly for nearly a decade?
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:27:02
Thank you.
And Mr Armağan CANDAN from Cyprus.
Also not here.
Then hopefully Mr Szabolcs NAGY from Romania? Yes.
Thank you Chair.
Commissioner, your report shows that 2025 brought significant challenges for our European Community and for your office in the field of human rights also, but other issues need attention also, like the urging need of implementation of collective rights for autochthonous national minorities.
Organisations representing these minorities continue to face difficulties.
Individual rights have advanced, yet collective rights remain insufficiently implemented.
Do you intend to strengthen support for organisations representing these minorities?
We look forward to informing you further during your visit in Romania this year.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:28:00
And as we have only one speaker left on the list, I would suggest that we also take Baroness Thérèse COFFEY from the United Kingdom.
Thank you Madam President.
I'm very conscious in the report and the statement after the visit made by you, Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, to the UK last year, you expressed your concern, it felt, about the 'For Women' ruling by the Supreme Court.
A year on it still hasn't been put into place.
Surely one of the issues that often faces challenges, particularly for people in the trans community, is having certainty.
We have uncertainty at the moment.
So what would be your recommendation on how that certainty can be provided?
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:28:41
Mr Michael O'FLAHERTY, please.
Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe
16:28:43
Thank you very much.
Firstly, with regard to the attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine, I have called these out repeatedly. After most of the incidents, I've taken to social media to express my outrage and my solidarity. The attacks on infrastructure, including in the wintertime heating and electricity, are egregious abuses and violations of the human rights of men, women and children with devastating consequences.
I will continue to do so. I will continue to call for justice and accountability for all of these crimes. And I would expect and demand that accountability be delivered wherever legal avenues can bring us. I will, as I said earlier, provide every meaningful and possible support within my mandate for the pathways towards accountability, including those that are championed by the Council of Europe.
Turning to Ms Sevilay ÇELENK regarding dismissals and academics dismissed from positions, thank you very much for raising the matter. I will take it into consideration. I'm engaging with Türkiye across multiple areas and you have flagged to me an issue and I will look at it.
Turning to Mr Szabolcs NAGY, I think my answer is pretty much the same, sir, as that on an earlier question with regard to national minorities. I will, of course, stand up for the human rights of everybody, including the human rights of members of national minorities. You have my assurance. I will do it on the basis of the rights as outlined in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. And when I visit your country, I very much look forward to engaging with you in the context of sitting down with your country's delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is my standard practice on almost all of my visits. Thank you.
Sorry, I beg your pardon. I wasn't trying to avoid it. So thank you for the question. As you know, Baroness Thérèse COFFEY, I've been following the situation very closely since the Supreme Court judgment, which is what it is, but created a lacuna in terms of equal protection for members of the trans communities. I have engaged on it during my visit with the government. I have sat down with ministers on the topic. I have written to the authorities, I have published much of my correspondence. I've engaged with the national human rights institution, always to the same end: that the logic of the case of Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom be applied in terms of new regulation in your country. The Goodwin case, a UK case at the European Court of Human Rights, established the entitlement to equal respect and dignity of members of the trans community as to anybody else. And I now expect your government to put forward a regulatory framework which will deliver on that binding judgment of the court. And I will continue to press the matter.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:31:46
Commissioner, thank you very much for all your answers. It was good to have this exchange with you and all the best for your important work.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:32:05
The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled "Towards the universal abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances", Document 16375, presented by Ms Gala VELDHOEN on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
This will be followed by statements by Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER, Commissioner at the International Commission against the Death Penalty, and Ms Antoinette CHAHINE, international human rights defender.
In order to finish by 6:30 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 6:10 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call on Ms Gala VELDHOEN, the rapporteur.
(Take your place first, of course. I think, Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER, you should sit on the other side; there is some mistake. Please, could you change to the opposite side? We have a very strict order here. Ms Gala VELDHOEN has the first row as a rapporteur and also the Chair of the Committee. So perfect. Everything is in order. So, everything settled? Fine.)
Ms Gala VELDHOEN, you have 7 minutes now and 3 minutes later to reply after the debate.
Please.
Dear President,
Dear colleagues,
Fifteen years after the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's last resolution focused on the death penalty, this report aims to contribute to the next World Congress Against the Death Penalty to be held in Paris on 26 June.
Over the years, the Assembly has significantly contributed to making the Council of Europe's geographical and legal space a death penalty-free zone.
In the 1990s, the Assembly made the commitment to abolish a precondition for accession to the organisation. It also paved the way for the adoption of Additional Protocols No. 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty in times of peace and in all circumstances.
Unfortunately, the death penalty is not merely a thing of the past. This is why achieving its universal abolition must remain a top priority. So I very much welcome this important debate, and I want to thank our two guest speakers, Ms Antoinette CHAHINE and Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER, for joining us today.
As the Assembly's general rapporteur, I welcome the global trend toward its limitation and abolition. However, I am deeply concerned by the fact that some countries continue to retain the death penalty and to carry out executions, the number of which has increased in 2024 and 2025.
This report is of particular importance in the current context. No later than last week, a report on the death penalty in Iran revealed an unprecedented escalation in its use by the Islamic Republic, where capital punishment serves as a tool of political repression and intimidation. In 2025, we saw the highest number of recorded executions in the country since 1989, marking a dramatic 68% increase compared to 2024.
Colleagues, our efforts remain as necessary as ever. In the United States, the death penalty has been restored at the federal level under President Donald TRUMP, and some states are using brutal methods of execution that amount to torture. In Japan, an execution was carried out in June 2025 after a pause of almost three years, and Belarus remains the only country on the European continent that still carries out executions, which are shrouded in secrecy.
The current situation in Israel demonstrates that we must remain vigilant and monitor any initiative aimed at reintroducing or expanding the death penalty. This year, Israel, which has held observer status in the Assembly since 1957, took this step despite international pressure to prevent it. This is not fiction. This is a terrible and tragic reality. The new law recently adopted by the Knesset provides for the imposition of the death penalty on individuals convicted of, and I quote, "murderous terrorist attacks". Within the military court system, it establishes default death sentences with no possibility of reduction, commutation or pardon, and eliminates key procedural safeguards. In the civil courts, the legislation expands the offences punishable by death in a discriminatory manner against Palestinians. This is unacceptable.
Such measures are incompatible with the Council of Europe's core values and constitute a flagrant violation of Israel's international obligations. These facts should be duly taken into consideration in the report pending in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy regarding the possible suspension of Israel's observer status with the Assembly.
In contrast with these alarming developments, I have also identified some more encouraging trends. Morocco marked a landmark shift in 2024 by voting for the first time in favour of the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty. In addition, it is important to note that states with a partnership status with the Assembly either have abolished capital punishments, like Kyrgyzstan, have a moratorium on executions in place (Morocco), or have not carried out executions for a number of years (Jordan, Palestine and the West Bank).
Ahead of this year's World Congress Against the Death Penalty, my report stresses the critical role played by judges towards the universal abolition of the death penalty and encourages initiatives aimed at mobilising young people worldwide.
Capital punishment has been almost entirely abolished on the European continent. However, we should not take this for granted. In the context of the resurgence of the pro-death penalty narratives, it is crucial that the Assembly reaffirms its firm and principled opposition to the death penalty, in all places and all circumstances. The death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with human dignity. The right to life and the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment are punishment. Its reintroduction would purely and simply be incompatible with states' continued membership of the Council of Europe and would constitute a serious violation of its obligations under Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
The draft resolution before you therefore reiterates the long-standing position of the Assembly and contains a list of recommendations for different stakeholders and international actors. It calls on the US and Japan to introduce immediate moratoriums and to take the necessary steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in law. A similar call is made to the Belarusian regime. As regards Morocco, the resolution calls on the Parliament and the authorities to transform its long-standing moratorium into an abolition. It also strongly urges Israel to repeal or invalidate its new law without further delay and to refrain from implementing it.
The fight against the death penalty is at the core of our values as the Council of Europe. The Assembly will not accept any backsliding on this question. Let us be united and show that to the world today.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:41:30
Thank you very much.
Now I invite Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER, Commissioner at the International Commission against the Death Penalty, to make her statement.
You have 7 minutes, dear Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER.
Commissaire à la Commission internationale contre la peine de mort
16:41:43
Thank you.
Madam President,
Distinguished parliamentarians,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Good afternoon and thank you for this invitation. It is indeed an honour to be speaking here today, because the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has advanced abolition very effectively. Its combination of treaty instruments, membership conditionality and sustained monitoring has produced a death penalty-free continent within roughly two decades of sustained effort.
The International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP) was established in Spain, in Madrid, in 2010 and is currently composed of 28 high-level Commissioners from all regions of the world, united in our commitment to promoting the universal abolition of the death penalty under President Navi PILLAY, judge and former United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commissioners are former presidents, ministers, prime ministers, governors, judges, senior UN officials, and parliamentarians. We use our collective experience to reach out to government representatives in retentionist countries and to encourage and support gradual steps towards abolishing the death penalty.
Having been a parliamentarian myself, a member of the European Parliament with a main focus on human rights, I know, from experience, that parliamentary voices carry unique weight in this struggle.
I want to address the paradox we face today, share the data that should alarm us and propose concrete steps that parliamentarians can take to move the world towards abolition.
As the rapporteur has said, in 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted its tenth resolution calling for a moratorium on executions – with 130 votes in favour. This is a record in history. That is more than two-thirds of all UN Member States.
In recent years, we see countries like Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Zambia, Zimbabwe – all have either fully abolished or abolished for ordinary crimes. Malaysia commuted nearly a thousand death sentences following the repeal of its mandatory death penalty, and Vietnam removed eight capital offences from its penal code just last year.
But here is the paradox: the abolitionist majority has never been larger – and the retentionist minority has never been more lethal.
Known global executions increased most worryingly. In 2025, reported executions included at least 1,639 individuals in Iran; at least [356] people in Saudi Arabia, including two people who were children when they committed the crimes; in the United States, 47 executions were carried out in 2025 – the highest number in 16 years. Moreover, at least 24 people were executed in Somalia and 17 in Singapore. In China, Vietnam and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the use of the death penalty remains shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to obtain accurate numbers. Public executions continued in Afghanistan, and you have already referred to the situation in Belarus.
We are simultaneously witnessing the most progress and the most executions in a generation. That tension must concentrate our minds.
Let me briefly refer as well to the European Court for Human Rights, and its relations to the death penalty. The European Convention on Extradition provides that extradition may be refused if the offence for which the extradition is requested is punishable by the death penalty, unless the requesting party provides insurance that it will not be carried out.
So in 2000, the Court ruled that deporting a woman who risked death by stoning to Iran would violate the prohibition of torture. The applicant was subsequently granted a residence permit in Türkiye. And in 2020, the Court ruled that expulsion of Chinese nationals to China, where they might be sentenced to death, would violate the right to life and the Bulgarian authorities subsequently presented guarantees that the applicants would not be expelled to China or to a third country.
And I would really underline that we, today and in the future, need a very strong and independent and well-functioning European Court of Human Rights.
And then, I would also like to underline some of the trends we see today.
The number of countries carrying out executions has reached historical lows. Only 15 countries in 2024, the lowest ever recorded. But within that small group, we have an increasing number of executions. Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia together accounted for 91% of all known executions in 2024. In 2025, Iran alone carried out an average of 4–5 executions per day.
The second trend we see is an increasing number of the use of the death penalty being carried out arbitrarily, often based on confessions extracted by torture and where the people executed have not faced fair trials and with very limited access, if at all, to a defence lawyer.
In the United States, reports suggest that over 80% of the people executed have at least one significant vulnerability, like mental illness, intellectual disability, and so on. And at least 48 women were executed in 2004 in Iran. Women's rights activists face the death penalty for their courage. And also, children continue to be executed.
The third trend is the weaponisation of the death penalty against dissent. We see this again in those three countries.
So we are deeply concerned about this trend, that some countries announced that they will reintroduce the death penalty. And the rapporteur has referred to the situation in the United States on the federal level. And we have also the situation in the Israeli Knesset, the advancement and reported approval of legislation expanding the use of the death penalty penalty for "terrorists", targeting Palestinians only. I join my fellow ICDP Commissioners in PACE's strong condemnation, raising alarms over the potential violations of human rights and the implications for Israel's observer status.
I would like to end by saying that parliamentarians do have a role in this path to abolition. You can reach out, you can do what you can do in your parliaments, here or at home in your national parliaments, but you can also reach out to colleagues in retentionist countries to join forces to discuss how you can reform laws, how you can reduce the crimes for which the the death penalty is being seen for. So there is a variety, and we are not, and parliamentarians are not bystanders, we are real protagonists.
So thank you again, and thank you for a very strong resolution you are going to pass.
And as you said, rapporteur, you will not give in and continue with a strong energy.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
16:50:48
Thank you very much, Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER, for sharing this really frightening evidence which we all have to address united.
At the opening speech on Monday, I already said that it's a civilisational choice to abolish the death penalty.
Please, now the floor goes to Ms Antoinette CHAHINE, international human rights defender.
You also have 7 minutes, please.
Défenseuse internationale des droits humains.
16:51:14
Good afternoon.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to thank you for this invitation. I am honoured by this invitation because I myself have been a victim of injustice and of the death penalty.
My name is Ms Antoinette CHAHINE. I am Lebanese and I acquired French nationality after my ordeal. My personal story is one of injustice, starting from the day I was arrested. My story is very difficult to sum up in seven minutes.
I have experienced the pain of torture, injustice and the fear of capital punishment. That's why I campaign against the death penalty, for the dignity of prisoners and in defence of all human life.
I was arrested because my brother, Mr Jean CHAHINE, was a member of the Lebanese Forces, a Christian political party that was persecuted at the time. I was asked to give a false testimony against him and against this political party, even though he had already left Lebanon. They needed a scapegoat. Despite significant interrogation and torture, I managed not to give one. As a student, I was tortured and sentenced to death during an initial trial, then finally exonerated and released after five and a half years in prison.
Through my personal story, and through my responsibility as a human rights defender, I have tried to transform my suffering into a commitment to others: to prisoners, to the tortured and to the voiceless.
I have suffered all manner of physical and psychological torture, in all of their cruelty. I experienced terrible moments, hanging by my arms without my feet touching the ground. My hands and feet were tied like a chicken and the soles of my feet were beaten. I'll spare you the details of one night, when they poured boiling water over me and had to call the International Committee of the Red Cross. I was tortured so badly that I was hospitalised twice.
I'll never forget the operation on my foot, which was badly swollen as a result of the various forms of torture. Just imagine: the operation was carried out without anaesthetic in my cell. It was my 11th day in prison.
Believe me, the worst part was being deprived of water. After I refused to sign a false confession, they stopped giving me water. They poured it over my forehead to stop me drinking.
I'm going to tell you about another dark night that I spent being cruelly tortured. I reached a point where I couldn't stand the torture any more. So I told them: "Stop, I'll sign any paper you want, but I really want to rest." They gave me water and took me to an office to sign. I saw the pen on the edge of the desk, I took it in my hand and it fell to the floor without me wanting it to. I shouted, "I will not testify to false things, do what you want to me."
I paid with my blood. I paid with my body. This is proof that a human being can be driven to confess to a crime they did not commit in order to escape suffering and then be condemned to death.
I'd like to tell you about another form of psychological torture that broke me. I was going to sign. I couldn't talk about it before, when my mother was still alive. When I was first arrested, my family learned that I was supposedly dead, after someone had died under torture. My mother then rushed to the place where I was being held, knelt down and kissed the shoes of a guard. She said to him: "If my daughter is alive, let me see her. And if she's dead, give us her body." He responded by kicking her. She fell and started crying. My mother didn't know I saw her that day. To torture me even more, they put me in a place where I could see her, but she couldn't see me.
I want to promise her, in front of you, now that I'm a mother and I understand what she went through, that I won't stop fighting. And I know that she's watching me from heaven.
And I won't go into detail about how they used my legs to put out their cigarettes. Or about how, when the first verdict sentencing me to death was announced, I suffered a paralysis attack that left me unable to speak or walk for several weeks.
Injustice is a terrible thing.
It was during this period that Amnesty International published a report stating that my trial had been unfair. That report was a blessing for me. Several other organisations took an interest in my ordeal, such as Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) France, Christian Solidarity International (CSI) and Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), in London, in the United States, and in Lebanon, despite fear. Letters from all over the world poured into the prison. They were addressed to me. There were so many that one day the postman couldn't carry them: he had to hire a taxi.
A prisoner's greatest suffering is loneliness. I didn't see the sun for five and a half years. I couldn't smell the fresh air. I dreamt for five and a half years of kissing my mother, without being able to touch her. I was behind a fence.
In the end, the Court of Cassation found me innocent after all those years. But who will give me back those years? Who will erase the torture marks on my body?
With time, I decided to turn this ordeal into a fight. Since my release, I have travelled the world to defend human rights and continue my fight against the death penalty, injustice and torture, travelling, for example, to the United States, Canada, Australia, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and Europe. And in my own country, Lebanon, I am also working alongside activists and parliamentarians to move towards the abolition of the death penalty.
I really have no intention of stopping.
The most important thing for me is to be able to bear witness to young people, because human rights education can help to improve the world so that we can create a peaceful world.
I would like to express my gratitude for all the tributes that have been paid to me over the years in Lebanon, throughout the world and in France. I have been granted honorary citizenship and the keys to several cities, as well as the insignia of a National Order of Merit from the French government and French nationality for myself and my two children. I am an honorary member of Amnesty International, as well as an honorary member and ambassador to Lebanon for ACAT France, and a fervent campaigner for Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort (ECPM), and the Community of Sant'Egidio in Italy.
When I speak of tributes, they are not paid to Ms Antoinette CHAHINE, but to each person experiencing torture, to each prisoner, to each person who has suffered torture, to each activist, and to all of you.
Speaking of France, I must pay tribute to Mr Robert BADINTER. At a World Congress Against the Death Penalty, Mr Robert BADINTER said that I was someone who single-handedly embodies the fight for abolition.
As far as the abolition of the death penalty is concerned, my fight has remained the same since my release. Since 2001, the date of the 1st World Congress Against the Death Penalty, I have been invited to and have attended each of these congresses, and this year we are celebrating its 25th anniversary. This congress is an important step towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. My greatest wish, like all activists who fight against the death penalty, is to be able to ensure that abolition becomes universal.
Despite everything I've been through, I have no hatred. Peace, love and sharing are my only weapons. But I'll never forget what I've been through. And I know one thing: by saving a life, supporting a family, guiding a young person towards peace and encouraging activists to do more, we all win together, that's already a victory over violence. To live in hatred is to be a prisoner for a second time.
As I often say in my stories, I want to end by shouting loud and clear: "No, no to death. Yes, yes to life". This is the battle we are all fighting.
I promise to continue fighting alongside you until my last breath, so that no one goes through what my mother and I went through.
Above all, let's not give up. On the contrary, let's take action. Let's resist, again and again.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:02:31
Madam Antoinette CHAHINE, we thank you very much for your bravery in sharing your indeed dramatic testimony of torture and indeed inhuman treatment with all of us. We admire that you speak about your destiny and fight against the withholding of dignity for others. And your example is indeed inspiring. And I hope that you really can enjoy your life in freedom. Thank you.
We now come to the speakers on behalf of the political groups. And I first call on Mr Yves CRUCHTEN on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.
Luxembourg, SOC, Porte-parole du groupe
17:03:14
Ms Antoinette CHAHINE, thank you for your emotional but very important testimony. Be assured that you have our full sympathy and solidarity.
Dear colleagues, I would like to thank Ms Gala VELDHOEN for her excellent work. This report is clear, principled and uncompromising. The death penalty has no place in a society built on human dignity. It violates the right to life. It is irreversible and it is incompatible with the values we defend in this Assembly every single day. Europe has made a historic choice. We are a death penalty-free zone, not by accident, but by conviction. And yet, while the global trend moves towards abolition, we see something deeply troubling. Not just persistence, but also regression.
Let me focus on one point that strikes at the very core of what we stand for. In Israel, new legislation would introduce mandatory death sentences. And not just that. They would apply in a way that is fundamentally discriminatory, targeting specifically Palestinians through military courts and unequal legal standards. This is not just about the death penalty. This is about who the death penalty is applied to. A death penalty that is selective, that distinguishes between lives, between whose life is worth protecting and whose is not. This is not justice. This is discrimination.
And let us be absolutely clear. There is no version of the death penalty that aligns with the values of the Council of Europe. Not a targeted one, not a security-based one, not an exceptional one. Our convention system is built on a simple but powerful idea: human rights are universal or they are nothing. You cannot defend human dignity selectively. You cannot defend the right to life only for some. And you can certainly not introduce a system where the death penalty is applied along ethnic or political lines. This is in total contradiction with everything we and this organisation stand for.
Colleagues,
This Assembly has always been clear. Any reintroduction of the death penalty is incompatible with Council of Europe membership. But beyond legal incompatibility, there is a moral argument. We are not just lawmakers. We are guardians of a principle that justice must never become vengeance and that the state must never mirror the violence it condemns.
So, yes, this report is important. It documents progress, it calls for action. It reaffirms our commitment. But today we must also send a message beyond its pages. There can be no backsliding, no exceptions, no double standards. The abolition of the death penalty is not a policy choice; it is a civilisational choice. And we must defend it, everywhere and without any compromise.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:06:22
I now call on Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Emanuelis, please. Three minutes.
Lituanie, PPE/DC, Porte-parole du groupe
17:06:32
Thank you.
Madam Speaker and dear friends,
My mother spent four years in a Nazi camp. After she survived the terrible Stutthof concentration camp, and my grandfather Dachau, I never heard her calling for hatred. Hatred and revenge.
We built this... It was built at this Council of Europe: the neglect to revenge means capital punishment. That's our core values. That's why today I will vote in favour of this resolution. I would like to thank the rapporteur.
Bearing that in mind, we should have a broader view of who is in favour of capital punishment and who is not? Which countries were just mentioned 55 times per day in Iran? No-one discussed the Iranian situation of human rights in our Council of Europe. I'm sorry, that is a mistake. They are not our members, but we should discuss that in a crystal clear way in the context of today's discussion. 15 countries from the Middle East have capital punishment. We should discuss that too.
Thank you for calling for other countries, members and observers, to withdraw capital punishment.
It's very important to say today that in Israel the Supreme Court blocked the Knesset decisions 23 times and the laws were not implemented. Let's ask the Israeli democratic forces – Israel is probably the only one democracy in Middle East, a real democracy – to make a decision after the elections, and make every effort after the Supreme Court makes their decision. We hope it will be positive against capital punishment. Let's ask new friends in the democratic Knesset to vote against and block that.
To end I would like to say that we should be here based on a broader approach and not always be pointing only to Israel, but at the same time having the same dose of critics. I would like to ask the Palestinian authorities to come back to their question of capital punishment and especially remember that Hamas – I have here all the numbers – enacted capital punishment in the Gaza Strip for a huge number of Palestinians.
Let's be objective. I am congratulating the rapporteur for a good and mature report.
Thank you. I will be voting in favour.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:09:36
Thank you very much.
The next one is Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO on behalf of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates.
Ukraine, CEPA, Porte-parole du groupe
17:09:42
Dear President, dear colleagues,
Let us be frank and clear.
We all here are against the death penalty. This is one of the core values of the Council of Europe. It's something which we should continue to do. There is no question about this at all.
I want to thank our rapporteur for a great job done, but I want to speak now about hypocrisy, because what we saw around this report is a real hypocrisy.
When this report – much-needed report, very important report – was used to attack the state of Israel because of the decision of the Knesset.
I first want to address Israeli colleagues, please reconsider your decision.
Secondly, we need to remember this law is not activated in Israel. It's now under judiciary review from the Supreme Court.
I hope that the Supreme Court will make a decision which will just destroy this decision about implementing the death penalty in Israel. There is time for this, there is a possibility and it is absolutely real. Moreover, I think it will happen, but still it has not happened.
When once again this law doesn't work, it is used today to attack the State of Israel. We hear 'let us suspend their observer status. Let us terminate their observer status'.
I'm very much interested: Why are those who are saying this not initiating the termination of the status of Palestine as a partner for democracy? In Palestine there is the death penalty. In 2011, when we invited Palestine here as a partner for democracy, it was said, 'Let us give them motivation to destroy the death penalty'. And what? 15 years after, they did it? No, but not one of you is saying, 'Let us terminate their status'. No one is saying the same about Jordan where there is a death penalty and which has the same status as partner for democracy with us.
Where are you? Why are you not speaking about this?
One more hypocrisy. We can speak about what's going on in the Middle East. I want to remind you, Israel is the only one democracy there. And yes, in democracy mistakes can be made, but I hope they can be also fixed.
We have just on our continent, one more country which is called Belarus, where people are killed today. They have the death penalty. They are killing people. Nothing is happening. Many of the countries which are represented here did not even introduce sanctions against Belarus. They shake hands with Mr Alexander LUKASHENKO, his representatives, and so on.
So stop the hypocrisy. Let us be consistent with our principles. First of all, let us watch what's going on in our home.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:12:46
Thank you.
Now we listen to Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Okay, can you hear me now?
The year is 2026. We find ourselves in the chamber of what is supposed to be the world's leading human rights organisation, defending human rights not only just in its member states, but around the world and defending democracy.
It is worth reminding ourselves this, because the topic we are discussing is not just the death penalty and the abolishment of the death penalty, because I hope we all understand here in this room – although it's increasingly questionable – that the death penalty is not acceptable in any form. Not all death penalties are the same and not all obligations are the same.
This organisation – we said it before and we will continue to repeat it – membership in this organisation is both a privilege and responsibility. That privilege comes with certain responsibilities of not just member states, but the states that have the observer status here in the Council of Europe.
Here in 2026, I repeat, we are discussing the death penalty, among other places, in a state that has observer status here in the Council of Europe. And not just any kind of death penalty. Not just any kind of death penalty, because this death penalty is mandatory. Mandatory execution by hanging within 90 days from the sentence, that allows for no questioning of the death sentence in the military court.
The most important distinction of this death penalty is the following: this death penalty excludes Israeli citizens.
So imagine in the countries that also have observer status here, with controversial death penalties that do not apply to the entirety of their territories, because many states within the United States abolished the death penalty.
Can you imagine a death penalty that exclusively applies to Black people, that exclusively applies to Muslims or minorities in Japan or the United States?
Unimaginable. Again, the year 2026.
Time is no longer allowing us to discuss this as a political concept. This is no longer allowing us to use political euphemisms and discuss in theoretical terms, in abstraction, the values of this organisation. Whether we adhere to the values of this organisation or not is for us to decide for the members of this chamber. So we either value or we don't value. Again, both observer status and the status come with responsibilities.
I will finish by saying this: I come from a country that experienced genocide in the past 30 years.
We do not have the death penalty. Why? Because I don't believe that the response to savagery should be savagery.
Because again, it's 2026.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:16:34
Thank you.
On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Ms Gabrielle CATHALA.
France, GUE, Porte-parole du groupe
17:16:43
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Like me, you have seen the images of Israeli ministers popping champagne to celebrate the passing of a law providing for the death penalty only for Palestinians classified as terrorists. A racist death penalty, by hanging, reserved for Arabs.
The death penalty, whether racist or not, is incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe, as are the extrajudicial executions carried out on a large scale by Israel. Yet the Israeli Parliament is still an observer member of our Parliamentary Assembly. The Knesset, has its offices here, upstairs, above us, as does the United States, which holds observer status at the Council of Europe.
To put an end to this aberration, our group has tabled several amendments to demand that the Knesset should finally be excluded. It is also regrettable that this Assembly only goes back to its roots when it comes to the racist death penalty, because colonisation should already have justified the Knesset never being an observer member of our Parliamentary Assembly, just like apartheid, the thousands of prisoners locked up without trial and tortured, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
If a single state, a single member of this Assembly, had committed even one fiftieth of Israel's crimes, if a single State had murdered more than 20 000 children in less than two years, it would have been immediately excluded. And if some of you still don't want to see this double standard or allow this increasingly obvious and disgusting hypocrisy to continue, remember, colleagues, what you voted for here when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Barely three weeks after the Russian aggression, this assembly voted unanimously to exclude Russia on 15 March 2022. The opinion noted that Russia had chosen to use force, and I quote, "to achieve its foreign policy objectives, in violation of the legal and moral norms that govern the peaceful coexistence of States". It wrote that it was "deeply disturbed by evidence of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Russian Federation".
Colleagues,
Are there not serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran? Is the illegal use of force by the Israeli regime in violation of the legal and moral norms governing the peaceful coexistence of states not obvious to you?
Colleagues,
It seems to me that if you have chosen to sit here, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, it is not just to travel at the taxpayers' expense, and to ease your conscience, it is not just to appear respectable, it is to defend the universality of human rights, rights that are not just reserved for white people.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:19:21
The speaking time of the following speakers will be 2 minutes.
First on my list now is Mr Fabian MOLINA from Switzerland.
Madam President,
Esteemed colleagues,
I want to, first of all, thank you, dear rapporteur, for your excellent report.
"The death penalty is the special and eternal mark of barbarism" [also spoken in French].
What Victor Hugo observed in 1848 remains true today: a justice system that kills is fundamentally wrong. The death penalty violates the right to life and human dignity, the foundation of all human rights. Without this right, all others lose their meaning.
It is also not an effective tool to fight crime. There is no reliable evidence that it deters crime more than other punishments. It does not bring real justice to victims, nor does it allow for reparation or rehabilitation.
In addition, the death penalty is often imposed after unfair trials, with discriminatory effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Rather than increasing security, it undermines trust in justice systems and contributes to a culture of violence.
Europe has made significant progress in this area.
Thanks to the decisive role of the Council of Europe, the European continent is today a death penalty-free zone, with the exception of Belarus. This achievement must be protected and expanded, not reversed.
It is, therefore unacceptable, that states holding observer status with the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary Assembly should apply, extend or reintroduce the death penalty.
The law passed by the Israeli parliament is not only a fundamental attack on human rights; it is also racist and a violation of international humanitarian law.
It is therefore essential that the Parliamentary Assembly reviews Israel’s observer status in a timely manner.
I thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:21:50
Thank you.
Now we will listen to Ms Stéphanie WEYDERT from Luxembourg.
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
The last death sentence for an ordinary crime was executed in Luxembourg on 7 August 1948.
That was one year before the Council of Europe was founded, of which Luxembourg was one of its founding members.
It took, however, more than thirty years for the Luxembourg law to catch up.
In 1979, Luxembourg made a decisive choice: that the state must never take life as a punishment.
Today, that principle is firmly anchored in our constitution.
Beyond Luxembourg, it has become part of something larger. A shared European commitment, one that this Parliamentary Assembly, within the Council of Europe, has helped to build over decades.
Today, Europe is, almost entirely, a continent without executions. But “almost” matters. We must never take the abolition of the death penalty for granted. It is not irreversible.
Beyond Europe, the trend is deeply concerning. Executions are rising again globally, driven by a small number of states. In countries like Iran, the death penalty is increasingly used not as punishment, but as a tool of repression.
This debate is not about whether punishment has a role in ensuring security. It does, but the death penalty is different. It is often presented as the ultimate form of deterrence, but there is no evidence that it makes societies safer.
What we do know is this: justice systems make mistakes.
The death penalty makes those mistakes irreversible.
So, this debate goes to the core of what justice means.
Justice is not vengeance. Justice is measured, controlled, and human, even when confronted with the most serious crimes, because once the state takes life as a punishment, it crosses a line it cannot redraw.
For the Council of Europe, that line is clear. No compromise, no exception, no step backwards, because in the end, a society is judged not only by how it protects the innocent, but by how it treats the guilty.
And if we remain faithful to that principle, we do not weaken justice, we define it.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:24:15
Thank you.
The next one is Mr Michael RUBBESTAD from Sweden.
Thank you, Madam President.
I want to begin by stating clearly, I fully support the universal abolition of the death penalty, in all circumstances and in all countries.
There can be no compromise on the value of human dignity, the right to life and the fundamental principles that unite us in this Assembly.
But if we want to succeed, not only in this room, but across the world, we must also address a difficult reality. In many societies, support for the death penalty does not come from cruelty. It comes from fear. From anger. And from the perception that justice is not strong enough to deal with the most serious crimes.
If we want to convince societies to abandon the death penalty, we must ensure that justice systems are strong enough to deal with the most serious crimes. That means ensuring that those who commit the gravest offences face consequences that are serious, proportionate and effective in protecting society. Long-term imprisonment must be capable of preventing further harm. Justice systems must have the capacity to respond firmly to violent crime.
Because if justice is perceived as weak, support for the death penalty will return. And we cannot allow that to happen. If people lose confidence in the ability of the justice system to protect them, they will look for harsher alternatives. Our responsibility, therefore, is twofold: to defend human rights without compromise, and to ensure that justice remains strong, effective and trusted. Only then can the abolition of the death penalty be not only principled, but lasting.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:26:00
Thank you very much.
I now call on Mr Marc RISCH from Liechtenstein.
Thank you, Madam President.
Ladies and gentlemen.
The deliberate killing of people by the state violates the guaranteed right to life and the ban on torture. A fact-based debate is important. The fact is that the death penalty particularly often affects people from marginalised groups and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Another fact is that the death penalty does not deter crime and the death penalty does not make our societies safer. Another fact is that the death penalty is not an effective means of combating terror. And what is central for me is that, as a rule, it is explicitly not the surviving relatives of murder victims or victims of torture, as we have heard, who are calling for the death penalty.
What is alarming, however, is that there are political forces in their countries that are more than just flirting with the reintroduction of the death penalty or the legalisation of torture. Fyodor DOSTOEVSKY reminded us that the degree of civilisation of a society can be gauged by the condition of its prisoners. There is little to add to this.
The death penalty has always been, and still is, progress for the worse, a resurgence of the idea of capital punishment is a backward somersault, back to archaic primitiveness with avenging retribution despite the scientifically and empirically proven lack of consequences of its deterrent effect.
Let us work together for progress for the better. In this context, the death penalty has no function and must be condemned.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:28:13
Thank you very much.
Now, Mr Michael PAYNE from the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Madam President.
It's a privilege to speak in a debate that goes to the very heart of human dignity and to the founding principles of this Parliamentary Assembly.
For decades, the Council of Europe has led the world in turning principle into practise, embedding the abolition of the death penalty as a defining condition of our membership and demonstrating that justice systems are stronger, not weaker, without it.
These principles must apply to all of our Parliamentary Assembly members, including those with observer status. Leadership on this issue matters now more than ever.
In the United Kingdom, the decisive arguments for abolition were not born of sentimentality, but of sober reflection on justice itself. One of the most compelling voices was that of the former Home Secretary, Mr Roy JENKINS, who argued that the death penalty is irrevocable, finable and incompatible with a fallible system of justice.
That truth remains unanswerable. Where there is a possibility of error, and there always is, the state must not wield a punishment that admits no correction.
We must also, Madam President, confront the reality that in some parts of the world, the death penalty is still used in a discriminatory and deeply unjust way, with individuals being executed simply because of who they are, including their sexuality.
As a proud gay man, I find such practises utterly abhorrent and stand firmly opposed to these despicable violations of human dignity.
Mr Roy JENKINS and others also understood that capital punishment diminishes us collectively.
It does not deter crime in any consistent or proven way, but it does risk legitimising violence by the state.
It substitutes retribution for justice and finality for fairness.
This Parliamentary Assembly must proudly continue to make the case calmly, firmly and universally that there are no circumstances in which the death penalty can be justified. Not in times of peace, nor in times of crisis. Not as punishment, nor as deterrence.
To abolish the death penalty is not to be soft on crime.
It is to be strong on justice, strong on human rights and unwavering in our belief that the value of human life must never depend on the certainty of human judgement.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:30:38
Ms Regina BASTOS from Portugal is next.
Thank you, Madam Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of this report. The death penalty has no place in a society founded on human dignity, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights.
Long before Europe established itself as a continent free of capital punishment, my country, Portugal, had already understood that the state could not dispense justice for the execution. It was a civilisational choice.
We were one of the first countries in the world to abolish the death penalty for civil crimes 159 years ago. Our constitution clearly states this too.
This conviction is in keeping with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the protection of the right to life.
The death penalty violates human dignity, infringes the right to life, constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and there is no evidence that it has a greater deterrent effect than other punishments.
From Belarus to Iran, from Japan to the United States, executions continue to take place.
A terrible example: last year in Iran, for example, more than 1 500 people were executed for taking part in political demonstrations.
In this debate, we reaffirm our commitment to the universal abolition of the death penalty, in line with our values, the founding values of this House.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:32:49
Thank you.
Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA.
(You have to insert your card if you want to speak.)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
By principle, and for reasons of moral integrity, I oppose the death penalty.
The political party I am a member of back in Spain, Vox, has never requested the reinstatement of the death penalty in our country. For various reasons, amongst others, the death penalty was abolished by the current constitution in Spain in Article 15, with one exception, times of war, during which times, the Constitution excepts the legitimacy of the death penalty.
However, something which our party has repeatedly requested is that the penalties available for certain serious crimes, such as rape or terrorist crimes, could be constantly reviewed. This is viewed as legitimate by the constitutional framework following a judicial ruling in 2001. Considering this, I must underline that the Spanish Minister of Equality, who spoke here this morning, neglected to say that Law 10/2022, which covers sexual crimes against women, has enabled 1,155 perpertrators to have their sentences reduced, and 117 to be released because of procedural problems. She omitted that, but she correctly condemned the Partido Popular parliamentarian.
Finally, I believe, this resolution, as a whole, is balanced. It calls the Assembly's attention to this issue, urging the Assembly to condemn the existence of the death penalty both in Israel and in Palestine. Very well. I don't understand why so many speakers repeatedly mention Israel but not Palestine. It seems to me, once again, in such a serious moral case, that there's an ideological and sectarian tendency emerging here, which I would describe as unacceptable.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:35:35
Thank you.
Mr Christophe CHAILLOU.
Thank you, Madam President.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to begin by sincerely thanking our rapporteur for the high quality of this report, which forcefully reminds us that capital punishment is fundamentally incompatible with human dignity, the right to life and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.
The universal abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances is not simply a political objective, it is a moral, legal and civilisational requirement.
Europe can be proud. Thanks to the work of the Council of Europe, our continent is now a death penalty-free zone. But this conquest is neither complete nor irreversible. Belarus continues to carry out executions. Throughout the world, executions are on the increase in some countries, even for offences that might seem minor. Others are passing unjust and clearly discriminatory laws. I am thinking of the law that was recently passed, as many members have mentioned, by the Knesset in Israel. Like many others, I am committed to the existence and security of the State of Israel. And I believe that passing this law turns its back on the values and fundamental principles of this country.
Faced with this situation, our responsibility is clear: to fight tirelessly for universal abolition.
My country, France – faithful to the legacy of the 1981 law abolishing the death penalty passed by President François MITTERAND and his minister, Mr Robert BADINTER – is fully committed to this fight.
The 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, held in Paris in June, will be a precious moment in this fight.
As parliamentarians, we must, more than ever, affirm that justice can never be confused with vengeance. No society becomes safer by carrying out executions. On the other hand, every society is weakened when it abandons its fundamental values and principles.
Thank you very much.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:37:39
Thank you.
Now, Mr Georgios STAMATIS.
Thank you, Madam President.
I will speak in Greek.
Every day, refugees from the LGBTQI community are requesting asylum. They do this because they've had to leave their countries of origin. They're requesting asylum, so as not to be sent back home and be killed.
We are a space of justice and freedom; we have a duty to act as a model when it comes to democracy.
In Greece, the last time the death penalty was carried out was in 1972.
Yesterday, we celebrated the seventh anniversary of the end of the last dictatorship in Greece. Yesterday, Mr Konstantinos KARAMANLIS said that to be part of Europe, we will do away with the death sentence.
I'm proud that the death sentence has been abolished in my country; I regret that it hasn't been abolished in Belarus.
Anybody who supports the values of the Council of Europe must be decisive in stating that the death penalty must be abolished.
So I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for their work which supports the rights of the weaker members of our society who are unable to have access to a fair trial.
What happens to them if we have the death penalty?
No society changes for the better if its state decides to kill its citizens.
States can only become stronger if they offer equal rights to all.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:39:47
Thank you.
Now, Mr Patryk JASKULSKI from Poland.
Dear colleagues,
The right to life is the most basic human right. It is the foundation of all the other rights.
That's why Poland stands against the death penalty.
Anywhere in the world, the death penalty is not justice. It does not bring peace to the victims. It does not make our societies better and safer. It creates a punishment that cannot be undone in a system that can always make a mistake.
Europe made a historic choice when we rejected the death penalty because it goes against human dignity.
This is why we cannot stay silent when execution still happens on our continent.
Today Poland calls on Belarus to introduce an immediate moratorium on the death penalty.
Europe must stay a global leader in the fight against the death penalty because human rights are not negotiable.
That is the foundation of our civilisation.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:41:11
Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mr Murat Cahid CINGI from Türkiye.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms Gala VELDHOEN for her excellent work and congratulate her for her specific reference to Israel's status in the Council of Europe, because what is happening in Israel today is not only a disgrace, but a grave and discriminatory step that undermines human dignity and the rule of law.
It is an apartheid measure that seeks to expand the death penalty against 12 000 Palestinian captives in the occupied West Bank. As is clearly stated in the report, this is an action designed to make executions easier, faster and irreversible, targeting a specific race.
This is not a simple crime against humanity. This is at the same time a typical example of racism, in the year 2026.
My dear colleagues,
The Palestinians have had enough.
For decades, they have lived under occupation, oppression and fear.
Their lands have been stolen, their homes are destroyed and their families are torn apart.
Palestinians have endured discrimination, violence and the daily erosion of their most basic human rights.
Now people who survived the three years of relentless everyday bombing are to be executed under the guise of law.
What we see today is politics built on blood and destruction, led by a fascist government that fuels instability and threatens not only the region, but the whole international order.
The adoption of the discriminatory death penalty is a total moral collapse.
I would like to remind you that the observer status in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is not a ceremonial status. It carries political and moral obligations as any other member state does.
Therefore, Israel is incompatible with the values of the Council of Europe.
There is no room for retaining its status in this organisation.
Thank you.
Autriche, SOC, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:43:53
The next one is Mr Mike READER from the UK.
Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you to the rapporteur for a report that delivers exactly what it should do, keeping the focus on the universal abolition of the death penalty.
I speak with the conviction of a country that abolished the death penalty over half a century ago and has never looked back.
We oppose capital punishment in all forms, in all circumstances and in all places, because the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity and the right to life.
Madam President, the report highlights threats to the universal abolition, both close to home and further afield.
In Belarus, the only country on this continent still carrying out executions, we see people dying in secret, with families denied the return of their loved ones' bodies.
Even in the UK we see far-right voices, like the politician Mr Rupert LOWE, calling for the death penalty to be reintroduced.
We must not be complacent on this issue.
Now, I know a lot of colleagues have talked about Israel in this debate.
I stand as a friend of Israel, as a friend of the Israeli people, but I'm not a friend of the far-right extremists who pushed this new legislation through the Knesset and seek to reintroduce the death penalty in one of our partner nations.
We must stand against it. We must use the voice of the Council of Europe to call out this action.
So, Madam President, this report and resolution shows that the abolitionist consensus must be defended at home and abroad, because the question is not whether the death penalty will eventually be consigned to history, the question is how many more lives will be lost before that day comes?
I urge colleagues to support this report.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:46:02
Ms Patricia STEPHENSON.
Thank you.
I want to thank the rapporteur Ms Gala VELDHOEN for the comprehensive report.
The abolition of the death penalty is a foundational principle of the Council of Europe.
It's embedded in our commitment to human dignity, the rule of law, the absolute prohibition of inhumane and degrading treatment.
Therefore, it's completely indefensible and inconceivable that Israel continues to retain observer status at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and indeed Venice Commission membership, while advancing policies that run directly counter to these values.
The adoption by Israel of a bill enabling the discriminatory and apartheid execution of Palestinians and foreigners is morally and legally repugnant.
The bill doesn't exist in a vacuum. It will be implemented within the context of prolonged occupation, systematic oppression, widely documented human rights violations, including the murder of over 70 000 Palestinians and, of course, the razing of Gaza to the ground.
Military courts in Israel have a conviction rate of 99% for Palestinians. These courts disregard due process.
This law will impose death sentences 90 days after a conviction. So once a Palestinian is hanged by these courts, there will be no second chance for them.
The violence of the Israeli state against Palestinian prisoners has been well documented, including reports of severe torture to elicit confessions.
The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor report horrific abuse and the torture of Palestinians while in detention. Torture is routinely used to force confessions.
So let there be no doubt that this is a racist apartheid bill.
It is designed to further subjugate the Palestinian people.
It is legalising, indeed, a practise of extrajudicial killings that has long existed.
The celebrations we saw in the Knesset when this bill was passed should send chills down all of our spines.
Cheering the ability to execute a specific group of people is obscene.
This bill will cause more bloodshed.
Israel's campaign to dehumanise the Palestinian people is clearly very successful if we choose not to suspend their status against this egregious breach of the values of this internal institution.
This law is a violation of the right to life with the specific targeting of Palestinians and it may represent a war crime.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:48:19
Ms Daan ROOVERS.
Dear colleagues,
Whilst the abolition of the death penalty was long taken for granted, there has recently been a noticeable setback in the fight against capital punishment.
Even more, there are countries that have recently reintroduced the death penalty into their legislation.
A lot of you spoke about it already. That is totally undesirable and absolutely unacceptable.
One of the most fierce and eloquent rebuttals of the death penalty is found in "Reflections on the Guillotine", by the philosopher and writer Mr Albert CAMUS, published in 1957. MR Albert CAMUS’ father, initially favouring the death penalty for brutal crimes offenders, went to witness a capital punishment, and returned home traumatised by what he had seen.
For MR Albert CAMUS, this reaction reveals an essential truth: the spectacle of the State killing someone is monstrous and deeply disruptive. "Capital punishment", he then writes, is "the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated, can be compared". The death penalty is not a punishment, he argues. The death penalty reduces punishment to mere vengeance.
In his beautiful and famous novel "The Plague", dedicated to people fighting fear and death, Mr Albert CAMUS formulates a central moral lesson to us, which consists of just two words: "Be human".
Now, that sounds very simple, but in times of war and crisis, as we are experiencing right now, it is difficult enough as it is.
It's our job to live up to that clear and simple message.
Be human.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:50:25
Mr David WELLS.
Dear colleagues,
I am pleased to address you on the critical issue of the universal abolition of the death penalty.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Gala VELDHOEN, for this comprehensive report.
Although Canada abolished capital punishment for ordinary crimes in 1976 and last carried out a civilian execution in 1962, public support for its use has persisted.
Since abolition in Canada, particularly shocking cases of violence and murder have, at times, sparked calls among the general public for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Several notorious, high-profile murder cases readily come to mind.
In one particularly horrifying case, in 1995, Paul BERNARDO, in collusion with his wife, was convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering two teenage girls, Kristen FRENCH and Leslie MAHAFFY, in Ontario. And he filmed it all. He is serving an indeterminate life sentence and has, to date, been denied parole three times.
In 2007, in another deeply troubling case, Robert PICKTON was convicted of six counts of second-degree murder of vulnerable women in British Columbia. Before his assault and death in prison in May 2024, serial killer Robert PICKTON was believed to have committed numerous other murders of women.
These and other cases shocked Canadians, prompting calls for violent criminals to receive adequate punishment.
We cannot be insensitive to the belief held by some that certain premeditated crimes are so horrific that they deserve a punishment that matches the crime. If we fail to act, the calls to bring back capital punishment may grow stronger, as some in society demand tougher justice for acts of extreme violence, including murder.
Paul BERNARDO now sits in a medium security institution with a well-stocked gym, weight room and a billiards room.
Simply put, some would argue that state authorities should have a range of available measures to deter and punish the most egregious cases of violence in their societies.
Thank you for your attention.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:52:46
The next speaker is Mr Yunus EMRE.
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this important report.
As put forward in the report, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has always defended a clear principle: the death penalty has no place in any system based on human dignity, the right to life and prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
That's why recent developments in Israel are deeply troubling.
Last month, the Knesset adopted a new law expanding the death penalty. Mr Benjamin NETANYAHU personally took part in the vote. It was a symbolic move to show the support of the government. This was no marginal initiative. It was a deliberate political choice pushed by national security minister Mr Itamar BEN-GVIR and the far right.
The problem is not only the expansion of capital punishment; it is the discriminatory way in which this law is designed. It introduces death by hanging for certain terrorism-related offences, requires execution within 90 days of a final ruling and sharply limits pardon, commutation and meaningful review.
In practice it targets Palestinians and reinforces a dual system of justice.
UN experts have made it clear that mandatory death sentences are arbitrary and contrary to international law. A law that effectively singles out Palestinians for execution is discriminatory by design.
This is a serious moral and legal regression. Israel had maintained a de facto moratorium for decades and has not carried out an execution since 1962.
This Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should therefore be clear: we cannot accept this law.
We cannot accept the claim that it brings security.
We should be ready to examine the consequences of Israel's observer status if this law is maintained.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:55:05
The next speaker, Mr Marek BOROWSKI, please.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Our discussion was largely dominated by the decision of the Israeli Knesset, but that is hardly surprising.
The bill imposes the mandatory – I repeat, mandatory – death penalty for so-called "acts of terrorism", practically directed against one ethnic group, meaning Palestinians. The death penalty could be imposed regardless of whether the prosecution requests it and with the decision of a simple majority of judges, while current legislation requires unanimity.
No possibility of reducing the sentence, nor of granting a pardon.
What is this? It's a barbaric law passed by the parliament of Israel.
Why are we so moved by this decision? Because Israel, in contrast to Belarus, to Iran, to other gloomy dictatorships, is a democratic country. At least, they consider themselves to be a democratic country. Many countries, including Poland, have called earlier on Israel to abandon these intentions, in vain.
Now this bill is being analysed by the Supreme Court. The Israeli parliament has observer status at the Council of Europe. This chamber should send a clear message: if this law finally comes into force, its observer status will be suspended. Such a barbaric law violates the fundamental values on which the Council of Europe is founded.
If we want others to respect us, we must first respect ourselves.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:57:21
The next speaker is Mr Max LUCKS.
Please.
Thank you, Madam President.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Those who criticise the Knesset's majority decision in favour of a death penalty for Palestinians are absolutely right. And those who deduce from this that we must of course question Israel's observer status if the Supreme Court does not overturn this law are also absolutely right.
I would just like to warn against one thing. I would just like to warn against starting to pretend that a development is taking place there that would be impossible here. We have also seen extremists in Europe over the past decade, for example in Hungary or Poland, and in some cases even in France or Germany, calling for a debate on the death penalty. What we have seen in the Knesset is what happens when the political centre decides to abandon a common set of values and seek alliances with extremists. And that is why we are not immune to these dangers in Europe either. That is why I am incredibly grateful for this report.
I would like to emphasise two points which, in my view, must not be overlooked. Firstly, let us not forget that there are seven countries in the world in which one simple reason is enough to be killed by a state. In seven countries in the world, people face the death penalty if they are gay, if they are lesbian, if they are bisexual, if they are transgender. And I am very proud that we, as 46 countries here, are calling out to these people: we will not leave you on your own. Secondly – and I am also very grateful that this has already been mentioned – let us not forget that, while we are having these discussions here, the brutal regime in Iran has once again set its death machinery in full swing and has executed a dozen young people in the last few weeks alone. It is the world's leading executioner. These people in Iran deserve our support.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
17:59:39
The next speaker, Mr Denis BEGIC, please.
Chair,
Dear colleagues,
Let me be clear. The death penalty has no place in any society that respects human rights. Not in any circumstances. And it must never be applied differently depending on who you are. Because when the law treats people differently, it is no longer justice, it is discrimination.
This is why I am deeply concerned about proposals in Israel that risk expanding the death penalty in a way that would, in practice, apply mainly to Palestinians. That is not rule of law. That is unequal justice. And unequal justice is not justice at all.
We also know something fundamental: the system can fail, as we heard today. Just look at Iwao HAKAMATA. He spent over 45 years on death row, and was later found innocent. 45 years waiting to be executed for a crime he did not commit.
The death penalty is irreversible. When the system makes a mistake, there is no way back. And we know that it often affects minorities and vulnerable groups the most. So this is where this assembly must stand firm.
No death penalty. Not for anyone. Not under any circumstances.
Because human rights are not selective.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:01:27
Mr Carlos SILVA SANTIAGO, please.
Dear Madam President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Gala VELDHOEN, on the excellent report we are examining today, which clearly reaffirms an essential principle: the rejection of the death penalty in all circumstances.
Portugal fully supports this position. We were one of the first countries in the world to abolish the death penalty. This choice is part of our democratic identity. It is based on a simple conviction: the state must not have the power to take a life.
The death penalty is irreversible. It is incompatible with human dignity. There is no evidence that it is more effective in the fight against crime. On the contrary, this report shows that its application continues to be marked by miscarriages of justice, discrimination and arbitrariness, particularly affecting the most vulnerable.
Europe is now a death penalty-free zone, a great achievement of the Council of Europe, but we cannot be complacent.
Setbacks and worrying practices persist in several regions of the world.
This report is therefore a clear call to action: to firmly defend universal abolition, to strengthen international dialogue and to involve the younger generations in this cause.
Portugal fully supports this report, because abolishing the death penalty is not just a political choice, it is an affirmation of humanity.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:03:17
Thank you.
The next speaker is Mr Ivan RAČAN. Please.
The universal abolition of the death penalty is a practical requirement for any modern justice system that claims to respect human rights.
While we have successfully made the Council of Europe a death penalty-free zone, we cannot ignore the fact that Belarus remains a glaring exception on our own continent. Nor can we ignore the backsliding we are seeing globally.
We need to be direct with our observer states.
In the United States, we've seen a disturbing move toward experimental execution methods like nitrogen hypoxia.
In Japan, the recent acquittal of Mr Iwao HAKAMATA after he spent 45 years on death row is the only argument we should ever need. It proves that no matter how advanced the legal system is, it is capable of making a fatal, irreversible mistake.
Most urgently, we must address the law passed by the Israeli Knesset just last month. It is discriminatory and a grave escalation that violates every international standard we defend.
Furthermore, having a moratorium is not enough.
In countries like Jordan or Morocco, courts continue to hand down death sentences, even if they aren't carried out. This creates a state of permanent psychological torture for those involved and for the general public.
As we approach the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris later this year, our message should be a clear calling for the total removal of capital punishment from the law books of every partner we work with.
If a state wants to be recognised as a stable democracy, it has to stop using the death penalty as a tool of the judiciary.
Thank you and please support this resolution.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:05:14
Thank you.
The next speaker is Ms Bisera KOSTADINOVSKA-STOJCHEVSKA.
Macédoine du Nord, SOC
18:05:21
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The question we need to ask about a death penalty is not whether someone deserves to die for a crime, but the question is whether we deserve to kill.
Why abolish the death penalty? Because it is an irreversible punishment that carries a profound risk of executing innocent people, undermining the very foundation of justice it claims to uphold. No legal system is infallible. Wrongful convictions occur due to flawed evidence, coerced confessions, inadequate legal representation or systematic bias. When the state imposes a sentence of death, any error becomes permanent and cannot be corrected, unlike other punishments where restitution is possible.
Beyond this, the death penalty has consistently been shown to be applied in a discriminatory manner, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities, particularly along racial and socio-economic lines. This unequal application erodes public trust in the fairness of the justice system.
Moreover, there is little credible evidence that capital punishment effectively deters crime more than long-term imprisonment. Robert SCHENTRUP, brother of 16-year-old Carmen SCHENTRUP, who died in the Douglas High School mass shooting in Parkland in Florida in 2018, says "This is the part where pundits on TV will invoke the name of my sister to support the murder of another human being. This is the part where people try to convince me that vengeance should make me feel better and that it will bring me closure so that I can continue to heal. But I do not care, because my sister is dead and killing someone else will not bring her back".
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:07:08
Thank you.
The next speaker is Mr Abdurrahman BABACAN.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Israeli Knesset adopted the death penalty law on 13 March, introducing mandatory capital punishment for offences in the occupied West Bank.
As an observer state, Israel is expected to uphold the Council of Europe's fundamental values, including respect for human rights, rule of law and democratic principles, as well as the abolition of the death penalty.
Israel also has obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Geneva Convention.
The application of the death penalty in occupied territories under such conditions would constitute a serious breach of international law. The law not only overturns all legal norms by imposing arbitrary penalty sanctions, it also has a racist character due to its selective application specifically to Palestinians.
There's also cause for grave alarm at the broader context in which this legislation has been adopted, namely the ongoing military attacks in Gaza and the long-standing occupation of Palestinian territories including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
A United Nations Commission of Inquiry has concluded that Israel has committed acts amounting to genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. This point was confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in October 2025.
These findings build on long-standing concerns regarding Israel's occupation policies over decades, including illegal settlement expansion and alleged systematic violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
In light of these developments, the Parliamentary Assembly should condemn and put harsh pressure on Israel's authorities to cancel the legislation, and call upon the international community, members and observer states of the Council of Europe to take appropriate measures to ensure respect for international law and fundamental human rights, including the termination of the observer status of Israel in the Council of Europe.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:09:33
Mister GONCHARENKO,
You have asked for the floor to ask a question to another member on behalf of your group in association with Article 37.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
I remind you that you must ask a question, not make a speech.
The question must be addressed to a member who does not belong to your political group.
It must directly relate to the speech made by that member and to the subject of the debate.
You will have 30 seconds to ask it.
The member to whom the question is addressed will have 30 seconds to respond.
Thank you very much, Chair.
My question is to Mr Abdurrahman BABACAN, who spoke right now.
My question is very simple.
You think our Parliamentary Assembly should terminate the observer status for Israel because of the law about the death penalty, which it has not enacted.
But my question is to you, what should we do with Palestine, which has the law about the death penalty and which has had the status of partner for democracy for 15 years?
What do you think we should do with the status of Palestine?
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:10:44
Mr Abdurrahman BABACAN, do you wish to respond?
You have the floor for 30 seconds.
Dear Chair,
I guess this is a systematic and deliberate policy of my colleague, so no need to answer that question.
Thanks.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:11:06
Thank you.
The next speaker is Lord Carwyn JONES.
Madam President,
I come from a country where the death penalty was abolished as recently as 1998, and indeed, the jurisdiction...
(Some people have already spoken; perhaps they'd allow other people to speak in the meantime.)
The Isle of Man jurisdiction abolished the death penalty in 2006. It's recent memory.
I speak as somebody who opposes the extension of the death penalty, of course.
I speak as somebody who does not welcome the moves that we see in some parts of the world to extend its application.
I'm going to speak about Israel. I speak as somebody who is fully supportive of the right of the state of Israel to exist and exist in peace, although I'm critical of the policies of the current government, but the law that's been proposed, and it is only proposed at the moment, in Israel, is discriminatory because it is aimed at a particular group.
It is sectarian, to use the word that's been used already in this Chamber.
It seeks to exclude a group of people on the grounds of religion or citizenship from its full application. That is not law, that is not equality before the law.
Israel was established, yes, as a Jewish homeland, but it was established as a state where equality was important.
Even when Israel was attacked in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, at no time did the Israeli government feel it had to enact a law such as this. These were existential crises for the state of Israel. I doubt whether Mr David BEN-GURION and Ms Golda MEIR would recognise the thinking behind those who advocate this law. But it is too early for us to condemn the people of Israel. There are many in Israel who oppose this law. It is to them that we should offer our support, to them that we should say, we support you in all your efforts.
So that when the full process of examination of this law comes to an end, that more rational heads prevail.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:13:29
The next speaker is Ms Santy MONTEMAYOR CASTILLO.
Please.
Hello from Mexico.
The abolition of the death penalty in Mexico was a long and gradual process which required political, social and legal changes that took place over a century.
After independence, the death penalty applied to serious crimes such as treason, murder or military crimes. Our constitution of 1857 didn't eliminate it, but tried to limit it, reserving for political crimes and limiting its application.
The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States in 1917 maintained the death penalty, but only for very specific cases, such as treason during wartime, parricide, serious crimes of a military nature.
Even so, its use notably decreased. During the 20th century, Mexico more or less stopped applying the death penalty. The last civil execution took place in 1937. The last military execution took place in 1961.
Although it continues to exist in the law, in practice it has already been abolished.
In the second half of the 20th century, Mexico aligned itself with international trends, signing human rights treaties, and adopting a stronger position against the death penalty in organisations such as the United Nations.
The definitive step was taken in 2005 when the constitution was reformed. The death penalty was removed from all articles, including those on martial law.
Mexico became a total abolitionist country. It also strengthened its commitment to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that prohibits the reestablishment of the death penalty.
Mexico's position on the death penalty is clear and firm.
Mexico is firmly against the application of the death penalty and in favour of its elimination at a global level.
Greetings from Cancún.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:15:30
Thank you.
The next speaker is Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK KANAT.
Dear colleagues,
I thank the rapporteur for this important report.
For the Council of Europe, the abolition of the death penalty is non-negotiable. It is central to our defence of life, dignity and justice that must never become irreversible.
Israel’s death penalty law must be condemned in the strongest terms. We oppose capital punishment everywhere, but this case is especially grave: it embeds the death penalty in an apartheid legal order, imposed by an occupying power on an occupied people, and designed to apply only to Palestinians.
It will be enforced through military courts that try Palestinians, but not Israeli settlers in the same territory, while weakening due process and clemency. In a system of unequal law, unequal courts and unequal protection, and in a state already killing Palestinians on a vast scale, this institutionalises state execution of an occupied people and constitutes a war crime.
This is happening while Palestinians detainees face abuse, torture and death in custody. It is happening amid record illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, where settlers backed or accompanied by Israeli soldiers violently drive Palestinians from their homes and land, clearing the ground for annexation through forced displacement and ethnic cleansing, and it is happening while Israel’s leadership is under International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants.
Dear colleagues,
This law is the product of impunity. When genocide unfolded in Gaza, the international community and this Assembly failed to uphold basic human rights. There were no sanctions and too often not even unconditional condemnation or demand for a ceasefire.
That impunity has now matured into this law: apartheid by legal means. And most importantly, an attempt to extend the genocide in Gaza to the West Bank.
We must act urgently. We must demand the immediate repeal of this law, call for sanctions and accountability, and move to suspend Israel’s observer status in this Assembly.
Past silence invited this law. Anything less than action now is complicity.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:17:53
The next speaker is Ms Manuelle OUDAR.
Thank you, Madam President.
I am honoured to speak to you today about the universal abolition of the death penalty and I thank the rapporteur, Ms Gala VELDHOEN, for preparing such a comprehensive report.
Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. As a senator in the Senate of Canada, a country that abolished the death penalty 50 years ago, I am happy and proud to live in this country.
Canada belongs to a steadily growing group of states that have eliminated the death penalty for all offences.
Yes, progress has been made worldwide, and I would like to pay tribute here to Mr Robert BADINTER, Minister of Justice in France, my home country, who in 1981 led the French and European offensive against the death penalty.
I was a law student in Quebec at the time, and today, as both a European and a proud Canadian, I invite us all, dear colleagues, to continue this important work that remains to be done, because some countries still maintain and impose the death penalty, and Amnesty International points out that the number of executions is increasing.
What's more, we must firmly resist all calls for its reinstation.
Canada came very close to doing just that. In June 1987, a majority of MPs, 148 to 127, fortunately voted against a bill to reinstate it.
I remember very well that during the parliamentary debate, Mr Brian MULRONEY, who was our Prime Minister, and who some of you also remember well because he also fought against apartheid, described the death penalty as odious and completely unacceptable.
He made the following memorable remark: "It's a matter of conscience. It's about how we see ourselves as a nation and how others see us among the nations of the world. It's about justice, not revenge."
Thank you, dear colleagues.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:20:11
Thank you.
The next speaker is Ms Pelin YILIK.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Despite the ceasefire announced in the context of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, the situation on the ground, particularly in Gaza, remains deeply alarming.
Reports continue to indicate ongoing military operations, resulting in significant civilian casualties, raising serious concerns regarding respect for international human rights and humanitarian law.
These concerns are further compounded by recent legislative developments in the Knesset, introducing the possibility of applying capital punishment, raising profound legal and ethical questions. In particular, its reported application in a manner that appears to target Palestinians exclusively gives rise to grave concerns of discrimination and unequal treatment before the law.
The reintroduction of the death penalty in such a selective and discriminatory manner stands in clear contradiction with the fundamental principles of justice, equality and human dignity.
In this context, the adoption of such legislation is difficult to reconcile with international human rights law and runs counter to the long-standing position of the Council of Europe, which enshrines the absolute abolition of the death penalty.
All member states of the Council of Europe uphold this commitment. Any step that reintroduces or legitimises such practices, particularly under discriminatory conditions, is therefore in clear contradiction with these shared values.
Given the gravity of the situation, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should respond in a coherent and principled manner.
In this regard, consideration should be given to accelerating the examination of measures concerning Israel's observer status within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Such a step would reflect the Parliamentary Assembly's commitment to human rights, non-discrimination and the rule of law.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:22:23
Thank you.
The next speaker is Mr Mustafa CANBEY, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Within the Council of Europe, the abolition of the death penalty is a core ethical commitment.
It reflects our shared conviction that the right to life is inviolable and that justice must never take an irreversible form.
Yet today, discussions around the potential application of capital punishment to Palestinians in Gaza and East Jerusalem gives rise to serious concern.
This is not a theoretical issue. It affects real individuals, real communities and people who have already experienced profound hardship.
Recent events have exposed us all to alarming levels of violence affecting Palestinians.
Entire communities have been devastated, many children have lost their lives and basic human rights have been gravely compromised. In the face of such suffering, we must reflect carefully.
Can we remain passive in the face of any move toward the introduction of executions in the 21st century?
The position taken by this Parliamentary Assembly will show whether our dedication to human rights is substantive or merely declaratory.
If we do not respond to yet another paternal, systemic violence, our silence will come at the cost of eroding the very European values we claim to uphold.
In this context, the issue before us is not about one country. It is about the principle upheld by the Council of Europe itself.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:24:37
Thank you.
The last speaker is Ms Seda GÖREN.
Thank you, Madam Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today we are faced with an extremely serious development. The Knesset has approved a law aimed at reintroducing the death penalty, which represents a fundamental break with the core values of our Council of Europe.
Let us be clear: the abolition of the death penalty is not an option, it is a fundamental principle. To go back on it is to deliberately depart from the most basic standards of human rights.
What makes this situation even more alarming is the very nature of this legislation. We are not just talking about the reinstatement of the death penalty. We are talking about a system that introduces differentiation in the application of justice, where individuals can be punished differently for similar acts, depending on who they are or where they come from.
In other words, this is not just an attack on the right to life, but also a drift marked by elements of racial and religious discrimination.
When the same offence can lead to different penalties depending on the person concerned, and when that penalty can be death, this constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
This situation is unprecedented. No member state or observer state of the Council of Europe has put in place a comparable system. Some of us continue to say that it is the only democratic state in the region.
This marks a clear, worrying and unacceptable break.
We can neither remain silent nor look away in the face of such a drift. If we claim to defend human rights, then we must do so without compromise. Our position, as a Parliamentary Assembly, must be firm, clear and unequivocal. Any ambiguity would be an historic mistake.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:26:37
Thank you.
That concludes the list of speakers.
I call Ms Gala VELDHOEN, rapporteur, to reply.
You have 3 minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to begin with thanking Ms Barbara LOCHBIHLER and Ms Antoinette CHAHINE for their informative and impressive, brave and deeply moving contributions. Their words underline the importance of our shared fight against the death penalty. I'm grateful to all my colleagues for an interesting and passionate debate. Also, I want to thank the Secretariat for their excellent work.
Some colleagues stated that the report focuses more explicitly on Israel than on other countries.
First of all, this was just an actual development. We must speak out to every country that is reinstalling the death penalty.
Israel is no exception. Israel is an observer state. That makes it even more opportune.
For me, as rapporteur, this death penalty law amounts to maximum risk for the right to life and minimum safeguards concerning fundamental rights and the rule of law: a deeply worrying combination.
Yes, hopefully the Supreme Court will block the legislation, but as far as we know now, this is the law that has been adopted. We just have to give a clear sign.
The death penalty strikes at the very heart of the values of the Council of Europe.
Today I'm happy to hear that we are united in our commitment to human dignity, the right to life and the rule of law. These values leave no room for capital punishment.
We must stand united and resolute and speak clearly, consistently and collectively against the death penalty, regardless of the circumstances, where it persists and where it returns.
I therefore sincerely hope that this report will be adopted by an overwhelming majority. It is at the core of our values.
Let us be united and send a clear signal to the world.
The death penalty has no place in societies built on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:29:00
Thank you, rapporteur.
Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, wish to speak?
You have 3 minutes.
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:29:10
Thank you, Madam President.
My speech is boring because I represent the Legal Committee and I can't really say what I would like to say on this topic.
But nonetheless, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Gala VELDHOEN, on her report and remind the report is titled “Towards the universal abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances”. We talked today mostly about Israel, but this report is much more than that.
It was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Ms Gala VELDHOEN is also the Assembly’s General Rapporteur on the abolition of the death penalty. She was appointed in 2024, and has been following developments on this topic in Europe and worldwide ever since.
This report itself is based on a motion tabled by our Committee in December last year. The Committee believed that the time had come for the Assembly to adopt a new resolution on the death penalty. We had to take stock of the new developments, including both positive trends, and believe me there are a few, and regressions, among our observers and partners for democracy.
The report is very timely. We'll hopefully adopt it today just a few months before the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris, which will take place in June. The rapporteur will represent us there and that is why the Committee has fast-tracked this report.
I would like to thank the experts who spoke not only today, but also at our Committee meeting in March in Paris: Mr Nicolas PERRON from Together Against the Death Penalty, Professor Ron DUDAI from Israel and Ms CUI from Japan.
The Committee has approved some amendments proposed by the rapporteur herself to reflect the most recent developments in Israel. When we adopted the report in March, the bill extending the scope of the death penalty was still pending before the Knesset. Despite global pressure, including from our General Rapporteur and the President of the Assembly, as we now know very well, the Knesset finally adopted the law on 30 March. Our draft resolution strongly condemns this step backward and calls on Israel to repeal or invalidate the law. However, there is hope, as we also heard, that the Israel’s Supreme Court could still invalidate the law. This would obviously send a powerful message based on Israel’s international obligations and constitutional principles. And this would be a great example of how the judiciary can intervene in favour of abolition, one of the topics of the upcoming World Congress.
Please support this resolution.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:32:24
Thank you, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS.
The debate is closed.
Now we move on to amendments.
The Committee on Legal affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution Document 16375, to which 7 amendments and 2 sub-amendments have been tabled.
They will be taken in order in which they appear in a compendium.
I remind you that speeches and amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendments 4 and 5 to the draft resolution Document 16375, which were unanimously approved by the Committee, be declared as definitively approved.
Amendments 2 and 3 were also unanimously approved, but as they have sub-amendments, they are not subject to the procedure.
Is that so, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:33:19
Yes.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:33:21
If no one objects, I will consider the amendment to be approved.
Is there an objection?
Amendments 4 and 5 to the draft resolution are therefore approved and will not be called.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendment 7 to the draft resolution, which was rejected by the Committee with a two-thirds majority, be declared as definitively rejected.
Is that so Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS?
Okay, this one [off mic].
If no-one objects, I will consider the amendments to be rejected.
Is there an objection?
Amendment 7 to the draft resolution is therefore rejected and will not be called.
If no-one objects, Amendment 7, I will consider the amendment to be rejected.
Is there an objection?
Amendment 7 to the draft resolution is therefore rejected and will not be called.
There is a sub-amendment proposed to Amendment 2.
I first call Ms Gala VELDHOEN to support Amendment 2 on behalf of the Committee.
You have 30 seconds.
Thank you.
This is just an update, the latest status of the bill after its being adopted by the Knesset.
So it's updated to reflect the current situation.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:35:56
I call on Mr Yves CRUCHTEN to support the sub-amendment.
You have 30 seconds.
This amendment is a very good amendment, but we introduced a sub-amendment just to give a bit more precision to this text.
Please support it.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:36:16
Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?
No.
What is the opinion of the Committee on the sub-amendment?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:36:32
The Committee is in favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:36:35
Thank you.
I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The sub-amendment is agreed to.
Now we come to the main Amendment 2.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
No-one does.
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:37:34
The Committee is in favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:37:37
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 2 as sub-amended is agreed to.
I understand that Mr Abdurrahman BABACAN intends to withdraw Amendment 1?
Yes dear Chair, the modifications of the rapporteur are very similar to our amendment.
So we withdraw.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:38:24
Amendment 1 is withdrawn.
There is a sub-amendment proposed to Amendment 3.
I first call Ms Gala VELDHOEN to support Amendment 3 on behalf of the Committee.
You have 30 seconds.
Thank you Chair, I support this amendment.
I think under these circumstances it's a good idea that the situation regarding the pending law in Israel or the law adopted in Israel is kept under careful review.
So I'm supporting this matter.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:39:10
I call Mr Yves CRUCHTEN to support the sub-amendment.
Dear colleagues,
Please consider this sub-amendment as a compromise.
This amendment is not about singling out Israel.
It's merely about protecting the integrity of this Parliamentary Assembly.
Israel's observer status is currently being reviewed by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and therefore, this resolution should absolutely mention this.
Thank you.
Please support it.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:39:40
Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?
What is the position of the Committee on the sub-amendment?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:39:50
The Committee is in favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:39:52
I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The sub-amendment is agreed to.
Now we come to the main Amendment 3 as sub-amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as sub-amended?
No.
What is the opinion of the Committee?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:40:40
In favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:40:41
In favour.
I shall now put the amendment as sub-amended to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 3 as sub-amended is agreed to.
I call Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES to support Amendment 6.
You have 30 seconds.
Thank you, Madam President.
In line with Amendment 2 that we have just adopted, which clearly states that the law of 30 March 2026 adopted in Israel by the Knesset on the death penalty specifically for Palestinians is incompatible with the values of the Council of Europe.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Venice Commission verifies the compatibility of this law with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the constitutional standards of the member states.
Israel is a member of the Venice Commission, so this amendment is fully consistent with the report we are in the process of adopting.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:41:58
Thank you.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I remind you that it's Amendment 6.
Mr Pablo HISPÁN.
Thank you.
I think that this law is completely against all our values, of any kind.
Just to put this law under the Venice Commission could send a wrong signal that we consider the possibility that this law could be in line with our principles.
I think this law is against our principles, so there is no need for a Venice Commission report.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:42:52
What is the opinion of the Committee on the amendment?
Estonie, ADLE, Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
18:43:00
The Committee is in favour.
The microphone is not in favour with me!
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:43:08
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 6 is agreed to.
We will now proceed to vote on a draft resolution contained in Document 16375 as amended.
A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The draft resolution is adopted.
Dear colleagues,
I'm pleased to announce that the winning City of Europe Prize 2026 is Reggio Emilia in Italy.
We heartily, heartily congratulate the mayor and all residents of the city.
Since the creation of the Europe Prize in 1955, it is the 87th city and the 10th Italian city to be awarded this prize.
Congratulations.
For the record, I would like to mention that during the vote on the draft resolution “Towards the universal abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances”, my intention was to vote in favour, and that I voted against by mistake.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:48:24
The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on the report titled "Tracking the proceeds of the crime denounced by Sergei Magnitsky and holding its perpetrators accountable" – Document 16362 – presented by Ms Lesia VASYLENKO on behalf of the Committee of Legal affairs and Human Rights.
In order to finish by 8 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7:40 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I call Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, rapporteur.
You have 7 minutes now and 3 minutes at the end to reply to the debate.
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
Sergei MAGNITSKY was a tax lawyer, advising the private company Hermitage Capital Management in Russia. After he uncovered evidence of a massive fraud involving the embezzlement of approximately 230 million US dollars from the Russian Treasury, he contacted law enforcement authorities, as any law-abiding citizen would. Little did he know that the Russian investigators assigned to this case were the very perpetrators of the crime he had uncovered. After being framed, unlawfully jailed and subjected to inhumane treatment, Sergei MAGNITSKY died in a Moscow prison. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights determined Russia’s full responsibility for his ill-treatment and death.
The perpetrators of the fraud fled with 230 million US dollars. These assets were laundered through a complex network of shell companies, transferred through banking systems in multiple jurisdictions, including several Council of Europe member states. Those responsible for Mr MAGNITSKY’s death were not only not brought to justice, but were promoted, and some even received medals from the Russian State.
You may wonder why this report places a specific focus on Switzerland. This focus is not arbitrary. Switzerland is a dominant global financial centre, managing approximately one-quarter to one-third of all global private wealth. Switzerland is the jurisdiction looked upon by others in the Council of Europe and beyond as an example as to how to behave when dealing with financial matters in particular.
Indeed, Switzerland’s own 2021 National Risk Assessment identified that its primary exposure to money laundering stems from assets obtained through financial crimes committed abroad.
In 2011, in response to complaints by Hermitage, the Swiss Office of the Attorney General froze approximately 18 million dollars linked to three Russian citizens: Dmitry KLYUEV, Denis KATSYV and Vladlen STEPANOV. These individuals are widely identified in multiple jurisdictions as participants in the fraud or its subsequent laundering. The US Department of Justice considers Mr KLYUEV to be the mastermind behind the entire fraud. Mr STEPANOV was married to the director of the Moscow tax office which authorised one of the fraudulent rebates, and Mr KATSYV was implicated in a money laundering case settled in the US, linked to the fraud revealed by Mr MAGNITSKY.
However, in 2021, Swiss authorities decided to close the investigation without bringing charges. They chose to confiscate only 4.6 million US dollars, returning roughly 75% of the frozen funds to the suspects. To justify this, the prosecutor employed the "proportional confiscation" method. This controversial approach assumed that because illicit funds were mixed with legal assets or assets of unknown origin, only a fraction of the total should be forfeited.
The Swiss investigation was overshadowed by serious allegations of misconduct. A Swiss investigator assigned to the case was found to have maintained close ties with Russian officials, including attending hunting trips paid for by Russian oligarchs and going on unauthorised trips to Moscow, where he met with a lawyer with established close ties to the Kremlin. This investigator was ultimately convicted of "accepting undue advantages". While Swiss authorities determined that this did not impact the investigation’s findings, the optics of such proximity during a high-stakes laundering probe are deeply concerning.
On 5 December 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court declared the "proportional confiscation" method unlawful. The Court ruled that this method risked "contaminating the legal economy" and breached constitutional protections. In its place, the Court introduced the "sedimentation theory", which assumes that illicit funds "sink" to the bottom of an account; as long as the balance remains above the illicit amount, withdrawals are presumed to be "clean".
On Saturday, Swiss media published a series of articles claiming that assets belonging to Mr KATSYV were not “re-frozen” following the Supreme Court’s judgment, what enabled him to transfer 6 million Swiss francs out of Switzerland. This is a deeply regrettable development, which I hope will be duly examined and explained by the Swiss authorities.
The present case exposes a systemic weakness, namely, an unreasonably heavy burden of proof placed upon authorities. We cannot expect to be effective against sophisticated transnational criminal organisations while being required to prove the illicit origin of every single cent in a given account. For this reason, the draft resolution calls for several critical actions.
With this report, we invite Switzerland, and all member states who have not yet done so, to introduce or expand non-conviction-based confiscation. This will allow authorities to require holders of unexplained wealth to prove its lawful origin, rather than forcing the state to trace every cent through a labyrinth of offshore shell companies. We call on the European Union to expand its Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. It should explicitly cover acts of significant corruption and the misappropriation of public assets, ensuring that those who benefit from the theft of a nation's wealth cannot find safe harbour in our financial systems. We also call on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism - MONEYVAL to issue a formal recommendation requiring states to adopt the reversal of the burden of proof regarding unexplained wealth.
This report is a result of almost two years of very scrupulous work. I am grateful to colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their suggestions shared during our several preliminary discussions, and to members of the Swiss delegation for their constructive approach.
I am also grateful to the Secretariat of our Committee for their continued support in preparing this report.
With the adoption of this resolution, we continue to honour Sergei MAGNITSKY’s memory by ensuring the dismantling of the system he died to expose. We also send a strong message to criminals across the world that member states of the Council of Europe will not tolerate the use of their financial institutions as a tool for money laundering.
Justice cannot end at a nation’s border, nor should impunity be allowed to pass because of excessively restrictive tools used to combat money laundering.
Thank you. And with this, I wish us a fruitful discussion.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:55:58
Thank you very much, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO.
I remind members that the time limit is 3 minutes for spokespersons for the political groups and 2 minutes for everyone else.
In the debate, I call first Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA-FEDORENKO on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Please.
Ukraine, PPE/DC, Porte-parole du groupe
18:56:15
Thank you, dear President.
Colleagues,
I'm sure that we will have a very fruitful debate. And I will try to start by thanking the rapporteur, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, for every effort she has made, together with the Committee.
Colleagues, it would not be hard to understand that this file is historic. 17 years ago, Mr MAGNITSKY gave up his life to speak up for the truth. He found very clear misuse of state funds, and those who convicted it have been enjoying, until today, these funds illegally, pleasing themselves, enjoying life and looking at more crimes conducted by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and not only.
Colleagues, we do understand that keeping Russia's immobilised sovereign assets out of Moscow is a high matter. The recently identified immobilisation shows collective resolve, but it's not enough. Currently, Ukraine's recovery needs more than 666 billion. And it's not yet the total.
The G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) loan has changed 50 billion in proceeds from immobilised Russian State assets to Ukraine. Russia's terrorist bombings against civilians, infrastructure and energy continue daily. Geopolitical context and security implications are here for us. And first, transferring funds would strengthen Ukraine's defence, including joint projects with European industries – your industries. A strong Ukraine deters further Russian aggression, so it doesn't escalate.
Second, timely compensations and recovery funding prevent prolonged instability. Colleagues, it would serve as the international mechanism for compensation we suggested together with the Council of Ministers. So every family, every Ukrainian person who suffers from non-material and material losses will be compensated. And it's in the interest of Europe.
And third, reconstruction will create major opportunities for European firms across defence, energy, infrastructure, telecoms, banking and tech.
I do want to underline that this is about justice. It's not just about the funds. It's not just about Switzerland today, which we see as an example of human rights, but also of financial systems always. We are trying to help today various member states of the Council of Europe, and those states that are concerned, to put an end to this injustice. That risk right is not to maintain immobilisation, but to replace an unstable status quo with a durable and properly structured solution.
Thank you, President.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
18:59:22
Thank you.
The next speaker is Sir Edward LEIGH on behalf of European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates.
Royaume-Uni, CEPA, Porte-parole du groupe
18:59:31
Madam President,
Today we speak the name of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY not simply to remember a tragedy, but to recognise what one individual can represent in the face of a corrupt system.
He was not a politician. He was not a public figure. He was an ordinary man who, when confronted with extraordinary wrongdoing, chose to act with courage. For that, he paid the ultimate price, leaving behind a wife and two children and a story that might easily have been buried – but it was not. His legacy did not disappear in vain.
Over the past 15 years, his work has sparked investigations in multiple jurisdictions across 16 countries, informed major journalistic exposés and become a rallying point in the global fight against corruption.
In many countries, from the United States to across Europe, his name has come to symbolise accountability. We now see that continuing, including in the ongoing proceedings in France against those believed to be at the centre of this scheme.
And yet, colleagues must also confront a more troubling reality.
In Switzerland, a country rightly respected by all of us for the strength of its institutions, we have seen a deeply concerning outcome. Three-quarters of funds already identified as tainted were set to be returned to those whose accounts had already been implicated for receiving the proceeds of this fraud.
That is difficult to reconcile, Madam President, with the principles that we stand for.
But let me be clear. We are not here to attack Switzerland. No country is immune from error. What matters is how those errors are addressed. The fact that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has recognised that the original calculation was fundamentally flawed is not just a legal correction, it is an opportunity. An opportunity to restore confidence, to act decisively and to ensure that justice is properly done.
We should also recognise the work that has brought us to this point.
The report before us, prepared by the brilliant Ukrainian rapporteur, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, is both rigorous and necessary. It reflects not only the facts of this case, but the broader challenge we face.
So this is not about the past. It's about the future. It's about whether we allow gaps in our system to persist or whether we strengthen them. It is about whether we ensure that the exposure of corruption leads to meaningful consequences.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY stood up for what mattered most.
The least we can do is to ensure the system that he challenged does not prevail.
I urge you to support this report.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:02:48
Thank you.
The next speaker, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, is Ms Rian VOGELS.
Pays-Bas, ADLE, Porte-parole du groupe
19:02:56
Madam President, esteemed colleagues,
At the outset, I would like to thank the rapporteur for perseverance and courage in presenting this report, which originated in the Magnitsky files, and for steering such a complex and sensitive resolution to this stage.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Group welcomes both the report and the draft resolution before us today. I speak on behalf of my group in strong support of this, of its adoption.
This report addresses a matter of fundamental importance, the credibility of our legal systems when confronted with large scale corruption, transnational money laundering and grave human rights violations. It does so in a careful, factual and balanced manner, fully consistent with the standards and values of the Council of Europe.
We have heard concerns about judicial independence and about the risk of interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. These concerns deserve respect.
However, they must not be used as an argument for political inaction or silence. It would be wrong to single out Switzerland, just as it would be wrong to ignore what happened in Switzerland.
This Assembly is not a judicial body. We do not adjudicate cases, nor do we instruct courts. Our role is different, but no less essential, to identify structural weaknesses, to raise standards and to ensure that our legal frameworks are fit to respond to modern forms of corruption.
The resolution rightly focuses on following the money. It highlights how legal loopholes, fragmented approaches and insufficient tools can allow the proceeds of serious crime to find shelter within our jurisdictions.
In this context, the discussion on non-conviction based asset confiscation is both timely and necessary and deserves serious consideration within the boundaries of the rule of law.
More broadly, this text sends a clear political message. Europe must not become a safe haven for illicit assets, regardless of their origin or the power of those who stand behind them. Accountability must extend not only to perpetrators, but also to beneficiaries.
For the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group, this resolution strengthens the rule of law, reinforces co-operation and contributes to a more resilient European legal space.
We therefore support it fully and call on colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:05:51
Thank you.
On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Mr Berdan ÖZTÜRK, please have the floor.
Türkiye, GUE, Porte-parole du groupe
19:05:59
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Distinguished colleagues,
These resolutions call for stronger legal tools. Non-conviction based confiscation, reversing the burden of proof in unexplained wealth cases and tougher targeted sanctions, visa bans and asset freezes.
These are important steps, but they are not enough, because if we are to be honest, the issue is not the tools we have, but mainly how we use them. The report before us reflects that problem. It is detailed and raises legitimate concerns, including regarding Switzerland, but it also has serious shortcomings that deserve our attention if we are to ensure that our work remains credible, rigorous and fair.
First, it lacks transparency. Some of its most serious accusations, such as alleged investigator misconduct and the controversial logic beyond partial asset confiscation, are not supported by clearly acceptable evidence, that weakens confidence in its conclusions.
Second, there is inconsistency. The report has evidence differently across jurisdictions, particularly between Swiss authorities and others like the United States. This raises questions about objectivity.
Third, important context is missing. We are not giving enough insight into serious legal reforms and the real challenges of international co-operation. Without that, our understanding remains incomplete.
Finally, the tone at times feel more advocacy-driven than analytical. It doesn't sufficiently reflect the Swiss legal perspective. That imbalance risks undermining the report's credibility.
Colleagues,
This brings me to a broader concern.
We often speak about international accountability through courts, sections and legal frameworks. On paper, this architecture is impressive, but in practise it depends on political will. And that will is not always there.
When geopolitical consideration and human rights obligations point in opposite directions, human rights too often come second.
If we want these tools to remain credible, we must apply them consistently, transparently and without hesitation, with respect for legal balance across all jurisdictions.
Otherwise, we risk not only weakening accountability, but undermining the integrity of the entire system we have built and ultimately failing those who depend on it most.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:09:13
Thank you.
The next speaker, Mr Ivan RAČAN, on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.
"Tracking the proceeds of the crime denounced by Sergei Magnitsky and holding his perpetrators accountable" is the report in front of us.
The crime was the theft of US$230 million from the Russian state treasury in 2007 through fraudulent tax refunds.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY was a Russian lawyer who uncovered the scheme and alerted the authorities. For his efforts to bring about justice, the Russian authorities arrested Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY and held him for almost a year. In detention, he was tortured and died on 16 November 2009.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY chose patriotism over silence, and for that he paid with his life in a Moscow prison.
The report in front of us reveals a secondary tragedy, the failure of our international systems, specifically in Switzerland, to fully seize the proceeds of that very crime.
This is an unfortunate contrast with the fact that the Magnitsky case was first brought to the Council of Europe by a Swiss socialist, Mr Andreas GROSS.
This report details how the Swiss investigation was overshadowed by unusually close relations between investigators and Russian officials. We saw a federal investigator taking Russian-funded hunting trips while supposedly investigating the Magnitsky money trail. While the investigator was eventually convicted, the investigation he influenced resulted in Switzerland returning US$13.5 million, the majority of the seized funds, to individuals with clear links to the Russian state.
The report contrasts Switzerland conclusions with those of the United States and France, both of which determined that the fraud was conducted by a criminal organisation. Convictions or confiscations occurred in France, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United States.
So here we are now, with a chance to end the era of laundering for a fee.
The report highlights three points on how to do this.
The first point is to shift the burden. It calls for the reversal of the burden of proof. We must require holders of unexplained wealth to prove their assets are clean, rather than forcing the state to navigate impossible shell company mazes.
Point two, expand sanctions. It urges the European Union to expand the Magnitsky Act to conclude significant corruption, ensuring that those who steal from the public can no longer hide behind human rights legalities.
Point three, to end the proportional myth. It celebrates the recent striking down by the Swiss Supreme Court of proportional confiscation, a method that allowed illicit funds to effectively evaporate during transfers.
This report is our roadmap to ensure that the rule of law is a shield for the whistle-blower and not for the criminal.
Please support it.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:12:21
Thank you.
In the debate, I call next Mr Michael PAYNE.
You have 2 minutes.
Thank you, Madam President.
Today, we discuss not only a financial crime, but a profound moral failure.
I want to begin by paying tribute to Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY, a man who uncovered a US$230 million crime against his own country and who paid for the truth with his life. He was detained, tortured and died in custody at just 37 years old. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was clear: his fundamental rights were violated.
I also acknowledge my good friend Sir William BROWDER, whose relentless pursuit of justice has ensured that this case did not disappear into silence. Because of that effort, Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY's name now stands for accountability across 35 countries around the world.
But today's debate forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth. In Switzerland, a jurisdiction that confirmed these funds were linked to criminal proceeds, there were no prosecutions. Instead, 75% of the money was ordered to be returned to individuals connected to that very fraud. This is not a technical discrepancy; it is a systemic weakness. When illicit money is identified yet largely released, when investigators face credible allegations of misconduct, and when legal interpretations contradict international partners, we risk sending a dangerous signal that complex laundering schemes can succeed.
Colleagues, this Assembly must be clear. Justice cannot stop at tracing dirty money. It must end with accountability. That means stronger confiscation frameworks, "Magnitsky-style" sanctions and closing the gaps that allow corruption to flow freely and across borders.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY exposed the truth. It is now our responsibility to ensure that that truth leads to consequences and accountability.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:14:19
Thank you.
The next speaker is...
Blue card, Madam President.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:14:30
I'm sorry, you can't use the blue card because you're not on the list of speakers.
Why is that?
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:14:37
You are not speaking on behalf of the political group. You're not part of the political group of speakers.
We all have the possibility to ask for a blue card.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:14:51
You can't use the blue card if you're not on a list of political group speakers or the rapporteur.
I was not aware of that rule.
That's quite a new rule.
So it's not a very open debate.
Okay, but the colleague said something that was wrong, so I wanted a correction.
But I will say it later.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:15:16
Yes.
The next speaker is Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS.
Please.
Dear friends,
I remember the discussion. The discussion was 12 years ago, Andreas GROSS and other friends and I were supporting the Magnitsky resolution, and that was a fight like in the times of Napoleon. It was our water law fight. And when the Russia delegation put lies on our side, saying "that is not true", and we say "that it's true" and supported a Browder's investigation.
MAGNITSKY is a Russian guy, just like Boris NEMTSOV, just like NAVALNY. Actually, NAVALNY was killed and poisoned. And five states that were founders of our house stated that he was poisoned by frog poison. And it was just a few weeks ago.
We should look at all the developments. First, they blew up – KGB, FSB – blew up the houses in Moscow. Secondly, they started the war against Chechnya. Thirdly, they changed their constitution: Russia became a dictatorship. Fourthly, they took money from their budget to bribe us Western politicians and to keep us on the hook. And now they're using this money to bring back Europe to their captivity in the energy sector, back to their gas, back to their oil. And we had lost our fight in Belgium for $490 billion, which should be given to Ukraine, when the money was actually collected through all systems of Russia's criminal state.
In this case, today, we should say shame on those who defended and tried to lie about the Magnitsky law. We are just framing the heroes as MAGNITSKY started to do. And we should be on the side of those Russians who are fighting for justice. And there are only a few of us today.
So I would like to say today we should concentrate on support for Ukraine, as it's our final fight related to the victory of Ukraine.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:18:01
Thank you.
The next speaker is Ms Olena KHOMENKO.
Please.
Dear colleagues,
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, our rapporteur, for her thorough work on this report. The concern brought up is live, urgent and connected to the war of aggression being waged against Ukraine.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY became a target for the Russian oppression machine for denouncing one of its biggest financial crimes known to this day. Three years after his death in imprisonment, the Russian authorities put him on posthumous trial, the first in Russian history. None of the officials involved in the fraud reported by Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY have ever been tried. Several were promoted and publicly exonerated by Mr Vladimir PUTIN.
Let us recall the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in 2019, which found violations, the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial.
All these inhumane measures served one goal, to hide and to deny. The scale of a laundering scheme uncovered by Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY suggest a state-backed operation that included Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) officers, tax office heads, judges and convicted fraudsters.
Their involvement in illegally putting through hundreds of millions of euros leaves no doubt of one goal: to secretly fund the crimes of the Russian state, both national and international.
The money accumulated by Russia within this case has an obvious destiny. It still got to individuals with documented links to the Russian state apparatus, giving Mr Vladimir PUTIN's regime a helping hand in conducting a full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine and escalating its attacks on civilians.
Dear colleagues,
We have seen, in this very case, how Russian state funds move through European financial institutions. Even today, we continue seeing the unlawful profits of the Russian state being successfully harvested in the very heart of Europe with a single aim, to let the murderous regime survive longer.
We have the obligation to cut the aggressor’s ties on European soil.
Ukraine knows what it means when impunity is allowed to stand.
We know the cost of looking away. Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY died because he refused to look away.
Let's not look away from Russia's crimes.
Thank you, dear colleagues.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:20:56
Thank you.
The next speaker is Mr Roland Rino BÜCHEL.
Please.
Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen,
I am not a party to this legal dispute, nor am I an expert or pseudo-expert on the subject. Nor am I a journalist who is spreading blatant untruths in various languages on the Swissinfo channel.
In recent months, weeks and days, we have heard a great deal from such people in this story, not only in the media, but also in the meetings of the political groups and in the deliberations of the committees, the relevant committee of this Parliamentary Assembly, and just now from my colleague Mr Michael PAYNE, apparently a good friend of Mr BROWDER, who is a party to this matter. Some of the nonsense that has been spread is still in the documents that we are going to vote on today.
Let us come to the rule of law. Let's come to one of the fundamental pillars of criminal law.
Firstly, in Switzerland, you need solid evidence of criminal origin when you take away someone's assets.
Secondly, this must be the case in every constitutional state.
Thirdly, isn't that precisely why we are sitting in this Chamber, because we want to stand up for the rule of law?
If, as here, legal and illegal funds are mixed together, it can be difficult to trace the matter properly.
If you simply want to confiscate everything together, then you are violating the European Convention on Human Rights.
Where is the right to property? Where is the legal certainty? Where are the principles that we uphold in this Council of Europe with all our florid words?
I have been a member of parliament in Switzerland for 22 years. I have to tell you something, ladies and gentlemen. In my entire political life, I have never seen such an unsuccessful show up close.
This is not good for this Council of Europe, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:23:24
Thank you.
Mr Mike READER is the next speaker.
Please.
Thank you Madam President.
Colleagues,
I’m speaking today in full support of this resolution.
This report brings us back to a case that should never have faded from focus.
Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY uncovered large scale corruption. He paid for that discovery with his life. And yet, years on, those who benefited from that crime have not been held to account. Significant sums of money linked to that fraud have not been reclaimed.
What stands out to me in this report, beyond the original crime, is what happened next.
Those funds moved through multiple jurisdictions, through layered transactions and opaque structures, exploiting differences in legal systems and enforcement. All unchallenged.
The report should give us pause for thought. Can we all say here confidently that our national and international frameworks are equipped to deal with modern financial crime? Crime where speed, complexity and international reach are now the defining features?
Now, the UK is not foolproof in this area, but we have taken steps to address this. We’ve introduced targeted sanctions, strengthened our approach to illicit finance and developed tools to challenge unexplained wealth, all aimed at closing the gap between identifying wrongdoing and actually enforcing consequences.
In an increasingly divided world, we have a duty and a responsibility to recognise the limits and risks of acting alone.
The patterns and crimes described in this report depend on fragmentation between countries to succeed. If one system is tied to another, the money simply flows around it.
That’s why the direction of this resolution and the direction of international relationships between European partners is now more important than ever.
Colleagues,
If we allow systems to be exploited, then we allow corruption to win.
This resolution gives us the tools to push back, to recover what was stolen and to hold individuals to account.
I hope we can all support this resolution.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:25:49
Thank you.
And the next speaker, Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV, please.
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
I want to thank my colleague from the Ukrainian delegation for a very honest and brave report.
We can analyse this from other and different parts. But it's not a report only about the Magnitsky case. It's not a report only of 17 years of events that have taken place. It's not a report about an exact country. It's a report about a system that the Russian oligarchs' previous regime and Mr Vladimir PUTIN's regime built for many, many years.
If it's possible to have such cases of money laundering all over Europe and all over the world without the support of Mr Vladimir PUTIN's regime.
It's also time to answer to our days, all our efforts according to Russian arrested and frozen assets.
All our assets that we have now, and we know about them, it's hundreds of millions of dollars and euros.
We can't do nothing with this because we have advocates in a lot of countries that want to protect Russian dirty money, that they used against Ukraine, against our democracy, all over the world.
We try to show that we need to be very (much) in a justice regime with the Russians' torture regime and Russian dictatorship.
I think it's very important that we now discuss this question.
It's not a question of 17 years, it's a question of our days.
We must understand that the only way that we can protect our democracy is to fight against the kleptocracy of the Russian oligarch system that was built by Mr Vladimir PUTIN and previous Russian regimes.
Thank you, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:27:59
Thank you.
And the next speaker, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, please.
Thank you very much. And also thanks to the rapporteur for a great job done.
And this is a very important report, I think. But I want to remind you how everything started.
So there was the Magnitsky case and there was Mr William BROWDER who started to work to create the "Magnitsky List" and list of sanctions against people involved. Definitely, it's not just these persons. It's Russia and the Russian regime and Mr Vladimir PUTIN. And it's clear.
And then these personal sanctions were imposed against these people. And that was great at that time.
But what do we see, did it change Russia? No, unfortunately.
And Russia attacked Ukraine, Georgia, other countries, killing people abroad, killing in the United Kingdom, in the Czech Republic, in Germany. Everywhere. Russia is a threat to all of us.
So what is our lesson that we should learn from this situation?
Sanctions against persons, some physical persons, is not enough. We need to go very strong when it comes to sanctions. And to kick Russia and to hit Russia in the heart.
The heart of Russia is very simple. What is Russia today? What do they produce? What do they bring to the world? Just one thing. Oil and gas, that's it. It's a big oil station. Nothing else. They don't produce anything. No phones, not these airports, not these microphones, nothing. They just produce missiles to kill people and oil so they can buy missiles to kill people. That's it.
So my address is very simple: let us finally do what we should do.
Let us stop Russian tankers in the sea. Let us seize the Russian tankers of Russia's shadow fleet.
Now, not like it happened in France recently, when France arrested a Russian tanker and we were so happy. But then, some time later France released this Russian tanker.
And it's like sport fishing, when you catch the fish just to take a photo with it and then you release it.
That will not help us. We need real sanctions. We need a real hunt on Russia. And then we can finish this awful regime.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:30:20
Thank you. The next speaker, Ms Boriana ÅBERG.
Thank you Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms Lesia VASYLENKO for this important report.
Those who murdered Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY made him immortal.
The law, named after him, has been applied not only against officials and criminals in Russia, but also against those responsible for abuses in China and Saudi Arabia.
With the Magnitsky laws, democracy has gained a weapon.
Sweden is named in the draft resolution as one of the countries that failed to open investigations into the reported laundering of proceeds originating from fraud against the Russian treasury.
I concur that this is both regrettable and indefensible.
Yesterday, the former Chief Executive of Swedbank was acquitted by the Supreme Court of charges of aggravated fraud.
The prosecution had alleged that she concealed the risk of the bank being used for money laundering through its Baltic operations, yet she was never charged with money laundering itself.
This is something Mr Bill BROWDER has expressed disappointment over. He is right.
Every Westerner who has facilitated the laundering of Russian money has contributed to the environment that gave rise to the war in Ukraine.
All those American and European companies, business people, officials and politicians who have profited from Mr Vladimir PUTIN's criminality bear responsibility.
When voices are raised, suggesting that Ukraine should accept a settlement with Russia, it is worth pausing to consider what is truly at stake.
Is the heating in our homes worth more than the security of Ukraine and of Europe as a whole?
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:32:36
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr Damien COTTIER.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues,
It is sad. The first draft report targets my country, Switzerland, excessively, based on unbalanced and sometimes poorly substantiated elements.
After a great deal of constructive work in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and with the rapporteur, whom I would like to thank for this, it has been possible to produce a resolution that, while not perfect, is more balanced and no longer targets a single country for no objective reason.
But it's sad, because today the Committee has supported a number of amendments that run counter to this work, based on poorly substantiated facts, hasty conclusions, and sweeping criticisms. Worse still, one amendment that even interferes with an ongoing judicial process.
This is sad, because it is not the level of seriousness that this Assembly should have.
So, dear colleagues, I appeal to you to bring reason back into this debate. Let me remind you of a few facts. Switzerland was one of the first countries to take action in this matter by blocking funds in 2011. This was well before the invasion of Crimea and the war of aggression against Ukraine, which, as you know, we strongly condemn, and there is no link to be made between these two elements.
Switzerland has a solid and independent judicial system. Its anti-money laundering legislation is robust and largely in line with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the rules of the European Union.
Lastly, the Magnitsky funds were spread across some fifteen countries. Six have not opened investigations and four have not obtained convictions. Five have had convictions, settlements or confiscations and Switzerland is one of them. This is why I wanted to intervene earlier, when it was said that there were no convictions in Switzerland. There was a confiscation of 4.6 million US dollars.
So this Assembly should refrain from cheap bashing. It can criticise shortcomings - there were some at the start of the procedure, as has been said - but they led to corrective measures and convictions in Switzerland.
Our Assembly can propose legislative improvements, but let us do so in a way that is balanced and fair to all states.
It is a question of fairness. It is a question of credibility.
If the report were to be drafted as the majority of the Committee has proposed today, I would find it impossible to accept.
That would be sad.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:34:57
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr James MALONEY.
Thank you, Madam President, for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.
I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, not just for this report. I have read many accounts in my years of the Sergei MAGNITSKY story. I have not read a more thorough, comprehensive and impressive account than this. So I genuinely want to say thank you.
First, I want to say, why is this so important?
It's important to Canada because Canada is a country that has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and always will.
Canada is a country that believes in the rule of law. Canada is a country that stands for human rights. And that's what this is about.
Canada has taken many steps since the dark days of 2009, when Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY was brutally murdered and tortured.
Let me tell you some of those things.
In 2017, we passed legislation called the Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. This was a significant effort by the parliament of Canada. It lowered the threshold for imposing sanctions on foreign corrupt officials. It was a direct response to the issues that we're talking about today. This allowed our government to freeze property in Canada. It prohibited financial transactions. It blocked the provision of services.
In 2022, Canada amended the legislation further to allow for the forfeiture of property and the redistribution of those proceeds.
In 2025, the legislation was amended further, requiring Canadian financial institutions to report all assets held by sanctioned entities, including the Russian Central Bank.
Canada has taken a lot of measures. As I said, we will continue to do so.
We have worked with people like Mr Bill BROWDER, who has helped us come to a good place and land in the right place for this legislation. We will continue to do that going forward because, as the Commissioner of Human Rights said in this Chamber today, law is not optional.
That's what Canada stands for.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:37:12
Thank you. And for the next speaker I call Mr Christoph WENAWESER.
Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen.
Liechtenstein has done its homework in terms of tax transparency, combating crime, terrorist financing, money laundering and predicate offences.
The EU's Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive(5AMLD) has been implemented, but not in all EU member states.
The-then OECD Secretary-General Mr José Ángel GURRIA has already said here in this Chamber to Liechtenstein: "Welcome back to the family".
Liechtenstein knows the pillory to which Switzerland is being unfairly pilloried with this report, because the report politically attacks the outcome of a judicial process. This is a dangerous approach to the separation of powers, which is indispensable under the rule of law.
Unjustly pilloried solely because six countries did not initiate investigations into the same matter. In four countries there were no convictions.
In five countries there were convictions, settlements or confiscation of assets: France, Latvia, the Netherlands, the USA and Switzerland.
A country was pilloried that is ranked 6th out of 181 in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index 2025, so in some cases far, far ahead of many other of our 46 member states.
On one point, I agree with the tone of the report and also with the tone of some of the votes.
In the case of cross-border structures, convoluted asset transfers and virtual assets, there is a legitimate interest in making asset recovery more efficient and more internationally compatible, but without jeopardising core principles of the rule of law, in the worst case double standards.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:39:25
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr Erich HESS. Please.
Thank you very much, Madam Vice-President, dear Council of Europe,
I've only been here since the second session, but in January I realised that many reports are not really fact-based. I thought that perhaps I didn't know enough about this. But now, on the basis of this report, I have actually realised that you are presenting reports here, or we are presenting reports here, that are not fact-based or are just assertions by certain people and you are adopting them as facts, be it the media or other people. However, you must have evidence in order to compile such a report. It is unacceptable that reports or large parts of reports that are not based on facts are adopted here. This Council of Europe will lose credibility if this is adopted.
Switzerland is a constitutional state. I assume that many countries in this room can learn from the Swiss constitutional state. We have a very well-balanced constitutional state. We can also guarantee freedom of ownership, which I cannot say about all the countries that are probably sitting here in this room.
I am therefore of the very clear opinion that if this Council of Europe approves this paper, I will propose that Switzerland should withdraw from its institution and all sub-groups at the next ordinary session of our parliament.
Thank you for your attention.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:41:27
Thank you. And the next speaker, Mr David WELLS.
Dear colleagues,
I am pleased to address you today about tracking the proceeds of the crimes uncovered by Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY and making sure those responsible are held accountable.
I want to thank the rapporteur, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, for her many efforts on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly. I lend my full support to the rapporteur’s appeal to Council of Europe states to enact Sergei Magnitsky-style legislation.
I emphasised this point in the Canadian Senate during our October 2017 debate on the legislation that became Canada’s Sergei MAGNITSKY Law. This observation holds as firmly today as it did in 2017.
Canada’s Magnitsky law provides for measures against foreign nationals who are responsible for or complicit in gross human rights violations, or are implicated in acts of significant corruption. The law prohibits Canadians from handling financial or property matters for affected individuals and blocks sanctioned persons from entering Canada. To date, 73 foreign nationals from seven countries have been sanctioned under the law, including many from Russia.
Canada has also sanctioned over 1 600 Russian individuals and 837 Russian-related entities under our Special Economic Measures Act. There are others from Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine that have been subject to Canadian sanctions.
I would like to reiterate an important point I have made previously before this Parliamentary Assembly.
While adding names to lists of sanctions is straightforward, enforcing sanctions, preventing evasion and measuring their effectiveness remains a challenge.
As I noted just weeks ago in the Canadian Senate during a debate on legislation for disposing of seized foreign state assets, the legal tools we promote must have practical, real-world application.
If they don’t, then it is simply a symbolic exercise. For this reason, laws must be carefully drafted. Comprehensive systems should be implemented to gather data and oversee the everyday enforcement.
In short, we must make sure the law works in practice and that sanctions hit those targeted and where it matters most.
Thank you, colleagues.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:43:40
Thank you. And the next speaker, Ms Olena MOSHENETS.
Dear colleagues,
I fully support the rapporteur Ms Lesia VASYLENKO and the importance of this issue.
The fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion is not just about finances, but also about justice and security.
It is important to hold accountable all those responsible for the death of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY and beneficiaries of the fraud he exposed, as well as to continue improving legislation in this area.
Today, this issue is particularly urgent due to Russia’s systematic attempts to circumvent international sanctions imposed in response to its aggression against Ukraine.
For example, we can recall how, in late 2025, the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) uncovered a Russian money-laundering network worth a billion dollars that operated in the UK and was designed to help Russia avoid Western sanctions.
As part of the investigation, the NCA and its law enforcement partners in the USA, France, Spain and Ireland arrested 128 people. More than US$33 million in cash and cryptocurrency was seized in the UK alone.
In 2025, Europol also noted an increase in the use of cryptocurrencies and shadow financial mediators to circumvent sanctions, which is also linked to the financing of the Russian military machine.
So, we welcome the European Commission’s decision to include the Russian Federation to the list of countries with a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Dear colleagues,
The Magnitsky case is a symbol of the fight against impunity.
Today, it is our duty to continue this fight until the end, because this is not just about past crimes, but about preventing new ones.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:45:53
Thank you. And now the last speaker on the list, Ms Stephanie KUSIE.
Honourable colleagues,
I wish to thank the rapporteur, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, for her work on behalf of the Assembly.
I would like to echo the point made in her report, highlighting Sir William BROWDER’s determination to hold accountable those responsible for Sergei MAGNITSKY’s death.
Several years ago, the Canadian parliament took decisive steps in this direction, enacting the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act in October 2017 – commonly referred to as the Sergei Magnitsky Law.
Known as Bill S-226 in its draft form, the bill was introduced in the senate in May 2016 by my colleague Senator Raynell ANDREYCHUK, while in the House of Commons, it was sponsored by my other colleague, Mr James BEZAN.
Prior to this, members of parliament from across the political spectrum had tabled Magnitsky-style private member’s bills in parliament, however they did not move forward.
The law that we have today provides for measures against foreign nationals who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are responsible for or complicit in gross human rights violations, or who are public officials – or their associates – implicated in acts of significant corruption.
The law prohibits Canadians, at home and abroad, from acting on behalf of affected individuals in financial or property matters and blocks sanctioned persons from entering Canada.
In his acclaimed 2022 book Freezing order, Sir William BROWDER acknowledged that the “Canadian Magnitsky Act was a major milestone”.
To date, Canada has used the Sergei Magnitsky Law to sanction 73 foreign nationals, including Venezuela, South Sudan, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran and finally Russia.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to put laws in place so that those responsible for gross human rights abuses or major corruption are held accountable.
Thank you very much.
"Thank you very much for your attention." [spoken in French]
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:48:03
Thank you.
That concludes the list of speakers.
Thank you all.
Now I call Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, the rapporteur, to reply.
You have 3 minutes.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, dear colleagues, for such a lively and important discussion.
Dear colleagues,
17 years ago, Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY gave up his life for justice and truth to prevail.
This report and resolution make sure that this sacrifice was not in vain.
The name of Magnitsky today symbolises accountability.
This report is not about Switzerland. The point of the resolution is not about attacking any one member state of the Council of Europe.
Dear colleagues,
This report is about addressing concerns with procedures and investigations. It's about restoring credibility in our justice systems. It's about following the money and it's about sending the message that Europe shall not be a safe haven for illicit assets.
Complex laundering schemes cannot succeed when we are dealing with Russia, especially when we are dealing with Russia. Utmost vigilance is required.
The Russian oligarchs and state have become expert at building complex money laundering and corruption schemes that have multiple layers and long tentacles reaching deep into institutions across the world. And unfortunately, sometimes they are successful in finding weak links and polluting, poisoning the institutions from the inside.
The recommendations in this report, if adopted, will make European legal systems stronger and more resilient: reversal of burden of proof, expansion of Magnitsky Act sanctions. These suggestions will make it easier to trace the origin of illicit assets and most definitely prevent the possibility of returning such assets to the perpetrators of crimes through the exploitation of gaps in the law.
I urge you to support this report in memory of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY, but also in the name of truth, in the name of accountability and in the name of what is right.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:50:12
Thank you.
Does the Vice Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Gustaf GÖTHBERG, wish to speak?
You have 3 minutes.
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
19:50:23
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
I would like to start by thanking the Committee's rapporteur, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, for her excellent work on this report.
The draft resolution is the result of extensive discussions, both within the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and between the rapporteur and some members also, as we heard, of the Swiss delegation. The Committee considered the preliminary draft resolution twice in 2025, giving as much room as possible for finding consensus. And the fact is that the draft resolution was adopted unanimously by the Committee during its meeting in January. This speaks for itself.
In March of 2025, the rapporteur carried out a fact-finding visit to Bern, the capital of Switzerland, where she met with members of the Swiss delegation and representatives of federal institutions.
The Committee heard testimonies from three experts, including a former Swiss colleague and rapporteur, on the Refusing impunity for the killers of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY: Mr Andreas GROSS, Sir Bill BROWDER, who is the founder of Hermitage Capital Management and the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign and, last but not least, Mr Mark PEITH, a Swiss expert on anti-money laundering.
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
I invite you all to support this draft resolution, which is a balanced and objective text. The memory of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKY demands that all those involved in the fraud he exposed and, ultimately, in his death, will face consequences.
Borders should not be an obstacle to justice.
Thank you very much.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:52:07
Thank you.
The debate is closed.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution (Document 16362) to which 5 amendments have been tabled.
They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
I understand that the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendment 1 to the draft resolution (Document 16362), which was unanimously approved by the Committee, be declared as definitively approved.
Is that so, Mr Gustaf GÖTHBERG?
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
19:52:53
That's correct.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:52:55
If no-one objects, I will consider the amendment to be approved.
Is there an objection?
Amendment 1 to the draft resolution is therefore approved and will not be called.
I understand that the Vice Chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendment 5 to the draft resolution Document 16362, which was rejected by the Committee with a two-thirds majority, be declared as definitively rejected.
Is that so, Mr Gustaf GÖTHBERG?
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
19:53:30
That's so.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:53:32
If no-one objects, I will consider the amendments to be rejected.
Is there an objection?
Yes.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:53:40
We will need to verify that the objection has the required support of 10 people.
Please could those who object stand up?
The request of the Committee is rejected, so the amendment will be taken separately.
Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA-FEDORENKO.
Yes. Yes, Madam President.
If I'm not mistaken and if it's not the lack of sleep, it has to be five national delegations standing up.
Was it five national delegations?
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:55:43
The rule says it's just 10 members.
So we carry on.
I call Mr Ivan RAČAN to support Amendment 2.
You have 30 seconds.
Thank you.
This amendment calls on Switzerland to comply with its own legal obligations and extend the ruling to all account holders.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:56:30
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Damien COTTIER to speak against the amendment.
30 seconds.
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment, as worded, would give an interpretation of Swiss law, given that the Federal Court's ruling specifically invalidated the so-called proportional method in this case and not in general.
This case has now been referred back to the Federal Criminal Court for a new ruling.
Our Assembly must not seek to influence legal proceedings that are underway. Our Organisation attaches too much importance to the independence of the judiciary to do that.
I ask you to reject this amendment.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:57:18
What is the opinion of the Committee on the amendment?
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
19:57:22
In favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:57:23
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 2 is agreed to.
We move on to Amendment 3.
I call Mr Ivan RAČAN to support Amendment 3.
You have 30 seconds.
This amendment is the central failure of Switzerland.
This amendment seeks that funds that should have been secured pending recalculation are now – I apologise, I apologise – this is a central failure the amendments seek to address.
Funds that should have been secured pending recalculation are now beyond Swiss jurisdiction.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:58:38
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Mr Damien COTTIER.
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment is based on facts alleged in a press article which, surprisingly, was published a few days before our debates. These facts have not been officially supported or confirmed and, according to my information, do not correspond to legal practice, which provides for such accounts to be frozen until the courts have reached a final decision.
So it would be extremely surprising if these funds had been unfrozen, and probably, but this is a personal interpretation, that the press article is actually talking about other funds.
This Parliamentary Assembly should be careful to work with substantiated facts before making criticisms.
I propose that you reject this amendment.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:59:27
What is the opinion of the Committee on the amendment?
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
19:59:35
The Committee is in favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
19:59:37
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 3 is agreed to.
And we move on to Amendment 5.
I call Ms Marianne BINDER-KELLER to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.
Madam President, I will do it.
Ms Marianne BINDER-KELLER is unfortunately not here today.
Can I do it for the Swiss delegation?
Madam President,
The entire Swiss delegation, from all parties, asks you to delete this reference to the geopolitical situation. The case of Mr Sergei MAGNITSKI dates back to 2007-2008. The legal proceedings in Switzerland began in 2011. There is no link with the war of aggression against Ukraine, which began several years later, a war of aggression that we strongly condemn, as you know, but there is no link between these two events.
Political considerations cannot and must not influence national judicial and criminal proceedings.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
20:01:02
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? Yes, please.
Yes, Madam President. Thank you.
It's a very simple linkage, colleagues, because Ukraine and the war Russia has waged against Ukraine has been mentioned multiple times.
It gives this linkage. We presumably know for sure that this money can also be spent on the war in rockets, drones, etc.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
20:01:36
The ommittee rejected this amendment with a two-thirds majority.
I shall now put amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 5 is rejected.
We move on to Amendment 4.
I call Mr Ivan RAČAN to support Amendment 4.
You have 30 seconds.
The preceding amendments establish what went wrong, and this amendment specifies what Switzerland must do. It is a list of concrete action items.
Thank you.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
20:02:34
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
Thank you, Madam President.
As I said, the analysis is based on unproven allegations and a single news article that does not specify its sources. This is too flimsy a basis.
Furthermore, the end of the text proposes and criticises procedural loopholes that do not really exist, because Switzerland already has non-conviction based confiscation and third-party asset confiscation. It also has extended confiscation. Several of these instruments were in fact applied to the confiscation that was carried out in this case.
There are too many errors and inaccuracies in this text.
Let us reject this amendment.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
20:03:14
What is the opinion of the Committee on the amendment?
Suède, PPE/DC, Vice-Président de la Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l'homme
20:03:18
The Committee is in favour.
Estonie, ADLE, Présidente de l'Assemblée
20:03:21
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 4 is agreed to.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 16362, as amended. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The draft resolution in Document 16362 is adopted.
The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. with the Agenda approved on Monday.
The sitting is adjourned.
Have a good evening.
Thank you.
