CHECHNYA LINKS LIBRARY

PACE & Conflict in the Chechen Republic - Verbatim report of debate (updated)

Following is a provisional version of the verbatim report of the debate on Chechnya at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on April 2, 2003. This provisional version may still be corrected by the speakers.

THE PRESIDENT. – The business for the rest of this morning is the debate on the report on the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic presented by Mr Bindig on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 9732 and addendum.

The list of speakers closed at 6 p.m. yesterday. Forty-three names are on the list, and twenty-nine amendments, and five sub-amendments, have been tabled. We will need to interrupt the list of speakers at 12.55 p.m. to allow time for the replies by the rapporteur and by the chairman of the committee at the end of this morning’s debate. Is that agreed? It is agreed.

I remind the Assembly that the votes will take place at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.

I have received a letter from members of the Assembly complaining about the way in which the amendments have been dealt with, and what happened in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I will clear this with the chairman of the committee, and I will come back to the letter before we start the voting and discussion on the amendments and the whole text.

I now call Mr Bindig, the rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that his remit had been not to examine the political, social or economic affairs of Chechnya, but to look at the human rights situation, which was the very foundation of the Council of Europe. He noted that human rights was the Organisation’s main objective and that the Assembly was proud of its human rights convention.

Unfortunately, there had been human rights abuses in Chechnya and his report was based on information from a number of sources including data from the Russian authorities, NGOs and journalists working in the area. He considered that his report was balanced in that it looked at human rights violations by both the Russian authorities and by Chechen fighters. There was evidence of killings, including mass graves, terrorist attacks and disappearance.

He noted that the prosecution authorities of the Russian Federation had been incapable of finding the culprits of these abuses and bringing them to court. As a result, there was an air of impunity of human rights violations in Chechnya. He referred to the fact that his report had been severely criticised by the Russian authorities, but he believed they should look at its contents closely and noted that they had not disputed in writing any of the facts contained in the report. That contradicted statements made by Russian delegates that the report only referred to old cases. There continued to be human rights violations in Chechnya. He noted that Chechnya would not be able to return to reality until human rights violation were stopped. He urged all delegates who believed in human rights to support Chechnya and adopt the recommendations of the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Eörsi, who will speak on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – The Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group unanimously support Mr Bindig’s report, and I congratulate him wholeheartedly on his work. When we discussed the situation in Chechnya, we had a debate about whether we should speak about the referendum at all, but when it was reported to us that in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the special representative of the Russian President on human rights issues in Chechnya had said that because of the successful referendum, there was no further need to discuss the human rights situation in Chechnya, we decided that we did still have to discuss the referendum.

When we had our first committee meeting, our Russian colleagues said that even if the Assembly did not listen to the Russian delegation or to the Russian President, Mr Putin, we should at least listen to the Chechen people, because of the huge turnout – close to 90% – and the fact that the majority for the new constitution was 96%. Then I started to be sad, because we believe that we must speak about the referendum, and I find it weird that Russian colleagues – or any colleagues – should believe that that wonderful turnout and that fantastic majority could be perceived as an electoral triumph.

I remind colleagues that the election results were no different during the Brezhnyev period. More recently, a referendum in Iraq produced a similar outcome. Although the turnout was 96%, the turnout for an election under the Milošević regime was 104%, which is even higher than the Chechen result. The turnout and the outcome are not sufficient grounds on which to believe that the referendum was good. The large turnout does not help to allay our fears about the referendum.

The report is important. It will help us to find solutions to deal with the human rights situation in Chechnya. In particular, we support the ad hoc tribunal on war crimes and crimes against humanity. That must be established. Allegations of criminal acts have been reported, but nothing has happened. If we are to overcome the problems and to find solutions, we need an independent body that can investigate such cases to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

I will not use the diplomatic language that we often use in the Assembly because I want to be fair and clear about the situation. I heard the Russian delegation pay lip service to the idea of establishing the ad hoc tribunal. Even if the recommendations are agreed, I ask our Russian colleagues to continue to debate the subject with us. I also ask them to accept that the Assembly is considering the recommendations for the sake and future of the Russian and Chechen people. What we decide does not mean that we are against Russia or Chechnya. When Russian colleagues speak, I hope that they tell us that those allegations are not true. If the Assembly arrives at certain conclusions that we believe are the best that we can achieve, I urge our Russian colleagues to continue to debate the matter with us.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Atkinson, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr ATKINSON (United Kingdom). – I begin in my capacity as the co-rapporteur with Mr Bindig on the monitoring of the commitments that Russia entered into when it acceded to the Council of Europe in 1996 by reminding the Assembly once again that even though we may be able to report that Russia has met our standards – quite possibly after next year’s presidential elections, provided that they are free and fair and free of media bias – the Assembly will need to be satisfied with the situation in Chechnya before it can agree to end the monitoring process.

It is clear from Mr Bindig’s report that much work remains to be done in Chechnya. The human rights situation that he describes remains unacceptable to the Assembly. It contradicts all that we stand for in the Council of Europe. The terms of the draft resolution are damning to say the least. The Russian authorities can and must do more to protect the human rights of the civil population. That is essential for a lasting political solution to the conflict.

The European Democratic Group shares Mr Bindig’s serious concern at the comparative ineffectiveness of measures to prevent violations by federal forces. That can only foster support for extremist groups in Chechnya, such as those responsible for the Dubrodka theatre siege. We have always called for a thorough, transparent and effective investigation of all human rights abuses in Chechnya, and for those responsible to be prosecuted and punished. The acquittal of Colonel Budanov of raping and strangling an 18-year-old Chechen woman on grounds of temporary insanity is unfortunate to say the least. The prosecutor’s appeal must be heard.

It is essential that the Russian federal authorities co-operate fully with the international bodies, including the special rapporteurs to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, in seeking a lasting political solution. They should authorise the publication of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. In addition, Russia should join the majority of our member states in ratifying the statute of the International Criminal Court without further delay.

In January, the European Democratic Group did not support the wish of Lord Judd to postpone the referendum. We acknowledged his fears that it would prove to be flawed, but we agreed that it was more important to proceed with a political process that could lead to normalisation without further delay. After eleven years of war, that is, above all, what the vast majority of the people of Chechnya yearn for and deserve. They want a new constitutional framework that leads to the election of a president and a parliament.

We are encouraged to learn about a possible amnesty for prisoners, of a presidential pardon for those in the mountains to put down their arms, and of grants for reconstruction to particular heads of families, which of course should not be hijacked by the army or the mafia. All those initiatives must be accompanied by the demonstrable end of impunity to encourage this new beginning for Chechnya. Thus, the group does not agree with Mr Bindig’s proposal to establish an ad hoc war crimes tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations. That would not be appropriate at this time. Such offences should be properly prosecuted within the framework of existing legal structures, including Russian local and federal courts or, where necessary, at the European Court of Human Rights should domestic remedies be exhausted. We should all be encouraged that the European Court recently agreed to hear the petitions of six Chechens against the Russian military under the European Convention on Human Rights.

I urge our Russian colleagues to accept the situation as described in Mr Bindig’s valuable report and to take it as the starting point from which the future protection of human rights in Chechnya can be judged. We look forward to a new report that will tell us of the progress that must be made.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Atkinson. I call Mr Einarsson on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – The human rights situation in Chechnya is still extremely disturbing. The reports on massive human rights abuses – killings, disappearances, looting and harassment – committed by members of the Russian armed forces as well as armed separatists continue to pile up. Anyone who reads the letter written by the deputy general prosecutor of the Russian Federation, Mr Fridinskiy, which can be found at Appendix II to the addendum, will be unable to avoid the impression that unacceptable obstacles are deliberately being put in the prosecutors’ way. Obviously, some people should be reminded of what President Putin said on French television on 11 February: “We do not have the slightest intention of protecting anyone who has committed crimes or offences on Chechen territory, and this includes the Russian military.”

Growing frustration over what is happening, or not happening, in Chechnya is understandable, and it has resulted in calls for extraordinary measures. It is not always true, however, that one is better heard the louder one shouts. The report suggests that the international community should consider setting up an ad hoctribunal to try war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chechnya. That may seem bold and energetic, but I am not sure that it is wise. The rapporteur knows, as we all know, that it will never happen – there will be no tribunal. Is it really a good idea to call for totally unrealistic measures? How does that affect the legitimacy and credibility of today’s and future resolutions?

Does the call for an international tribunal really support those in the Russian and Chechen judicial systems who are trying to improve the situation in very difficult circumstances? Might that call even undermine their work? Unfortunately, discussion has evolved on whether justice is essential to the restoration of democracy, or whether it is the other way around. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In fact, justice, the rule of law, human rights and the elimination of impunity on the one hand and the political process of restoring democracy on the other cannot be dealt with separately. Has not the Council of Europe untiringly repeated that democracy and justice are inseparable? You cannot have one without the other, even in Chechnya.

There has been a referendum on a new constitution in Chechnya. We know the results of that referendum, but we do not know what the result will be in terms of political consequences. We hope that it will be the starting point of a revitalised political process, restoring justice, peace and democracy. Nevertheless, the peoples of Chechnya have a long way to walk.

We in the Council of Europe cannot work miracles, but we are obliged to speak out, clearly and without hesitation, against all abuses of human rights and to give our wholehearted support to all forces of peace and democracy in Chechnya

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Einarsson. I call Mr Jurgens on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – As we stand in a chamber dedicated to the rule of law and human rights, it is terrible to have to discuss grievous violations of those principles. We are discussing specific human rights violations, not the political situation in Chechnya. We are discussing that problem with our colleagues from the Russian federal parliament, and we should try to find solutions with them. We understand full well that that country has been confronted with a civil war on part of its territory. That is a tremendous problem; one need merely cite Northern Ireland and the Basque region to show the difficulties that such a situation creates for the country concerned. It is difficult for the Russian authorities to create in Chechnya the political and economic infrastructure that will protect basic rights for the population. We understand all that.

The Assembly is therefore not sitting in judgment on our Russian colleagues, but is trying to help them to put an end to human rights violations in Chechnya. I am sure that our Russian colleagues are on our side as we attempt to achieve that objective. No one can be in favour of the most basic violations of human rights that have taken place, and are taking place, in Chechnya.

We must accept the facts. For his report, Mr Bindig has tried to gather as much information as possible about what has happened and about what is going on now. Paragraphs 6 to 52 of the report present a shocking picture, even if some elements of that picture may be faulted, as our Russian friends assure us, although they have not yet substantiated that. I urge all members, including our Russian colleagues, to accept the report. I know that they will say that the political situation is changing and that the new constitution will bring improvements. I hope that that is so, but that is no reason to gloss over the terrible facts of the report.

If we are willing to accept that those facts are facts, it is not difficult to accept the precise, detailed and constructive recommendations that the rapporteur has made with the support of a vast majority of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The recommendations in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the draft recommendation are eminently reasonable. They seek an end to the terrorist activities of the Chechen fighters, which the rebellious factions in Chechnya must do for themselves. Next, we ask the Russian authorities to discipline Russian troops and stop them committing violations; that is something that only the Russian authorities can do. We ask further that, instead of the current climate of impunity, those who are responsible for atrocities are brought to justice. Only the Russian authorities can do that. Our Russian friends claim that that task belongs to the new Chechen political and judicial institutions, but it will take at least a generation, perhaps longer, before those institutions can function properly and exercise authority.

Who is to act in the meantime? Our Russian friends take exception to the recommendation in paragraph 10.iii that an ad hocinternational tribunal should be set up to try war crimes and crimes against humanity. The two previous speakers also objected to that. I must remind them that the recommendation is conditional: the tribunal would be instituted only if the Russian and Chechen authorities did not intensify their efforts to bring to justice those who have committed grievous crimes. I am sure that our Russian friends agree that those who are responsible should be punished. It is up to them to take strong measures to catch and punish the perpetrators of evil. If they are unable to do so, surely they will welcome the help of an international tribunal.

In sum, the Socialist Group commends the rapporteur for his continued efforts to monitor the situation in Chechnya and to co-operate with our Russian colleagues. The recommendations seem reasonable, and we sincerely hope that our Russian friends will recognise that and act accordingly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Jurgens. I call Mr Frunda on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – For almost ten years, we have systematically observed human rights in Chechnya – or more precisely, the violating of human rights in Chechnya. More or less, we are witnessing the same scenario: on the one hand, we have the Chechen fighters, which some call bandits or terrorists; on the other, we have the forces of the Russian army. Both sides accuse each other of committing atrocities.

As for the Chechens, I have never approved of some of their terrorist actions, such as the one that took place in the Dubrodka theatre in Moscow last October. We have to admit that their actions are desperate, and ultimately a response to the aggressive intervention of Russian Federation forces. On the other hand, the Russian intervention forced hundreds of thousands of Chechens to leave their country. The Russian military committed mass killings in Alkhan-Yurt, Grozny and other places. Mass graves have been found in other parts of Chechnya, too. Russian soldiers are accused of raping women and kidnapping, of disappearances, of the torture of civilians legally or illegally arrested, and of other violations of human rights.

Our Assembly has adopted many recommendations and resolutions, asking the combat forces to have a cease-fire immediately in order to solve the divergent issues politically, to observe human rights, to allow Chechens to return to their homes, and to bring to justice those who have committed the crimes that I have just mentioned. It would not be accurate to say that the Russian authorities did not take some action to stop the fighting and to punish those responsible. They made many promises to the Council of Europe, but in reality they did very little to get things back to normal.

Appointing a new special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for observing human rights in Chechnya and starting legal proceedings against some Russian soldiers is not sufficient to put an end to the fighting and to start Chechnya’s reconstruction. Those charged with the crimes must be brought to justice, so that people will be convinced that their rights will be observed and that such crimes will not happen again. Otherwise, the general opinion will prevail – it is quite strong in Russia and in other member states of the Council of Europe – that the Russian military can do whatever it likes and that the authorities not only tolerate its actions, but covers them by providing impunity. Convicting the criminals is the only way that the Russian authorities can convince their own citizens of their will to create a democratic country in which human rights are observed.

Issuing an amnesty for all crimes committed in Chechnya, as the Russian authorities did, will not lead to reconciliation or negotiation between criminals and victims. On the contrary, the amnesty law will deepen the gap between the two sides and reduce the possibility of implementing the rule of law in Russia. The amnesty for crimes committed by Russian soldiers will strengthen the international community’s perception that the Russian authorities are trying to remove the legal responsibility for the actions of the Russian army. Thus, Russian soldiers will be encouraged to take justice into their own hands, since they will not be punished.

If none of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity are to be sued in Russia – I am talking about only such cases – international justice should take action. An international legal mechanism should be created for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Council of Europe, as the sole pan-European institution monitoring human rights in all of its forty-five member states, has not only the possibility but an obligation to ask that those responsible for such crimes be tried by an international justice mechanism. Why cannot those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Srebrenica or Kosovo be convicted? The same applies to those who committed crimes in Alkhan-Yurt or Grozny. If we do not apply a unique standard to all of the Council of Europe’s member states, our activity is aimless.

I congratulate Mr Bindig on his objective report, and before I conclude I should like to make some brief remarks about the recent referendum in Chechnya. I have well-grounded suspicions and serious doubts about the results, given that hundreds of thousands of Chechens were chased from their homes and were unable to express their will, that the Russian army controls everything in Chechnya, that independent observers could not monitor the referendum, and – most surprising of all – that the head of the electoral bureau in Chechnya, Mr Ashmadov, stated without hesitation that the referendum was monitored by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, even though, as we all know, none of us was there. Despite this, I hope that that this referendum represents a new beginning that will serve the interests of the Chechens and of the Russians.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Sultygov, Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation to the Chechen Republic.

Mr SULTYGOV (Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation to the Chechen Republic) said that the turnout of 88% at the referendum could be viewed as a protest vote with the electorate expressing concern about abuses of human rights and demanding an elected government and fair judiciary. It was important that this was the first of many referendums; after all of them had taken place it would be possible to begin to correct human rights abuses. Eleven countries had sent observers to the referendum and journalists had also been present. This could not have happened under Dudaev. It was necessary to have basic infrastructures in the country in order to integrate civic and human rights. He referred to the need to create a civil society and social institutions in Chechnya which for the last 150 years had been impossible.

On the day of the referendum, people had been able to vote. Nobody had stopped them from doing so and observers had been amazed at how smoothly it went. He believed that the referendum would bring peace closer. He noted that the result of common effort had been a real decision and the beginning to the political process. Chechens had supported the referendum and representatives of the Chechen Parliament had also courageously given their support.

A clear decision needed to be taken on a wide amnesty for those involved in the abuses that had taken place. All the work that had been done had led to a good result, and the Council of Europe’s support was very important.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Before I call the next speaker, I must ask the spectators in the gallery to be quiet. If they are not, I shall have to ask for everyone in the gallery to leave. Please keep order.

The next speaker is Lord Judd.

Lord JUDD (United Kingdom). – I warmly congratulate my good friend Rudolf Bindig on his excellent report. During the past three years, it has been a great experience and a privilege to work with somebody so deeply committed to everything for which the Council of Europe stands, and his report reflects that. I also congratulate the Secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which has assiduously over the years stuck to its guns, if that is not the wrong expression, and fought for the rights central to our purpose.

For all of us who have done this work over the past three years, the abuses of human rights, disappearances and illegal killings have haunted us day and night. We do not leave them in Chechnya; we take them home with us. To see the anguish of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters whose next of kin have been murdered and who have had indescribable things done to them is unbearable. To see that in a country that is a member of the Council of Europe at the beginning of the twenty-first century is a shame on us all.

For those who have tried to grapple with this, there is mounting frustration. Repeatedly we have asked for things in Moscow at a high level. The gap between the number of allegations and cases pursued and the number brought to a satisfactory conclusion is enormous. It is a charade. This is not the administration of justice as we expect it from a member state of the Council of Europe.

I am convinced that it would be best if those things were dealt with by Russian legal institutions. After all, the Council of Europe is about establishing the rule of law in the cause of protecting human rights. We want the rule of law to work in Russia with strong legal institutions. That is the right way but the evidence is that there is little progress, if any, on these issues by the legal institutions of Russia. Hence – in desperation, I suspect – Rudolf Bindig decided to argue for some alternative method.

I conclude on this note. All of us must carry the shame of what is happening in Chechnya but it is easy to tackle it from the formal, legal level of condemnation. What really matters is finding a political solution. Mr Sultygov talked about the referendum and said that history will judge whether it was valid or not. However, it has happened, but anyone who deceives themselves into believing that a premature and rushed referendum is going to bring viable peace and stability to Chechnya, with all its history, is living in wonderland.

There has been a bitter, cruel and bloody civil war in that country and peace and stability will be built only when the different factions and parties to that conflict sit around a table and start negotiating to look for common ground and what is necessary for a political solution.

Without a political solution, we shall never have a perfect human rights situation in Chechnya. We will be merely putting our fingers into the dyke, trying to stop the flood waters coming through. We need to build a strong dam to protect human rights and to provide political stability for the people of Chechnya and the Russian Federation. That will take hard and honest negotiation between different parties to the conflict.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Ékes.

Mr ÉKES (Hungary) said that the world was fighting against terror and dictatorship. Hungary had experienced dictatorship for many years. He emphasised that human rights were the priority of the Council of Europe and that human rights violation and terrorism was occurring in Chechnya. The Council of Europe must act as the path to normalisation that had not been found in Chechnya. The referendum in Chechnya had not been legitimate and that led him to believe that the report deserved his support.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Masseret.

Mr MASSERET (France) said that the report talked of a dirty war in Chechnya which had included many breaches of human rights. He thought that the Chechens, even though described as independence fighters, were as much to blame in that situation as the Russians. However, he said that Russia was a great country with a proper army but it did not act this way in respect of human rights. He stressed that leaders, both political and military, must make their soldiers respect life and dignity and put an end to human rights violations in Chechnya. He commented that Russia had not done much at all to improve the situation in Chechnya. He thought that the referendum would not, in fact, move the country out of conflict. He understood Mr Bindig’s frustration but he thought that the report and resolutions within it would not occur. He said that he was powerless and that a solution could not be found through the Council of Europe. He urged delegates to use the instruments available to them such as their ministries, heads of state and governments to put pressure on the Russian Federation to stop the atrocities in Chechnya.

(Mr Gross, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Schieder.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Marty.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) said that the Council of Europe was powerless and that it had been discussing the situation in Chechnya for a long time. He said that a lot of action had been taken but had resulted in nothing. He praised the report, and the whole series of reports on Chechnya, but said that the Assembly could not continue in that way. The report included a resolution for action in September if human rights had not, by then, been established in Chechnya. That resolution had to be acted upon. The Council of Europe could not continue to congratulate itself on the report and could not continue only to speak on the matters without taking effective action. The toleration granted by the Assembly to abuses had to have limits, otherwise it would undermine the credibility of the Council of Europe.

The world had expressed its outrage at the violation of human rights by major powers. The Assembly had to grasp the opportunity to give the Council a voice and press the Council of Ministers for action. It should not confine itself to the production of beautiful reports.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Zavgayev.

Mr ZAVGAYEV (Russian Federation) said that the Chechen people had suffered greatly. He knew their suffering as he had lost a brother in the conflict and knew what misery the Chechen bandits had caused. However, a political process had begun. The referendum had taken place, the State Council would be established shortly and appointments had already been made to the Supreme Court. Of course violations of human rights and atrocities had occurred and continued, but progress too had been made. Some 90% of the Chechen population had demonstrated their desire for democracy and stability.

The establishment of a war crimes tribunal would be a grave mistake; it would destroy all the progress made over the past three years. What was needed was the return of the displaced peoples and the proper functioning of the hospitals. The Assembly needed to help to restore justice to the region. The political developments so far would enable them to bring to justice those who had committed crimes. However the report exaggerated the problems and missed the point that the amnesty was vital to future progress. This could not be expressed too strongly. The Assembly should reject the idea of an ad hoc war crimes tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Zavgayev. The next speaker is Mr Grachev.

Mr GRACHEV (Russian Federation) said that it was possible to focus on the limitations of the referendum, but to the people in Chechnya it represented the best way forward. It had been conducted in a fair and proper way and the people had voted for peace and justice. The future political arrangements envisaged a sharing of power and an element of self determination.

The report concentrated on the human rights issues. While that was reasonable, it went too far in calling for an ad hoc tribunal. It was important to help the Chechen people and not hinder them. They would not be helped by the setting up of such a tribunal. Lord Judd had visited Chechnya very many times, he was an expert on the subject and he had never made that proposal.

The international community was preoccupied with other issues at present and therefore would probably not establish a tribunal. Following the large turnout at the referendum, help should be provided to encourage normal development in Chechnya.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Grachev. The next speaker is Mr de Puig.

Mr DE PUIG (Spain) supported Mr Bindig’s report and thanked him for his courage in presenting it and thereby reminding the Assembly that human rights abuses were ongoing. He condemned the unacceptable lack of progress and supported the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. It was necessary to bring to justice those responsible for abuses from all sides. Despite the imperfections of the referendum, he did not reject it out of hand because it had introduced a new constitution, which might improve conditions. Chechnya and the Russian Federation should not be allowed any further excuses and it was time to see whether there was the political will to put an end to the human rights abuses in Chechnya.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) expressed concern about the continuing human rights abuses in Chechnya. Recent examples included soldiers killing a handicapped young man, arresting and torturing fifty people, and in February, following the disappearance of a young woman, a headless and handless body had been found in an unidentified grave. It was not enough for the human rights violations to decrease; they must stop.

The Assembly needed a Russian delegation which did not behave in the old Soviet fashion of sending in the military and then denying that crimes against the civilian population had occurred. Peace would be possible only if those who had committed atrocities were brought to justice. A reliable war crimes tribunal would be a credible signal to starting reconstruction in Chechnya.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kelemen.

Mr András KELEMEN (Hungary). – The key sentence in the Bindig report states that there cannot be peace without justice in the Chechen Republic. If we are to alleviate the humanitarian problem, there must be a sincere effort at redress. As far as I can see, however, Moscow is unable to recognise that one can make peace with enemies, but not with vassals.

The official Russian standpoint is that the process of restoring normality in Chechnya is going well and that there are no political problems, apart from terrorism. To take that view is to deny that political problems lie at the root of an endless series of human rights violations. It is to say, “No more OSCE assistance group in Chechnya, no more Committee for the Prevention of Torture.” It is to say, “Let the occupying forces vote on behalf of the Chechen population.”

Over the past decade, Chechens themselves have been responsible for crimes against humanity. In fighting oppression, they have inflicted senseless damage on their own nation. Yet the causes of that aggressive and uncontrolled behaviour have been rooted in their historical experience. Having themselves suffered so often from acts of wholesale destruction, supporters of Chechen independence have learned only one language from their Russian opponents, and that is the language of aggression.

The Russian answer to Chechen aspirations for independence has been collective punishment. Now, following the so-called referendum, the occupying power seeks to install a Quisling-type government. I hope that we all agree that such behaviour is not acceptable from a member state of the Council of Europe. Mr Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, recently criticised American intervention in Iraq by saying that one cannot export democracy with Tomahawks. Why, then, does the Russian Government suppose that such tactics will work in Chechnya?

It is high time that we did something to bring about a just peace. I urge the Council of Europe to support the recommendation, and I thank Mr Bindig, our rapporteur, for his excellent work, as I thank Lord Judd, the previous rapporteur, for his work in search of a durable peace in such sad circumstances.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Kelemen. I call Mrs Nabholz-Haidegger.

Mrs NABHOLZ-HAIDEGGER (Switzerland) said that there had been countless meetings with the Russian authorities aimed at tackling the gross human rights abuses and brutal crimes in Chechnya and to bring those responsible to justice. However, although there had been fine words, there had been little action. Human rights abuses should be investigated and tackled, but there was no evidence to date that that was happening. Mr Bindig’s call for an international body to be set up was valid and a logical response because the Russian authorities had not acted. The law of the jungle could not be allowed to prevail, but people were unwilling or incapable of resolving matters.

She did not agree with her Russian colleagues that the referendum would be a key factor in healing the wounds of the past. She believed that for a successful reconciliation process, action and facts were required. Illegal acts that had occurred must be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. She thanked Mr Bindig for his work and supported all the points made in the report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mrs Nabholz-Haidegger. I call Mr Popov.

Mr POPOV (Russian Federation) said that he understood that the Council of Europe focused on the topic of human rights and therefore had discussed the situation in the Chechen Republic a lot. Sixteen members of his own party had recently been killed and these members had been fighters, but had laid down their weapons so that they could find a peaceful resolution. The report had looked only at the legal aspect of the conflict, but it was not possible to separate the political and legal aspects. The report should have investigated the whole issue. It should have dealt with all human rights including elections, the right of the population to choose a president and its members of parliament, the right to employment and also social welfare.

The Russian Federation had never said it would not investigate war crimes. The report said that the problem was the Russian occupation of Chechnya. It had suggested the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal, but this was confusing as it could not be separated from political issues in the area. He called for Mr Bindig to have more time to do further investigations and suggested that he should report to the Council at the next session.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Chaklein.

Mr CHAKLEIN (Russian Federation) said that he had been a participant in the process of analysing human rights in Chechnya since its beginnings in the Council of Europe and that he had constantly looked at the situation. He said that if he had read only Mr Bindig’s report, he would have been shocked. He encouraged the Council delegates to look at the situation from other angles, as he had done. The report should have investigated human rights properly and should have used the number of cases investigating servicemen that had not yet come to a conclusion. The Council of Europe had repeated many of the old arguments against the Russian Federation, but it should have looked at the whole situation and assessed the human rights situation by indicators such as education, employment and enterprise. If the discussion was to be based on the subject of human rights, it should be done so on the basis of his perspective. Life had changed for the better in Chechnya but this was not reflected in the report. As for the proposal to establish an ad hoc tribunal, this was nothing more than a joke.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Caccia.

Mr CACCIA (Observer from Canada). – Russia is Canada’s neighbour to the north and therefore its well-being and prosperity are important to us. We follow what happens there with a keen eye and believe that, as a good neighbour, we can be, when necessary, open and frank. That is why we regret the tragic events in the Moscow theatre as much as we deeply regret the violence, terror, agony and loss of life suffered by the Chechen people.

The Bindig report urges a number of steps. We support them and we sincerely hope that our colleagues in the Russian delegation will take note of the recommendations and appreciate the spirit that motivated them. We hope that they will register those recommendations with their colleagues in the Duma and the Federal Council.

The Bindig report conveys the values that are the foundation of the Council of Europe: namely, the protection of human rights. We hope and expect that those values are supported by members of the Russian delegation; otherwise they would not be here.

In February 2000, the appointment of Mr Vladimir Kalamanov as special presidential representative for human rights in Chechnya and that of his successor were greeted as promising steps. However, their role seems to have evaporated. Perhaps our Russian colleagues could tell us what happened to that worthy initiative.

A speech on human rights in the Chechen republic must also address the 23 March referendum on a new constitution and elections. The referendum was a far-reaching consultation with the public, but it also had serious flaws in the manner and atmosphere in which it was conducted. For instance, how does one explain the virtual absence of a public debate among citizens and in the media during the weeks leading to the referendum date?

The smooth running of the referendum and the absence of violence on referendum day are of some comfort, but the absence of engagement by the public in the discussions of the referendum proposals and the inclusion in the vote of Russian soldiers stationed in Chechnya cast a big shadow on the validity and purpose of the referendum.

It would be remiss of me not to refer to the leadership and fine work of Lord Judd, for whom we in the Canadian delegation have the greatest admiration and esteem. We therefore regret very much his resignation, which will leave a huge vacuum. We hope that he will decide to continue to be active on this issue so that the Council can benefit from his talents.

At the same time, we regret and deplore the unwarranted personal criticism in some Russian media, which was attributed to certain members of this Council. A criticism of Lord Judd’s ideas would be part of the search for a solution, but the vitriolic personal attack levelled at him was offensive and unworthy of the standards set by this great institution, the Council of Europe.

We therefore hope that personal attacks will not occur again. Chechnya and its complex problems require thoughtful contributions of the kind Lord Judd ably made in the difficult pursuit of a democratic and lasting solution.

History so far has not helped in resolving the Chechnya situation. To offset history, what we need is a great amount of political will and goodwill on the part of all those who are genuinely concerned about the Chechen people.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) reminded the Assembly that it had been the action of the Russian Federation in dismantling refugee camps in Chechnya that had initiated the Assembly’s interest in the region. The report rightly noted the fact that the last of the camps had been dismantled and few other countries could match the Russian Federation’s record in this respect.

The massive turnout in the referendum was not in the style of a Soviet election, but had been a real and true reflection of the will of the people and the mature application of the standards upheld by the Assembly.

The report was unnecessarily negative in many respects and it virtually denied that there had been any progress since 2000. The Russian Federation was committed to future co-operation and participation in the work of the Assembly but this was threatened by the proposal for an ad hoc war crimes tribunal. That was something for the UN to propose and it had not done so. It was to be hoped that the Assembly would accept the balanced amendments suggested by Russian members.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kroll.

Mr KROLL (Poland) said that, while the conflict in Iraq was dominating world politics, the conflict in Chechnya must not be forgotten. There were human rights violations being perpetrated by both the Russian military and Chechen rebels. He supported Mr Bindig’s resolution and thanked him for the objective and exhaustive detail outlined in the report. It was important to increase transparency through involving non-governmental organisations. The Council of Europe, the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development should all take stringent measures to stop human rights abuses. An ad hoc tribunal would be indispensable if the Russian Federation were to refuse to ratify the statute from the international criminal court. Despite human rights abuses by Chechen rebels, the Council of Europe should begin by addressing those on the Russian side. If it were not possible to make progress with the Russian Federation, it would be extremely difficult to proceed with scattered groups of Chechen rebels.

THE PRESIDENT. – I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect three members of the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will close at 1 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the polling station behind the President’s chair.

I now call Mr Kovalev.

Mr Nikolay KOVALEV (Russian Federation) said that the amnesty had not been set up to exonerate Russian servicemen, despite earlier statements from Mr Frunda. All perpetrators must be punished. The Russian Federation had established a good working group between the Duma and the Parliamentary Assembly, but the group would be reminded about the importance of taking all cases of abuses seriously. It was inappropriate to rely on the NGOs who preferred to turn to the mass media rather than the Council of Europe. The Assembly should remember that the judicial system in the Russian Federation was being changed, and should be improved. Any court should be within the Chechen Republic and all criminals, including servicemen, should be tried. The President of the Russian Federation was prepared to provide broad autonomy within the federation. The first thing that came to mind when the issue of an international tribunal arose was the difficult question of defining what was meant by the word terrorism. He appealed to the Assembly not to support the proposal for such a tribunal as it would face this problem.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Zhirinovsky.

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that the Chechen people had a fascist approach. In other countries where similar difficulties had arisen, the government killed such people. He noted that full justice had not been achieved in Germany since the second world war, and that whereas Russian troops had been withdrawn, Germany remained an occupied country.

The Russian army had not done what was alleged in Chechnya; it was Chechens who had provoked the problems. The Russian Federation had sent troops to Chechnya to shoot bandits. They had crossed what was Russian terrorist and had been shot at by thugs who sold drugs for weapons. He said that there should be a tribunal, and that those to be prosecuted should be those who provoked the trouble.

Russia had been the first to face problems from Islamic people and Russia had maintained the Caucasus’s front. He believed that there would be a third world war in the next few years with nuclear weapons and that Russia should be supported rather than provoked.

He noted that the Council of Europe had responsibilities. He supported the idea of an international tribunal and considered that the first person to appear before it should be Mr Bindig.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Zhirinovsky. I now call Mr Markowski.

Mr MARKOWSKI (Poland). – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a representative of the opposition centre-right Law and Justice Party in the Polish Parliament, I have to say that we are very concerned about the violation of human rights in the Chechen Republic. The uncontrolled proceedings have lasted more than a decade, and that is too long to stand aside and do nothing constructive about the problem.

It is high time to ask ourselves the question: is this a problem for the Russian Government alone, or is it a problem for the whole world? In my opinion, the majority of ordinary people are not well informed about the real scale of the problem. The Russian authorities seem to hide the true face of the situation in Chechnya from public view. The Chechen Republic has practically been closed off and there is almost no access for journalists and non-governmental organisations.

The most important thing that we can do immediately is to bring to light the mass killings, unexplained disappearances, tortures and rapes that occur in this region. We cannot let those crimes remain unravelled or, worse, forgotten. The Chechen nation has been living in constant fear, both of the Russian forces and of the Chechen military gangs who rob their own citizens. More often than not, the Russian forces seem to make no distinction between fighters and civilians.

The human rights situation in the Chechen Republic is unacceptable. The violence must stop, and those guilty of past abuses must be brought to justice. We must protect the Chechen nation from total extinction. If Russia is not willing or not able to fulfil its obligations, the international community must step in. We must condemn the fact that Russia has yet to authorise the publication of the reports of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

We support the motion that the Russian forces should be withdrawn from the Chechen Republic to decrease tension in the region. We also support the idea of political talks with President Mikado. Perhaps it is possible, even if only once, to hear about President Mikado’s aims, and hear his evidence. Members of the Russian forces suspected of committing abuses should be fully investigated, and if found guilty, severely punished in accordance with the law, regardless of their rank and position.

We also agree that the Chechen fighters should immediately stop their terrorist activities and renounce all forms of crime. To ensure that human rights are respected in the Chechen Republic in future, we also support the recommendation that the international community should consider setting up an ad hoc tribunal to try war crimes and crimes against humanity in this region, modelled on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We regard observing human rights in the Chechen Republic as a basic element of the restoration of democracy across the region, and we agree that the Council of Europe should continue to monitor the situation in order to bring about peace.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Markowski. I now call Ms Severinsen.

Ms SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – First, I thank Mr Bindig warmly for his important report. Reading it makes one very sad, because of the many cruelties that are still going on in Chechnya. Cleansing of the cities is still happening, as are disappearances, arbitrary killings and rape. Mass graves are still found. For nearly a decade, people in the Chechen Republic have lived in constant fear, and their situation has been unbearable, especially for the ordinary people, who are caught in a crossfire. In the daytime, they fear the brutalities of the Russian army and at night they fear the Chechen terrorists. That situation cannot continue.

I therefore fully support the resolution and the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Terrorism should be stopped, and those guilty of crimes should be brought to justice. The resolution takes note of the possibility of bringing inter-state complaints before the European Court of Human Rights, which we talked about earlier, and also the idea of establishing an international criminal tribunal. I am not sure about that idea. We must decide what is most helpful for the Chechen people right now. I appeal to the Russians to take seriously their responsibility for bringing those criminals to court. They say that they do, but it is too little and the process is too inefficient. They have to ensure that criminals are not only brought to court, but punished if guilty.

The Russians need to be more open about what is going on. They must co-operate more with the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and, in a spirit of openness, allow the report to be published. Only when Russia controls its troops and investigates human rights violations can we talk of being on the road to a lasting political solution. Russia claims that the referendum is the first step on that road, but I doubt that. The Council of Europe was right not to legitimise the referendum, which was not representative of ordinary citizens.

I was impressed by the enormous turnout and majority. Such results are only seen in the former Soviet Union but, as Lord Judd said, the referendum has taken place. That is a fact. Russia says that the event marks a new beginning, but it must prove that, and I am a little pessimistic. However, I have no wish to be a Cassandra. I sincerely hope that it is a new beginning, but Russia has to implement a policy of openness. It must negotiate with all parts of the changed society so that people believe that the future lies in their own hands.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Rogozin.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) discussed the events that had occurred within the Council of Europe. He said that members of the Russian delegation had been pressurised and that they had been spoken to in an unacceptable tone, and the delegates would not accept that, especially when they had been attempting to be constructive.

It was not acceptable for the Council to criticise the recent referendum when it had failed to send any observers. The referendum demonstrated hope for the Chechens and was an attempt by the Russian Federation to promote dialogue. Chechnya was Russia’s problem and it would be resolved without giving up principles.

He questioned why the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights report did not include any political opinion on the issue. The Russian Federation would never agree with the result of a vote that went against the principles of the Russian delegates. He ridiculed the establishment of the ad hoc tribunal as suggested in the report – that was not facing reality. There was a court in Chechnya already established for the purpose of protecting human rights. By suggesting the establishment of the tribunal, the report had increased tension and caused more problems.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Korobeynikov.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that Chechnya was not a colony but an integral part of Russia. The Russian Federation did not want its territory to disintegrate. There had been an acknowledgement that mistakes had been made but the establishment of an independent Chechnya was not the only route to a solution.

The report concentrated on human rights and justice but it was impossible to divorce these from economic and political issues. The Chechnya of the report was not a fair reflection of Chechnya today and the proposal to establish an ad hoc tribunal was deliberately inflammatory. Chechnya, and those countries that had a large Chechen diaspora, felt that the Council of Europe had not fully grasped the situation and, in some respects, they did not need Strasbourg or Moscow to tell them what to do. The political climate depended on taking account of ethnic minorities and there was a need for a conference of academics, rather than politicians, to give advice on this issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Korobeynikov.

Before I call Mr Agramunt, I must say that I have been informed by the Secretariat that members in the Hemicycle still have not voted in the election for judges. We need sufficient participation if the vote is to be valid. Colleagues should go behind the chair, and twenty-nine minutes are still available.

I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) asked how long this conflict had gone on with no obvious solution in sight. The report was well balanced and highlighted atrocities carried out by both Russian and terrorist groups. It was not the first time the Assembly had discussed terrorism and it would not be the last. It supported the fight against terror and decried acts such as that carried out in the Moscow theatre. However, there appeared to be contradictions within the Russian delegation when they looked at Chechnya and when they looked at other conflicts. They appeared to employ double standards. It was important to try to understand the position of the Russian Federation. It was to be hoped that the fight against terror would be conducted according to the rules of law.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Agramunt. I call Mr Gündüz.

Mr Süleyman GÜNDÜZ (Turkey). – I thank Mr Bindig for his factual and comprehensive report on the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic. The Assembly has been discussing Chechnya for a long time to no avail, with no concrete improvement in the situation and with no committed involvement. The Bindig report makes it clear that the picture remains dark. Mass murders, unlawful killings, disappearances, and torture – in short, grave human rights violations – continue. It is deplorable that the rule of law has been non-existent in a part of Europe and that human rights are unheard of.

An atmosphere of impunity reigns in Chechnya, encouraging human rights violations as well as denying justice to thousands of victims. Government structures fall short of establishing the effective administrative and judicial system that would enable protection against human rights abuses.

According to the Hasyurt agreement of 1997, both sides took the responsibility for resolving the issue peacefully. They signed several agreements in different fields, including customs. Russia’s second Chechen war started in 1999 and continues at full speed. Let me list some of its results: 10 000 civilians have been killed by indiscriminate bombardment, as has been mentioned in reports by various respectable human rights organisations, such as Memorial, and there has been systematic torture, humiliating and degrading behaviour, confiscation of goods, unlawful detention, and the application of intensive judicial punishments.

The Russian Federation’s statement that the situation in Chechnya has been normalised is an attempt to deceive us. If it were true, why would independent journalists and observers still not be allowed to enter Chechnya? All relevant international organisations should examine the facts without delay. As the standard bearer for the protection of human rights, the Council of Europe, in particular, cannot remain indifferent to the tragic dimensions of human suffering in Chechnya.

Bringing violators of human rights to justice is essential to achieve reconciliation in the region. Within this framework, the European Court of Human Rights must make the necessary arrangements to facilitate applications from Chechnya.

I fully endorse the draft resolution and the draft recommendation. I want to place special emphasis on paragraph 10 of the draft resolution, which foresees the setting up of an ad hoc tribunal to try war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Chechen Republic.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Yánez-Barnuevo on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr YÁNEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said that the Assembly had debated this issue on many occasions and it was frustrating to note the lack of progress. He supported Mr Bindig’s report and deplored the fact that Russian delegates viewed it as a slight on the Russian Federation; this was a debate about human rights. Mr Zhirinovsky’s speech had been violent and it was disgraceful that a number of other Russian delegates had applauded. The Russian Federation had behaved admirably in its stance against military action in Iraq and it was unfortunate that it had not been able to take a similar attitude in relation to its domestic situation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Nazarov.

Mr NAZAROV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation was not denying the need to protect human rights in Chechnya, but it was difficult to know how best to do this. There needed to be a peace dialogue with Chechnya. He asked Mr Bindig why his report had focused on a tribunal when the Russian Federation had begun a political settlement and when people in Chechnya were concentrating on developing the legal process. Once this had been established, Chechnya could decide who the criminals were and punish them accordingly. It was likely that establishing a tribunal would lead to more conflicts. He asked that the draft resolution be withdrawn or that the Russian Federations amendment be supported.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We have two more speakers to whom we are able to listen. I call Mr Dmitrijevas on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr DMITRIJEVAS (Lithuania) noted that the Assembly had received many reports on Chechnya and that this was yet another report containing new proposals. He referred to the referendum in Chechnya and considered that it was strange that doubts were now being cast upon it. It was unacceptable for a report to the Assembly that emphasised co-operation to contain threats and refer to doubts, as this one did.

He said that the idea of an ad hoc tribunal was an absurd proposal. Political steps had already been taken in terms of the referendum, which he believed reflected the Chechen people’s wish to end fighting and live in peace. He believed that, as politicians, the Assembly should support that process.

He disagreed with Lord Judd who had invited terrorists to talk to the Assembly. Had similar talks ever taken place with terrorists in Northern Ireland or with bin Laden?

THE PRESIDENT. – The last speaker is Mr Ziuganov.

Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) said that he had been against the policy pursued by Gorbachov, Yeltsin and now Putin, but from a political view he believed that the referendum in Chechnya should be supported.

He referred to events in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. He noted that Iraq was being bombed while the Assembly was wasting its time on the proposal for an ad hoc tribunal in the Chechen Republic. He called upon the Assembly to take a sensible decision and asked Mr Bindig to withdraw his proposal for the tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, dear colleagues for the debate, which has shown one of the strengths of our Assembly: there is no other assembly in which so many different points of view can be expressed. I remind those who could not speak but who are on the list that they can submit their manuscripts to the Table Office and they will be included in the official report.

I call Mr Bindig, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) thanked the many contributors to the debate and recognised that the report represented the collation of many data. He said that he had listened carefully to the Russian speakers and noted that they did not have much to say about the core problem, which was the human rights situation in Chechnya. They had highlighted positive developments such as the establishment of schools and hospitals and the economic growth in Chechnya, which he also recognised, but those factors must not be used to hide the human rights abuses.

He referred to Mr Zhirinovsky’s comments about the fact that human rights abuses were inevitable during war. He did not agree with this comment. He emphasised that Russia must act against human rights abuses. The investigators had talked to the local authorities during their visit, and he believed that those authorities were not effectively carrying out their functions.

He referred to a report by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in which he said that the situation in Chechnya had deteriorated during 2003. He emphasised that the international community must act as the Russian authorities were not effectively stopping human rights violations, and this was why he called for the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Lintner, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that the committee had had difficult and intensive discussions and that they had been careful only to use verified facts in the report. Every effort had been made by the committee to use the values of the Council of Europe, but they had been put under pressure. He called for this use of pressure not to occur in the future. The rapporteur had been aware of Russian concerns and had tried to meet some of these in the report. However, the Russian authorities could not be relied on to do the right thing, so the recommendations of the report should be agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

(second part)

THE PRESIDENT. – The first item of business this afternoon is the votes on the report on the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic, Document 9732 and addendum. First we will vote on the amendments to the draft resolution. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

If Amendment No. 22 is agreed, Amendment No. 1 will fall, if Amendment No. 13 is agreed, Amendments Nos. 25, 3 and 6 will fall, and if Amendment No. 25 is agreed, Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 and will fall. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We now come to Amendment No. 14, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, Kirilov, Cilevičs, André, Seyidov, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, in the last sentence, after the words “human rights situation” to insert the words: “which is only possible with the restoration of the rule of law and democratic institutions in the Chechen Republic,”.

I call Mr Gostev to support Amendment No. 14.

Mr GOSTEV (Russian Federation) said that the issue of human rights had not always been of concern and this amendment would make the report more balanced.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this amendment would mean that it would be possible to respect human rights only after all the institutions had been established, rather than straight away.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany) said that the committee opposed the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 14 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 15, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, Kirilov, Cilevičs, André, Seyidov, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, to add the following paragraph:

“The Assembly takes note of the results of the referendum held on March 23, 2003 on the draft constitution and the draft laws on elections of President and Parliament of the Chechen Republic and expresses the hope that the adoption of the constitution would be a first step towards a real political settlement, restoration of peaceful life, protection of human rights, and law and order in the Chechen Republic.”

I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 15.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that the amendment would ensure that, placed centrally in the report, would be the fact that a referendum had taken place.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Eörsi.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – The people who tabled the amendment want the Assembly to recognise the referendum. Many speeches stressed that it was premature and did not build confidence. We propose something different for later referenda because the preparation needs to be better. We should not approve a referendum that was wrong.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 15 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 16, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, Kirilov, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “For nearly a decade now” with the words:

“Since the separatist putsch in 1992”.

I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 16.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that this amendment would clarify how the events in Chechnya had begun.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the amendment would introduce terms that the report had never used.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 16 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 17, tabled by parliamentarians Rogozin, Dmitrijevas, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “the gross human rights abuses, the violations of international humanitarian law and the war crimes committed in Chechnya by both sides to the conflict” with the following text:

“the terrorist acts and other grave crimes committed by the extremist elements of the separatist regime and by illegal armed formations as well as human rights abuses perpetrated by the members of the federal forces”.

I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment No. 17.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that this amendment precisely set out that which is already spoken about in paragraph 3 of the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that it was important to realise that there were serious human rights abuses on both sides.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 17 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 18 revised, tabled by parliamentarians Nikolay Kovalev, Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, to replace the second and third sentences with the following text:

“The Assembly pays tribute to the courage of some brave victims, journalists, NGOs and human rights activists as well as honest officers of law-enforcement bodies who brought to light violations of law and who, despite a difficult situation, strive to restore justice. At the same time, the Assembly is disappointed that criminal investigations of gross human rights violations, including massacres of innocent Chechen civilians and targeted assassinations of local heads of administrations or their families, are nevertheless few and far between, depressingly ineffective and mostly fail to secure convictions in court (if they reach that stage, which is rare).”

Please note that the original wording has been changed. There was a printing error.

I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 18.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) spoke in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

There is no opinion from the committee.

The voting is open.

Amendment No. 18 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 19, tabled by parliamentarians Nikolay Kovalev, Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, Kirilov, Cilevičs, André, Seyidov, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, to replace the first sentence with the following text:

“Taking note of the recent statements of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, on the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic and measures undertaken by the federal and local authorities to improve it, including the creation of non-judicial redress mechanisms, such as the Office of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic, the Assembly however considers these steps insufficient.”

I call Ms Gamzatova to speak in favour of the amendment.

Ms GAMZATOVA (Russian Federation) appealed to colleagues to support the amendment as it recognised that mistakes had been made but also took into account the measures being taken by the Russian Federation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that accepting the amendment would suggest that institutions had had an effect, and that would not be correct, so he asked the Assembly to adopt the original text.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 19 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 20, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to replace the first sentence with the following text:

“The Assembly regrets that the mandate of the OSCE Assistance Group to Chechnya has not been renewed due to the lack of consensus among the OSCE participating states regarding its substance.”

I call Mr Margelov to speak in favour of the amendment.

Mr MARGELOV (Russian Federation) spoke in support of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) spoke against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 20 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 21, tabled by parliamentarians Nikolay Kovalev, Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to replace the words: “The European Court of Human Rights, set up to deal with individual violations of human rights, cannot hope to cope effectively with systematic human rights abuse of the Chechen scale via individual complaints” with the words:

“The European Court of Human Rights has just started to deal with individual complaints of residents of the Chechen Republic on human rights violations.”

I call Mr Slutsky to speak in favour of the amendment.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that it would be better to reflect the fact that the European Court had only just started its work, as that would reflect the reality.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this was an important point, but he could not accept the proposed changes.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 21 is rejected.

We come now to Amendment No. 22, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 8 with the following paragraph:

“Welcoming the discussion of a possible wide amnesty for persons who committed crimes in the Chechen Republic, and realising the importance of this step for achieving national reconciliation, the Assembly considers that amnesty should not extend to the cases of the most grave human rights violations.”

I call Mr Rogozin to speak in favour of the amendment.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) spoke in support of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that if the amendment was accepted, the phrase in the report referring to a “climate of impunity” would be lost, but such a climate did exist. He believed the amendment was an attempt to reject liability, and that was unacceptable.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 22 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, to replace the words “guilty of” with “responsible for”.

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 1.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) spoke in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to what is called Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4. However, this is not a sub-amendment – it was brought in as an amendment and it should stand as an amendment. Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4 states, in Amendment No. 4, replace the words “including humanitarian law and in particular the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the protocols thereto,” with the words:

“including international human rights law, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture”.

I call Mr Rogozin to support Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that this was not a sub-amendment but should have been tabled as Amendment No. 29, as it made reference to the documents of the Council of Europe which had been ratified.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig to speak against the amendment.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that he was against the amendment as the words Mr Rogozin wanted omitted were necessary to the resolution.

(The speaker continued in English)

You have not asked for the opinion of the committee.

THE PRESIDENT. – No, because the sub-amendment was not dealt with as an amendment in the committee, so legally no opinion of the committee can exist. That is why we are not asking for it.

The voting is open.

Sub-Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 4, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 9.ii with the following sub-paragraph:

“Russian forces be better controlled and discipline enforced: all relevant military and civilian regulations, constitutional guarantees and international law, including humanitarian law and in particular the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the protocols thereto, should be fully respected during all operations, including full co-operation with the prokuratura before, during and after such operations;“

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this was a minor amendment to the references to the Geneva Convention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Rogozin to speak against the amendment.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was not necessary.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). –The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We come to Sub-Amendment No. 2 to Amendment No. 4, tabled by parliamentarian Lloyd, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment No. 4, after the word “thereto”, to add the following words:

“, and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture,”.

With your permission, we will put the sub-amendment to a vote now. In my opinion, it should have been voted on before, but this mistake should not harm the right of Mr Lloyd, so I should like to put it to a vote now.

I call Mr Lloyd to support Sub-Amendment No. 2 to Amendment No. 4.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – The sub-amendment would accept the spirit of Mr Rogozin’s original amendment, in recognition of the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture are legitimate. However, it also preserves the very important words of Mr Bindig through the inclusion of a reference to the Geneva Convention. There is no doubt that the Geneva Conventions do apply in the situation of Chechnya, so it is very important that those words be protected. This sub-amendment combines the value of Mr Rogozin’s amendment with the integrity of Mr Bindig’s text.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). –The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Sub-Amendment No. 2 to Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

Amendment No. 4 now stands in its amended form and has been decided upon. I think that it would be correct for me not to put the question on the amended form of the amendment, as it has been agreed in its new form.

We now come to amendment No. 23, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.iv, to replace the words “those members of Russian forces” with the words:

“all those”.

I call Ms Gamzatova to support the amendment.

Ms GAMZATOVA (Russian Federation) said that the original text read that Russian forces guilty of abuse should be investigated. Clearly, all parties guilty of abuse should be thus charged and therefore the Russian reference was unnecessary.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland)said that the Chechen rebels had been specifically mentioned in a previous paragraph, and therefore the Russians needed to be specified in this one.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment relates to paragraph 9.iv and not 9.ii.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 23 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9.v, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“the Russian Federation authorise the publication of the reports of the CPT without further delay.”

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 5.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that it had been hoped that the report of the Committee on Torture would have been published in time for this report. As this had not been the case, the amendment was necessary.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)said that the appropriate channel for dealing with the point made by Mr Bindig was the European Convention against Torture. Under that convention, each state had the right to publish or not its own report. The amendment usurped that sovereign right.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to replace the words “guilty of” with:

“responsible for”.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this was the same problem that they had faced in paragraph 8 and that they wished to define “responsible for”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

The committee obviously is in favour.

The voting is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 26, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.ii, to replace the words “interstate complaints before” with the words:

“the follow-up to the decisions of”.

I call Mr Popov to support the amendment.

Mr POPOV (Russian Federation) said that it was wrong to try to use international pressure to force sovereign states to act in a particular way simply because the European Court could not fulfil its function.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that Assembly wanted member states to be able to lodge inter-state complaints

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 26 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 24, tabled by parliamentarians Rogozin, Dmitrijevas, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.ii, to replace the words “the exercise of universal jurisdiction for the most serious crimes committed in the Chechen Republic” with the words:

“the application of appropriate international legal standards in bringing to justice those responsible for serious human rights abuses in the Chechen Republic”.

I call Mr Rogozin to support the amendment.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that the movers of the amendment wanted to use more precise legal language. If a citizen was unhappy with an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights then they should not try to usurp the procedure of the national courts.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the supporter of the amendment clearly did not understand the position. Some states – for example, Belgium – had universal jurisdiction, whereas others did not.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 24 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 13, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Nikolay Kovalev, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André and Seyidov, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 10.iii.

I call Mr Chaklein to support Amendment No. 13.

Mr CHAKLEIN (Russian Federation) said that all crimes committed in the Chechen Republic clearly came under the jurisdiction of Russian courts and this amendment would violate usual international legal procedure.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Eörsi.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – This is the core of the report. If we delete it, basically, we delete the whole draft. Nobody wants to put the judicial system of Russia in question. What we put in question, however, are the efforts to bring to justice those who are guilty. We have models for that: Milošević is today in Den Haag. Those who agree with that will oppose the amendment, and will think that if no efforts are made in the future, the international community will have to consider the setting up of an ad hoc committee to address the future of human rights in Chechnya.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 25, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Podgórski, Hovhannisyan, Kirilov, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace the paragraph 10.iii with the following sub-paragraph:

“calls upon the Russian authorities to take without delay the necessary steps to empower the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to try all cases of serious human rights violations with the participation of representatives of the Chechen civil society in order to bring to justice all those responsible for such abuses, noting that appropriate international mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights, are available, should all domestic remedies be exhausted;”.

I call Mr Mignon to support the amendment.

Mr MIGNON (France) said that this amendment was in the spirit of the European Court of Human Rights.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Jurgens.

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation). – I was first.

THE PRESIDENT. – I decide.

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation). – This is not democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – If you say that again, I will ask you to leave the Assembly.

What is the opinion of the committee.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – This amendment may be even more dangerous than Amendment No. 13 either because it is superfluous – of course, the Chechen and Russian court should decide these matters in the first place – or because it wants to replace paragraph 10.iii, which proposes that, if that does not happen, and the whole gist of the report is that it is not happening at the moment, an international tribunal should do that. The Court of Human Rights has in any case no right to do what tribunals in The Hague can do: punish people. It is therefore not even comparable, and replacing 10.iii with this text would eviscerate the report. Furthermore, the text within the amendment says that the court should act with the participation of representatives of Chechen civil society – I have never heard of a court acting in that way; it would not be wise at all. Those two things together are reason to vote against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 25 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.iii, to replace the words “guilty of” with “responsible for”.

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this amendment clarified the meaning of “responsible for”.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case. The committee is obviously in favour.

The voting is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 6, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10.iii, to delete: “, modelled on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,”.

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr BINDIG (Germany). – What about the sub-amendment?

THE PRESIDENT. – First, I call you to support Amendment No. 6, and then I call Mr Jurgens to support Sub-Amendment No. 1. I then ask whether anyone is against the sub-amendment, and we vote on it. I then ask whether anyone is against Amendment No. 6, as amended, and put it to the vote.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this would remove from the report any comparison of this international tribunal with that in Yugoslavia.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1, tabled by parliamentarian Jurgens, which is, in Amendment No. 6, also delete the following words “, to be empowered to try all such crimes committed in the Chechen Republic”.

I call Mr Jurgens to support Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 6.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – The sub-amendment does no more than delete that part of the text that is superfluous: the last part of the text from “to be empowered” has already been said. For some reason, it was still in the text. It is therefore purely a formal amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

I call Mr Rogozin.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) spoke against the sub-amendment and proposed an oral sub-amendment that would replace existing text with the phrase “using existing legal mechanisms”.

THE PRESIDENT. – There is an oral sub-amendment to Amendment No. 6, too. Will you please present your further oral sub-amendment to allow me to decide whether it is in order, or whether the written sub-amendment will be voted on first? Will you please present it in English or French?

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) proposed his oral sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The oral sub-amendment is to say “using existing legal mechanisms” instead of “modelled on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia”. There have to be reasons for an oral sub-amendment to be accepted. The first reason would be if it made things clearer. I would not rule that it would. The other reason would be that it could lead to conciliation. That reason is valid, because if the oral sub-amendment were adopted it could lead to conciliation, so I shall allow it. Does anyone wish to challenge that? That is not the case, so the oral sub-amendment is valid. It is clear that if the oral sub-amendment is accepted, the existing Sub-Amendment No. 1 cannot be put, so I think that we should vote first on the oral sub-amendment.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – May I speak against it, Mr President?

THE PRESIDENT. – Wait, I have not finished. Perhaps it would have been possible to do this in a different order, but that is not a problem. We shall start with the oral sub-amendment. We have already heard a speech in support of it. Who would like to speak against it? I call Mr McNamara.

Mr McNAMARA (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. If we accept the oral sub-amendment, we would defeat the whole purpose of what is intended. The oral sub-amendment says that the existing legal mechanisms are sufficient to deal with the problems in Chechnya, but we are asking for an independent tribunal precisely because the existing legal institutions in Chechnya and the Russian Federation are not capable of dealing with the situation, as has been shown over the last few years. To accept the oral sub-amendment would be to defeat the whole purpose of the proposal; in many ways, what it suggests goes to the core of Mr Bindig’s report.

THE PRESIDENT. – Obviously, the committee cannot have an opinion on an oral sub-amendment, and we have heard speakers for and against, so we shall take the vote immediately.

The voting is open.

The oral sub-amendment is rejected.

Sub-Amendment No. 1 has already been moved, and we have heard a speech in favour. Does anyone wish to speak against it? I call Mr Popov.

Mr POPOV (Russian Federation)spoke against the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does the committee have an opinion?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

We will now deal with Amendment No. 6, as amended.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

Mr SHARANDIN (Russian Federation) spoke against Amendment No. 6, as amended.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – The committee is for the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 6, as amended, is adopted.

We shall now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Document 9732.

The voting is open.

The draft resolution, as amended, in Document 9732 is adopted.

We will now deal with the draft recommendation.

The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have been reissued in a revised form and will be taken as one amendment. If Amendment No. 12 is agreed, Amendments Nos. 29, 8 and 9 will fall. If Amendment No. 29 is agreed, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will fall.

We now come to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 revised, tabled by parliamentarians Rogozin, Dmitrijevas, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3, to delete the words:

“Considering the efforts undertaken so far by all actors involved, starting with the Russian Government, administration and judicial system, but also by the Council of Europe and its member states, have failed dismally to improve the human rights situation and to ensure that past human rights violations and particularly war crimes are adequately prosecuted, the Assembly recommends the Committee of Ministers:”

and insert the following words:

“Considering that additional efforts are necessary to improve the human rights situation that has developed in the Chechen Republic during the past decade, and that those guilty of past human rights abuses must be brought to justice without delay and further human rights violations actively prevented, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:”.

I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.

Mr SLUTSKY(Russian Federation) said that paragraph 2 should be deleted because it contained the most inappropriate wording and it did not relate to the real situation on the ground regarding to impunity

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany)said that he did not wish to have paragraph 2 to 4 as there was a problem with “climate of impunity” and they wished the Committee of Ministers to look more closely at the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT. – I am not asking for the opinion of the committee.

The voting is open.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3.ii, to add the following sub-paragraph:

“take all possible measures to increase the effectiveness of the current mandate of the Council of Europe experts working in the Office of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Chechen Republic as regards their possibility of influencing the human rights situation”.

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 7.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that he wanted the Committee of Ministers to extend the mandate or have experts look into the human rights situation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Gamzatova.

Ms GAMZATOVA (Russian Federation) said that the amendment would make the situation worse and it was not appropriate because the office of special representative had already done much work.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 12, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Nikolay Kovalev, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André and Seyidov, which is, in the draft recommendation, to delete paragraph 3.iv.

I call Mr Chaklein to support Amendment No. 12.

Mr CHAKLEIN (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was an attack on the dignity and sovereignty of the Russian Federation. The tribunal should not be set up.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Eörsi.

Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – It would be absurd to produce an inconsistent document. We already voted on this matter when we discussed the draft resolution. Most of us agree that people who abuse human rights are not dealt with effectively by the justice system. The amendment will not improve that. The ad hoc tribunal should be established. When we voted on the draft resolution, a huge majority voted in favour of that. We should do the same thing in the draft recommendation.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 29, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas,Rogozin, Podgórski, Kirilov, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in the draft recommendation, to replace paragraph 3.iv with the following sub-paragraph:

“urges the Russian authorities to take without delay the necessary steps to empower the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic to try all cases of serious human rights violations with the participation of representatives of the Chechen civil society in order to bring to justice all those responsible for such abuses, noting that appropriate international mechanisms, including the European Court on Human Rights, are available, should all domestic remedies be exhausted.”

I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 29.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that he supported the amendment because, while Russia had heard the message of the Council of Europe and was prepared to co-operate, it did not want a tribunal set up.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Zhirinovsky.

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) thanked the President for giving him the chance to speak and urged the Assembly to reject the leftist views of those from his country who did not want the tribunal. It was a necessary institution and the resolution without it was much weaker.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – Against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 29 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.iv, to replace the words “guilty of” with:

“responsible for”.

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that it was the same problem as before.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

The voting is open.

Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 3.iv, to delete the words:

“modelled on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,”.

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the amendment posed the same problem they had had before with the resolution. Again, the committee wanted to drop the comparison with the tribunal in Yugoslavia.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 9, tabled by parliamentarian Jurgens, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is in Amendment No. 9, also to delete the following words:

“, to be empowered to try all such crimes committed in the Chechen Republic”.

I call Mr Jurgens to support the sub-amendment.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – These words must also fall.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Chaklein.

Mr CHAKLEIN (Russian Federation)said that the text should remain as it was because obviously the tribunal would not happen anyway.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Sub-Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 9, as amended.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 9, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment No. 10, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 3, to add the following new paragraph:

“Furthermore, the Assembly decides to petition the Committee of Ministers by virtue of paragraph 1 of its 1994 declaration on compliance accepted by member states of the Council of Europe and recommends that the Committee of Ministers instruct the Secretary General to make contacts, collect information and furnish advice on the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic in accordance with paragraph 4 of its 1994 declaration on compliance with commitments.”

I call Mr Bindig.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the report quoted a declaration by the Committee of Ministers which empowered the Secretary General to act on human rights. The amendment called on the Committee of Ministers to use this power.

THE PRESIDENT. – The Secretary General has asked to make a point of information. He has the right to do so.

Mr SCHWIMMER (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – I want to inform the Assembly that what the amendment would do already happens on the basis of the declaration on compliance that has been accepted by the member states of the Council of Europe since 1994. The Committee of Ministers is seized of the situation and has invited me to provide it with regular information about the Council of Experts in the Office of the Special Representative of the Russian President. I am to collect information and give additional information. The Assembly receives reports from the experts and their addenda. That is exactly what the amendment requests. If the Assembly wants to repeat that requirement, it has the right to do so, but the Committee of Ministers will reply that that has been the case for more than two and a half years.

THE PRESIDENT. – We come to Sub-Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 10, tabled by parliamentarians Dmitrijevas, Rogozin, Hovhannisyan, Podgórski, André, Cilevičs, Galoyan and Manukyan, which is, in Amendment No. 10, to delete the words “instruct the Secretary General to”.

I call Mr Rogozin to support Sub-Amendment No. 1.

Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that he was not prepared to support the sub-amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. – I have nothing further to say, but that does not change the rules. The rules say that I must ask whether someone supports the sub-amendment. If no one does, it does not exist. No one supports it here, so it has fallen.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment No. 10?

I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against Amendment No. 10.

Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation)said that this amendment made the report too cumbersome.

THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The amendment stands.

The voting is open.

Amendment No. 10 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation, as amended, contained in Document 9732.

The voting is open.

The draft recommendation, as amended, in Document 9732 is adopted.

We will now deal with Amendment No. 11, tabled by parliamentarian Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft order, paragraph 2, to replace “its September 2003 part-session” with: “one of its 2004 part-sessions”.

I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 11.

Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that this amendment would delay the committee’s return to this subject until early 2004.

THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr LINTNER (Germany). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

Amendment No. 11 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft order, as amended, contained in Document 9732.

The voting is open.

The draft order, as amended, contained in Document 9732 is adopted.

Source: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

(T, A)