Doc. 11214
30 March 2007

Progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure

Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Rapporteur: Mr Eduard LINTNER, Germany, Group of the European People's Party

Link to the addendum


Summary

The Monitoring Committee is the only one in the Assembly which has a statutory obligation to submit an annual progress report on its activities. During the 10 years of its existence it has accompanied 20 member states in carrying out their democratic reforms.

This year’s Progress Report is special for two reasons: it constitutes the committee’s contribution to the debate on "the state of democracy and human rights in Europe"; its preparation coincides with the tenth anniversary of the committee’s creation. It is therefore much more than an “annual” report offering:

-       a brief overview of the evolution of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure from the 1993 Halonen Order to the 2006 novelty of periodic reporting on all Council of Europe member states which are not under a monitoring or post-monitoring procedure (currently 33) on the basis of a three-year cycle (11 states per year);

-       a country-by-country summary of all work carried out since the accession of the 10 states currently under monitoring (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Monaco, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine) and the 3 states involved in a post-monitoring dialogue (Bulgaria, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey), listing achievements and outstanding issues by reference to the latest texts adopted by the Assembly.

With respect to the new procedure of periodic reporting on member states not currently under a monitoring or post-monitoring procedure, the report presents the follow-up given to Assembly recommendations by the first group of 11 member states which were reported upon last year and examines the situation in the second group of 11 states which are reported upon this year: Greece, Hungary Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands (see the Addendum to this report).

Finally, the report takes stock of the main achievements after 10 years of activity of the Monitoring Committee and briefly presents challenges for the future.

In the first part of the draft Resolution proposed to the Assembly, the Monitoring Committee has identified positive developments but also areas with problems common to, or recurrent in, groups of states on which it has carried out specific work (monitoring, post-monitoring, opinion on applications to initiate monitoring or on requests for accession); the second part addresses recommendations to the 11 member states which are subject to this year’s periodic reporting.

A.       Draft resolution

1.       The Assembly acknowledges the important work carried out by its Monitoring Committee. The tireless efforts of the Committee to ensure full respect for democracy, the rule of law and protection of human rights have borne fruit in the 20 countries it has monitored in the 10 years of its existence. At the moment, 13 countries are under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue. The Committee is also investigating applications to initiate a monitoring procedure in respect of Italy and the United Kingdom and has actively participated in the accession procedure concerning Montenegro.

2.       Over the years, constant dialogue with the national authorities of the countries under monitoring enabled the Committee to set roadmaps often reflected in national action plans (for instance in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Ukraine) to fulfil specific commitments entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe. Progress has been made everywhere but there have also been setbacks, due to changing circumstances or political stalemates.

3.       The Assembly regrets that past wars and conflicts in Europe continue to hamper development and progress towards fully fledged functioning democracies: several thousands of persons are still reported missing in the Caucasus and in the Balkans; Georgia and Moldova have not been able to regain full control over their separatist regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Transnistria); the Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is still not solved. These regions qualify as "black holes" with regard to the effective protection of human rights. This applies also to Chechnya in the Russian Federation. International stewardship is still needed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.

4.       Although substantial progress has been made with regard to electoral reform, free and fair elections remain a problem in several member states. Elections on the other hand were considered globally free and fair in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro, Serbia, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Ukraine. Biased or insufficient media coverage of the electoral campaigns was of concern in Moldova and the Russian Federation. Concerns have also been voiced over postal voting fraud in the United Kingdom.

5.       In a number of countries, political life in Parliament is either monopolised by the strongest political party (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Russian Federation and, to some extent, Moldova and Turkey), totally polarised between two parties or blocs (Albania) or so fragmented that fragile coalitions have to be formed (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia). The abuse by opposition parties of boycott strategies or their refusal to participate in elections is not fostering the democratic process (Albania, Azerbaijan). The notion that a strong opposition is beneficial to every democracy and is not to be considered a nuisance is not yet anchored everywhere. Electoral thresholds remain too high in Georgia, the Russian Federation and Turkey. The role of parliament as a necessary counterweight to the executive power is understood in principle but often not in practice, as parliaments lack the necessary structures, staff and legal expertise.

6.       Constitutional reform is still very much needed to ensure a well functioning system of checks and balances. It has been achieved to some extent in Armenia, but is outstanding to various degrees in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey. For some recently adopted constitutions (Serbia), draft constitutions (Montenegro) or constitutional amendments (Georgia, Liechtenstein and Ukraine), compatibility with European standards remains a topical and in some cases urgent issue.

7.       Local self-government reform, in particular sustainable decentralisation, is a difficult and lengthy process that is not achieved in many countries. The minimum provisions of the European Charter for local self government are not yet fully implemented for example in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine.

8.       Excessive media concentration, state or oligarchic control of media outlets (the Russian Federation), continue to be of concern. An application to initiate a monitoring procedure with regard to the monopolisation of electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy is currently being investigated. Progress has been made with the setting up of public service broadcasters for example in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova.

9.       In a number of countries, civil society remains weak and unorganised and many NGO's, scientists, lawyers or human rights defenders face legal impediments in their work, harassment by the administrative authorities or costly lawsuits. In a welcome development, Ombudsman institutions (including at regional level in the Russian Federation and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") exist now in almost all member states, but still lack in some cases full guarantees for their independence and effective functioning.

10.       Full respect for the principle of the rule of law is the major challenge facing all countries under monitoring: the process of judicial reform proved to be longer and more complex than initially envisaged. It involves reform of the education system, notably higher education; the creation of professional academies for future judges, lawyers and police officers; effective mechanisms, including at constitutional level, to guarantee the independence of the bodies responsible for the selection, career and disciplinary procedures of judges and prosecutors; creation of bar associations; professional training; drafting of codes of ethics and substantial budgetary means. Judicial reform also requires revision or overhaul of substantial and procedural laws, especially in the field of criminal justice. The Assembly notes, with reference to the country reports of the Monitoring Committee, that progress has been made in all countries but that much remains to be done to adopt and ensure implementation of all relevant reforms.

11.       Corruption is a scourge affecting all European countries to various degrees. There can be no public confidence in State authorities if diplomas, judgments, positions, contracts or votes can be bought or traded. The Assembly therefore welcomes the adoption of anti-corruption strategies in almost all countries under monitoring but reminds them that words must be matched by deeds. A stable, professional, competent and reasonably well paid civil service is of paramount importance is this respect.

12.       As regards respect for human rights, the Assembly notes with satisfaction that the vast majority of countries under monitoring have ratified the relevant Council of Europe conventions in compliance with their accession commitments. The Russian Federation remains the only Council of Europe member state which has not ratified Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention) on the abolition of the death penalty. It is also the only member state which has not ratified Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, thus delaying its entry into force. The Assembly is also particularly concerned by the slow pace of ratification of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. Although ratifying conventions and enacting legislation is a pre-requisite, everywhere implementation on the ground and in practice remains the main stumbling block for the protection of human rights. This is a question of political will but also of administrative capacity and budgetary means. Also, the process of democratisation has to be accompanied by serious and lasting efforts in the field of education and human rights awareness-raising. Again the Assembly refers to the relevant Resolutions it adopted for each country upon proposal by the Monitoring Committee.

13.       Prison conditions, in particular overcrowding, are of concern throughout Europe. The Assembly welcomes in this respect the commendable efforts made for example by the Russian Federation, Georgia and Turkey, although much more needs to be done to abide by the standards set by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), in particular with regard to medical care. Experience has shown that the situation has improved as soon as prisons have been placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice rather than the Interior Ministry. Torture and ill treatment, in particular during police custody and pre-trial detention, have not yet been eradicated; neither has hazing of young conscripts. Although progress has undoubtedly been made over the recent years for example with regard to zero tolerance policies towards torture (Georgia, Turkey), the Assembly deplores that the CPT has had to resort for the third time to the exceptional measure of issuing a public statement about the situation in the Chechen Republic as the Russian Federation fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the CPT's recommendations.

14.       Censorship, numerous prosecutions, intimidation or even physical threats to journalists still occur in the Russian Federation, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Freedom of the press has improved in Ukraine. Some countries have completely (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Ukraine) or partly (Moldova and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") decriminalised defamation which is a welcome development. Professional ethics of journalism however still need to be improved in most countries. The Assembly welcomes the anti-discrimination action plans for the Roma (Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia), the registration of religious minorities (Armenia, Azerbaijan), the introduction of conscientious objection (Armenia, the Russian Federation but not yet Turkey or Azerbaijan). Problems remain regarding the legal status of churches, for example in Bulgaria, Moldova or Montenegro.

15.       The Assembly urges all states currently under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue to continue their co-operation with the Monitoring Committee and to implement all the recommendations contained in the country specific resolutions adopted by the Assembly. It stands ready to provide all the necessary support to the countries concerned through its parliamentary co-operation and assistance programmes.

16.       The Assembly is aware that the shortcomings identified by its Monitoring Committee in the 13 states currently under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue are sometimes misconstrued as unfair finger pointing by countries which have undergone tremendous changes often in less than a decade. The Assembly is also aware that democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights are never given once and for all and that the other 33 member states of the Council of Europe also need to be reminded of the need to respect their statutory obligations as member states of this Organisation.

17.       The Assembly therefore welcomes the initiative taken by its Monitoring Committee in 2006 with a view to also monitor the record of member states not currently placed under the Assembly's monitoring or post-monitoring procedure, to append to its annual progress report to the Assembly periodic reports on groups of states containing summaries of the findings of other Council of Europe bodies and institutions.

18.       On the basis of periodic reports attached to last year’s Progress Report of the Monitoring Committee on the first group of 11 member states (Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany), the Assembly, in its Resolution 1515 (2006), invited the states concerned to ratify a number of Council of Europe conventions providing for a monitoring mechanism. The Assembly regrets that since adoption of Resolution 1515 (2006) Belgium has not yet completed the legislative reforms required to ensure full execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Conka v. Belgium of 2 February 2002.

19.       The Assembly welcomes the fact that a few months later the authorities of two member states, namely Austria and Germany, informed the President of the Assembly of follow-up measures or explained the position of their government. It urges the authorities of the other member states concerned to also provide information on follow-up measures.

20.       The Assembly in particular welcomes the fact that, following the adoption of Resolution 1515 (2006), Austria and Belgium ratified the Civil Law Convention on Corruption, and Austria joined the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO); Andorra and Belgium ratified Protocol No. 14 Convention amending the control system of the convention; France ratified the European Charter of Local Self Government; the Czech Republic ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

21.       For this year, the Monitoring Committee has prepared periodic reports on the second group of 11 member states which are neither under a monitoring procedure nor involved in a post-monitoring dialogue: Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands. As last year, they are based on the country-by-country assessment made on these states by the Commissioner for Human Rights and other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms or other institutions.

22.       On the basis of these reports, which are appended to this year's Progress Report of the Monitoring Committee, the Assembly:

22.1.       invites the national parliaments of the countries concerned to:

22.1.1.       use these reports as the basis for a debate on their country's record with regard to the fulfilment of their statutory and conventional obligations as member states of the Council of Europe;

22.1.2.       promote execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and compliance with recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the other Council of Europe specific monitoring bodies, both by provoking and accelerating necessary legislative initiatives and exercising their role of oversight of government action;

22.2.       invites the European Union bodies, as far as applicable, to use these reports and take into account the findings of the Council of Europe human rights institutions and monitoring mechanisms, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the reports of the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee as well as the relevant resolutions and recommendations adopted by the Assembly;

22.3.       notes that:

22.3.1.       in Greece, the failure to ensure full execution of the Dougoz and Peers judgments concerning overcrowding in detention facilities led to the adoption by the Committee of Ministers of an Interim Resolution in 2005 (ResDH(2005)21). On 7 June 2006, the Committee of Ministers adopted another Interim Resolution (ResDH(2006)27) on two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning issues of reafforestation and violations of property rights in Greece;

22.3.2.       in Italy, despite repeated calls by the Assembly, most recently in its Resolution 1516 (2006), and the Committee of Ministers (ResDH(2007)2), structural deficiencies continue to cause repetitive findings of violations of the Convention for excessive length of judicial proceedings. The lack of progress towards the solution to the systemic violations of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions through "indirect expropriation" by Italy has led to the adoption of yet another Interim Resolution by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007 (ResDH(2007)3). Moreover, the Italian legislation still does not allow the reopening of domestic criminal proceedings impugned by the Court and no other measures have been taken to restore the applicants' right to a fair trial (ResDH(2005)85);

22.4.       The Assembly thus urges Greece and Italy to accelerate the adoption of general measures necessary to ensure full execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and effectively prevent similar violations of the Convention.

23.       The Assembly, noting that a number of the member states under consideration are not yet subject to certain specific monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation because they have not ratified the relevant conventions or have not joined the relevant bodies, invites the member states concerned to take the necessary steps within three years. Again, a special responsibility is placed on national parliaments to promote ratification. The Assembly notably urges:

23.1.       Liechtenstein and the Netherlands to sign and ratify, whereas Iceland, Ireland and Italy to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption;

23.2.       Liechtenstein to sign and ratify, and Greece and Italy to ratify, the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;

23.3.       Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein and Lithuania to sign and ratify, and Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands to ratify, the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, noting that all of them have ratified the 1990 Convention on the same subject-matter;

23.4.       Lithuania and Malta to sign and ratify, and Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Liechtenstein to ratify, Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights;

23.5.       Italy and Latvia to ratify Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights;

23.6.       Latvia and Liechtenstein to sign and ratify, and Greece, Hungary, Iceland and Luxembourg to ratify, the revised European Social Charter;

23.7.       Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta to sign and ratify, and Hungary to ratify, the Protocol to the European Social Charter on collective complaints;

23.8.       Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;

23.9.       Greece, Ireland, Latvia and to sign and ratify, and Iceland, Italy and Malta to ratify, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

23.10.       Italy and Liechtenstein to join the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

24.       The Assembly looks forward to the next Progress Report of the Monitoring Committee which will contain periodic reports on the 11 remaining states which are neither under a monitoring procedure nor involved in a post-monitoring dialogue (Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom). It expects full co-operation of all member states in this exercise.

B.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Lintner, Rapporteur

Table of contents

1.       Introduction

2.       Overview of the evolution of the assembly's monitoring procedure

2.1.       From the Halonen Order to the creation of the Monitoring Committee

2.2.       The evolution of the working methods of the Monitoring Committee

2.3.       The latest novelty: Resolution 1515 (2006) enabling the Monitoring Committee to carry out its mandate with respect to all Council of Europe member states

3.       Overview of the country-by-country monitoring procedures for the last 10 years

3.1.       Member states for which the monitoring procedure and the post-monitoring

dialogue have been concluded

3.2.       Member states currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

3.2.1.       Overview of the monitoring activities in 2006 and the first trimester of 2007

3.2.2.        Overview of country-by-country monitoring procedures since the accession of each state

3.2.3.       Member states currently under post-monitoring dialogue

3.3.       Applications to initiate a monitoring procedure

4.       Periodic reports on member states which are not under a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue

4.1.        Follow-up given to recommendations addressed in 2006 to the first group of 11 member states

4.2.       Recommendations addressed to the second group of 11 member states

5.       Stock-taking after 10 years of activity of the monitoring committee: main achievements and challenges for the future

Appendices

Appendix I:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the first group of 11 member states

Appendix II:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the second group of 11 member states

Appendix III:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the third group of 11 member states

1.       Introduction

1.       The Monitoring Committee is the only one in the Assembly which has a statutory obligation to submit an annual progress report on its activities, traditionally presented by its Chairman as Rapporteur.

2.       I am faced this year with a particularly difficult task because it has been decided that the Monitoring Committee with its specific country-by-country expertise should contribute to the debate on "the state of democracy and human rights in Europe" through its annual progress report. We normally submit this report to the Assembly at its summer part session.

3.       This year, we have been asked to submit it already in April, to include an overview both of the achievements and of the outstanding issues in the 13 member states currently under a monitoring procedure or a post-monitoring dialogue and to make recommendations to the second group of 11 states (from Greece to the Netherlands) that are being dealt with through the Committee's periodic reports.

4.       Given the Committee's very broad mandate, covering the three pillars of the Organisation (democracy, rule of law and human rights), it is impossible to list all the achievements made over the years by the states under monitoring. It is equally impossible to list all the Assembly's recommendations on outstanding shortcomings that still need to be addressed by these countries. Summarising both achievements and shortcomings for each country might be interpreted as a subjective endeavour. I feel I cannot substitute my analysis to that of the 20 rapporteurs to whose tireless efforts I want to pay tribute here.

5.       In view of the fact that April 2007 coincides with the tenth anniversary of this Committee's creation, I have decided to present the Assembly with a brief overview of the evolution of its monitoring procedure (below under chapter 2) and a country-by-country summary of the work carried out so far, listing achievements and outstanding issues solely by reference to the latest texts adopted by the Assembly. Hyperlinks to the texts adopted will enable those who have a special interest in this or that country to get a full picture (below under chapter 3).

6.       Follow-up to recommendations given by member states which were reported upon last year, as well as recommendations to the second group of states are presented in chapter 4 (see also the Appendixes and the Addendum).

7.       Finally, I have tried to take stock of the main achievements after 10 years of activity of the Monitoring Committee, briefly presenting challenges for the future (below under chapter 5).

8.       What I suggest in the draft Resolution is to identify areas with problems common to, or recurrent in, groups of states, based on the country-by-country approach contained in this explanatory memorandum.

2.       Overview of the evolution of the assembly's monitoring procedure

2.1.       From the Halonen Order to the creation of the Monitoring Committee

9.       The creation of the Monitoring Committee was the culmination of a long process of reflection with a view to establishing an effective parliamentary monitoring procedure. This process started in 1993 when the Parliamentary Assembly was the first body of the Council of Europe to set up a monitoring mechanism.

10.       Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was of paramount importance for the Assembly that the Council of Europe should rapidly welcome the "new democracies" despite their difficulties in advancing from a totalitarian regime to that of a pluralist democracy respecting human rights and the rule of law. For this reason, it has progressively introduced the practice of asking states, during the examination of their requests for membership, to undertake specific commitments on issues related to the basic principles of the Council of Europe and explicitly referred to in its accession Opinions.

11.       In order to ensure the respect of these commitments, the Assembly adopted, in June 1993, Order No. 488 (1993) on the honouring of commitments entered into by new member states, known as the "Halonen Order" (by the name of the rapporteur, Mrs Halonen, now President of Finland). The Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights were instructed, on an equal footing, to monitor closely the honouring of commitments entered into by the authorities of "the new member states" and to report to the Assembly's Bureau at regular six monthly intervals until all undertakings had been honoured.

12.       Two years later, in April 1995, Order No. 508 (1995) provided for the first time for a public Assembly debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the state concerned, thus rendering the Assembly's monitoring procedure transparent and more influential. The leading role was given to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The distinction between "old" and "new" member states – already softened following the adoption of Resolution 1031 (1994) – was now completely abolished: all member states were made subject to the Assembly's monitoring procedure.

13.       It was because of the importance and long-term nature of the parliamentary monitoring function that the Assembly decided, after another two-year interval, in January 1997, to strengthen further its monitoring mechanism by creating a new, permanent committee exclusively competent for monitoring. This is how our Monitoring Committee was created. In its founding text, Resolution 1115 (1997), the Assembly entrusted the committee with the task of "verifying the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by the member states under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties, as well as the honouring of the commitments entered into by the authorities of member states upon their accession to the Council of Europe". The terms of reference of the committee are appended to Resolution 1115 (1997).

2.2.       The evolution of the working methods of the Monitoring Committee

14.       Since its creation, the Monitoring Committee has systematically developed its working methods and procedures in a continuing effort to increase its impact and credibility. I shall mention only briefly the most important steps taken in this respect:

15.       In 2000, the committee introduced the mechanism of "post-monitoring dialogue" with the member states for which the monitoring procedure stricto sensu had been closed. This dialogue focuses on a number of specific issues mentioned in the Assembly resolution or recommendation bringing to an end the monitoring procedure1. Since 2002, the practice has been progressively introduced to organise fact-finding visits by the Chairperson or one of the Vice-Chairpersons to the countries concerned. The flexibility of this mechanism has allowed the committee to accompany the efforts for further democratic reforms in a number of member states. In some cases, it has proved to be a useful tool in preventing the re-opening of monitoring procedures. Also, the relevant documents of the committee have served as an important source of information for the European Union in the framework of its assessments of applicant states.

16.       In 2005, the rules governing the opening or re-opening of a monitoring procedure were amended in order to allow for a public Assembly debate in case of diverging opinions between the Monitoring Committee and the Bureau of the Assembly as to whether or not a monitoring procedure should be initiated with respect to a given state2. Thus the Bureau of the Assembly can no longer block initiatives approved by the committee, as had happened in the past with respect to a request for opening a monitoring procedure for Liechtenstein3. Debating in plenary Assembly sessions whether or not a state should be put under a monitoring procedure will raise the visibility of the Assembly's efforts to ensure compliance by member states with their membership obligations4.

17.       Since 2002, the committee has progressively increased its responsiveness and made full use of its political mandate by consolidating its ability to react in a timely manner to current political events and recent developments in states it is monitoring. It has done so by introducing the practice of presenting reports to the Assembly, occasionally under urgent procedure, "on the functioning of democratic institutions" or other specific subjects (such as, for instance constitutional reform) in the member states under monitoring, without having to wait for the parliamentary delegations concerned to submit comments within three months on an initial draft report. This practice, made possible thanks to the full co-operation of the parliamentary delegations concerned, has led to several debates on the functioning of democratic institutions for instance in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, on the constitutional reform in Armenia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Ukraine. Since 2004, the Committee has also introduced the practice of adopting public declarations5 and regularly declassifying its information notes. By doing so, it has been able to send a strong political signal to member states when deemed necessary and also to increase its own visibility, and thus impact and credibility.

18.       The committee has increasingly been associated to the exercise of election observation in member states under monitoring: its rapporteurs, as a general rule, participate in the pre-electoral or observation missions to the countries for which they are responsible. The committee is also represented in the Council of Democratic Elections of the Venice Commission.

2.3.       The latest novelty: Resolution 1515 (2006) enabling the Monitoring Committee to carry out its mandate with respect to all Council of Europe member states

19.       A criticism often levelled at the Committee in the past was that there had been no monitoring procedures in respect of long-term Council of Europe member states, with the notable exception of Turkey (procedure opened in 1996 and closed in June 2004). A quick glance at the Monitoring Committee's founding text – Resolution 1115 (1997) – clearly shows that this development was an anomaly and a departure from the original concept of the monitoring procedure as adopted by the Assembly ten years ago.

20.       After a thorough reflection on various options which would enable the Monitoring Committee to carry out its full mandate, the committee opted last year for one of the most realistic ones, namely: the preparation of periodic reports on all member states not currently subjected to a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue (i.e. at the moment 33 states), sub-divided into three groups, on the basis of a country grid indicating for each country the record of ratifications or signatures of the main Council of Europe instruments which provide for a specialised monitoring mechanism and summing-up the findings of such mechanisms when applicable. The committee proposed to attach such periodic reports to its annual Progress Reports to the Assembly, with each group of (currently 11) countries reported upon every three years (see Doc. 10960).

21.       Country reports summing-up the findings of Council of Europe specialised monitoring mechanisms were prepared and reproduced in an Addendum to the Monitoring Committee's Progress Report (for the period May 2005-June 2006) on the first group of 11 member states (Doc. 10960 Addendum), chosen on the basis of alphabetical order: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany.

22.       Among the Council of Europe bodies and institutions whose country-by-country assessment was taken into account to prepare these periodic reports appear all those which are now invited to participate in the joint debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe, namely: the European Court of Human Rights; the Commissioner for Human Rights; the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe; the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission); the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT); the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), and the European Committee of Social Rights. The periodic reports also include references to the Committee of Ministers as regards the execution of the judgments of the Court, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Select Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures (MONEYVAL).

23.       Without additional resources, the Monitoring Committee has thus enabled the Assembly and the public at large to become aware of the main issues at stake within the countries concerned and, at the same time, of the relevant work carried out by the Council of Europe. The option chosen has also provided a mechanism of parliamentary oversight of the activities of the intergovernmental sector of the Council of Europe.

24.       The Assembly welcomed the initiative taken by the Monitoring Committee and the preparation of such country-by-country periodic reports in its Resolution 1515 (2006), adopted in June 2006. The reception by the member states concerned has also been positive. The recommendations addressed to them, the follow-up given as well as the recommendations addressed to the second group of 11 member states dealt with this year are presented below in chapter 4.

3.       Overview of the country-by-country monitoring procedures for the last 10 years

25.       During the 10 years of its existence, the Monitoring Committee has accompanied 20 member states in carrying out their democratic reforms.

26.       11 monitoring procedures, opened under the previous system of Order No. 508 (1995), were taken over from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. They concerned: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey and Ukraine. Resolution 1115 (2006) instructed the Monitoring Committee to resume work on procedures from the point at which they stood.

27.       Upon a proposal by the Monitoring Committee, a monitoring procedure was opened for Latvia in September 1997.

28.       The accession of new member states led to the simultaneous opening of a number of monitoring procedures for: Georgia in 1999; Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2001; Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002; Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 (now two independent states), and the Principality of Monaco in 2004.

3.1.       Member states for which the monitoring procedure and the post-monitoring dialogue have been concluded

29.       The procedures regarding Estonia and Romania were closed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights just before the Monitoring Committee was set up6. However, in 2000, the Monitoring Committee initiated a post-monitoring dialogue with these two states. This dialogue was concluded shortly afterwards, at the end of 2000, with Estonia (Doc. 9475) and two years later, in 2002, with Romania (Doc. 8935 Addendum). A progress report on Estonia's record as regards its statutory obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe was presented to the Assembly in June 2006 as part of the Monitoring Committee's Progress Report (Doc. 10960 Addendum)7. A similar report on Romania will be presented to the Assembly in 2008 as part of next year's Progress Report of the committee.

30.       The procedures regarding the Czech Republic and Lithuania were the first ones to be closed by the Assembly on the basis of a report presented by the Monitoring Committee. Recommendation 1338 (1997) and Recommendation 1339 (1997) bringing to an end the monitoring procedure for the Czech Republic and Lithuania respectively were adopted in September 1997. The post-monitoring dialogue with the Czech Republic was concluded in 2004 (Doc. 10405 Part 1) and with Lithuania in 2002 (Synopsis of the Bureau No. 2002/035). A progress report on the Czech Republic's record as regards its statutory obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe was presented to the Assembly in June 2006 as part of the Monitoring Committee's Progress Report (Doc. 10960 Addendum). A similar report on Lithuania is presented to the Assembly as part of the addendum to the present report.

31.       The Assembly closed the monitoring procedure for Slovakia in September 1999 when adopting Resolution 1196 (1999). The post-monitoring dialogue was concluded more than 6 years later, in January 2006 (Doc. 10794). A progress report on Slovakia's record as regards its statutory obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe will be presented to the Assembly in 2008 as part of next year's Progress Report of the committee.

32.       The monitoring procedure regarding Croatia was closed in September 2000 through the adoption by the Assembly of Resolution 1223 (2000) and Recommendation 1473 (2000). The post-monitoring dialogue with Croatia was concluded three years later, in 2003 (Doc. 9927). A comprehensive review on Croatia's record as regards its statutory obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe was presented to the Assembly in June 2006 as part of the Monitoring Committee's Progress Report (Doc. 10960 Addendum).

33.       The monitoring procedure for Latvia was closed in January 2001, through the adoption of Resolution 1236 (2001) and Recommendation 1490 (2001). The post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia was concluded 5 years later in 2006 (Doc. 10940). A progress report on Latvia's record as regards its statutory obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe is presented to the Assembly as part of the addendum to the present report.

3.2.       Member states currently under monitoring procedure or post monitoring-dialogue

34.       At present, 10 member states are under a monitoring procedure: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Monaco, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine. With three member states, the committee continues a post-monitoring dialogue: Bulgaria, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and Turkey.

3.2.1.       Overview of the monitoring activities in 2006 and the first trimester of 2007

35.       Since this report is meant to be an annual report, I am giving below a summary of the Committee's activities for the year 2006 and the first quarter of 2007. Further information on the state of play for each country can be found in the relevant country section of this report summarising the overall monitoring procedure for each of them (below under 3.2.2).

36.       In a number of the 13 countries currently under a monitoring or a post-monitoring procedure, 2006 was an important election year: parliamentary elections were held in Ukraine in March, the first after the Orange revolution, in "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in July and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October. Since the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan in November 2005 were once again deemed not free and fair, the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation were challenged on substantial grounds at the opening of the January 2006 part-session. On the proposal of the Committee, the Assembly then decided to ratify the credentials, but to reconsider the question after the partial re-run elections to be held in May 2006. In view of the results, the Committee in June 2006 proposed to ratify the credentials of the Azeri delegation at this stage and to examine the honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan in a comprehensive report which will be presented in April 2007.

37.       The referendum held in Montenegro in May 2006 led to the country's declaration of independence and marked the end of the dissolution of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In its opinion on the report on the consequences of the referendum in Montenegro which was debated under urgent procedure in June 2006, the Committee requested to be involved in the future accession procedure for Montenegro after the parliamentary elections to be held in the country in September, in order to ensure continuity with the previous monitoring procedure for the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, which had been a member of the Council of Europe since 2003. Concerning Serbia, the committee considered that the commitments entered into in 2003 needed to be redefined in order to be adapted to the new situation.

38.       Serbia held a constitutional referendum in October, reaffirming that it considered Kosovo an integral part of Serbia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the other hand, a proposal for constitutional reform aimed at improving the Dayton constitutional arrangements failed by two votes in Parliament in April 2006. This led the committee to organise an urgent Assembly debate on constitutional reform in June 2006, which set clear priorities for the authorities that would come to power after the October general elections.

39.       The committee also presented to the Assembly a comprehensive report on the situation in Georgia, two years after the Rose revolution in January 2006 and, following fact-finding visits to the countries concerned, two comprehensive reports on the situation in Albania and Armenia in January 2007. A number of other reports to be presented to the Assembly in 2007 necessitated fact-finding visits also to Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Moldova, Monaco, Serbia and Montenegro (prior to the declaration of independence of Montenegro), Montenegro, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. As a result, two comprehensive reports on Azerbaijan and Monaco will now be presented to the Assembly during the April 2007 part-session. I have also visited "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in January 2007 and prepared an information note for the attention of the committee. Two co-rapporteurs visited the United Kingdom from 26 to 28 February 2007 in order to prepare an opinion on whether or not a monitoring procedure should be opened in relation to electoral fraud. A fact-finding visit to the Russian Federation is scheduled from 26 to 29 March 2007.

40.       In October 2006, moreover, the committee instructed two of its rapporteurs for Georgia and the Russian Federation respectively to investigate the escalating tensions between the two countries. Following fact-finding visits in late November 2006, the Committee approved and declassified the Rapporteurs' information note which contained a number of concrete recommendations.

41.       In total 18 fact-finding visits were carried out by our rapporteurs in 2006 and 4 in the first three months of 2007.

3.2.2.       Overview of country-by-country monitoring procedures since the accession of each state

Albania

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Leo Platvoet, Netherlands, UEL and Mr David Wilshire, United Kingdom, EDG

42.       Albania is a member state of the Council of Europe since June 1995 [see Opinion No. 189 (1995)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure ever since. To date, Albania has ratified 68 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

43.       Following a first report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Albania presented by the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights in January 1997, the Monitoring Committee presented its own first report on Albania in June 2000, which led to the adoption of Resolution 1219 (2000). A second report presented in April 2004 led to the adoption of Resolution 1377 (2004).

44.       The Assembly observed the July 2005 parliamentary elections in Albania (see Doc. 10664). On the basis of the latest report on the fulfilment of obligations and commitments by Albania presented by the Monitoring Committee (Doc. 11115), the Assembly adopted Resolution 1538 (2007) in January 2007.

45.       In Resolution 1538 (2007), the Assembly welcomed the progress made by Albania and in particular the measures already taken to: establish and enforce a zero tolerance policy in the fight against organised crime, trafficking and corruption; improve the execution of final court decisions and increase the transparency of the government's work. It also praised the open and constructive policy which Albania maintained towards Kosovo.

46.       However, the Assembly regretted that Albanian political life continued to be dominated by confrontation and obstructionism. The poor political climate had again delayed major and urgently required reforms, in particular in the field of election legislation and the media. The Assembly attached great importance to the local elections of 18 February, which it considered a major test for the capacity of the Albanian authorities to organise free and fair elections.

47.       In its Resolution 1538 (2007), the Assembly recommended a number of concrete measures which the Albanian authorities should take to pursue further reform in the following areas: election legislation, local and regional government, the fight against corruption, domestic violence and trafficking in human beings, the judiciary and electronic media, the prevention of torture and respect of minority and children's rights.

48.       The Assembly resolved to pursue its monitoring on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Albania until measures taken or planned in these fields have produced tangible results.

49.       A few weeks after the adoption of Resolution 1538 (2007), the local elections of 18 February 2007 were observed by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe together with the OSCE/ODIHR. For the international observers, while the 18 February local elections provided for a competitive contest, they were another missed opportunity for Albania to conduct elections fully in line with OSCE Commitments, Council of Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections. Political parties fell short of respecting the considerable responsibilities granted to them by the law. While election day was calm overall, voting was marred by procedural shortcomings and in some places by tension (see Press Release 112/2007).

Armenia

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Georges Colombier, France, EPP/CD and Mr Mikko Elo, Finland, SOC

50.       Armenia is a member state of the Council of Europe since January 2001 [see Opinion No. 221 (2000)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure ever since. To date, Armenia has ratified 49 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

51.       During six years of Armenia's membership of the Council of Europe, the Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly no less than six reports on the honouring of its obligations and commitments, of which two under urgent procedure:

52.       On the basis of the first regular monitoring report debated in September 2002, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1304 (2002) in which it threatened Armenia with sanctions in case it would fail to ratify Protocol No 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights on the abolition of the death penalty before June 2003. In its Resolution 1361 (2004), adopted on the basis of the second regular monitoring report, the Assembly welcomed the abolition of the death penalty in Armenia and the ratification of Protocol 6. Only three months after the adoption of Resolution 1361 (2004), the organisation of a series of protests by the opposition parties in Armenia, contesting the results of the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2003 and calling for the holding of a "referendum of confidence" in President Kocharyan, and the violence with which the Armenian authorities reacted between the end of March and mid-April 2004 led the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia in April 2004 and to adopt Resolution 1374 (2004) on the basis of a third report by the Monitoring Committee. A fourth report on implementation of the last two resolutions – 1361 and 1374 – was submitted to the Assembly in October 2004 and resulted in the adoption of Resolution 1405 (2004).

53.       In its 2004 Resolutions on Armenia, the Assembly urged the authorities to organise a new referendum on the Constitution (a first one having failed for lack of a quorum in May 2003), since a number of fundamental reforms linked to the commitments entered into by Armenia were contingent on a revision of the Constitution. In view of the failure to organise such a constitutional referendum, the Monitoring Committee submitted to the Assembly a fifth report on the constitutional reform process in Armenia, on which a debate under urgent procedure was held in June 2005 and Resolution 1458 (2005) was adopted.

54.       The constitutional reform was in the end adopted through a referendum organised on 27 November 2005 and observed by the Assembly (see Doc. 10778). In January 2006, the Monitoring Committee adopted a declaration on the constitutional reform in Armenia, in which it welcomed the positive outcome of the referendum, but deplored the irregularities affecting the ballot and the serious abuses noted by the Assembly observers, giving rise in particular to doubts as to the real voter turnout and whether the quorum had actually been reached.

55.       In the latest comprehensive report on the honouring of obligations and commitments debated by the Assembly in January 2007 (Doc. 11117), the Monitoring Committee took stock of implementation of the constitutional reform and of progress with the legislative reforms that should accompany it (concerning some 51 laws), one year after the constitutional referendum and a few months before the parliamentary elections to be held on 12 May 2007. The debate led to the adoption of Resolution 1532 (2007).

56.       In Resolution 1532 (2007) the Assembly welcomed legislative measures taken to implement Armenia's constitutional reform, carried out with Council of Europe assistance. Conditions conducive to the fulfilment of many of the country's commitments have now been created, including: a better balance of powers; the election by Parliament of the Human Rights Defender; the right of access to the Constitutional Court for citizens, the Human Rights Defender and the parliamentary opposition.

57.       However, the Assembly regretted the irregularities that affected the constitutional referendum and the failure to take steps to sanction the cases of observed fraud noting that, since Armenia's accession to the Council of Europe, not a single ballot held in this country had been deemed fully free and fair. It warned that an improved political climate and dialogue between the ruling coalition and opposition would be necessary for the effective implementation of the new system of government provided for in the revised Constitution. Moreover, it noted that implementation of certain reforms, such as the reform of the judicial system and the fight against corruption, pluralism and independence of the media, as well as improvement in detention conditions and police conduct, would take more time than the reform of the legislation itself and recommended a number of concrete measures that the Armenian authorities should take in these fields in order to accelerate effective implementation. Referring to its earlier Resolution 1416 (2005) on this issue, the Assembly also regretted the lack of significant progress towards a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

58.       The Assembly resolved to pursue its monitoring until the current or proposed reforms have produced tangible results. It attached particular importance to the implementation of reforms in the fields of electoral law, the media and justice system, as well as to the conduct and organisation of the parliamentary elections in May 2007 and the presidential elections in 2008. The Assembly urged Armenia to demonstrate its capacity to hold these elections in accordance with international standards and ensure a pluralist and unbiased media coverage of the election campaign. The report of the Monitoring Committee gave full backing to any action by the Council of Europe and its member states aimed at assisting Armenia in accomplishing this task.

59.       The Assembly has been invited to observe the parliamentary elections of 12 May 2007. A pre-electoral mission to Armenia has been scheduled for 11 to 13 April 2007.

Azerbaijan

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Andres Herkel, Estonia, EPP/CD and Mr Tony Lloyd, United Kingdom, SOC

60.       Azerbaijan is a member state of the Council of Europe since January 2001 [see Opinion No. 222 (2000)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure ever since. To date, Azerbaijan has ratified 49 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

61.       During six years of Azerbaijan's membership of the Council of Europe, the Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly no less than seven reports on progress made by Azerbaijan in honouring its obligations and commitments, of which three focused on the functioning of its democratic institutions and two followed the challenging of credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan after the parliamentary elections of November 2005. More specifically:

62.       The first regular monitoring report and subsequently three reports on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan led respectively to the adoption of Resolution 1305 (2002), Resolution 1358 (2004), Resolution 1398 (2004) and Resolution 1456 (2005)8.

63.       In its Resolution 1456 (2005), the Assembly regretted that since its accession to the Council of Europe in 2001, all ballots held in Azerbaijan failed to meet basic democratic standards. This failure was regrettably also repeated during the last parliamentary elections of November 2005 and led to the challenging of the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation at the opening of the Assembly's January 2006 part-session. In its Resolution 1480 (2006), adopted in January 2006 on the basis of a report by the Monitoring Committee, the Assembly finally ratified the credentials of the delegation of Azerbaijan and instructed the Monitoring Committee to follow developments and report back to it in June 2006 in order to decide whether to reconsider the credentials. In the meantime, the Assembly observed the partial re-run of parliamentary elections of May 2006 (see Doc. 10941). In June 2006, in its Resolution 1505 (2006) the Assembly considered that, although progress was observed in the conduct of the voting on 13 May 2006, most of the requirements mentioned in Resolution 1480 (2006) had not been met. However, since co-operation between the Council of Europe and Azerbaijan remained essential and should continue for the purpose of preparing the 2008 presidential elections, the Assembly decided not to reconsider at that stage the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation. It instructed again the Monitoring Committee to continue to follow closely the developments in the country and to report back to it at its spring 2007 part-session.

64.       It is against this background that the Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly its seventh report on Azerbaijan (Doc. 11226), which is a comprehensive one covering the whole list of obligations and commitments undertaken by the country upon accession. It will be debated during the April 2007 part-session of the Assembly.

65.       In this report, the Monitoring Committee recognises the efforts made by Azerbaijan in a number of areas, such as: the on-going co-operation with the Venice Commission on the revision of the Election Code and of the law on freedom of assembly, the establishment of a Justice Academy, the increase of the number of judges and the organisation of exams for the recruitment of new judges with Council of Europe assistance; the recent pardoning by presidential decree of 11 prisoners appearing on the lists of NGOs members of the Task Force entrusted to follow-up the implementation of Resolution 1457 (2005) on political prisoners in Azerbaijan; the recently adopted National Action Plan for the Protection of Human Rights, as well as the constructive attitude of the President of Azerbaijan towards the search of a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

66.       However, the Monitoring Committee highlights a number of areas of concern and is insistent of the need to establish a dialogue between the ruling majority and the opposition both inside and outside the parliament; to further reinforce the role of parliament vis-ŕ-vis the executive and to improve the balance of powers; to increase the number and the quality of defence lawyers; to further encourage the work of the Task Force and ensure that it produces concrete results; to improve the general environment for the independent media in the country, which has regrettably deteriorated during the last months, and to find a definitive solution to the licence issue of the independent TV channel ANS without further delay; to put an end to torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents and within the army and to implement the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

67.       The Monitoring Committee proposes to the Assembly to pursue its monitoring on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan. It attaches particular importance to the forthcoming presidential elections in 2008 which must be the first in the history of the country to comply fully with international standards for free and fair elections.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Turkey, EDG and Mr Kimmo Sasi, Finland, EPP/CD

68.       Bosnia Herzegovina is a member State of the Council of Europe since April 2002 [see Opinion No. 234 (2002)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's procedure ever since. To date Bosnia and Herzegovina has ratified 56 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

69.       The Monitoring Committee presented its first report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Bosnia and Herzegovina in June 2004. In Resolution 1383 (2004), the Assembly noted that major progress had been achieved since accession in building a stable, functional and efficient state. The chairmanship of the Council of Ministers no longer rotates and new State level ministries, including a Ministry of Defence had been created in December 2003. The Parliamentary Assembly also welcomed the fact that, for the first time since the end of the war in 1995, the October 2002 general elections, considered globally free and fair, were mainly administered by the domestic authorities themselves (see Doc. 9621 Addendum II).

70.       Other positive steps taken were the setting up of a court at State level and the transfer or assumption of responsibilities from entity to state level in the fields of defence, intelligence, the judiciary, indirect taxation and the forthcoming police reform. As regards refugees and internally displaced persons, the Assembly noted with satisfaction that, almost nine years after the war, around one million people had returned to their pre-war homes or elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that implementation of property return laws reached 93% throughout the country. The Assembly regretted that the fate of thousands of missing persons was still unknown and urged the adoption of a state level law on missing persons.

71.       The Assembly also regretted that much of the progress achieved between 2002 and 2004 was a result of the constant pressure by the international community, and in particular the High Representative. It noted with concern that the co-operation and co-ordination between the different – and far too numerous – levels of authority were generally too low. The Assembly therefore called on the authorities and the political forces in the country to engage in a constructive dialogue on the issue of constitutional reform.

72.       Different options for a comprehensive constitutional reform were submitted by the Venice Commission, upon request by the Parliamentary Assembly, already in March 2005. Consultations between the leaders of the main political parties, facilitated by the USA, and with the constant advice of the Venice Commission, resulted in a constitutional amendments package which was to be submitted to Parliament end of April 2006.

73.       For the constitutional amendments to pass, a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives present was required. In a Declaration adopted in early April 2006, the Monitoring Committee urged all parties represented in Parliament to vote in favour of these constitutional amendments, which represented a first attempt of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take their future in their own hands and should be welcomed as such.

74.       Following the rejection of the constitutional amendments by just 2 votes on 26 April 2006, the Assembly decided in June 2006, upon request by the Monitoring Committee, to hold an urgent debate on constitutional reform in Bosnia Herzegovina. In Resolution 1513 (2006), the Assembly strongly regretted the failure of the constitutional reform and called on people and politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina to again discuss constitutional reform immediately after the October general elections. As a second step the Assembly also urged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by October 2010 at the latest, to draft and adopt a new Constitution.

75.       The October 2006 general elections were observed inter alia by the Assembly and were considered globally free and fair, although the Assembly regretted that due to the failure of the constitutional amendments in April, these elections were again held in violation of the prohibition of discrimination provided in Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights since only the constituent people (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) to the exclusion of "Others" could stand for election to the state-level Presidency (see Doc. 11101).

Georgia

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Hungary, ALDE and NN… (co-rapporteur to be appointed during the April 2007 part-session)

76.       Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe since April 1999 [see Opinion No. 209 (1999)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure ever since. To date, Georgia has ratified 51 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

77.       The Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly four reports on progress made by Georgia in honouring its obligations and commitments. The first one was debated in September 2001 and led to the adoption of Resolution 1257 (2001) and Recommendation 1533 (2001).

78.       In November 2003, the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee were in Georgia when massive but peaceful protests following the fraudulent parliamentary elections led to the Rose Revolution and the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze. A few weeks later, in early January 2004, the co-reporters were back in Georgia on the occasion of the presidential election which led to the election of Mikhail Saakashvili.

79.       In Resolution 1363 (2004) and Recommendation 1643 (2004) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Georgia, adopted in January 2004 (see also Doc. 10049), the Assembly acknowledged that the newly elected leadership could not be held responsible for the failure of the former regime to fulfil the country's obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe. As a sign of support to the new authorities and due to the extraordinary character of the transition that had taken place in Georgia, the Assembly therefore agreed to reconsider deadlines for Georgia's commitments to the Council of Europe.

80.       The new timeframe was set one year later, in Resolution 1415 (2005), adopted in January 2005. One year after the Rose Revolution, the Assembly made it clear that the post-revolutionary situation should not become an alibi for hasty decisions and neglect for democratic and human rights standards.

81.       Two years after the Rose Revolution, in January 2006, the Assembly debated the latest comprehensive report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia (Doc. 10779) and adopted Resolution 1477 (2006).

82.       In Resolution 1477 (2006), the Assembly noted with satisfaction that some specific commitments had been fulfilled and, in general, large-scale and long-term reforms had been set on the right track. The post-revolutionary euphoria had given way to more pragmatism. The Assembly welcomed the first tangible results in the fight against corruption and the reform of the police, as well as progress in developing a new generation of magistrates and improvements in the conditions in prisons and pre-trial detention centres. A nation-wide public service broadcasting had started operating and the work of the ombudsman had produced results.

83.       However, the Assembly was concerned that most reforms were still at the very beginning and major challenges still lay ahead. The authorities had to demonstrate, at every step, that their solutions in overcoming the inevitable problems and obstacles along the way fully abide by the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights. They should also be careful to always match words and deeds and to be open to dialogue and criticism. The Assembly reiterated its concerns, raised already in January 2005, that the strong system of government was not accompanied by efficient checks and balances. The opposition, as well as the media, remained weak and the electoral threshold was too high.

84.       The Assembly concluded that Georgia's progress could be regarded as generally encouraging but was still only a first step towards meeting its obligations and commitments. It thus recommended a number of concrete measures that the authorities should take to achieve this goal.

85.       Aware that full normalisation of the situation in Georgia was impossible without reaching a peaceful and democratic settlement of the conflicts in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Assembly commended President Saakashvili's efforts to push forward his peace imitative but at the same time was extremely worried that no real progress had been achieved on the ground and in the on-going negotiations. It called on all interested parties and in particular the Russian Federation to demonstrate their commitment, in principle and in practice, to a peaceful and democratic solution with full respect of the territorial integrity of Georgia.

86.       The Assembly resolved to pursue its monitoring until it received evidence of substantial progress, particularly with regard to the issues mentioned in Resolution 1477 (2006).

87.       Since the expulsion of four Russian military intelligence officers from Georgia, on 27 September 2006, and the serious sanctions the Russian authorities imposed against Georgia and its citizens residing in the Russian Federation, the long-lasting tensions between the two countries reached the bottom line, causing great concern to the Council of Europe and the Assembly in particular.

88.       The Monitoring Committee authorised one of its co-rapporteurs on Georgia, Mr Eörsi, and one of its co-rapporteurs on the Russian Federation, Mr van den Brande, to visit both countries and report back to the committee. The visit to Tbilisi took place from 20 to 22 November 2006 and to Moscow from 28 to 30 November 2006. Following a discussion on the information note prepared by Mr Eörsi and Mr van den Brande, the committee, at its meeting on 13 December, decided to ask for an urgent procedure debate during the January 2007 part-session. Considering the closing of the remaining Russian bases in Tbilisi ahead of time and the return of the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Tbilisi as first steps in the right direction, the Assembly decided not to hold the debate at that stage. On 23 January 2007, the Monitoring Committee adopted a declaration on the issue and declassified the information note on its rapporteurs' fact finding visits (AS/Mon (2006) 40 rev.), including a list of immediate steps the Georgian and Russian authorities should take.

Moldova

Co-rapporteurs: Mrs Josette Durrieu, France, SOC and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Lithuania, EPP/CD

89.       Moldova is a member state of the Council of Europe since July 1995 [see Opinion No. 188 (1995)] and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure since January 1996. To date, Moldova has ratified 62 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

90.       Following the fifth visit to the country by its co-rapporteurs9, the Monitoring Committee presented to the Assembly a report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova in April 2002 (Doc. 9418), which led to the adoption of Resolution 1280 (2002) and Recommendation 1554 (2002). A second report on the same issue (Doc. 9571) was presented to the Assembly only few months later, in September 2002, and led to the adoption of Resolution 1303 (2002). Subsequently, the Monitoring Committee presented an information report on the implementation of Resolution 1303 (2002) (Doc. 9772) to the Standing Committee at its meeting in Chisinau on 27 May 2003.

91.       In October 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1465 (2005) and Recommendation 1721 (2005) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova at the end of a debate on the fourth report presented by the Monitoring Committee in a three-year period (Doc. 10671).

92.       In Resolution 1465 (2005), the Assembly welcomed the fact that the situation of relative stability created after the March 2005 parliamentary elections (Doc. 10480) gave Moldova the opportunity to carry out the democratic reforms that were needed for the last 10 years. The Assembly presented a list of reforms which it was essential for the Moldovan authorities to implement if the country was to honour its obligations and commitments towards the Council of Europe. Furthermore, the Assembly noted with interest the latest initiatives aimed at achieving a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Transnistria.

93.       Only one month after the adoption of Resolution 1465 (2005), on 11 November 2005, the Parliament of Moldova adopted a timetable of legislative reforms taking up almost all the recommendations set out in the Assembly's Resolution as proof of the authorities' determination to bring their country closer to standards of the Council of Europe.

94.       In June 2006, the Monitoring Committee declassified an information note by its co-rapporteurs on their fact-finding visit to the country, including Transnistria, and Odessa (Ukraine) from 12 to 16 March 2006 (AS/Mon (2006) 12).

95.       As examples of the most substantial progress Moldova had made since the general elections of March 2005, the co-rapporteurs mentioned: the adoption of laws giving the opposition a controlling majority in the Auditor General's Department, the Central Electoral Commission and the Judicial Service Commission; the adoption of amendments to the law on intelligence and security services which led to the setting up in December 2005 of a special parliamentary control committee made up of representatives of all the political parties present in Parliament; the approval by parliament of a programme for its co-operation with civil society.

96.       In the list of outstanding problems, requiring urgent attention, the co-rapporteurs included: the independence of the judicial system; local self-government, including the election of the Mayor of Chisinau (which has failed four times due to la lack of quorum); the implementation of the reform of the broadcasting sector, including the independence of the public service broadcasting corporation TeleRadio Moldova; trafficking in human beings; religious freedom, including the execution of the Strasbourg Court's judgment of 13 December 2001 in the "Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v. Moldova" case10, the fight against corruption and the protection of the rights of sexual minorities.

97.       In conclusion, the co-rapporteurs regretted the delays with the implementation of the legislative timetable and the Action Plan under the European Neighbourhood Policy. Several reasons for these delays were put forward: relative government inertia, lack of co-ordination between the ministries concerned, an economic situation which was showing no real signs of recovery and the problems in Transnistria. On the whole, the difficulties encountered did not seem to be due to a deliberate obstruction of the reforms but rather to a lack of democratic culture and knowledge of how democratic institutions should function in an advanced democracy. There was still a considerable gulf between what was considered in Moldova as an important democratic advance and the reality of its implementation.

98.       Although in 2005 the search for a solution to the Transnistrian conflict was given a new boost with the Ukrainian plan, the co-rapporteurs regretted that there was still no sign of any significant breakthrough. Tension between the authorities in Chisinau and the breakaway region of Transnistria had increased in a regional context in which the Russian Federation was fully involved, but also Ukraine. Well aware of the serious problems caused by the conflict in Transnistria, the co-rapporteurs stressed that this conflict should not serve as an excuse for delaying the reforms the country so desperately needed. Perhaps the best way of showing the rest of Europe that Moldova is a modern, democratic, attractive country is to start by showing it to its own citizens in Transnistria. The Assembly had a role to play in this process, especially as it is a unique parliamentary forum where all the parties concerned can meet and debate. For this purpose, the co-rapporteurs made a few practical proposals, including the organisation of joint meetings of the parties concerned during PACE part-sessions, of hearings with Transnistrian NGOs etc.

99.       Following a more recent visit to the country from 12 to 15 November 2006, the co-rapporteurs prepared a preliminary draft report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova11 which was transmitted to the Moldovan parliamentary delegation for comments within three months in January 2007. An Assembly debate is scheduled for June 2007.

Monaco

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Pedro Agramunt, Spain, EPP/CD and Mr Leonid Slutsky, Russian Federation, SOC

100.       In October 2004, the Principality of Monaco became the 46th Member State of the Council of Europe [see Opinion No. 250 (2004)]. The monitoring procedure in this case was due to start 6 months after accession, i.e. in April 2005. To date Monaco has ratified 29 conventions out of 200.

101. The co-rapporteurs have carried out 2 fact-finding visits, in December 2005 and June 2006 and prepared their first report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Monaco. This report will be submitted to the Assembly in June 2007.

Russian Federation

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Luc Van den Brande, Belgium, EPP/CD and Mr Theodoros Pangalos, Greece, SOC

102.       The Russian Federation has been a member State of the Council of Europe since February 1996 [see Opinion No. 193 (1996)12]. To date the Russian Federation has ratified 49 conventions out of 200.

103.       The Monitoring Committee presented to the Assembly one information report in June 1998 (Doc. 8127) and two full reports in April 2002 and June 2005. The latter have led to the adoption of Resolution 1277 (2002) and Resolution 1455 (2005) and Recommendation 1553 (2002) and Recommendation 1710 (2005) respectively.

104.       Ad hoc committees of the Assembly, chaired in turn by the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, observed the parliamentary and presidential elections in December 2003 and March 2004 respectively. Both elections confirmed (Doc. 10032 and Doc 10150) that they were technically well administered but lacked elements of a genuine democratic contest and thus failed to meet the Russian Federation's commitments to the Council of Europe.

105.       Resolution 1455 (2005) welcomed the progress made by the Russian Federation towards honouring its obligations and commitments, notably the adoption of a new code of criminal procedure and a law on alternative military service, the substantial decrease of the number of inmates in penitentiary institutions, the signature of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (ETS No. 112) and the ratification of a border treaty with Lithuania. It regretted, however, that there had been very little progress regarding other outstanding commitments, including those related to the formal abolition of the death penalty, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova, the obligation to bring to justice those found responsible for human rights violations, notably in relation to events in Chechnya and judicial reform, notably of the Prokuratura.

106.       The Assembly also stressed that the Russian authorities should opt for solutions which are in line with the Council of Europe's legally and politically binding standards and principles. The Assembly further emphasised that the Russian authorities should not only significantly accelerate the pace of compliance with the remaining commitments, but also adjust the direction of some of the recent political, legislative, and administrative reforms. This is particularly important with regard to changes affecting the normal functioning of pluralist democracy which requires the organisation of free and fair elections, encouraging political competition (the Russian Federation has a high threshold of 7%), guaranteeing appropriate rights to the opposition, accountability of the executive power and independence of the media.

107.       Against this background, the Assembly resolved to pursue its monitoring until it received evidence of substantial progress, particularly with regard to the issues mentioned in Resolution 1455 (2005).

108.       In November 2005, the (then) Chair of the Monitoring Committee Mr György Frunda (Romania, EPP/CD), paid a visit to Moscow in order to call on Russian authorities to abolish the death penalty in law and to ratify Protocol No. 6 of the to the European Convention on Human Rights before the country was to take up the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. He reminded the authorities that the Russian Federation was the only one of the Council of Europe's 46 member states which had not yet done so.

109.       Following a visit to Moscow in April 2006, the co-rapporteurs issued a public statement in which they underlined that stability and democracy in the Russian Federation must go hand in hand without any compromise of the fundamental values and principles that unite the 46 members of the organisation. This statement, which also outlined key areas where accelerated reform efforts were considered desirable, in particular as regards compliance with and support of the most important Council of Europe instruments (ratification of Protocols Nos. 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, the prokuratura and law enforcement structures and fight against impunity, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens including in Chechnya, respect for human dignity in the army and places of detention, freedom of assembly and media, and combating interethnic, religious and racial intolerance, was approved by the Monitoring Committee on 7 April 2006.

110.       The co-rapporteurs carried out a fact-finding visit to Novosibirsk and Moscow from 26 to 29 March 2007, during which they focused on the issues of interrelations between local, regional and federal authorities; the implementation of reforms in far-away regions and respect of human rights and dignity in the army and detention centres, notably in the light of the public statement made by the CPT on the consistent refusal by the Russian authorities to engage in a meaningful manner with the CPT on core issues. They also enquired into the recent elimination of the oppositional Liberal Union of Right Forces (SPS) from participating in the recent regional elections in 13 regions of the Russian Federation.

111.       I visited Moscow in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee, together with the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Mr Dick Marty, from 1 to 3 April 2007 to discuss the urgent need for the Russian Federation to ratify Protocol No. 14, amending the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights. Russia is to date the only Member State which has not ratified Protocol No. 14.

112.       Since the expulsion of four Russian military intelligence officers from Georgia, on 27 September 2006, and the serious sanctions the Russian authorities imposed against Georgia and its citizens residing in the Russian Federation, the long-lasting tensions between the two countries reached the bottom line, causing great concern to the Council of Europe and the Assembly in particular13.

113.       The Monitoring Committee authorised one of its co-rapporteurs on the Russian Federation, Mr van den Brande and one of its co-rapporteurs on Georgia, Mr Eörsi, to visit both countries and report back to the committee. The visit to Tbilisi took place from 20 to 22 November 2006 and to Moscow from 28 to 30 November 2006. Following a discussion on the information note prepared by Mr Eörsi and Mr van den Brande, the committee, at its meeting on 13 December 2006, decided to ask for an urgent procedure debate during the January 2007 part-session. Considering the closing of the remaining Russian bases in Tbilisi ahead of time and the return of the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Tbilisi as first steps in the right direction, the Assembly decided not to hold the debate at that stage. On 23 January 2007, the Monitoring Committee adopted a declaration on the issue and declassified the information note on its rapporteurs' fact finding visits (AS/Mon (2006)40 rev.), including a list of immediate steps the Georgian and Russian authorities should take.

Serbia and Montenegro

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Charles Goerens, Luxemburg, ALDE and Mr Milos Budin, Italy, SOC

114.       Serbia and Montenegro became a member of the Council of Europe on 3 April 2003, after adoption of the Constitutional Charter by the parliaments of both Serbia and Montenegro and less than a month after the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. It was placed under monitoring procedure immediately upon accession [see Opinion No. 239 (2002)]. By September 2004, Serbia and Montenegro had already ratified 45 Conventions of the Council of Europe.

115.       In October 2004 the Monitoring Committee considered it was necessary to submit a report (see Doc. 10281) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Serbia and Montenegro which led to the adoption of Resolution 1397 (2004).

116.       The Assembly noted that the first period after the accession of Serbia and Montenegro to the Council of Europe was marked by the state of emergency in Serbia, imposed shortly after Zoran Djindjic's assassination and by numerous elections in Serbia (early parliamentary elections in December 2003 and presidential elections in June 2004, after almost two years and three invalidated elections), while in Montenegro the opposition boycotted Parliament since spring 2003. The Assembly regretted that the constitutional reform, aimed at making the constitutions of Serbia and Montenegro compatible with the Constitutional Charter, had not been completed within six months of the Charter's entry into force, i.e. on 4 July 2003. As a consequence, Serbia and Montenegro continued to be composed of two almost completely separate constitutional, legal, administrative and economic systems. The status quo was resulting in a constitutional vacuum and in ensuing constitutional, legal, administrative and political contradictions which was preventing the State Union and its institutions to be anything else but a nearly powerless shell.

117.       The Assembly also deplored that the first year since the accession of Serbia and Montenegro was marked by a considerable deterioration in the country's co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. It recalled that the situation in Kosovo and the lack of security of the remaining members of the Serbian and other non-Albanian communities, particularly after the eruption of the ethnic violence in March 2004, was also negatively affecting the situation in Serbia. Large numbers of internally displaced persons represented an additional financial burden for a country that was already hosting several hundred thousands of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

118.       In conclusion, the Assembly made a number of concrete recommendations and called on all moderate, pro-European and progressive political forces in Serbia and Montenegro to engage in dialogue and co-operation with the aim to stabilise and consolidate democratic institutions within and between the two member states of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. It resolved to continue to monitor the situation closely.

119.       The co-rapporteurs carried out two further fact-finding visits to Serbia and Montenegro in April 2005 (see Doc. AS/Mon (2005) 21) and May 2006, just before the referendum in Montenegro, which led to Montenegro's independence.

Serbia

Co-rapporteurs: Mr Charles Goerens, Luxembourg, ALDE and Mr Andreas Gross, Switzerland, SOC

120.       The referendum held in Montenegro in May 2006 marked the end of the dissolution of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In its opinion on the report on the "consequences of the referendum in Montenegro" which was debated under urgent procedure in June 2006 [see Resolution 1514 (2006) and Doc. 10980], the Monitoring Committee requested to be involved in the future accession procedure for Montenegro after the parliamentary elections to be held in the country in September, in order to ensure continuity with the previous monitoring procedure for the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, which had been a member of the Council of Europe since 2003.

121.       Concerning Serbia, as the continuing State of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in the Council of Europe, the committee considered that the commitments entered into in 2003 needed to be redefined in order to be adapted to the new situation.

122.       Serbia held a constitutional referendum in October 2006, reaffirming that it considered Kosovo an integral part of Serbia. The Assembly observed the referendum and also the parliamentary elections that were held in January 2007 (see Doc. 11102 and Doc. 11228). The co-rapporteurs will carry out a fact-finding visit as soon as the new Government is formed.

Ukraine

Co-rapporteurs: Mrs Hanne Severinsen, Denmark, ALDE and Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Liechtenstein, EPP/CD

123.       Ukraine is a member state of the Council of Europe since November 1995 and has been placed under the Parliamentary Assembly's monitoring procedure ever since [see Opinion No. 190 (1995)]. To date Ukraine has ratified 60 Council of Europe Conventions out of 200.

124.       During eleven years of Ukraine's membership of the Council of Europe, the Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly no less than nine reports on the progress made by Ukraine in honouring of its obligations and commitments. These include: four regular monitoring reports, two supplementary reports measuring progress made under conditional threats of sanctions in June 1999 and September 2001, a special report in April 2000 focusing on the reform of institutions in Ukraine, and two reports under urgent procedure on freedom of expression and the functioning of parliamentary democracy, debated in January 2001, and on political the crisis in Ukraine, debated in January 2004. The co-rapporteurs and members of the committee have actively participated in the election observations of the 2002 and 2006 parliamentary elections and the 2004 presidential elections.

125.       The regular monitoring reports presented between 1999 and 200314 observed severe shortcomings in the progress made by Ukraine in honouring its obligations and commitments and lack of willingness on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities to move the relevant issues ahead. The Assembly therefore repeatedly requested the Ukrainian authorities to take immediate measures that would allow substantial progress to be made, or face sanctions in accordance with Rule 9 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. Finally, in September 2001, the Assembly concluded in its Resolution 1262 (2001) and Recommendation 1538 (2001), that substantial progress had, indeed, been made, particularly with respect to the enactment of significant new legislation. However, two years later, in its Resolution 1346 (2003) and Recommendation 1622 (2003) adopted in September 2003, it observed that the progress of reforms was at a standstill and therefore resolved to pursue the monitoring procedure in respect of Ukraine in close co-operation with the Ukrainian delegation.

126.       In the years 2000-2004, the Assembly also held a number of debates on specific issues concerning Ukraine on the basis of reports prepared on behalf of the Monitoring Committee. In April 2000, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 1451 (2000) on reform of the institutions in Ukraine, in which it disapproved of the so-called referendum on the reform of the institutions. Five months later, following the murder of journalist Hyorhyi Gongadze in September 2000, the Assembly held a debate under urgent procedure on freedom of expression and functioning of parliamentary democracy, which led to the adoption of Resolution 1239 (2001) and Recommendation 1497 (2001).

127.       In reaction to the political deadlock over the controversial preliminary adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of a draft law on constitutional amendments and the ruling by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in December 2003 giving President Kuchma the right to run for a third term of office in the 2004 Presidential elections, the Assembly held a debate under urgent procedure at its January 2004 part-session and adopted Resolution 1364 (2004) in which it again warned that if any further attempts should be made to push through political reforms by amending the constitution in a manner which is not prescribed by law and is unconstitutional, or if Ukraine should fail to guarantee free and fair elections on 31 October 2004, the Assembly would resort to further sanctions.

128.       Three public statements were successively issued by the Monitoring Committee in the course of 2004, calling on the Ukrainian authorities to conduct the election process with absolute impartiality and respect for the Council of Europe standards and to allow all candidates to compete on fair and equitable grounds.

129.       The Assembly also observed all three stages of the presidential elections and welcomed the fact that the re-run second round of the presidential election on 26 December 2004 which led to the election of Mr Yuschenko as President of Ukraine, moved substantially closer to meeting the criteria of the Council of Europe, the OSCE and other international organisations for the holding of democratic elections (AS/Bur/UA (2004) 13).

130.       Nine months after the Orange Revolution, in October 2005, the Assembly debated the 6th and the latest comprehensive report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine (Doc. 10676) and adopted Resolution 1466 (2005) and Recommendation 1722 (2005).

131.       In Resolution 1466 (2005), the Assembly welcomed the first achievements of the new leadership, but cautioned that the post-revolutionary situation should not become an alibi for hasty decisions, infighting and neglect for democratic and human rights standards, and that the fight against corruption and the strengthening of the rule of law should become priority matters for Ukraine in order to build solid and lasting foundations for a stable, prosperous and democratic future.

132.       The Assembly regretted that the constitutional amendments of 8 December 2004, adopted as part of a package-deal to halt the political turmoil, contained provisions which the Venice Commission had repeatedly found incompatible with the principles of democracy and the rule of law, in particular with regard to the imperative mandate of people's deputies and the powers of the prosecutor's office, and urged these provisions to be brought in line with the Venice Commission's opinion as soon as possible.

133.       The Assembly also deplored the slow progress made in the investigation of the Gongadze and other high-profile cases and urged the new authorities to bring to justice the masterminds and perpetrators of the massive election frauds of the 2004 Presidential elections. It further recalled that a number of important specific commitments still remained unfulfilled. It therefore resolved to pursue its monitoring and to return to the assessment of Ukraine's compliance with its obligations and commitments after the March 2006 parliamentary and local elections, emphasising that the preparation and conduct of these elections in line with Council of Europe standards would be a major test for the new authorities. The Assembly would also assess the functioning of democratic institutions and the progress in the implementation of significant reforms on the basis of concrete benchmark recommendations which were proposed in Resolution 1466 (2005).

134.       In December 2005 and January 2006 the Committee adopted two declarations calling upon the Verkhovna Rada and its leadership not to hold the renewal of the composition of the Constitutional Court hostage to political infighting.

135.       In February 2006, the co-rapporteurs visited the country in order to discuss: the new government's capacity to carry out an ambitious Action Plan for the Honouring by Ukraine of its Obligations and Commitments to the Council of Europe that President Yushchenko approved on 20 January 2006; the possible ways of resolving the political deadlock over the constitutional amendments and the refusal of the Verkhovna Rada to renew the composition of the Constitutional Court; and the preparation of the election campaign for the 26 March legislative elections. The Committee approved and declassified the co-rapporteurs' information note on this visit in March 2006 [AS/Mon (2006) 07].

136.       The Assembly observed the March 2006 legislative elections and considered them free and fair and consolidating a democratic breakthrough (Doc.10878).

137.       Six months after the elections, in October 2006, the co-rapporteurs visited the country to discuss the key internal and foreign political orientations in the new political set-up following the March 2006 elections and to follow up on the progress made in implementing the Action Plan of 20 January 2006. An information note (AS/Mon (2007) 02) was issued following that visit, which included a list of immediate steps to be taken by the country's authorities. This note was declassified by the Committee in January 2007.

138.       The co-rapporteurs observed that the parliamentary elections of 26 March had indisputably manifested a democratic breakthrough and that, for the first time after independence, Ukraine had a democratically elected government. Yet the country had not yet reached a state of genuine democracy that would be able to manage the change of power.

139.       They commended the steps taken by the country's authorities in elaborating the Action Plan for the Honouring by Ukraine of its Obligations and Commitments and in speeding up the ratification of Council of Europe instruments as well as its accomplishments in adopting the Concepts on the Reform of the Judiciary and on Eradication of Corruption, and the Law on the Execution of Judgments and Application of Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. They also welcomed the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on setting up of the office of the Secretary General's special representative in Kyiv, which had been recommended in Resolution 1364 (2004) and Recommendation 1722 (2005).

140.       However, the report deplored that little or no progress had been made as regards i) the alignment of the constitutional amendments of December 2004 with European standards; ii) the enhancement of the functioning of democratic institutions through the adoption of relevant laws on the branches of power, on parliamentary investigatory commissions, on rules of procedure of the Verkhovna Rada or on guarantees of the oppositional activity; iii) the strengthening of the rule of law and independence of the judiciary through reforming the criminal justice system, the status and functioning of the judiciary and law enforcement bodies; iv) transformation of state broadcasting into genuine public service broadcasting or v) enhancement of the system of local self-government in compliance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government. It concluded that tangible progress is expected by September 2007 and that maintaining the status quo on the reforms could only mean a step backwards.

141.       Following their most recent fact-finding visit to Donetsk and Kyiv, on 6 March 2007, the co-rapporteurs issued a statement in which they expressed their willingness to recommend the lifting of full-scale monitoring. To do so, they needed however credible assurances from the Ukrainian authorities that they were "committed to engaging in serious, coherent and well-targeted reforms". They noted positive signs, including a possible breakthrough in reforms of the judiciary, transfer of the penitentiary to the Ministry of Justice and transformation of public broadcasting, but also voiced concern over the standstill as regards the constitutional reform, reform of the local government, fight against corruption or investigation of the Gongadze case and bringing to justice of perpetrators.

142.       It is against this background that the 7th regular full-scale monitoring report on Ukraine is being currently prepared with a view of an Assembly debate during the October 2007 part-session.

3.2.3.       Member states currently under post-monitoring dialogue

Bulgaria

143.       Bulgaria is a member state of the Council of Europe since May 1992 [see Opinion No. 161 (1992)] To date Bulgaria has ratified 77 conventions out of 200.

144.       A monitoring procedure as regards Bulgaria was initiated by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in 1994. In January 2000 the Assembly adopted Resolution 1211 (2000), which brought to an end the said procedure. The Assembly decided to pursue the dialogue with the country's authorities on an eight-point list of outstanding issues mentioned in paragraph 4, as well as on other relevant issues connected with the obligations inherent to accession to the Council of Europe. In May 2001 the Monitoring Committee initiated the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Bureau of the Assembly on 6 March 2000.

145.       In January 2002 the Bulgarian parliamentary delegation submitted observations on the follow-up to the Assembly's recommendations and on the progress made by Bulgaria in specified fields towards complying with Council of Europe standards (AS/Mon (2002) 10). These observations were examined by the committee in May 2002.

146.       The dialogue continued through two fact-finding visits carried out by the then Chair of the Monitoring Committee, Mrs Josette Durrieu, in October 2002 and June 2004. The information gathered was presented in a confidential memorandum in October 2004. Comments by the Bulgarian authorities and oppositional political forces were received as requested in December 2004 and considered by the Committee on 24 January 2005 (AS/Mon (2004) 53 rev). Since January 2005, the dialogue has been carried out by the 1st Vice-Chair of the Committee Mrs Hanne Severinsen. She visited the country from 31 May to 3 June 2006 and issued an information note (AS/Mon (2006) 26) which was approved and declassified by the Monitoring Committee in October 2006.

147.       The information note paid tribute to the Bulgarian authorities for the progress made on the road to democracy and aligning itself to the acquis communautaire as well as to the political criteria of the European Union accession. Nevertheless, it noted that the country still needed more decisive and far-reaching reforms as regards its judiciary system, decentralisation and combating corruption and organised crime. Bulgaria also needs to improve its track record in other areas of human rights, such as the conditions of detention, respect of minority and religious rights, fight against trafficking in human beings, child protection, etc. It regretted that the Council of Europe had not played a more significant role in assisting the whole reform process and that the Bulgarian authorities had not used the opportunity to seize the Venice Commission or the Directorate General of Legal Affairs for expertise and opinion on their key reforms. In the light of the above, the 1st Vice-Chair requested the Bulgarian delegation to supply her complementary information that would allow her to prepare final conclusions.

148.       The Bulgarian parliamentary delegation has submitted written information, as requested, in February 2007 (AS/Mon (2007) 13 – confidential). The Monitoring Committee will discuss this supplementary information at its meeting of 28 March 2007.

"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

149.       "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"15 is a member of the Council of Europe since November 1995 [see Opinion No. 191 (1995)]. To date the country has ratified 77 conventions out of 200.

150.       The monitoring procedure, opened in July 1996 was closed by Resolution 1213 (2000) in April 2000.

151.       By Resolution 1213 (2000), the Assembly considered that "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" had honoured most of its commitments. It resolved therefore to pursue its dialogue with the Macedonian authorities on a number of key issues referred to in paragraph 13 or any other issue arising from its obligations as member state of the Council of Europe. The key areas where further improvements were expected are the following: integration of the Albanian and other minorities with regard to education, the use of language, their proportional representation in the police and other state institutions; reforms of the judiciary and the efficiency of the legal system; functioning of the Public Prosecutor's Office; respect by the law enforcement bodies for human rights and fundamental freedoms; adoption and implementation of efficient measures to fight corruption, organised crime and money laundering; and independence of media. It was widely accepted that the decision to close the monitoring procedure was premature and motivated mainly by the desire to calm down the inter-ethnic tensions which deteriorated into a conflict in late 2000 and early 2001.

152.       Following the outburst of the civil insurgence, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1255 (2001) in June 2001 on the basis of a report prepared by the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 9146). The Assembly strongly condemned the action of the armed ethnic Albanian extremist groups and called for their complete disarmament. While underlining its full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and for the rights of all citizens and ethnic groups, the Assembly requested the government to take a series of urgent measures, including constitutional ones, concerning, in particular, the use of the Albanian language, the improvement of (higher) education in Albanian and adequate representation of ethnic Albanians in public institutions. It also called upon the Political Affairs Committee to immediately establish an ad hoc committee to visit the region and to report back to the Assembly at it September 2001 part-session. The Bureau of Assembly considered it advisable not to reopen the monitoring procedure in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997) at that stage.

153.       In September 2001, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1261 (2001) on the basis of the opinion of the ad hoc committee of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 9234), which called on the Monitoring Committee to intensify the post-monitoring dialogue with "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and urged the authorities to fully co-operate in this process. It is acknowledged that although the monitoring procedure had been closed too early, both Resolutions 1213 (2000) and 1255 (2001) contributed considerably to the elaboration of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, signed in August 2001, which contains many of the key requirements expressed by the Assembly.

154.       The dialogue continued through two fact-finding visits carried out by the then Chair of the Monitoring Committee, Mrs Josette Durrieu, in December 2002 and November 2004. The information gathered during those visits was presented in confidential information notes [AS/Mon (2003) 06 and AS/Mon (2004) 51].

155.       In June 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1440 (2005) on the basis of a report prepared by the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 10547), which made further recommendations in the implementation of outstanding important commitments.

156.       An ad hoc committee of the Assembly observed the parliamentary elections of 5 July 2006 and considered these elections mostly in line with Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections, regardless of the instances of violence and intimidation during the first half of the campaign and isolated instances of serious irregularities during Election Day. On the whole, they noted that voters could decide on the political direction of their country in a democratic fashion and the irregularities observed did not overshadow the democratic progress made (Doc. 11015).

157.       In my capacity as Chair of the Monitoring Committee, I conducted a fact-finding visit to Skopje in January 2007. During this visit, I concentrated on the political developments in the country since the parliamentary elections of 5 July 2006; consolidation of good governance and democratic institutions; inter-ethnic relations and the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement; progress made by the country in honouring its obligations and outstanding accession commitments to the Council of Europe, and solving outstanding bilateral issues such as the name issue.

158.       The impressions of this visit have fed into an information note (AS/Mon (2007) 12), which the Monitoring Committee discussed and declassified at its meeting of 28 March 2007.

Turkey

159.       Turkey has been a member State of the Council since 1949. To date Turkey has ratified 96 conventions out of 200.

160.       It has been the first "old" member State subject of a monitoring procedure since the adoption, in 1996, of Recommendation 1298 (1996) on Turkey's respect of commitments to constitutional and legislative reforms.

161.       On 28 June 2001, in Resolution 1256 (2001), the Parliamentary Assembly welcomed the progress made by Turkey but decided to continue the monitoring process and review progress, pending a further decision to close the procedure.

162.       By Resolution 1380 (2004), the Assembly decided to close the monitoring procedure with regard to Turkey. The Assembly considered that Turkey had achieved more reforms in a little over two years than in the previous decade. It welcomed the adoption in October 2001 of important changes to the Constitution, seven reform packages approved by parliament between February 2002 and August 2003 and numerous other laws, decrees and circulars to implement these reforms.

163.       In particular the Assembly congratulated the authorities on abolishing the death penalty, instituting "zero tolerance" towards torture and impunity, lifting many restrictions to freedom of expression, association and religion and granting certain cultural rights to the Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin.

164.       The Assembly decided, through its Monitoring Committee, to enter into a post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey on a twelve-point list of outstanding issues, including a major reform of the 1982 Constitution, amendments to the electoral code, in particular in relation to the 10% threshold for parliamentary elections, recognition of national minorities, continued efforts to combat violence against women, the fight against corruption and the right to conscientious objection and alternative civil service. This dialogue, conducted by the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee is ongoing, with the Turkish authorities having submitted written information on the fulfilment of the 12 issues raised in Resolution 1380(2004) and with a planned fact-finding visit by the end of 2007.

3.3.       Applications to initiate a monitoring procedure

165.       In accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), the Monitoring Committee can present itself a "written reasoned application" to the Bureau asking for the opening of a monitoring procedure. In all other cases, applications to initiate a monitoring procedure are referred to the Monitoring Committee for a written opinion.

166.       During its 10 years of existence, the Monitoring Committee has presented two "written reasoned applications" for the opening of monitoring procedure: one with respect to Latvia in September 1997, accepted by the Bureau few days later; and one with respect to Austria in March 2000, rejected by the Bureau in April 200016. It has been consulted on several other occasions by the Bureau.

167.       The first consultation procedure was initiated by the Bureau on the occasion of a motion for an order on the situation of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (Greece) just after the committee's creation in 1997. In the course of the preparation of the committee's opinion, a significant legislative amendment with high policy implications was agreed by the Greek government: the abolition of Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code, criticised as discriminatory vis-ŕ-vis non ethnic Greeks. In the light of this development, the Bureau, in April 1998, decided in favour of the committee's opinion not to open a monitoring procedure for Greece. The experience showed that democratic changes can be prompted through constructive dialogue even without or prior to the opening of a monitoring procedure17.

168.       In March 2003, the Bureau made an application to the Monitoring Committee to initiate a monitoring procedure for Liechtenstein in the light of serious concerns raised with respect to constitutional amendments proposed by the Princely House of Liechtenstein and approved by referendum. At the same time, the Bureau transmitted to the committee the opinion of the Venice Commission on the constitutional amendments which concluded that the proposed constitutional reform "would not only prevent the further development of constitutional practice in Liechtenstein towards a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy as in other European countries, but even constitute a serious step backward." This opinion was prepared upon the Bureau's request and made public in December 2002 prior to the constitutional referendum in Liechtenstein18. Following a fact-finding to the country by two co-rapporteurs, the committee recommended to the Bureau, in September 2003, that a monitoring procedure should be initiated for Liechtenstein. This procedure should aim at re-examining, in co-operation with the national authorities, the decisions taken during the vote on the People's Initiative in March 2003 in the light of this report, of the Venice Commission's opinion, and of constitutional practice in existing constitutional monarchies in Europe, with a view to ensuring that the constitutional practice in Liechtenstein is in conformity with the general principle that no government action can be taken without accountability to parliament or to the people19. The Bureau did not follow the committee's opinion and decided instead to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to carry out a dialogue with the Parliament of Liechtenstein. The Assembly ratified the Bureau's decision in January 2004. The report of the Ad Hoc Committee was made public in September 200620.

169.       A request to re-open the monitoring procedure with respect to Latvia was referred by the Bureau for opinion to the committee in June 2002. The committee decided not to follow-up the request and instead continue its ongoing post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia. Following a new request by the Bureau in December 2003, the committee, in April 2004, adopted an opinion recommending not to re-open the monitoring procedure with respect to Latvia. The Bureau followed the committee's recommendation.

170.       In January 2006, an application to initiate a monitoring procedure concerning the monopolisation of the electronic media and the possible abuse of power in Italy was tabled. It was referred to the committee only five months later, in May 2006, following parliamentary elections in the country and a government change. The committee appointed rapporteurs in June 2006. They will visit the country as soon as the current political crisis has come to an end.

171.       An application to initiate a monitoring procedure to investigate electoral fraud in the United Kingdom was referred by the Bureau to the committee in October 2007. Two rapporteurs for opinion visited the country from 26 to 27 February 2006 to look, in particular, into allegations of irregularities involving postal and absentee votes in the United Kingdom. They will present their opinion to the committee at one of its next meetings.

4.       Periodic reports on member states which are not under a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue

4.1. Follow-up given to recommendations addressed in 2006 to the first group of 11 member states

172.       In the Addendum to its Progress Report of last year, the committee presented to the Assembly periodic reports on the first group of 11 member states which are not currently under a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany.

173.       On the basis of these period reports summing-up the findings of the Commissioner for Human Rights and other Council of Europe bodies and institutions, the Assembly, in its Resolution 1515 (2006), invited the national parliaments of the countries concerned to: (i) use these reports as the basis for a debate on their country's record with regard to the fulfilment of their statutory and conventional obligations as member states of the Council of Europe; (ii) promote execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and compliance with recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the other Council of Europe specific monitoring bodies, both by provoking and accelerating necessary legislative initiatives and exercising their role of oversight of government action.

174.       Noting that a number of the member states under consideration were not yet subject to certain specific monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation – and thus no assessment of the relevant issues was available – because they had not ratified the relevant conventions or had not joined the relevant bodies, the Assembly urged the member states to take the necessary steps and ratify the relevant conventions within three years.

175.       The Assembly also encouraged the Belgian authorities and, in particular, the Belgian Parliament, to accelerate the legislative reforms required to ensure full execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Čonka v. Belgium.

176.       The President of the Assembly, Mr van der Linden, wrote to the Speakers of the national parliaments concerned inviting them to ensure follow-up action to Resolution 1515 (2006). The authorities of three member states have responded to Mr van der Linden's letter: Austria, Belgium and Germany. The Speaker of Parliament of Austria, Ms Barbara Prammer, and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Delegation of Germany to the Assembly, Mr Joachim Hörster, have sent information on follow-up measures or have explained the position of their government. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of Belgium, Mr Herman de Croo, has informed Mr van der Linden that he had transmitted Resolution 1515 (2006) to the Prime Minister, as well as the Committees of Justice, External Relations and Finances of the Chamber of Deputies, drawing their attention to the recommendations made by the Assembly.

177.       I particularly welcome the follow-up measures already taken by Austria which: ratified the Civil Law Convention on Corruption on 30 August 2006; joined the GRECO on 1 December 2006; has initiated the ratification procedure with respect to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the 2005 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism; intends to ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights after having concluded the debate on the maintenance of the right of individual complaints; according to the information transmitted by the Speaker of the Austrian Parliament, the ratification of the Revised European Social Charter would be added to the work programme of the coming government; ratification of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter will be discussed subsequently. Austria is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and thus actively involved in the fight against money-laundering;

178.       As regards Germany, according to the information submitted by the Chairman of the German delegation to the Assembly in July 2006, the German government will push for implementation and ratification of the Civil Law and Criminal Law Conventions on Corruption "before the end of the current legislative term". The legal situation in the country being in compliance with the requirements of these conventions, minor changes will be required to the current domestic legislation. As regards ratification of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the current German government has adopted a "wait and see" approach as regards the process of ratification by other member states and the position that the Strasbourg Court will take in its relevant rulings, so as to better assess the consequences of ratification. The German government is currently assessing whether or not the conditions are given for signing the Revised European Social Charter and the Additional Protocol to the European Charter. Germany is a member of the FATF and, as such, has observer status with MONEYVAL.

179.       As results from an up-dated chart of the ratifications and signatures of Council of Europe conventions by the first group of 11 states in Appendix I, other member states have taken follow-up measures, notably:

180.       Andorra and Belgium ratified Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights amending the control system of the convention; Belgium also ratified the Civil Law Convention on Corruption;

181.       France ratified the European Charter of Local Self Government;

182.       The Czech Republic ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

183.       Regrettably, Belgium has not yet completed the legislative reforms required to ensure full execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Conka v. Belgium of 2 February 2002. In that case, the Court found violations of several provisions of the convention on grounds of the means deployed to secure the arrest of the applicants, Slovak nationals of Roma origin seeking asylum, and the conditions of their expulsion in 1999, as well as the haphazard treatment of the appeals they had lodged in this connection.

184.       A review of follow-up measures will be made again next year as part of the Progress Report of the committee.

185.       In its Resolution 1515 (2006), the Assembly also invited the Commissioner for Human Rights to give priority in organising visits and preparing reports on Austria, Belgium and Germany, which his predecessor had not visited. A visit to Germany by the new Commissioner took place from 9-11 October and 15-20 October 2006 and a report is under preparation.

4.2.       Recommendations addressed to the second group of 11 member states

186.       In the addendum to the present report appear periodic reports on the second group of 11 member states which are neither under a monitoring procedure nor involved in a post-monitoring dialogue: Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands.

187.       As last year, they are based on the country-by–country assessment made on these states by the Commissioner for Human Rights and other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms or other institutions. The Secretariat has also prepared a chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions providing for a specialised monitoring mechanism with respect to this second group of 11 member states (see Appendix II).

188.       The Assembly should invite the national parliaments of the countries concerned to:

(i) use these reports as the basis for a debate on their country's record with regard to the fulfilment of their statutory and conventional obligations as member states of the Council of Europe;

(ii) promote execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and compliance with recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the other Council of Europe specific monitoring bodies, both by provoking and accelerating necessary legislative initiatives and exercising their role of oversight of government action.

189.       Noting that a number of the member states under consideration are not yet subject to certain specific monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation – and thus no assessment of the relevant issues was available – because they have not ratified the relevant conventions or have not joined the relevant bodies, the Assembly should urge the member states concerned to take the necessary steps and ratify the relevant conventions within three years. Again, a special responsibility is placed on national parliaments to promote ratification. More specifically:

       Liechtenstein and the Netherlands should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Iceland, Ireland and Italy should be invited to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption,

       Liechtenstein should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Greece and Italy should be invited to ratify the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;

       Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein and Lithuania, should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands should be invited to ratify the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, noting that all of them have ratified the 1990 Convention on the same subject-matter;

       Lithuania and Malta should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Liechtenstein should be invited to ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

       Italy and Latvia should be invited to ratify Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

       Latvia and Liechtenstein should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Greece, Hungary, Iceland and Luxembourg should be invited to ratify the Revised European Social Charter;

       Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Hungary should be invited to ratify the Protocol to the European Social Charter on collective complaints;

       Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg should be invited to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;

       Greece, Ireland, Latvia and Lithuania should be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Iceland, Italy and Malta should be invited to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

       Italy and Liechtenstein should be invited to join the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO);

190.       In Greece, the absence of a comprehensive plan to resolve the systemic problem of overcrowding of detention facilities and thus the failure to ensure full execution of the Dougoz and Peers judgments led to the adoption by the Committee of Ministers of an Interim Resolution in 200521. The same problem was highlighted more recently in the Kaja judgment of 27 July 2006. On 7 June 2006, the Committee of Ministers adopted another Interim Resolution on two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning issues of reafforestation and violations of property rights in Greece22.

191.       In Italy, despite repeated calls by the Assembly23 and the Committee of Ministers24, structural deficiencies continue to cause large numbers of repetitive findings of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights for excessive length of judicial proceedings. The lack of progress towards the solution to the systemic violations of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions through "indirect expropriation" by Italy has led to the adoption of yet another Interim Resolution on 14 February 200725. Moreover, the Italian legislation still does not allow the reopening of domestic criminal proceedings impugned by the Court. Since no other measures have been taken to restore the applicants' right to a fair trial, the situation of non-compliance with the Strasbourg Court's judgments persists26.

192.       Greece and Italy could thus be urged to accelerate the adoption of general measures necessary to ensure full execution of the above-mentioned judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and effectively prevent similar violations of the Convention.

193.       The first 3-year cycle will be completed with the last group of states being examined in 2008: Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. However, already now, a chart of the ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions appears in Appendix III. It gives a picture of the main recommendations to be addressed to this last group of 11 member states.

5.       Stock-taking after ten years of activity of the Monitoring Committee: main achievements and challenges for the future

194.       Since its first meeting, the committee has reflected on the character and purpose of parliamentary monitoring. Its specificity, in contrast to the conventional monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation or of other international organisations, lies in the influence which the Assembly can exercise on the national parliaments of the member states concerned. The fact that not only the authorities of the states concerned but also the opposition, represented in the national delegations to the Assembly, fully participate in the monitoring exercise is one of the unique strengths of the parliamentary monitoring mechanism.

195.       The committee has tried to give expression to the political nature of parliamentary monitoring. The emphasis is not exclusively on whether a Convention has been ratified but – if ratified – how it is implemented in practice. The same goes for the domestic legislation whose implementation in every-day life has to be verified. For this reason, the committee has tried to reflect in its reports, a deeper understanding of the geopolitical and economic context, as well as the domestic concerns of citizens of the country being monitored.

196.       A non-confrontational, long-term approach has prevailed over a sanction-orientated approach since the setting up of the committee. Monitoring is understood as a process of seeking solutions to specific problems rather than a process of confrontation. The co-operation with the national parliamentary delegations concerned has overall been excellent and extremely constructive.

197.       The fact that most of the reports presented by the Monitoring Committee lead to a debate by the national institutions of the countries concerned, or the adoption of a national action plan, is a proof of the increasing influence of the work of the committee as a tool capable of pushing forward democratic reforms within the countries concerned.

198.       Moreover, the reports of the committee and the recommendations made to the authorities of the states concerned offer one of the main sources of information and inspiration for the assistance programmes or Action Plans (large scale or ad hoc ones, for instance for election purposes) developed by the intergovernmental sector of the Organisation for these states.

199.       At the same time, the committee's work benefits from and promotes in turn the work done by other institutions and monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe, such as: the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights; the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities; the Venice Commission; the GRECO; the MONEYVAL; the CPT; the ECRI; the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Committee for Social Rights.

200.       The Monitoring Committee rapporteurs, during their visits to the countries concerned and in their reports, systematically refer to the judgments of the Court and the recommendations issued by the other Council of Europe bodies and institutions and urge for their execution or implementation.

201.       Just to quote an example, in both Albania and Armenia, the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee insisted in their meetings with the Prime Ministers of the two countries, respectively in April and October 2006, on the need to authorise the publication of CPT reports (in Albania on a July 2003 ad hoc visit and a May/June 2005 periodic visit; in Armenia on an April 2004 ad hoc visit). They received assurances that the publication would be immediately considered. The CPT reports on both countries were made public, in the case of Albania, 3 months later and, in the case of Armenia, one and a half months later.

202.       It is also the work of the same Council of Europe institutions and bodies which is now being used as the basis for the preparation of periodic reports on the member states which are not under monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue. For this reason, the committee, just after the adoption of Resolution 1515 (2006) and the launch of its new initiative, invited for an exchange of views the Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, and discussed with him how best to profit from his experience and enhance co-operation. For the same purpose, the committee held an exchange of views also with the Chairman of the Institutional Committee of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Mr Keith Whitmore27.

203.       The increasing impact of the Assembly's monitoring procedure can also be witnessed by the equally increasing reference to the fulfilment of Council of Europe obligations and commitments in the European Commission's assessments of applicant countries' progress towards European Union accession. The compliance with Council of Europe obligations and commitments is furthermore a very important element in the assessment of the democratic and human rights record of the European participants in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), which are also subject to the Assembly's monitoring procedure or in the assessment of OSCE member states.

204.       Last but not least, the Monitoring Committee's work does not only reflect information and recommendations emanating from all various bodies of the Council of Europe as well as other international organisations, but is also largely based on the work of the civil society. Reports of international NGOs (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Transparency International, Reporters without Borders etc.), but also local NGOs, are one of the main sources of information for the committee's reports. Meetings with representatives of the civil society in the country concerned and subsequent reference to their reports largely promotes the work in particular of the local NGOs and increases their impact.

205.       Although it is an extremely difficult task to pick and choose some "success stories" out of 10 years of activities by our committee, I have tried to so. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some older and some more recent examples of results achieved:

–       In Albania, over the last ten years, the parliamentary monitoring mechanism has helped re-launching several times the political dialogue between the two biggest political parties, the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party, in particular thanks to the fact that the leading figures of the two parties were members of the Assembly.

–       In Armenia, an extremely vigorous monitoring procedure contributed to: the abolition of the death penalty and the ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights in September 2003; the adoption of a comprehensive constitutional reform in November 2005, in close co-operation also with the Venice Commission, and the subsequent approval of a national Action Plan for adopting or amending some 51 laws, paved the way for the fulfilment of many commitments undertaken upon the country's accession.

–       In Azerbaijan, an equally vigorous monitoring procedure prompted the authorities to finally engage in consultations with the Venice Commission in order to amend the Electoral Code and the law on freedom of assembly. Thanks to the Monitoring Committee's co-rapporteurs, the Task Force, composed of the Chairman of the Azerbaijani parliamentary delegation and other representatives of the authorities as well as human rights NGOs and entrusted with the follow-up to the issue of alleged political prisoners, has recently been reactivated; the co-rapporteurs' intervention has also contributed to the re-opening of the independent and most popular TV Channel ANS in December 2006 – after a three-week closure – pending a definitive solution to the issue of its license.

–       In Georgia, thanks to the work carried out by the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, our Assembly was the first international institution to take stock of progress one year after the Rose Revolution and to deliver a genuine road-map for future reforms including specific deadlines.

–       In Latvia, the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 6 June 2005 is at least partly the result of continuing efforts under the post-monitoring dialogue between the committee and the Latvian authorities (concluded in June 2006).

–       In Moldova, one of the co-rapporteurs and former Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee (Mrs Josette Durrieu) was the first parliamentarian representing the international community to meet Mr Ilascu in prison in Transnistria (where he had been detained for more than seven years). This meeting encouraged Mr Ilascu to seize the Strasbourg Court giving rise to one of its most famous judgments in recent years.. More recently, in November 2005, the work of the Monitoring Committee has prompted the adoption by the Moldovan Parliament of a timetable of legislative reforms taking up almost all the recommendations set out in the Assembly's Resolution 1465 (2005) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova.

–       In Ukraine, another active monitoring procedure (with nine reports having been presented to the Assembly from 1999 to date) has closely accompanied the democratic reforms in the country and contributed to democratic changes which led to the Orange Revolution at the end of 2004. The committee's work also allowed the Assembly to deliver a road-map for the future one year after the Orange Revolution, in October 2005. A few months after the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1466 (2005), the previous Ukrainian government submitted an Action Plan for the Honouring by Ukraine of its Obligations and Commitments to the Council of Europe, approved by President Yushenko in January 2006.

–       In the Russian Federation, Resolution 1455 (2005), adopted by the Assembly in June 2005, was the result of a close co-operation with the Russian parliamentary delegation. The latter participated fully in the debate despite some initial hesitations. The resolution, based on a 95-page report presented by the Monitoring Committee, takes stock of progress and outstanding issues in all relevant fields and fixes clearly the objectives for the future.

–       Following the tensions which rose between Georgia and the Russian Federation last autumn and in the absence of a debate in the plenary of the Assembly, the Monitoring Committee has offered a unique forum for dialogue between the two parliamentary delegations. Similarly, it offered a forum for parliamentary dialogue with the delegation of Slovakia following xenophobic incidents in the country during the summer months of 200628.

206.       The above-mentioned examples, whose list is far from being exhaustive, shows that the monitoring mechanism of the Assembly has proved its efficiency and achieved some concrete results, in co-operation with the parliamentary delegations of the states concerned and, in some cases, in co-operation with other bodies of the Council of Europe or other international organisations.

207.       Of course, alongside the list of achievements, there is another list, often much longer, of outstanding commitments or general obligations which have yet to be fulfilled. Just to quote again a few examples:

–       Separatist regions in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Moldova (Transnistria), as well as the region of Nagorno-Karabakh continue to qualify as "black holes" for the protection of human rights; there is no responsibility over the honouring of any commitments or membership obligations in any of these regions.

–       Despite constant improvements, the conduct of fully free and fair elections remains an unfulfilled objective in many states under monitoring, such as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation

–       The presence of a strong government vis-ŕ-vis a weak opposition and the absence of sufficient checks and balances continue to raise concerns in several member states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Russian Federation.

–       A too high electoral threshold in Georgia (7%), the Russian Federation (7%) and in Turkey (10%) impedes the access of smaller parties to parliament, despite repeated calls by the Assembly calling for its lowering.

–       The failure of constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina and an unsuccessful constitutional reform in Ukraine have prevented these countries from carrying out reforms and progressing in the honouring of their membership obligations and commitments.

–       Journalists still face many problems in Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Turkey, whereas media independence pluralism is a problem in almost all countries under monitoring. Offences against journalists remain inadequately investigated in many member states under monitoring or post-monitoring.

–       The process of judicial reform has proved to be longer and more complex than initially envisaged in all countries under monitoring. Whereas progress has been made in all of them, much remains to be done to ensure implementation of relevant reforms.

–       Prison conditions are of concern throughout Europe. Torture, in particular during police custody, has not yet been eradicated.

       the Russian Federation remains the only Council of Europe member state which has ratified neither Protocol No 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights on the abolition of the death penalty (which it signed 10 years ago) nor Protocol No 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights amending the control system of the convention (thus delaying its entry into force).

–       Local self-government is not yet fully implemented in many states under monitoring and, despite on-going legal reforms, many capitals are still lacking a democratically elected mayor, such as Yerevan, Baku, Chisinau etc. In the Russian Federation, recent government proposals aiming at nomination of mayors of the major cities constitute a worrying step backwards.

208.       It is hence clear that the committee does not risk staying out of work in the near future… However, our ultimate goal should be precisely to get rid of our job. Ideally, the day all member states will have complied with their accession commitments and statutory obligations, there should be no reason to have a Monitoring Committee. However, such an ideal situation is far from being achieved, in particular since our job is not simply to verify the ratification of conventions or the adoption of laws, but their actual implementation in the states under monitoring. This is a common problem in all states under monitoring.

209.       A more realistic medium-term objective would be to pass from the stage of specific monitoring procedures to that of post-monitoring dialogue and then to the newly created third category of "periodic reporting". Here again, the number of accession commitments which have not yet been fulfilled for the states under monitoring remains unfortunately too long for such an objective to be reached relatively soon.

210.       That said, the continuation of a specific monitoring procedure for even a long period of time (in some states more than 10 years) has proved not to be a "bad thing". As shown above, with the evolution of the monitoring procedure of the Assembly, monitoring is no longer conceived as a sanction or a mere burden on the states. It is also an opportunity to draw international attention to progress achieved in these states as well as unresolved conflicts for which otherwise there would be much less discussion. For instance, without a monitoring procedure for Moldova or Georgia there would have been much less debate about the situation in Transnistria, South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

211.       At the same time, I feel that our committee should gradually prepare itself for the day when less and less monitoring procedures will be open. This is why the novelty of periodic reporting on all states which are not under monitoring is probably the greatest challenge for the future.

212.       For the moment, this initiative has been relatively timid: the committee relies on the assessment made by other Council of Europe bodies, urges compliance with their recommendations and execution of the Strasbourg Court judgments, and checks the record of ratifications of the main Council of Europe conventions. But it does not check itself the degree of implementation. The challenge for the future is therefore how the committee will be able to develop gradually its periodic reporting function, if necessary resources could be made available for this purpose.

213.       In this respect, I would only like to raise at this stage a number of questions for further reflection:

–       Should the committee organise exchanges of views with the parliamentary delegations of the states for which periodic reports have been prepared in order to discuss the follow-up given to the recommendations made by various Council of Europe bodies and institutions?

–       Should the committee develop its relations with the other Council of Europe monitoring bodies and mechanisms and pursue further the exchanges it started last year with the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities?

–       Which measures could the committee envisage at the end of the three-year cycle of periodic reporting with respect to states which, for instance, have failed to ratify a number of Council of Europe conventions or execute a number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights?

–       Should the committee try to develop further its relations with relevant European Union bodies (European Parliament? European Commission?) by organising for instance joint hearings?

–       Could such hearings be also organised with the main international NGOs active in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, focusing for instance on a group of states each time?

–       To what extent could the committee launch a more thematic exercise, for instance dealing with issues common to a group of states under monitoring without entering into the fields of competence of other Assembly committees? For instance, should/could the committee organise a hearing on "frozen conflicts", since all of them concern countries under monitoring?

214.       The debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe scheduled for the April part-session of the Assembly will offer an excellent opportunity to discuss some of these questions with a number of main actors. Such an exchange of views could be particularly beneficial for our committee, allowing us afterwards to better draw the main lines for its future. I invite you all to take an active part in the debate having in mind this common objective.

Appendices

Appendix I:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions

Appendix II:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions

Appendix III:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions

Table of abbreviations

R:       Ratified

S:       Signed but not yet ratified

–:       neither signed nor ratified

ECHR:        Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

ECPT:       European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

ESC:       European Social Charter (1961 or revised)

FCNM:       Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

ECRML:       European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

ECLS-G:       European Charter of Local Self-Government

Appendix I:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the first group of 11 member states

CoE member states not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

Total No of CoE Conventions ratified or signed

(out of 200)

DEMOCRACY

RULE OF LAW

HUMAN RIGHTS

ECLS-G

Convention on Corruption

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime

(1990 or rev)

ECHR

Prot. ECHR

ECPT

Social rights

Minority rights

Civil Law

Criminal Law

6

12

13

14

ESC

Prot. ESC on collective complaints

FCNM

ECRML

ANDORRA

29       R

6       S

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R rev

AUSTRIA

99       R

32       S

R

R

S

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

BELGIUM

118       R

39       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

S

CROATIA

77       R

12       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R

R

CYRPUS

120       R

17       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

CZECH REP.

98       R

11       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

DENMARK

127       R

17       S

R

S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

ESTONIA

76       R

7       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R rev

R

FINLAND

94       R

18       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

FRANCE

116       R

43       S

R

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

S

GERMANY

113       R

44       S

R

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R

Appendix II:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the second group of 11 member states

CoE member states not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

Total No of CoE Conventions ratified or signed

(out of 200)

DEMOCRACY

RULE OF LAW

HUMAN RIGHTS

ECLS-G

Convention on Corruption

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime

(1990 or rev)

ECHR

Prot. ECHR

ECPT

Social rights

Minority rights

Civil Law

Criminal Law

6

12

13

14

ESC

Prot. ESC on collective complaints

FCNM

ECRML

GREECE

90       R

57       S

R

R

S

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

R

S

HUNGARY

70       R

14       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

ICELAND

79       R

32       S

R

S

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

S

IRELAND

94       R

16       S

R

S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

ITALY

116       R

45       S

R

S

S

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

S

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

S

LATVIA

75       R

16       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

S

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

LIECHTENSTEIN

77       R

5       S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R

LITHUANIA

85       R

6       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R rev

R

LUXEMBOURG

123       R

45       S

R

S

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

MALTA

75       R

26       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

S

NETHERLANDS

132       R

22       S

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

Appendix III:        Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the third group of 11 member states

CoE member states not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

Total No of CoE Conventions ratified or signed

(out of 200)

DEMOCRACY

RULE OF LAW

HUMAN RIGHTS

ECLS-G

Convention on Corruption

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime

(1990 or rev)

ECHR

Prot. ECHR

ECPT

Social rights

Minority rights

Civil Law

Criminal Law

6

12

13

14

ESC

Prot. ESC on collective complaints

FCNM

ECRML

NORWAY

128       R

15       S

R

S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

POLAND

77       R

17       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R 1961

S rev

R

S

PORTUGAL

104       R

40       S

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

ROMANIA

94       R

15       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

s 1961

R rev

R

S

SAN MARINO

38       R

16       S

S

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

S rev

R

SLOVAKIA

88       R

9       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

SLOVENIA

92       R

14       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

s 1961

R rev

S

R

R

SPAIN

104       R

16       S

R

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

S

R

R

R 1961

S rev

R

R

SWEDEN

127       R

17       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

SWITZERLAND

105       R

16       S

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R

UNITED KINGDOM

111       R

19       S

R

S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

R

R

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997)

Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 28 March 2007

Members of the committee: Mr Eduard Lintner (Chairperson), Mrs Hanne Severinsen (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Mikko Elo (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Tigran Torosyan (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Aydin Abbasov, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr Birgir Ármannsson, Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, Mrs Meritxell Batet Lamańa, Mr József Berényi, Mr Aleksandër Biberaj, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mrs Mimount Bousakla, Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Patrick Breen, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Sergej Chelemendik, Ms Lise Christoffersen, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Juris Dobelis, Mr John Dupraz, Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mr Per-Kristian Foss, Mr György Frunda, Mrs Urszula Gacek, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr József Gedei, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Stef Goris, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Michael Hagberg, Ms Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mrs Iliana Iotava, Mr Kastriot Islami, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Ali Rashid Khalil, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mr Andros Kyprianou, Mrs Darja Lavtižar-Bebler, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr Tony Lloyd, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Bernard Marquet, Mr Frano Matušić, Mr Miloš Melčák, Mrs Assunta Meloni, Mrs Nadezhda Mikhailova, Mr Neven Mimica, Mr Paschal Mooney, Mr Joăo Bosco Mota Amaral, Mr Zsolt Németh, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Theodoros Pangalos, Mr Leo Platvoet, Ms Maria Postoico, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mrs Katrin Saks, Mr Oliver Sambevski, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mr Vitaliy Shybko, Mr Leonid Slutsky, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Mr José Vera Jardim, Mrs Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Oldřich Vojíř, Mr David Wilshire, Mr Tadeusz Wita, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mr Andrej Zernovski, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris.

N.B.: The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in bold

Secretariat of the committee: Mrs Ravaud, Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mrs Odrats


1  The modalities of post-monitoring were included in the committee's terms of reference upon the adoption of Resolution 1425 (2005) which revised Resolution 1115 (1997).

2  See Resolution 1431 (2005).

3  See below, chapter 3.4.

4  Last year, Resolution 1515 (2006) further improved the system by: (a) requiring that an application to initiate a monitoring procedure should be referred to the Monitoring Committee by the Bureau at one of its next two meetings; thus delays that occurred with respect to the reference of an application to initiate monitoring for Italy could no longer take place; (b) introducing specific rules governing the conclusion of a post-monitoring dialogue similar to those governing the opening of a monitoring procedure. They aim at preventing situations where diverging opinions between the committee and the Bureau can lead to an impasse, as happened in 2006 with respect to the conclusion of the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia.

5  The committee has thus adopted: three public declarations on the presidential elections in Ukraine in the course of 2004 and two declarations related to the dysfunctioning of the Constitutional Court in Ukraine in December 2005 and in January 2006; one declaration on the situation in the Transnistrian region in October 2004; a declaration on the presidential elections in Azerbaijan in April 2005; a declaration on the constitutional reform in Armenia in January 2006 and in Bosnia Herzegovina in April 2006; a declaration on the current tensions between Georgia and the Russian Federation in January 2007. Several public statements have been issued by the co-rapporteurs on their fact-finding visits to the states concerned, most recently with respect to the Russian Federation in April 2006 and Ukraine in March 2007.

6 See Resolution 1117 (1997) and Resolution 1123 (1997) on Estonia and Romania respectively.

7 See below.

8  Also, several reports were presented to the Assembly by the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the honouring of a specific commitment, namely that of releasing or re-trying alleged political prisoners. See Resolution 1272 (2002), Resolution 1359 (2004), Resolution 1398 (2004) and Resolution 1457 (2005). The developments regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have been followed-up by the Political Affairs Committee and an Ad Hoc Committee of the Bureau. See Resolution 1416 (2005) and Recommendation 1690 (2005) on the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference, adopted by the Assembly in January 2005. See also Resolution 1525 (2006) on the establishment of a Stability Pact for the South Caucasus, adopted by the Standing Committee in November 2006.

9  Several information notes on these visits have been prepared by the co-rapporteurs between 1997 and 2002. They are confidential except one, AS/Mon (1999) 29 rev.

10  See the Interim Resolution (ResDH(2006)12) adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 March 2006 urging the Moldovan authorities to pass a new law regulating the registration and activities of religious faiths; as well as a recent judgment of the Court finding a violation of Article 9, of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 9 ECHR in a similar case (judgment of 27 February 2007 in the case of Biserica Adevărat Ortodoxă din Moldova and Others v. Moldova (application No. 952/03).

11 AS/Mon (2007) 01, confidential.

12  In parallel, the Assembly adopted Order No. 516 (1996) by which it created an ad hoc Committee on Chechnya to "monitor the situation and to respond to the Russian Federation's request for assistance with proposals in line with the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities that might be acceptable to both sides". Thus the Monitoring Committee's review of the situation in Chechnya has been limited to the assessment relating to paragraphs 4 and 7.vii of the Opinion No. 193 (1996) and the general obligations of member states under Article 3 of the Council of Europe Statute.

13 See also above the section on Georgia.

14  See Resolution 1179 (1999), Resolution 1194 (1999) and Resolution 1244 (2001) and Recommendation 1395 (1999), Recommendation 1416 (1999) and Recommendation 1513 (2001).

15  In this document, the term "Macedonia" is used for descriptive purposes and for readers' convenience, without prejudice to the Assembly's position on the name of the state.

16 See in this respect doc. AS/Bur(2000)025.

17 See Progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedures (April 1997-April 1998), Doc. 8057.

18 Doc. 9661.

19 Doc. 10044.

20 Doc. 10940 Addendum. A comprehensive report on Liechtenstein appears in the addendum to the present report.

21 ResDH(2005)21. See also Resolution 1516 (2006) on implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

22 ResDH(2006)27 concerning the cases of Papastavrou and others and Katsoulis and others.

23 See Resolution 1516 (2006) on implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

24 ResDH(2007)2: Interim Resolution concerning the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007.

25 ResDH(2007)3: Interim Resolution – Systemic violations of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions through "indirect expropriation" by Italy, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007.

26 ResDH(2005)85 Interim Resolution concerning the case of Dorigo Paolo against Italy (violation of the right to a fair trial).

27  See the draft minutes of the meeting held in Nafplion on 14 September 2006, Doc. AS/Mon (2006) PV 07 (to be declassified). The committee had planned to organise further exchanges of views with the Chairpersons of the other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms. However, since the initiative was taken to hold an Assembly debate on the state of democracy and human rights in Europe with the participation of most of them, it preferred not to duplicate efforts.

28  See the statement made by the Bureau of the Assembly on 6 September 2006 calling on the Slovak Government to intensify the fight against hate speech.