MONDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2001

SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION

 

Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey). – Our discussion is timely in light of the unfortunate

     events that we have all witnessed during the last two weeks.

                 When we discuss an increase in crime we have to look into its causes, the

     contributing factors and its results.  Slowly and surely, more and more people are residing

     in and earning their living in cities.  With every passing day, more people are exposed to

     the dangers of city crime. 

                 For the causes, we should look into the unfavourable and horrible physical

     conditions that breed discontent and anger.  There is also a psychological factor that

     breeds hopelessness and hate as well as a desire to hurt and to exact revenge on the

     lucky.  It also creates in people a ruthless ambition to escape miserable conditions if they

     can.

                 The third cause is the break-up of national and local traditions and customs.  That

     includes, to name but a few aspects, the destruction of the family unit, family life, belief

     systems and respect for and the valuing of human life.

                 The fourth cause may be described as changes in people’s philosophy of life and

     goals, which drastically changes their values and priorities.  That alteration brings society

     to the brink of larger tragedies, the most bitter example of which is the events we

     witnessed in North America on 11 September.

                 Next, there are contributory factors, which include changes in economic

     conditions and trends, and social and cultural transformations.  The gap between the

     “haves” and “have-nots” is growing, which begs the question, are we gradually being

     drawn into terrible strife – a new class struggle with wider horizons and multiplicity of

     involvement?

                 The third group of factors can be summed up as negligence.  As the number of

     people living in cities increases, sheer numerical pressure contributes to negligence:

     individual negligence, negligence of families, negligence in the expressions of love, pity or

     kindness that form the basis of many of our ethical values.  The erosion of ethical values in

     general presents a major threat.

                 Another contributory factor is the fast increasing impact of globalisation and

     resentment of that impact, as well as the increasingly concentrated control of international

     financial institutions and resentment of them.  We should not forget the loss of the

     individual in the face of globalisation.  The desperate search for identity sometimes takes

     the form of terrorist acts, and the search for opportunity can cause individuals to slip

     through rules and regulations.  That is a growing area of criminality.

                 We are on the verge of establishing a new system to remedy such problems, but

     we all have to consider how we answer the questions I have raised.  Only by doing so

     can we come up with realistic, practical and applicable solutions and achieve a healthy

     consensus.  That is exactly what is expected from such an august body as the Council of

     Europe.  We should rise to meet those expectations.  We must be careful about setting up

     an observatory before answering those many questions.

                 I thank both rapporteurs for their excellent work.

 

Mr KALKAN (Turkey).- Let me begin by thanking our rapporteur Mr Bockel of the Socialist Group for  his interesting report.

 

                 Insecurity in the cities is a very important subject, which has a lot of aspects and causes major concerns in  all our daily lives.  As it is very correctly stated in the report there are a number of causes for this phenomenon, which needs to be tackled in a very professional way.

 

                 I personally agree that establishing a European observatory to prevent urban crime will succeed not only  in fighting ordinary crime in the cities but in helping the authorities to combat organised crime, which is becoming  more and more of a danger threatening the basic values of our societies.

 

                 To be able to fight crime in a more sophisticated manner we should not only rely solely on the security forces but should train security policy agents and organise the exchange of information on crime.  A similar  exchange on the operation of systems of justice in different countries will contribute a lot to solving the similar  problems of the modern world.  We should not forget that criminality is supported by many different international criminal organisations, ranging from ordinary crime organisations to highly organised terrorist actions.

 

                 I believe that this European monitoring centre could be a major component in fighting organised crime  within Europe.

 

                 The growth of crime is strongly linked to the xenophobia and intolerance of foreign cultures and racial   minorities.  Immigrants and peoples from different backgrounds are not easily accepted in the societies of western      Europe.  They are practically forced to live in their so-called “ghettoes” and even if educated they are denied the  same opportunities open to others.  That is discrimination and, unfortunately, discrimination has become an  alarming fact in the societies of Europe today.

 

                 In this respect, I very much welcome “The Cities’ Manifesto for Safety and Democracy”.  We have to  have inclusive cities where all residents can participate in local policies.  We have to have friendly cities where     migrants and racial minorities are made welcome.  We have to have tolerant cities in order to reject extremist strategies for eradication of conflicts with a view to transforming violence and fear into incentives for personal    growth and tolerance to others.

 

TUESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2001

DEMOCRACIES FACING TERRORISM

 

 

                  Mr AKÇALI (Turkey). – I express my deep sorrow for the loss of innocent lives

     in the United States of America after the horrendous terrorist acts of 11 September.

     Those attacks have shown that it is impossible to curb the threat of terrorism

     without international co-operation.  To achieve comprehensive international co-operation we need an internationally acceptable definition of terrorism.  We should start by making it

     clear that democratic rights can be legitimate only if demanded and granted in a emocratic

     process.  Undemocratic methods can and must not be accepted and should be regarded as

     terrorism.

    

            Although it had been accepted by many international organisations, including the

Council of Europe, that terrorism can be tackled only by international co-operation, no such  co-operation could ever have been achieved.  People who have committed terrorist acts in one country are often seen as heroes and given protection in others.  Not only has that

made it more difficult to fight terrorism, it has legitimised terrorism.

In the law of warfare, destroying civilian targets and killing and attacking unarmed

civilians are regarded as crimes against humanity.  Perpetrators of such acts are punished

severely.  However, when the same acts are committed in peacetime, they are sometimes

regarded as political crimes and their perpetrators are considered to be freedom fighters and  are given shelter in some European countries.

                 I have participated in many inter-parliamentary meetings about terrorism at the end

of which declarations have been made, but no concrete proposal for international

co-operation against terrorism has been made.  Everybody talks about preventing terrorism

by international co-operation, but so far no action has been taken to that end.

In conclusion, I stress once again that we must clearly define terrorism.  The most

objective criterion should be that resorting to violence, even for legitimate purposes, must

not be accepted.  We should prepare a definition of terrorism that can be accepted by all

European countries, and all those countries should act, with good will, accordingly.  The

definition should be as broad as possible and it should allow for exceptions and reservations;

otherwise our work will be a repetition of previous declarations, which have produced no

results.

                 Mr MUTMAN (Turkey). – We are discussing a very substantial report which has

     been prepared in a limited time, and I congratulate Mr Davis and others on their

     performance.

            I want to express my views on the horrific tragedies in New York and Washington.  The suicide hijackers shocked the world by destroying the symbols of trade and the military in the United States of America.  I represent a country which has suffered  greatly from terrorism, so colleagues can imagine how much I was affected by this  horrendous incident.

            More than 6 000 people died in that devastating attack.  The victims belonged to

different religions, including Islam.  From my country alone, about 131 Turkish citizens are still missing.  Therefore, terrorism recognises no religion, no colour, no age and no gender –

     it is entirely indiscriminate.

           We have fought terrorism for about twenty years.  That war has claimed some 35 000 lives and cost a huge amount of money – roughly $100 billion.  If we had put that much money into the progress of our country, it would not today be suffering its current economic

problems.  I regret to say that we were quite literally left alone in the early stages of our

struggle against terrorism.  No country gave us any real support at the beginning of the

1980s – indeed, a couple of countries in Europe encouraged terrorism and even harboured

the terrorists by defining them as freedom fighters.  I hope that those countries now

understand what an evil thing they have been playing with.  The definition of terrorism is of

the utmost significance.

                 Islam, like other religions, is a religion of peace and tolerance.  No religious belief

     should tolerate terrorism and crimes against humanity.  A terrorist can belong to any nation

     and to any religion.  In the light of those facts, we should exert every effort to avoid a clash

     of civilisations.  On the other hand, no difference should be made between those who

     committed the crimes and those who harbour the terrorists.  I should point out that some

     countries, which are members of Interpol, are very reluctant to return terrorists who are

     subject to a red bulletin, and are therefore in violation of international conventions.

     In conclusion, we should unite against all forms of terrorism and take immediate and

     firm action to implement severe punishments for every act of terrorism.  Turkey is ready to

     share all its experience in that respect.

Mr SA?LAM (Turkey). – I congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Terry Davis, on his

     excellent paper.  He has done a good job, as usual, and within a short time.

     The terrible crimes in New York and Washington were committed not only against

     the United States of America but against us all.  We feel in our hearts the pain of the

     American people and we send them our condolences.  I come from a country that has

     suffered from terrorism perhaps more than any other, and I know that it has cost us

     thousands of lives and billions of dollars.  I strongly feel the need to share my feelings with

     you all.

                 It is wrong to affiliate terrorism with any religion, race or nationality.  We all have

     an important job to do in fighting terrorism.  We must have a clear definition of terrorism,

     which almost always victimises innocent people, whose right to live is the most important

     human right.  We must all unite to fight terrorism.  That requires the exchange of

     information, and it requires experience and sincerity.  Every means of co-operation – local,

     national and international – is necessary.

                 No matter what reason or cause terrorists declare for their actions, we cannot

     excuse the killing of innocent people.  Let us make no mistake: we must do whatever we

     can to clean up our beautiful world, and to rid it not only of terrorists but of those who

     support and harbour them, no matter what their cause.  I know that that will take time and

     that it may be very painful, but we have no choice.  We should unite to fight terrorism,

     wherever it exists and whoever the terrorists are, whatever their nationality or faith.  That is why the United States Government was right to speak of a war against terrorism.

     I have reservations, which I would like to share with you, about the conduct of the

     business of the President’s office.  I want to make what amounts to a point of order.  Early

     this afternoon, we listened to Mr Christofias, President of the House of Representatives of

     the southern part of Cyprus.  This rostrum cannot be abused by those who want to

     discourage reconciliation.  I greatly regret the statement made by the speaker, which

     confirmed that the decision to invite him to the Assembly was ill-judged.  The fallacies and

     accusations that he expressed in the absence of his Turkish-Cypriot counterpart go against

     the notions of fairness and justice.  Neither his title nor his presence here is legitimate.  He

     represents only Greek Cypriots.  The Turkish Cypriots in the republic of northern Cyprus

     have once again been denied their basic rights and prevented from expressing themselves,

     and I regret that.  The speaker did not tell the truth about the Cyprus problem.  We all had

     to listen to nothing but one-sided propaganda.

                 On a day such as this we should be united in the fight against terrorism, which is an

     urgent matter.

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).-First and foremost I would like to convey the heartfelt

     sympathies of the Turkish nation and government to the innocent people who lost their

     lives in the terrorist attacks in the United States and to condemn these attacks in the

     strongest terms.

 

                 I assure you that Turkey understands this pain because between 1973 and 1985

     the Armenian terrorist organisation ASALA massacred forty-six Turkish diplomats and

     then the PKK, which is considered a terrorist organisation by the European Court of

     Human Rights, cost almost 30 000 lives.

 

                 All the speakers in the debate will certainly condemn terrorism and declare their

     opposition against it.  Today we should not only condemn terrorism but try to come up

     with a means of eradicating this scourge.

 

                 It is not possible for those countries which have never lived with terrorism to feel

     the painful reality of it, even though they see the pictures of its cruelty in the papers and on

     the scene.  It is very difficult to express how I am touched and what I feel when I see the

     pain of relatives of victims of terrorism in every village in my constituency.

 

                 I would like to recall the past now.  When ASALA massacred Turkish diplomats

     in European capitals, France, which had remained silent and had supported their acts,

     stopped doing so following the bombing attack at Orly airport which resulted in the

     deaths of eight people and the injury of hundreds.  Also, when terrorism became a real

     threat for Germany and France, they banned the activities of the PKK within their

     borders.

 

                 Belgium, let alone extradicting Fehriye Erdal, who provided aid to those who

     killed ?zdemi Sabanci, one of the leading businessmen in Turkey and two other innocent

     people, did not even bring her to justice with the reasoning that she did not use an

     automatic gun.  I hope that Belgium will take new measures after having witnessed how an

     aircraft with hundreds of passengers can be used for a terrorist attack.

 

                 Abdullah ?calan, who is responsible for the deaths of 30 000 people, found safe

     haven in Italy, Russia and Greece and after his departure from Syria was holding a Greek

     Cypriot passport when he was captured.

 

                 It is possible to come up with similar examples.  My aim is not to blame anyone

     but to draw your attention to the fact that the main issue is to see the reality of terrorism,

     to learn lessons from our mistakes and to shape our future accordingly.

 

                 The Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism was opened for signature in

     1977 by the Council of Europe.  There is no need to explain the form that terrorism

     assumed has changed recently.  Many countries have reservations about the Convention

     and the Convention does not meet current needs.

 

                 The Parliamentary Assembly should include this Convention on its agenda to

     review and reopen it for signature with a view to enshrining measures to halt the current

     form of terrorism.

 

                 We should keep in mind that democracy can only be attained through democratic

     means and that the fundamental human right is the right of life.

 

                 If we do not act in co-operation and take measures and if any of us were to

     become a victim of a terrorist attack in the airport, on our way or under this roof, I am

     afraid it might be too late.

 

                 Lastly, I would like to touch upon a theory which is misused.  I would like to

     underline that the theory of the clash of civilisations and religions is a false one.  Terrorism

     has no religion, nation or ethnicity.  Terrorism is the biggest threat against humanity.  In the

     resolution there is reference to the social, economic and religious roots of terrorism.

     Religion is a social phenomenon.

 

                 I would like to assure you that Turkey, which has suffered much from terrorism,

     will be on the same side as and in full co-operation with the United States and other

     countries.

 

                 Mr KALKAN (Turkey).-What we have on our agenda is of the utmost

     importance.  I would like to thank the rapporteur for this inclusive report.  It sheds light on

     the tremendous dimensions of a threat, which we all encounter.

 

                 The terrorist attacks of 11 September, aiming at the peoples and the government

     of the United States, were neither the first of such vicious acts, nor, will they be,

     unfortunately, the last.  We, as the representatives of European democracies, should be

     well aware of this fact and act responsibly and urgently.  As a matter of fact, it is very

     unfortunate that this issue is only brought to our agenda after such a devastating attack.

 

                 As a representative of a people who have long suffered from terrorism, I

     welcome the conscientious attitude we adopt today.  Being the flag-bearer of human

     rights issues in Europe and a standard-setting pioneer in this field, there remains an

     important role for the Council of Europe and for us, the Parliamentary Assembly, to play

     in the fight against terrorism.  It goes without saying that we can only play this role if we

     accept terrorism as a violation of human rights.

 

                 Here we come to the fine line between words and deeds.  We have witnessed for

     a long time now that words are not enough to stamp out this scourge.  We need

     determined and urgent action.  This action should be co-ordinated and effective.  It should

     go to the sources of terrorism and its financial resources:  those resources should be

     eradicated.  The collaborators of terrorism should be identified and should be held equally

     responsible.

 

                 The definition of terror and its characteristics should be quite clear in our minds.

     We should understand that terror has no nationality, religion, ethnicity or gender.  It has

     no legitimacy.  My country has seen its diplomats fall victim to ASALA terrorism in the

     past.  It has also suffered greatly from the separatist terrorism of PKK until recently.  It

     has also suffered to see the support or tolerance accorded to terrorist by other countries.

     At the same time, we have seen terrorists being welcomed at luxurious villas or even

     ambassadors’ residences.  A terrorist, responsible for killing a businessman, has almost

     been released in a European country because no automatic weapon was used.  Only after

     the calamity in the United States, which has shown to everybody that even knives could

     be enough for such a terrible act, have the judicial authorities decided to start a criminal

     process against her.  Posters glorifying a suicide bomber, who killed two policemen and

     an Austrian tourist, are posted everywhere in a capital city of Europe.  PKK terrorists are

     travelling freely in Europe.  In fact their representatives are present at this moment in the

     corridors of the Council of Europe.

 

                 Terror can be tackled only by hard work and joint efforts, not by mere

     condemnations and regret.

 

                 Now it is high time to do what the world democracies did not do for a long time.

     Now it is high time to assume responsibility.

 

                 If we are not able to do it today, those who hesitated or refrained from taking

     concrete steps, those who thought that they are in safe havens could find themselves as

     targets or victims, because terrorism is a vice for all, not for the few.

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER

STRUCTURES, PROCEDURES AND MEANS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey). – The continuing increase in the number of

     applications to the European Court of Human Rights constitutes a problem.  It is a

     problem for the Court, and for the parties to the Convention that are mutually responsible

     for the efficient functioning of the judicial mechanism.

     

                 Since the mid-1980s, there has been a recognisable increase in the number of

     applications.  Recognition of the right to recourse by human rights’ groups and

     acceptance of that right by the Committee of Ministers and our Assembly contributed

     heavily to that increase.  To provide a solution to the backlog problem, Protocol No. 8

     was put into practice.  It provided a legal framework for the creation of three-member

     committees to deal with the primary selection of applications.  That procedure helped to

     reduce the numbers to a more manageable level. 

     

                 I share the rapporteurs’ approach.  I also believe that the cornerstone of the

     Convention is the right to individual application.  Let me emphasise, however, the

     importance of complete objectivity in the committees’ work.  If a case emanates from a

     given country and one of the judges in a committee is from that country, the judge should

     abstain from presiding over the case and ask for an alternative to sit in for him.  That

     would make the verdict far more acceptable and enable it to be construed as more

     objective by all the parties.  It would also help the judges.  As we know, judges here are

     elected by parliamentarians, and the recommendations of governments play an important

     role in their candidacy.  That is why, when a case arises that concerns an individual and a

     given government, it puts the judge in a very difficult position.  I strongly suggest that

     judges should be allowed to step back and let others preside over such cases, for the

     sake of true and total objectivity in Court applications.

     

                 There are other problems.  Some famous cases such as Belilos against

     Switzerland and Öztürk against Germany generated important legislative reforms, even if

     the object of the conflict was equivalent to some Swiss francs or Deutschmarks.  In the

     first case, important interpretative problems concerning national reservations were also

     resolved by the judgment. 

     

                 We must be aware that the problem of the number of applications is particularly

     important in the first stage of examination.  We should not  minimise the fact that between

     80% and 85% of applications are declared inadmissible, or rejected during the early

     stage.

     

                 The problem is not really a problem of the judiciary function as such, but is

     caused by the accumulation of applications some of which are unsubstantiated or lack the

     procedural criteria that are required by the Convention.  We must solve that logistic

     problem to allow the Court to work faster.  Given that framework, I think that more

sensitive examination and the exhaustion of internal remedies would be an efficient method  of thinning out cases.  We must also give the Court the necessary technical means and  human resources to facilitate its heavy workload.

     

 

 

OECD AND THE WORLD ECONOMY

 

  Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey). – OECD is a unique forum which brings together

     three economic blocs – Europe, North America and Japan.  OECD also acts as the

     secretariat of the G7 countries in various parts of the world.  Due to its unique position, it

     has many contacts throughout the world to help with its programmes.  It has a working

     relationship with the former Soviet bloc countries, with Asia and with Latin America.

     Through its programmes and investments, OECD provides a forum for all those

     governments which is conducive to dialogue and to developing better economic and social

     policies.

                 Through the knowledge and experience shared with the help of OECD, a greater

     international consensus is taking shape, which is leading towards more formal and binding

     codes covering the free flow of capital, knowledge and the prevention of unfair

     competition.  The advantages of that do not benefit only the member countries, but the

     world in general.  OECD forum and its activities provide the potential and capacity to

     enhance transparency in our information society and economy through the sharing of

     knowledge and technology. One positive impact of OECD should be highlighted – it is

     one of the few mechanisms that decreases the negative impact of globalisation while

     promoting better democracies.

                 All those aspects make OECD a very valuable forum, carrying out valuable

     activities, especially in the aftermath of the 11 September events that shook the whole

     world.  The transparency and co-operation promoted by OECD would help first, to

     foster better investment in human capital through better education and improved skills;

     secondly, to introduce better ethics in business dealings, which would help to raise the

     standards of international business ethics and reduce bribery; thirdly, to foster a better and

     fairer taxation system around the world; fourthly, to foster a better and more sustainable

     development in many countries, which is especially important in view of the dangerous

     and growing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots”; and fifthly, OECD efforts to

     focus attention on food safety and the dangers of genetic modifications.

                 In short, we must protect and promote a platform as useful as OECD.

 

 

Situation in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

 

                 Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey). – Let me begin by thanking the rapporteur Mr

     Jaki? of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group for his comprehensive report.

 

                 I think that there is consensus among us on the importance of the Republic of

     Macedonia for a lasting peace and stability in the Balkans.  I believe that it has been a

     wise move to keep the report on Macedonia on our agenda today.  The Kosovo crisis

     and the very positive role Macedonia has played in the service of the international order is

     still fresh in our memories.

 

                 In connection with the debate here, let us reaffirm our strong commitment to the

     territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, sovereignty and stability of the Republic of

     Macedonia.  It is with pleasure that I note the considerable decline in the violent acts in

     the country.  Furthermore, I am very happy to see that the process of political dialogue

     has produced a final agreement.

 

                 Here I would like to say a few words on the framework agreement.  I think that

     the agreement constitutes an appropriate basis for stability and peace in the country.  It

     goes without saying that the fundamental issue ahead of us is a full and timely

     implementation of the agreement.

 

                 An important aspect of the agreement is the process of weapon collection.  It

     seems that it is going well.  However, security after disarmament would be a source of

     concern.  The disarmament process is a credible effort to create a peaceful climate for

     necessary democratic changes.  I feel particularly happy that the Turkish army is also

     participating in the process.

 

                 I welcome the fact that Mr Jaki?, during his visit to Macedonia, has met the

     representatives of all these minority groups and had an opportunity to learn their

     evaluation of the situation.  Indeed, the report itself gives a very good insight into the

     delicate balance in the country which needs to be carefully built up.

 

                 Here I would like to bring to your attention a specific paragraph in the report.  In

     paragraph 35, Mr Jaki? underlines the fact that the improvement in the position of one

     minority must not be made at the expense of the others.  He also states that the ethnic

     Albanians, who have been granted more rights in the areas where they are a majority,

     must now feel responsible for the protection of the rights of all other people living in these

     regions.  This specific issue is of utmost importance, given the changing circumstances in

     the Republic of Macedonia.  The rights of all the minorities, including the Turks, should be

     very carefully watched over.  The international community has a responsibility for the

     preservation of peace in the region.  The key to this is to ensure the implementation of the

     framework agreement by both sides.

 

                 We are now looking forward to a constructive debate on the constitutional

     amendments and to rapid parliamentary approval.  I welcome the positive result of the

     first reading in the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, which gave preliminary

     approval to the constitutional amendments set forth by the framework agreement.

 

                 The eleventh paragraph of the draft resolution stresses the importance of the

     financial support of the international community for the reconstruction efforts as well as for

     the foreseen administrative reforms.  It is very easy to criticise countries and to call upon

     them to realise reforms, but, without adequate financial support, our recommendations,

     which are made with evident good-will, will produce no results.  On the other hand, I

     have read the reply from the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1528 with

     interest.  I am happy to see that the governmental side of our organisation is also very

     active in the issue and a number of projects are already under way.

 

                 It is my sincere belief that following disarmament and the ratification of the

     framework agreement, the issue of the return of displaced persons would easily be

     solved.  As a Turkish Parliamentarian, I feel duty bound to mention briefly the situation of

     the Turkish minority living in the Republic of Macedonia.  They are loyal, peaceful and

     law-abiding citizens of the country and I hope that they will have the opportunity directly

     and regularly to participate in the implementation of the framework agreement.

 

 

THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER

CHECHNYA

 

Mr KALKAN (Turkey). – First, I should like to commend the report and thank

     the Chairmen of the Joint Working Group on Chechnya. The Caucasus continues to be a

     turbulent area. It bears special significance because the situation there carries the seeds of

     the further destabilisation of the whole region.

           Even though large-scale fighting has ceased in Chechnya, the situation remains far

     from stable, since mine wars, ambushes, bombings and shootings continue. There are also

     reports that the activities of the Russian security forces are on the increase. Any search for

     a peaceful solution should be started by Russia honouring the commitments that it

     undertook in the OSCE Istanbul final declaration.

           Given the terrifying position of Chechen refugees in the region, Russia must grant

     international aid organisations free and unlimited access to Chechnya. It is the Russian

     Administration’s duty to help the people whom it forced to flee their homes. Opening an

     OSCE office in the region is a positive start. I hope that the Russian authorities will

     facilitate the work of the office, which seems to have happened with the Council of

     Europe experts in Chechnya.

           Winter is approaching. That will further exacerbate the already critical

     humanitarian predicament of the refugees and internally displaced persons, whose number

     increases by the day. Russia must fully honour its international commitments and launch

     independent investigations into human rights abuses.

           It is not acceptable that a member state of the Council of Europe still applies the

     practice of collective punishment. Russia must do away with such an attitude. If there are

     guilty Chechens, judicial authorities should persecute them, but practices such as mass

     arrests of whole village populations are unjustified.

           I should like to consider another important problem: the situation of Chechen

     refugees in Georgia. The Russian authorities have collected all their identity documents

     and are apparently denying them the right to return home. Some members of the

     international community criticised Georgia for not extending adequate assistance to the

     Chechen refugees in the country. How can we expect the Georgian authorities to deal

     effectively with the problem without any help from the international community as they

     continue to suffer from other refugee crises?

           In conclusion, Russia is in a very difficult position in Chechnya and we must help

     the Russian authorities to find an honourable exit from the dead end there. The Council of

     Europe should do its utmost to contribute to the restoration of democracy and the

     supremacy of the rule of law. It cannot remain indifferent to the tragic dimensions of the

     human suffering in Chechnya, and the Russians should accept the friendly hand that is

     extended to it.