Ministers’ Deputies
    Decisions

    CM/Del/Dec(2006)967 16 June 2006
    ———————————————

    967th meeting, 14 June 2006

    Decisions adopted

    ———————————————

    CONTENTS

    Page

    List of those present 6

    1. General questions

    1.1 Adoption of the agenda 9

    1.2 Preparation of forthcoming meetings +

    1.3 Communication from the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General –
    Staff matters 9

    1.4 Report of the Bureau 10

    1.5 Conferences of Specialised Ministers – State of preparation 10

    1.6 Priorities of the Chairmanship of the Russian Federation – Presentation and exchange of views +

    1.7 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers (Strasbourg, 18-19 May 2006) – Follow-up 10

    2. Political questions

    2.1 Current political questions
    a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability 12
    - Georgia
    b. Other questions +
    - Statement by the Representative of Romania
    - Statement by the Representative of Slovenia

    2.2 Situation in Cyprus+

    2.3 State Union of Serbia and Montenegro
    a. Continuation of the Republic of Serbia as a member state of the Council of Europe 12
    b. Request for accession to the Council of Europe from the Republic of Montenegro 14

    3. Parliamentary Assembly

    3.1 Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly (Moscow, 29 May 2006)

      a. Communication by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly 16
      b. Texts adopted 16

    3.2 Written Question by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

      a. Written Question No. 481 by Mr Jurgens: “Case of Abdelhamid Hakkar” (cf. item 1.1)

    4. Human rights

    4.1 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
    a. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Italy 19
    b. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Slovenia 19

    H46-1 Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and Russia –
    Judgment of 08/07/2004 – Grand Chamber – Application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the
    European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocol No. 11 19

Page

    10. Legal questions

    10.1 Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) –
    Abridged report of the 31st meeting (Strasbourg, 23-24 March 2006) 19

    10.2 European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) –
    Abridged report of the 81st meeting (Strasbourg, 22-24 March 2006) 20

    10.3 European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)
    a. Abridged report of the 55th meeting (Strasbourg, 3-7 April 2006) 20
    b. Draft Recommendation Rec(2006)… of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims and its Explanatory Memorandum 21

    10.4 Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) –
    Abridged report of the 1st meeting (1st Multilateral Consultation of the Parties)
    (Strasbourg, 20-21 March 2006) 21

    10.5 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
    Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Sweden 22

    10.6 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
    First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Armenia 22

    10.7 Democratic oversight of the security sector in member states –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1713 (2005) 22

    10.8 Accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) 23

    10.9 Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005) 23

    10.10 3rd European Conference of Election management bodies – Development and codification of international standards in electoral matters (Moscow, 22-23 May 2006) –
    Information by the Russian Federation +

    11. Administration and logistics

    11.1 Co-ordinating Committee on Remuneration (CCR) –
    Adjustment of the daily subsistence allowance for staff for 2006 – 169th report 23

    11.2 Staff matters – Regrading of a vacant A5 post to grade A6 (Director of Common Services) in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights 23

    APPENDICES

    APPENDIX 1 967th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
    (Item 1.1) (Strasbourg, 14 (10 a.m.) June 2006)
    Agenda 24

Page

    APPENDIX 2 Decision No. CM/867/14062006
    (Item 1.7) Ad hoc terms of reference
    of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) 28

    APPENDIX 3 Resolution ResCMN(2006)5
    (Item 4.1a) on the implementation of the Framework Convention
    for the Protection of National Minorities by Italy 29

    APPENDIX 4 Resolution ResCMN(2006)6
    (Item 4.1b) on the implementation of the Framework Convention
    for the Protection of National Minorities by Slovenia 32

    APPENDIX 5 Terms of reference
    (Item 10.2) of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) 35

    APPENDIX 6 Terms of reference
    (Item 10.3a) of the Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP) 38

    APPENDIX 7 Terms of reference
    (Item 10.3a) of the Council for Police Matters (PC-PM) 41

    APPENDIX 8 Terms of reference
    (Item 10.3a) of the Committee of Experts on the operation of European
    conventions in the penal field (PC-OC) 43

    APPENDIX 9 Recommendation Rec(2006)8
    (Item 10.3b) of the Committee of Ministers to member states
    on assistance to crime victims 45

    APPENDIX 10 Recommendation RecChL(2006)2
    (Item 10.6) of the Committee of Ministers
    on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
    by Armenia 53

    APPENDIX 11 Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005)
    (Item 10.8) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states 54

    APPENDIX 12 Decision No. CM/868/14062006
    (Item 10.8) Ad hoc terms of reference with a view to examining human rights protection
    in the context of accelerated asylum procedures 60

    APPENDIX 13 Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005)
    (Item 10.9) on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for
    Refugees (UNHCR) 61

The 967th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies opened on 14 June 2006 at 10.00 a.m. under the chairmanship of Mr A.K. Orlov, Deputy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

    PRESENT

    ALBANIA
    Mr F. Peni

    ANDORRA
    Ms G. Cano

    ARMENIA
    Mr C. Ter Stepanian
    Mr L. Amirdjanian
    Ms O. Davtian

    AUSTRIA
    Mr M. Botta

    AZERBAIJAN
    Mr V. Ahmadov
    Mr S. Sharifov
    Mr Z. Abdullayev

    BELGIUM
    Mr C. Ghislain
    Mr M. Peetermans

    BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
    Mr B. Marić
    Ms M. Sidran-Kamisalic
    Ms L. Ljubic

    BULGARIA
    Mr P. Baev
    Mrs L. Draganova
    Ms E. Tomova
    Mr K. Bojanov

    CROATIA
    Mr D. Bučan
    Ms J. Derviš
    Mr D. Sabljak

    CYPRUS
    Mr M. Lyssiotis
    Ms H. Mina
    Mr G. Ioannides

    CZECH REPUBLIC
    Mr O. Abrhám
    Ms K. Markovová

    DENMARK
    Mr N.-J. Nehring
    Mr J. D. Thomsen

    ESTONIA
    Mr A. Streimann
    Ms E. Loman
    Mr E. Harremoes
    FINLAND
    Ms A.M. Nyroos
    Mr E. Lundberg
    Ms T. Zapasnik

    FRANCE
    Mr P. Merlin
    Mr F. Rogge
    Mr S. Muller

    GEORGIA
    Ms N. Avaliani
    Mr P. Matchavariani

    GERMANY
    Mr A. Klaßen

    GREECE
    Mr C. Yerocostopoulos
    Mr N. Tsamados
    Mr K. Tsakonas
    Ms D. Koukoulopoulou

    HUNGARY
    Mr Z. Taubner
    Mr P. Gőndőr
    Ms E. Petőházi

    ICELAND
    Mr H. Bjarnason

    IRELAND
    Mr J. Sharkey
    Mr R. Gargan
    Ms C. Sharkey

    ITALY
    Mr P. Lonardo
    Mr R. Cianfarani
    Mrs V. Biagiotti

    LATVIA
    Mr P. Elferts
    Mrs I. Freimane-Deksne

    LIECHTENSTEIN
    Mr D. Ospelt

    LITHUANIA
    Mr N. Germanas
    Ms A. Venckevičienė
    Ms B. Petrauskienė

    LUXEMBOURG
    Mr R. Mayer

MALTA

    Mr C. Depasquale

    MOLDOVA
    Mr A. Tulbure
    Mrs M. Balitchi

    MONACO
    Mr J. Boisson
    Mr R. Mortier

    NETHERLANDS
    Mr C.J.M. Meeuwis
    Mr G. C. de Boer
    Mr M. van den Bosch

    NORWAY
    Mr T. Frøysnes
    Mr O. Reinertsen
    Ms R. Fidjestøl

    POLAND
    Mr P. Świtalski
    Mr J. Kasprzyk
    Ms S. Jaczewska

    PORTUGAL
    Mr J. Duarte
    Mr P. M. Santos Pessoa e Costa

    ROMANIA
    Mr D. Tanase
    Ms C. Jelescu
    Mr R. Rotundu
    Mr A. Pacuretu
    Ms M. Manailescu

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION
    Mr A.K. Orlov, Chairman
    Mr V. Pospelov
    Ms T. Sulitskaya
    Mr S. Dalechin
    Mr M. Nefedov
    Ms M. Molodtsova
    Mr I. Volodin
    Mr V. Egorov
    Mr S. Veselovskiy
    Mr V. Kashin-Padun

    SAN MARINO
    Mr G. Bellatti Ceccoli, Vice-Chairman
    Mr D. Beleffi

    SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
    Ms S. Prica
    Mr Z. Jankovic
    Ms D. Divjak Tomic
    Mr I. Vucinic

    SLOVAK REPUBLIC
    Ms A. Lamperová
    Mr M. Eštok
    Ms E. Kimlikova
    Ms M. Slováková

    SLOVENIA
    Mr A. Biber
    Mr J. Brenčič

    SPAIN
    Mr E. de Grandes Pascual
    Mr E. Pérez de Agreda

    SWEDEN
    Mr B. Häggmark
    Mr M. Molander

    SWITZERLAND
    Mr C. Birrer
    Ms C. Trautweiler

    “THE FORMER
    YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC
    OF MACEDONIA”
    Ms B. Tasevska
    Ms O. Vasilevska

    TURKEY
    Mr D. Batibay
    Mr K. Esener
    Mrs B. Tuğ
    Mr A. Ay
    Mr T. Oral
    Mr U. Umar

    UKRAINE
    Mr S. Reva
    Mr A. Kuzmenko
    Mrs O. Yakimova

    UNITED KINGDOM
    Mr S. Howarth
    Ms P. Mitchison
    Ms F. Horine

    *
    * *

    EUROPEAN COMMISSION
    Mr M. Caillouet

    *
    * *

    Item 1.1

    Adoption of the agenda

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. agreed to postpone the following item on the draft agenda of their 967th meeting:

 

3.2

Written Question by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers
a. Written Question No. 481 by Mr Jurgens: “Case of Abdelhamid Hakkar”

    to one of their forthcoming meetings;

    2. agreed to add the following sub-items to the agenda of their 967th meeting:

 

2.1

Current political questions
b. Other questions
- Statement by the Representative of Romania
- Statement by the Representative of Slovenia

    3. taking into account decisions 1 and 2 above, adopted the agenda of their 967th meeting, as it appears at Appendix 1 to the present volume of Decisions.

    Item 1.3

    Communication from the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General –
    Staff matters
    (SG/Com(2006)967)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. took note of the Secretary General’s intention to confirm the appointment of Mr Alan Todd on the post of Director of Finance and Linguistic Services (Grade A6), in accordance with Article 25.5b of the Regulations on Appointments (Appendix II of the Staff Regulations), with effect from 1 July 2006;

    2. took note of the Secretary General’s intention to appoint Mr Christos Giakoumopoulos to the post of Director (Grade A6) of Directorate 1 in the Directorate General of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 25.5b of the Regulations on Appointments (Appendix II of the Staff Regulations), with effect from 1 July 2006;

    3. took note of the Secretary General's intention to transfer Mr Jan Kleijssen to the post of Director (Grade A6) of Directorate 2 in the Directorate General of Human Rights with effect from 15 June 2006;

    4. took note of the Secretary General's intention to transfer Ms Jane Dinsdale to a post of Director (Grade A6) in the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly with effect from 15 June 2006;

    5. took note of the communication by the Secretary General as it appears in document SG/Com(2006)967.

Item 1.4

    Report of the Bureau
    (CM/Bur/Del(2006)11,CM/Del/Dec(2006)965/11.1 and Resolution Res(2006)1)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. decided to extend the deadline for the submission of candidates to the Management Board of the Pension Reserve Fund to 30 June 2006 and encouraged member states to submit candidates for the one remaining place on the Board;

    2. took note of the report of the meeting of the Bureau of 9 June 2006 (CM/Bur/Del(2006)11) and approved the other recommendations contained therein.

    Item 1.5

    Conferences of Specialised Ministers – State of preparation
    (CM/Inf(2006)23)

    Decision

    The Deputies

    Concerning the 15th Session of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government (Valencia, Spain)

    noted that this conference would be held on 15 and 16 October 2007.

    Item 1.7

    116th Session of the Committee of Ministers (Strasbourg, 18-19 May 2006) – Follow-up
    (CM(2006)PVprov, Corrigendum and Addendum, CM/Del/Dec(2006)965/1.5)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. took note of the Chairman’s information on his ongoing consultations on the setting up of a high-level group to consider the follow-up to be given to the Juncker report, and decided to come back to the matter at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    2. instructed their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J) to consider the state of implementation of the decision taken at their 953rd meeting on the fight against terrorism (under item 10.5b), and invited CODEXTER to pursue its work on identification of lacunae in international law and action against terrorism as appropriate, and to continue its ongoing activities, in particular the drawing up of country profiles on legislative and institutional counter-terrorism capacity and the exchanges of best practice concerning, inter alia, the protection and compensation of victims of terrorism;

3. welcomed the organisation of a thematic review of the implementation of Council of Europe conventions against terrorism in the context of the 10th meeting of the CODEXTER (Strasbourg, 19-21 June 2006) and the increase in the number of signatures and ratifications concerning these conventions and further called upon member states to ensure the entry into force of the Council of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism (CETS No. 196), the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198) and the Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ETS No. 190) as soon as possible, and possibly before the end of 2006;

    4. instructed their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J) to take stock of standard-setting activities under way within various intergovernmental bodies of the Council of Europe on the basis of an information document to be prepared by the Secretariat;

    5. invited their Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C), in consultation with the Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research (CDESR), to consider the proposal to establish a network of co-operation between European universities;

    6. invited their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J) to consider possible further steps to promote democratic standards in electoral matters;

    ***

    In the light of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on sustained action to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national and European levels2 and the reports on which it is based3

    7. agreed, within the framework of their Human Rights meetings, to intensify their action with regard to taking specific and effective measures to improve and accelerate the execution of the Court's judgments, inter alia, by carrying forward the practical proposals already made by the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), including those referred to in paragraphs X. c) and d) of the Declaration;

    8. agreed also to pursue their work in the context of their Human Rights meetings, on proposals for the supervision practice in cases of slow or negligent execution of Court judgments;

    9. adopted Decision No. CM/867/14062006 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the CDDH, as it appears at Appendix 2 to the present volume of Decisions;

    10. agreed to consider any further measures to facilitate the implementation of the European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP), and to undertake a review of the programme in the second half of 2007 on the basis of a mid-term report to be prepared by the Secretariat;

    11. noted with interest the proposal to set up a fund to support national efforts in implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which could be administered by the Council of Europe Development Bank and developed in co-operation with the Secretariat, and welcomed the informal consultations currently taking place in this respect between interested member states and relevant Council of Europe bodies;

    12. agreed to assess, in the context of the preparation of the 2007 Ordinary Budget, the arrangements for the enhancement of resources for the Court and other departments concerned in the light of the proposals presented by the Secretary General;

13. invited their Chairman to transmit the Declaration as well as their report as presented to the 116th Session to the Council of Europe Development Bank drawing the latter’s attention to paragraph VIII. of the Declaration.

    Item 2.1a

    Current political questions

    a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability
    (SG/Inf(2006)8 final, FFD-AB(2006)4, GR-DEM(2006)CB7)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. took note of the synopsis of the meeting of GR-DEM held on 8 June 2006 (document GR-DEM(2006)CB7);

    2. took note of the report of the first meeting of the Advisory Board on the Forum for the future of democracy (document FFD-AB(2006)4);

    3. welcomed the proposals of Ukraine and Armenia to host a plenary session of the Forum in their respective countries, in 2009 and 2010;

    Concerning Georgia

    4. took note of the regular report on the compliance with commitments and obligations by Georgia (document SG/Inf(2006)8 final) and agreed to resume consideration of this report and of the follow-up to be given in the light of the conclusions of the visit of a delegation of GR-DEM to Tbilisi on 11 and 12 June 2006.

    Item 2.3a

    State Union of Serbia and Montenegro

    a. Continuation of the Republic of Serbia as a member state of the Council of Europe
    (CM(2006)104 revised, 105 and 106)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. noted the contents of the letters of 5 June 2006 in which Mr Boris Tadic, President of the Republic of Serbia, informed respectively Mr Sergey Lavrov, Chairman-in-office of the Committee of Ministers, and Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, that on the basis of Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro, activated by the Declaration of Independence adopted by the National Assembly of Montenegro on 3 June 2006, the Republic of Serbia will continue the membership of the Council of Europe hitherto exercised by the Union of States of Serbia and Montenegro, and the obligations and commitments arising from it;

    2. therefore noted that the Republic of Serbia is continuing the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the Council of Europe with effect from 3 June 2006;

3. bearing in mind the proposal in the letter of 9 June 2006 from the President of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, approved the following amendment to Article 26 of the Statute of the Council of Europe:

    "Members shall be entitled to the number of representatives given below:

    Albania 4
    Andorra 2
    Armenia 4
    Austria 6
    Azerbaijan 6
    Belgium 7
    Bosnia and Herzegovina 5

        Bulgaria 6

    Croatia 5
    Cyprus 3
    Czech Republic 7
    Denmark 5
    Estonia 3
    Finland 5
    France 18
    Georgia 5
    Germany 18
    Greece 7
    Hungary 7
    Iceland 3
    Ireland 4
    Italy 18
    Liechtenstein 2


    Latvia 3
    Lithuania 4
    Luxembourg 3
    Malta 3
    Moldova 5
    Monaco 2
    Netherlands 7
    Norway 5
    Poland 12
    Portugal 7
    Romania 10
    Russia 18
    San Marino 2
    Serbia 7
    Slovakia 5
    Slovenia 3
    Spain 12
    Sweden 6
    Switzerland 6
    "the former Yugoslav Republic
    of Macedonia" 3
    Turkey 12
    Ukraine 12
    United Kingdom of Great Britain
    and Northern Ireland 18"

    4. noted that the Republic of Serbia was either a signatory or a party to the Council of Europe conventions referred to in the appendix to these decisions, to which Serbia and Montenegro had been a signatory or party;

    5. also noted that the Republic of Serbia was a member of the following partial agreements, of which Serbia and Montenegro had been a member:

    . European Pharmacopoeia;

    . Partial Agreement Setting up a European Support Fund for the Co-Production and Distribution of Creative Cinematographic and Audiovisual Works "Eurimages";

    . Enlarged Partial Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO);

    . Enlarged Partial Agreement Establishing the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission);

    . Partial Agreement on the Council of Europe Development Bank, the detailed arrangements to be determined by the organs of the Bank;

    . Partial Agreement on the Youth Card for the Purpose of Promoting and Facilitating Youth Mobility in Europe;

    6. noted that the Republic of Serbia would take part in the activities of the intergovernmental committees of experts in which Serbia and Montenegro had taken part;

7. agreed to consider the financial and other implications of the aforementioned decisions at a subsequent meeting;

    8. adopted the following statement:

      “Continuation by the Republic of Serbia of membership of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in the Council of Europe

      The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe noted today that, following the declaration of independence of the Republic of Montenegro on 3 June 2006, and in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia will continue membership of the State Union in the Council of Europe and will assume the attendant obligations and commitments.

      The Committee of Ministers will maintain with the Republic of Serbia the close co-operative relations which it had established with the State Union and wishes to assure the Serbian authorities of its readiness to continue working with them towards greater European unity on the basis of the Council of Europe’s values and principles. It welcomes their declared willingness to work in the same direction.

      The Committee of Ministers expressed its confidence that the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro will settle matters relating to the succession of the State Union in the same spirit of mutual understanding and co-operation which they have shown in the last few weeks, in the interest of stability and prosperity of Europe.”

    Item 2.3b

    State Union of Serbia and Montenegro

    b. Request for accession from the Republic of Montenegro to the Council of Europe
    (CM(2006)104 revised, 105 and 106)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. noted the letters of 6 and 12 June 2006 in which Mr Miodrag Vlahovic, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Montenegro, informed Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, that the Republic of Montenegro wished to become a member of the Council of Europe, to succeed to the Council of Europe conventions that had been signed and ratified by Serbia and Montenegro and to become a member of the Partial Agreements of which Serbia and Montenegro was a member;

    2. stated that, in accordance with the Organisation's Statute, membership could be granted once the Committee of Ministers, after consulting the Parliamentary Assembly, had found that the conditions for membership were satisfied;

    3. decided to transmit the Republic of Montenegro's application for membership to the Parliamentary Assembly for an opinion;

    4. decided, as an interim measure, that the Republic of Montenegro could take part, as an observer, in all the intergovernmental committees of experts in which it expressed an interest;

    5. pending the examination of the Republic of Montenegro’s application for membership of the Council of Europe, decided that representatives of the Government of the Republic of Montenegro will be invited to attend the meetings of the Committee of Ministers;

6. with regard to the Republic of Montenegro's declaration of succession to the Council of Europe conventions of which Serbia and Montenegro was a signatory or party, agreed as follows:

      a) that the Republic of Montenegro was either a signatory or a party, as appropriate, to the "open" conventions referred to in the appendix to these decisions, with effect from 6 June 2006, the date of the declaration of succession;

      b) concerning the Republic of Montenegro's succession to the "closed" conventions:

      i. to take the relevant decisions in due course on the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), of its Additional Protocol (ETS No. 9), its Protocols No. 4 (ETS No. 46), No. 6 (ETS No. 114), No. 7 (ETS No. 117), No. 12 (ETS No. 177), No. 13 (ETS No. 187) and No. 14 (CETS No. 194), the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ETS No. 90) and its amending Protocol (ETS No. 190), the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122) and the European Social Charter (revised) (ETS No. 163);

    7. with regard to the Republic of Montenegro's declaration of succession to the Partial Agreements of which Serbia and Montenegro had been a member, agreed that:

      a) its succession to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 173) made it ipso facto a member of the Enlarged Partial Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO);

      b) its succession to the Convention on the Elaboration of a European Pharmacopoeia (ETS No. 050) made it ipso facto a member of the European Pharmacopoeia;

      c) its succession to the European Cultural Convention made it a member of the Partial Agreement on the Youth Card for the Purpose of Promoting and Facilitating Youth Mobility in Europe;

      d) the Republic of Montenegro was a member of the following partial agreements, with effect from 6 June 2006:

          i. Enlarged Partial Agreement Establishing the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission);

          ii. Partial Agreement Setting up a European Support Fund for the Co-Production and Distribution of Creative Cinematographic and Audiovisual Works "Eurimages";

      e) with regard to the participation of the Republic of Montenegro to the Partial Agreement of the Council of Europe Development Bank, the notification of succession contained in the aforementioned letter of 12 June 2006 should be transmitted to the competent bodies of the Bank, in order to give to it the appropriate follow-up;

    8. agreed to consider the other implications of the aforementioned decisions, including those concerning privileges and immunities, as well as the financial implications, at a subsequent meeting;

    9. adopted the following statement:

    Request by the Republic of Montenegro for accession to the Council of Europe

      The Committee of Ministers refers to its declaration of 24 May 2006 on the referendum organised in Montenegro on 21 May, and to the declaration of independence of the Republic of Montenegro on 3 June 2006.

      The Committee of Ministers took note with satisfaction of the request for accession of the Republic of Montenegro to the Council of Europe and transmitted it – in accordance with the usual procedure – to the Parliamentary Assembly for opinion.

The Committee of Ministers welcomes the intention expressed by the authorities of the Republic of Montenegro to respect and implement the obligations and commitments contracted by the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro as a member state of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers is determined to intensify co-operation with the Republic of Montenegro to this end, following the appropriate modalities.

      The Committee of Ministers expressed its confidence that the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro will settle matters relating to the succession of the State Union in the same spirit of mutual understanding and co-operation which they have shown in the last few weeks, in the interest of stability and prosperity of Europe.”

    Item 3.1a

    Parliamentary Assembly –
    Standing Committee (Moscow, 29 May 2006)

    a. Communication of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly (Moscow, 29 May 2006)
    (SG-AS(2006)5)

    Decision

    The Deputies took note of the communication by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly on the Standing Committee (Moscow, 29 May 2006), as it appears in document SG-AS(2006)5.

    Item 3.1b

    Parliamentary Assembly –
    Standing Committee (Moscow, 29 May 2006)

    b. Texts adopted at the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly (Moscow, 29 May 2006) (Provisional compendium of texts adopted)
    (2006 Session (Provisional compendium of texts adopted))

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. took note of the following opinions:

    - Opinion No. 259 (2006) – Budgets of the Council of Europe for the financial year 2007;

    - Opinion No. 260 (2006) – Expenditure of the Assembly for the financial year 2007;

    and agreed to bear them in mind in the framework of their discussion on the draft budget for 2007;

    *
    * *

    2. concerning Recommendation 1746 (2006) – Enhancing the visibility of the Council of Europe

      a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;
      b. invited their Thematic Co-ordinator on Information Policy (TC-INF) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

***

    3. concerning Recommendation 1747 (2006) – European Prisons Charter

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) and to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) for information and possible comments by 1 September 2006;
      c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    ***

    4. concerning Recommendation 1748 (2006) – Working migration from the countries of eastern and central Europe: present state and perspectives

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) for information and possible comments by 1 September 2006;
      c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    ***

    5. concerning Recommendation 1749 (2006) – Demographic challenges for social cohesion

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee on Social Cohesion (CDCS) and to the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) for information and possible comments by

          1 September 2006;

      c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming
      meetings;

    ***

    6. concerning Recommendation 1750 (2006) – Education for balanced development in school

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee for Education (CDED), the European Health Committee (CDSP) and the Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SP) for information and possible comments by 1 September 2006;
      c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    ***

    7. concerning Recommendation 1751 (2006) – Cultural diversity of the North Caucasus

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee for Education (CDED), to the Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research (CDESR) and to the Steering Committee for Culture (CDCULT) for information and possible comments by 1 September 2006;

c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    ***

    8. concerning Recommendation 1752 (2006) – Conservation and use of the landscape potential of Europe

    a. decided to bring it to the attention of their governments;

      b. agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee for Cultural Heritage (CDPAT), to the Committee for the Activities of the Council of Europe in the field of Biological and Landscape Diversity (CO-DBP) and to the Committee of Senior Officials of the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CSO-CEMAT) for information and possible comments by 1 September 2006;
      c. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

    *
    * *

    9. took note of the following resolutions:

    Resolution 1498 (2006) – Enhancing the visibility of the Council of Europe

    Resolution 1499 (2006) – Economic development in Ukraine: a test case for European solidarity

    Resolution 1500 (2006) – The need to enhance European air safety

    Resolution 1501 (2006) – Working migration from the countries of eastern and central Europe: present state and perspectives

    Resolution 1502 (2006) – Demographic challenges for social cohesion

    Resolution 1503 (2006) – Obligation of new members of the Assembly relating to the aims and basic principles of the Council of Europe

    Resolution 1504 (2006) – Procedure for decisions by committees relating to candidates eligible for election by the Assembly

    *
    * *

    10. adopted the following reply to the texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly at the Standing Committee (Moscow, 29 May 2006):

      “The Committee of Ministers took note of Opinions 259 and 260 (2006), Recommendations 1746 to 1752 (2006) and Resolutions 1498 to 1504 (2006) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly at its Standing Committee (Moscow, 29 May 2006).

      The Committee of Ministers brought Recommendations 1746 to 1752 (2006) to the attention of the governments of member states and entrusted them to the competent organs and/or committees of experts for information or comments and/or to Rapporteur Groups/Thematic Co-ordinators with a view to preparing draft replies for adoption at an early date.”

Item 4.1a

    Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

    a. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Italy
    (GR-H(2006)5, GR-H(2006)CB4)

    Decision

    The Deputies adopted Resolution ResCMN(2006)5 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Italy, as it appears at Appendix 3 to the present volume of Decisions.

    Item 4.1b

    Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

    b. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Slovenia
    (GR-H(2006)9, GR-H(2006)CB4 and Addendum)

    Decision

    The Deputies adopted Resolution ResCMN(2006)6 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Slovenia, as it appears at Appendix 4 to the present volume of Decisions.

    Item H46-1

    Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and the Russian Federation –
    Judgment of 08/07/2004 – Grand Chamber – Application of Article 46, paragraph 2,
    of the European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocol No. 11

    (CM/Inf/DH(2006)17rev7)

    Decision

    The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the measures taken towards the execution of the Court’s judgment at their 969th meeting (21 June 2006).

    Item 10.1

    Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) –
    Abridged report of the 31st meeting (Strasbourg, 23-24 March 2006)
    (CM(2006)59)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. welcomed the holding of the 4th multilateral consultation on the implications for Council of Europe member states of the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, following the 32nd meeting of the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI), in Athens, on 14 and 15 September 2006, thanks to the generous voluntary contributions by Finland and Switzerland;

2. took note of the abridged report of the 31st meeting of CAHDI, as it appears in document CM(2006)59, as a whole.

    Item 10.2

    European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) –
    Abridged report of the 81st meeting (Strasbourg, 22-24 March 2006)
    (CM(2006)60)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. adopted the terms of reference of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), as they appear at Appendix 5 to the present volume of Decisions;

    2. took note of the opinion on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005) on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as it appears at Appendix 4 of document CM(2006)60;

    3. took note of the opinion on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1732 (2006) on the integration of immigrant women in Europe, as it appears at Appendix 5 of document CM(2006)60;

    4. welcomed the reply, prepared by the CDCJ in accordance with the message from the Committee of Ministers (document CM(2005)145rev) to all committees involved in intergovernmental co-operation, concerning the CDCJ’s contribution to the implementation of the Action Plan of the Third Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005) and, in particular, its future priorities, as it appears at Appendix 2 of document CM(2006)60;

    5. welcomed the CDCJ’s reply, requested by the Committee of Ministers, to the Progress Report of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) (document CM(2005)172 Addendum), and underlining the activities the CDCJ is willing to carry out in the context of supporting the fight against terrorism, as it appears at Appendix 6 of document CM(2006)60;

    6. in the light of decisions 1 to 5 above, took note of the abridged report of the CDCJ, as it appears in document CM(2006)60, as a whole.

    Item 10.3a

    European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)

    a. Abridged report of the 55th meeting (Strasbourg, 3-7 April 2006)
    (CM(2006)61)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. adopted the terms of reference of the Council for penological co-operation (PC-CP), as they appear at Appendix 6 to the present volume of Decisions;

    2. adopted the terms of reference of the Council for police matters (PC-PM), as they appear at Appendix 7 to the present volume of Decisions;

3. adopted the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on the operation of European conventions in the legal field (PC-OC), as they appear at Appendix 8 to the present volume of Decisions;

    4. welcomed the reply, prepared by the CDPC in accordance with the message from the Committee of Ministers (document CM(2005)145rev) to all committees involved in intergovernmental co-operation, concerning the CDPC’s contribution to the implementation of the Action Plan of the Third Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16-17 May 2005) and, in particular, its future priorities, as it appears at Appendix 6 of document CM(2006)61;

    5. in the light of decisions 1 to 4 above, took note of the abridged report of the CDPC, as it appears in document CM(2006)61, as a whole.

    Item 10.3b

    European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)

    b. Draft Recommendation Rec(2006)… of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims and its Explanatory Memorandum
    (CM(2006)61 and CM(2006)61 Addendum)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. adopted Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims, as it appears at Appendix 9 to the present volume of Decisions;

    2. took note of the Explanatory Memorandum to the recommendation as it appears in document CM(2006)61 Addendum revised.

    Item 10.4

    Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) –
    Abridged report of the 1st meeting (1st Multilateral Consultation of the Parties)
    (Strasbourg, 20-21 March 2006)

    (CM(2006)62)

    Decision

    The Deputies took note of the abridged report of the 1st meeting of the Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY), as it appears in document CM(2006)62.

Item 10.5

    European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
    Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Sweden
    (CM(2006)63)

    Decision

    The Deputies, in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 1, of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, declared the person whose name appears below elected as a member of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in respect of Sweden, for a period of six years:

    - Mr LAINIO Jarmo.

    Item 10.6

    European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
    First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Armenia

    (CM(2006)85)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. took note of the first report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Armenia as it appears in CM(2006)85;

    2. adopted Recommendation RecChL(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers as it appears at Appendix 10 to the present volume of Decisions and agreed to forward it to the Armenian authorities.

    Item 10.7

    Democratic oversight of the security sector in member states –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1713 (2005)
    (REC_1713 (2005), CM/AS(2006)Rec1713prov5)

    Decision

    The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 969th meeting (21 June 2006).

Item 10.8

    Accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005)
    (REC_1727 (2005), CM/AS(2006)Rec1727prov)

    Decisions

    The Deputies

    1. adopted the reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states, as it appears at Appendix 11 to the present volume of Decisions;4

    2. adopted Decision No. CM/868/14062006, giving ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), as it appears at Appendix 12 to the present volume of Decisions.

    Item 10.9

    Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) –
    Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005)
    (REC_1729 (2005), CM/AS(2006)Rec1729prov)

    Decision

    The Deputies adopted the reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005) on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as it appears at Appendix 13 to the present volume of Decisions.5

    Item 11.1

    Co-ordinating Committee on Remuneration (CCR) –
    Adjustment of the daily subsistence allowance for staff for 2006 – 169th report

    (CM(2006)1 and Corrigendum and GR-AB(2006)5 and 10)

    Decision

    The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 969th meeting (21 June 2006).

    Item 11.2

    Staff matters – Regrading of a vacant A5 post to grade A6 (Director of Common Services) in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

    Decision

    The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 969th meeting (21 June 2006).

Appendix 1

    (Item 1.1)

    967 meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
    Strasbourg, 14 (10 a.m.) June 2006

    Agenda

1.

General questions

1.1

Adoption of the agenda

1.2

Preparation of forthcoming meetings

1.3

Communication from the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General

1.4

Report of the Bureau

(CM/Bur/Del(2006)11)

1.5

Conferences of Specialised Ministers – State of preparation

(CM/Inf(2006)23)
(CM/Notes/967/1.5 of 31.5.2006)

1.6

Priorities of the Chairmanship of the Russian Federation – Presentation and exchange of views

(CM/Inf(2006)26)
(CM/Notes/967/1.6 of 2.6.2006)

1.7

116th Session of the Committee of Ministers (Strasbourg, 18-19 May 2006) – Follow-up

(CM/Del/Dec(2006)965/1.5, CM(2006)PVprov (Confidential), Corrigendum (Confidential) and Addendum)
(CM/Notes/967/1.7 of 12.6.2006 and Addendum of 13.6.2006)

2.

Political questions

 

2.1

Current political questions

a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability
- Georgia

(Item prepared by GR-DEM on 8.6.2006)

(SG/Inf(2006)8, FFD-AB(2006)4 and GR-DEM(2006)CB7)
(CM/Notes/967/2.1 of 13.6.2006)

b. Other questions
- Statement by the Representative of Romania
- Statement by the Representative of Slovenia

2.2

Situation in Cyprus

2.3

State Union of Serbia and Montenegro

a. Continuation of the Republic of Serbia as a member state of the Council of Europe

b. Request for accession to the Council of Europe from the Republic of Montenegro

(CM(2006)104rev of 14.6.2006, CM(2006)105 of 14.6.2006 and CM(2006)106 of 14.6.2006)
(CM/Notes/967/2.3rev of 14.6.2006)

3.

Parliamentary Assembly

3.1

Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly (Moscow, 29 May 2006)

a. Communication by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly

b. Texts adopted

(2006 Session (Provisional compendium of texts adopted) and SG-AS(2006)5)
(CM/Notes/967/3.1 of 12.6.2006)

3.2

Written Question by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 481 by Mr Jurgens: “Case of Abdelhamid Hakkar”

(CM/Del/Dec(2006)954/3.2b and CM(2006)18)
(CM/Notes/967/3.2 of 8.6.2006)

(Item postponed)

4.

Human rights

4.1

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

a. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Italy
(Item prepared by GR-H on 27.4.2006)

(GR-H(2006)5 and GR-H(2006)CB4)
(CM/Notes/967/4.1a of 23.5.2006)

b. Draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention by Slovenia
(Item prepared by GR-H on 27.4.2006)

(GR-H(2006)9, GR-H(2006)CB4 and Addendum (Confidential))
(CM/Notes/967/4.1brev of 30.5.2006)

H46-1

Ilaşcu and others against Moldova and Russia –
Judgment of 08/07/2004 – Grand Chamber – Application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocol No. 11

(CM/Inf/DH(2006)17rev7)
(CM/Notes/967/H46-1 of 12.6.2006)

10.

Legal questions

10.1

Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) –
Abridged report of the 31st meeting (Strasbourg, 23-24 March 2006)
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)59)
(CM/Notes/967/10.1 of 22.5.2006)

10.2

European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) –
Abridged report of the 81st meeting (Strasbourg, 22-24 March 2006)
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)60)
(CM/Notes/967/10.2rev of 2.6.2006)

10.3

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)

a. Abridged report of the 55th meeting (Strasbourg, 3-7 April 2006)

b. Draft Recommendation Rec(2006)… of the Committee of Ministers to member states on assistance to crime victims and its Explanatory Memorandum

(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)61 and Addendum revised of 14.6.2006, DD(2006)344 and DD(2006)361)
(CM/Notes/967/10.3rev of 6.6.2006)

10.4

Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) –
Abridged report of the 1st meeting (1st Multilateral Consultation of the Parties)
(Strasbourg, 20-21 March 2006)

(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)62)
(CM/Notes/967/10.4rev of 19.5.2006)

10.5

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Sweden
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)63)
(CM/Notes/967/10.5rev of 24.5.2006)

10.6

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –
First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Armenia
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(CM(2006)85)
(CM/Notes/967/10.6 of 4.5.2006)

10.7

Democratic oversight of the security sector in member states –
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1713 (2005)
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(REC_1713 (2005) and CM/AS(2006)Rec1713prov5)
(CM/Notes/967/10.7 of 2.6.2006)

10.8

Accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states –
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005)
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006)

(REC_1727 (2005) and CM/AS(2006)Rec1727prov)
(CM/Notes/967/10.8 of 7.6.2006)

10.9

Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) –
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005)
(Item prepared by GR-J on 1.6.2006 and by GR-H on 13.6.2006)

(REC_1729 (2005) and CM/AS(2006)Rec1729prov2)
(CM/Notes/967/10.9 of 7.6.2006)

10.10

3rd European Conference of Election management bodies – Development and codification of international standards in electoral matters (Moscow, 22-23 May 2006) – Information by the Russian Federation

11.

Administration and logistics

11.1

Co-ordinating Committee on Remuneration (CCR) –
Adjustment of the daily subsistence allowance for staff for 2006 – 169th report
(Item prepared by GR-AB on 2.5.2006)

(CM(2006)1 and Corrigendum, GR-AB(2006)5 and GR-AB(2006)10, GR-AB(2006)CB2,
GR-AB(2006)CB3 and GR-AB(2006)CB4)
(CM/Notes/967/11.1 of 29.5.2006)

11.2

Staff matters – Regrading of a vacant A5 post to grade A6 (Director of Common Services) in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
(Item prepared by GR-AB on 31.5.2006)

(CM/Notes/967/11.2 of 7.6.2006)

13.

Any other business

Appendix 2

    (Item 1.7)

    Decision No. CM/867/14062006

    Ad hoc terms of reference of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

    1. Name of Committee: Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

    2. Source: Committee of Ministers

    3. Duration: These terms of reference shall expire on 30 April 2008. An interim report
    shall be submitted to the Deputies by 30 April 2007.

    4. Terms of reference:

    a. To draw up a draft recommendation to member states on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments, in accordance with the guidance provided in the Deputies’ report to the 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers (CM(2006)39 final).

    b. To develop further practical proposals for the supervision of execution of judgments in situations of slow or negligent execution, for consideration by the Deputies in the context of their ongoing work on this issue.

    c. To follow closely the developing practice of the Court and of the Ministers’ Deputies on so-called pilot judgments and, as and when appropriate, consider developing proposals for guidelines for member states on domestic remedies following such judgments.

    d. To continue the review of the implementation of the five recommendations mentioned in the May 2004 Declaration, in accordance with the Declaration adopted at the 116th Session and the guidance provided in the Deputies’ report (CM(2006)39 final), with a view to obtaining a better assessment of the actual impact of implementation measures on the long-term effectiveness of the Convention.

    e. To deepen this review by focusing henceforth on verification of the effectiveness of implementation measures and filling outstanding information gaps, particularly in three priority areas: improvement of domestic remedies, re-examination or reopening of cases following judgments of the Court, and verification of compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the Convention.

    5. Other bodies which may be involved in the work of the CDDH:

    As to item a): Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly shall be invited to be associated with this work.

    As to item b): Up to 10 experts with practical experience of the Deputies’ supervision of execution of judgments, to be designated at a forthcoming Human Rights meeting, shall be associated with this work.

    As to item d): Other Council of Europe bodies, such as the Parliamentary Assembly, the Court and the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) as well as non-governmental organisations and national human rights institutions shall be invited to be involved in the review process.

Appendix 3

    (Item 4.1a)

    Resolution ResCMN(2006)5
    on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

    by Italy

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967
    th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter referred to as “the Framework Convention”);

    Having regard to Resolution (97) 10 of 17 September 1997 setting out rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the monitoring arrangements under Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention;

    Having regard to the voting rule adopted in the context of adopting Resolution (97) 10;6

    Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Italy on 3 November 1997;

    Recalling that the Government of Italy transmitted its state report in respect of the second monitoring cycle under the Framework Convention on 14 May 2004;

    Having examined the Advisory Committee’s second opinion on Italy, adopted on 24 February 2005, and the written comments of the Government of Italy, dated 4 October 2005;

    Having also taken note of comments by other governments,

    1. Adopts the following conclusions in respect of Italy:

    a) Positive developments

    Italy has taken steps to improve the implementation of the Framework Convention following the adoption of the first opinion of the Advisory Committee in September 2001 and the Committee of Ministers’ Resolution in July 2002. This process has included valuable efforts to implement the coherent legislative framework designed to secure general protection of the historical linguistic minorities (Law 482/99). Moreover, a number of commendable measures aimed at promoting the language and culture of minorities have continued to be taken at the regional level.

    There has been a welcome development of educational projects promoting minority languages and cultures funded by the state budget. Similarly, a range of laudable initiatives have been taken at the municipal level to encourage the use and reinforce the visibility of minority languages in their respective territorial areas of protection. These achievements have to a large extent benefited minorities living outside regions enjoying special autonomy. The national legislative framework has therefore proven instrumental in reducing the sometimes significant differences in the level of protection available to various minorities.

    The participation of representatives of historical linguistic minorities covered by Law 482/99 in public affairs has improved in recent years both at the national and regional levels through their inclusion in various bodies, especially those established to assist in the implementation of relevant legislation.

b) Issues of concern

    There remain difficulties in the implementation of the legal framework protecting minorities. For example, the implementation of the specific legislation protecting the Slovene minority in the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia started four years after its adoption in 2001 due to the persisting political, legal and technical difficulties within the Joint Institutional Committee over the demarcation of the Law’s territorial scope of application.

    Initiatives to tackle discrimination and negative stereotypes in the media must be stepped up as these problems continue to affect certain minority groups.

    Participation of representatives of minorities could be further strengthened through the setting up of a specific structure to improve the institutional dialogue with the authorities. It is noted in this regard that the authorities are currently studying the possibility of establishing a Permanent Conference of Minorities, which would have an advisory capacity and would also include representatives of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers.

    While there exists a commendable number of radio and television programmes in minority languages spoken in regions enjoying special autonomy, there remains a need to increase the number of such programmes and develop new ones in other minority languages. Legal obligations in this field, which derive from the national legislative framework on minorities, have been partially implemented to date. The reception of existing programmes remains difficult for technical reasons in certain provinces with a traditional presence of minorities, such as the Slovenians and the Ladins.

    The lack of tangible progress in the integration of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers, the widespread discrimination they often face and the poor living conditions prevailing in many camps is a source of concern. A comprehensive strategy of integration at national and local level needs to be completed in consultation with those concerned. Legal guarantees at the state level for the Roma, Sinti and Travellers need to be developed so as to enable these persons to better preserve and further develop their identity and culture.

    2. Adopts the following recommendations in respect of Italy:

    In addition to the measures to be taken to implement the detailed recommendations contained in chapters I and II of the Advisory Committee's opinion, the authorities are invited to take the following measures to improve further the implementation of the Framework Convention:

    - address the remaining difficulties in the implementation of Law 482/99 on the protection of historical linguistic minorities, including through increasing the volume of minority language television and radio broadcasts and providing further support for educational projects both in terms of resources and sustainability;

    - increase awareness-raising measures to encourage the municipalities and schools concerned to make better and more frequent use of the possibilities offered by Law 482/99 on the protection of historical linguistic minorities in the field of education and public use of minority languages;

    - take further measures to implement those provisions of Law 38/01 on the Slovene minority which are not strictly linked to the approval of the territorial areas of protection and facilitate the implementation of the Law in those municipalities whose inclusion in the territorial area of protection raises no objection;

    - consolidate the participation of minority representatives in existing bodies assisting in the implementation of the legal framework on minorities and pursue initiatives to establish specific participation structures such as the planned Permanent Conference of Minorities, which would also include representatives of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers;

- consider the reinforcement of procedural guarantees and legal remedies so as to make existing legal provisions against discrimination more effective and thereby better ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the law for persons belonging to minorities;

    - step up efforts at the state level to ensure legal protection of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers and enable them to preserve and develop their identity;

    - intensify existing measures to enable Roma, Sinti and Travellers to enjoy adequate living conditions and pursue efforts to adopt, in consultation with those concerned, a comprehensive strategy of integration at national level focusing on access to housing, employment, education and health care.

    3. Invites the Government of Italy, in accordance with Resolution (97) 10:

      a. to continue the dialogue in progress with the Advisory Committee;

      b. to keep the Advisory Committee regularly informed of the measures it has taken in response to the conclusions and recommendations set out in section 1 and 2 above.

Appendix 4

    (Item 4.1b)

    Resolution ResCMN(2006)6
    on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

    by Slovenia

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967
    th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter referred to as “the Framework Convention”);

    Having regard to Resolution (97) 10 of 17 September 1997 setting out rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the monitoring arrangements under Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention;

    Having regard to the voting rule adopted in the context of adopting Resolution (97) 10; 7

    Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Slovenia on 25 March 1998;

    Recalling that the Government of Slovenia transmitted its state report in respect of the second monitoring cycle under the Framework Convention on 2 July 2004;

    Having examined the Advisory Committee’s second opinion on Slovenia, adopted on 26 May 2005, and the written comments of the Government of Slovenia, dated 1 December 2005;

    Having also taken note of comments by other governments,

    1. Adopts the following conclusions in respect of Slovenia:

    a) Positive developments

    The progress made by Slovenia in developing its anti-discrimination legislation, particularly the passage of the Act on Equal Treatment in May 2004, is to be welcomed. Another positive development has been the setting up, under the aforementioned Act, of the Council for the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment and the establishment of the post of Advocate for the Principle of Equality as institutional mechanisms for ensuring the proper implementation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It is also noted that discussion is under way regarding a possible law dealing specifically with the protection of the Roma.

    As regards practice, the Hungarians and Italians continue to enjoy a high level of protection, and a climate of mutual understanding characterises the relations between these minorities and the majority.

    In recent years, Slovenia has developed a range of programmes and measures aimed at improving the social and economic situation of the Roma, providing solutions to the problems they face in the education field and, more generally, combating their social exclusion and marginalisation. Further efforts have also been made to step up their participation in public affairs, particularly at local level.

    In terms of tolerance and intercultural dialogue, public institutions such as the Ombudsman and the Constitutional Court have pursued an inclusive and active approach and made continuous efforts to promote respect for human rights and diversity in Slovenia.

b) Issues of concern

    The personal scope of application given to the Framework Convention by the Slovene authorities remains limited. In particular, the exclusion of certain Roma and of non-Slovenes from former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and the lack of dialogue in this respect give grounds for concern. The situation of those non-Slovenes from former Yugoslavia (SFRY) whose legal status has still not been resolved raises substantial problems in terms of access to social and economic rights, including educational rights, and effective participation.

    There are still shortcomings in the implementation of legislative provisions having a bearing on the protection of minorities, together with shortcomings in the resources allocated by the state in this area. As a result, difficulties have been reported by the various groups in respect of the preservation and affirmation of their identity and culture. As regards the Hungarians and Italians, there are still problems in the implementation of the legislation relating to protection of their linguistic rights in the “ethnically mixed areas”. Another source of concern is the insufficient attention paid to the concerns expressed by persons belonging to national minorities in decision-making affecting them.

    Notwithstanding the measures taken by the authorities, the situation of the Roma is still a cause of concern. There remain substantial problems in the housing, employment and education fields. Concerns about equality for Roma children in education persist, since the practice of segregating these children in Slovene schools – ordinary or “special” – has not yet been completely abolished.

    There are concerns about ongoing displays of a lack of understanding, and even hostility, towards certain persons, such as non-Slovenes from former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and the Roma, although these are isolated. It is regrettable that such displays are also reported among certain public officials and politicians, as well as in some media.

    2. Adopts the following recommendations in respect of Slovenia:

    In addition to the measures to be taken to implement the detailed recommendations contained in sections I and II of the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the authorities are invited to take the following measures to improve further the implementation of the Framework Convention:

    - undertake wider consultation with representatives of the various ethnic groups and civil society regarding the personal scope of application given to the Framework Convention in Slovenia;

    - find without further delay solutions to the situation of non-Slovenes from former Yugoslavia (SFRY) whose legal status in Slovenia has still not been regularised and take specific measures to assist these persons on the social and economic front;

    - take enhanced measures to prevent and combat discrimination and social exclusion of and among the Roma; make every effort, in consultation with those concerned, to improve their situation in fields such as employment, housing and education;

    - take all necessary measures to eradicate completely the practice of segregating Roma children in the school system and ensure that they enjoy equal opportunities in access to quality education at all levels;

    - increase the assistance granted to cultural projects and other activities, including as regards access to media, fostering the preservation and affirmation of the cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the Hungarians, the Italians and the Roma, ensuring that the relevant legislation is applied in practice and that resources are commensurate with needs;

    - look for ways to increase the level of state assistance granted to non-Slovenes from former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and to the German-speaking persons in their efforts to develop their identity through education, culture and the media;

- prevent and combat displays of intolerance and xenophobia, including on the political scene, via every possible means; more actively foster a sense of respect for diversity and multiculturalism among the public, and encourage and support the media to play a more active role in this regard;

    - identify, in conjunction with representatives of the minorities, ways to improve their participation in the taking of decisions concerning them, at local and central level.

    3. Invites the Government of Slovenia, in accordance with Resolution (97) 10:

      a. to continue the dialogue in progress with the Advisory Committee;

      b. to keep the Advisory Committee regularly informed of the measures it has taken in response to the conclusions and recommendations set out in section 1 and 2 above.

Appendix 5

    (Item 10.2)

    Terms of reference of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)

    1. Name of Committee: European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)

    2. Type of Committee: Steering Committee

    3. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers

    4. Terms of reference:

    Having regard to:

    The Action Plan of the Third Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe, in particular items 3 and 4 from its Chapter I,

    Resolutions of the Conferences of the European Ministers of Justice in its field of competence,

    Decisions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the field of legal co-operation,

    Council of Europe conventions, resolutions and recommendations in its field of competence,

    Within the framework of implementation of the annual Programme of Activities under programmes “Functioning of Justice”, “Public Law” and “Private Law and Protection of Children”, the CDCJ has the task of:

    i. Defining the policy of legal intergovernmental co-operation and fixing priorities in the fields of public and private law;

    ii. Promoting law reform and co-operation in:

    - administrative law;
    - data protection;
    - family law;
    - information technology and law;
    - justice;
    - nationality;
    - refugees and asylum seekers;

    iii. The CDCJ shall carry out these tasks through:

    a) the supervision and organisation of the work of its committees, groups of experts, colloquies and conferences;

    b) the adoption of draft conventions, agreements, protocols or recommendations;

    c) the monitoring of the functioning and implementation of the international instruments coming within its field of competence and assistance to states for specific problems and co-operation with the appropriate convention committees;

    d) the preparation, jointly with the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), of Conferences of European Ministers of Justice;

    e) the adoption, for the Committee of Ministers, of opinions on legal matters coming within its competence;

    f) the adoption, for the Committee of Ministers, of proposals for the programme of activities of the CDCJ;

g) the co-operation with other Council of Europe bodies in particular with the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), the Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI) and the European Health Committee (CDSP);

    h) the assistance to states to carry out appropriate reforms:

    - with regard to their domestic laws;

    - to implement international instruments, including, where appropriate, reforms to ensure compliance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights;

    - to take account, where appropriate, of "areas of concern" relating to the compliance with commitments accepted by member states of the Council of Europe, proposals by the Parliamentary Assembly, proposals by the European Ministers of Justice, proposals by the Venice Commission, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

    i) the obtaining of information by means of:

    - publications (in particular publications which present, in a consolidated form, the European achievements in each field of activity);

    - conferences and colloquies;

    - networks of specialists on legal matters coming within the competence of the CDCJ;

    j) the development of co-operation between member states by means of:

    - networks of specialists;

    - specific bodies, such as central authorities, set up under conventions.

    5. Composition of the Committee:

    5.A Members

    The governments of member states are entitled to appoint members of the highest possible rank in the legal field with the following desirable qualifications: senior national officials; senior officials in the Ministry of Justice or any other Ministry and/or specialists in the field.

    The Council of Europe's budget bears travelling and subsistence expenses of one representative from each member state (two in the case of the state whose representative has been elected Chair).

    5.B Participants

    i. The CDCJ may request one of its subordinate committees to be represented at one of its meetings.

    ii. The Parliamentary Assembly may send up to three representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of its administrative budget.

    iii. The Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of the sending body.

    5.C Other participants

    i. The European Commission and the Council of the European Union may send representatives to the meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii. The non-member states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

    iii. The following intergovernmental organisations may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

    - the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC);
    - the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL);
    - the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT);
    - the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH);
    - the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);
    - the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE-ODIHR);
    - the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO);
    - the International Commission on Civil Status (CIEC);
    - the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

    5.D Observers

    The following non-member state and non-governmental organisation may send representatives to the meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

    - Belarus;8

    - Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) (until the consideration of renewal of its observer status to the CDCJ by 31 December 2007).

    6. Working methods and structures:

    As from February 1992, the Bureau of the Committee comprises six members.

    To obtain and share information the CDCJ may engage consultants, scientific experts and organise hearings, seminars, conferences and colloquies.

    7. Duration:

    The present terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2009.

Appendix 6

    (Item 10.3a)

    Terms of reference of the Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP)9

1.

Name of Committee:

Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP)

2.

Type of Committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

European Committee for Crime Problems (CDPC)

4.

Terms of reference:

-

-

-

-

Having regard to:

the Council of Europe conventions and their protocols as well as to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers in the penal field;10

the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights;

the standards developed by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CPT);

Note the relevant recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly.11
 

Under the authority of the CDPC and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG1/164 “Criminal law and policy development, police, prison systems and alternatives to imprisonment” of the Programme of Activities, the PC-CP is instructed to:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

follow the development of European prison systems and of the services concerned with the implementation of community sanctions and measures;

examine the functioning and implementation of the European Prison Rules and the European Rules on community sanctions and measures, and make proposals for improving their practical application;

make proposals to the CDPC for revision of existing legal instruments and other legal acts in the penal field with a view to achieving coherence and comprehensiveness of the standards in the area;

re-examine on a regular basis the European Prison Rules and to propose to the CDPC their updating if necessary, as detailed in its rules of procedure;

prepare new draft legal instruments and reports on penological matters on the basis of ad hoc terms of reference;

formulate opinions on penological matters at the request of the CDPC and of member states;

prepare the Conferences of Directors of Prison Administration (CDAP) and choose rapporteurs;

provide guidance with regard to the publication of the Penological Information Bulletin.

5.

Composition of the Committee:

5.A

Members

 

The PC-CP shall be composed of nine members, elected by the CDPC, with the following desirable qualifications: high-level representatives of prison administrations and/or of services entrusted with the implementation of community sanctions and measures; researchers or other experts having a thorough knowledge of penological questions.

The Council of Europe budget will bear their travel and subsistence expenses.

5.B

Participants

-
-

The following committees may each send a representative to meetings of the PC-CP, without the right to vote and at the charge of the corresponding Council of Europe budget sub-heads:

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC);
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission and the Council of the European Union may send representatives to meetings of the PC-CP without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

-
-

The following intergovernmental organisations may send representatives to meetings of the Committee without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT);
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

5.D

Observers

-
-

The following non-governmental organisations may send a representative to meetings of the PC-CP without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

Conférence permanente européenne de la probation (CEP);
International Association of Juvenile and Family Court Magistrates (IAJFCM)

6.

Working methods and structures:

In its work the PC-CP shall be assisted by three scientific experts and three ad hoc consultants with specific knowledge of relevant legislation and legal practice, of international norms and conventions relating to penitentiary issues and community sanctions and measures, as well as of the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law and of recent developments in research and practice in the different European member states.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of the scientific experts and the ad hoc consultants.

The PC-CP may organise hearings or written exchange of views with external experts.

The term of office of the Chair of the PC-CP is three years, as specified in its own rules of procedure.12

The PC-CP may appoint one or more drafting committees, and may entrust specific tasks to a limited number of members of the committee.

   

7.

Duration:

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Appendix 7

    (Item 10.3a)

    Terms of reference of the Council for Police Matters (PC-PM)

1.

Name of Committee:

Council for Police Matters (PC-PM)

2.

Type of Committee:

Ad hoc Advisory Group

3.

Source of terms of reference:

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)

4.

Terms of reference:

-

Having regard to:

The Conclusions of the Conference of Ministers of the Interior on “Police of the 21st century” held in Bucharest on 22-23 June 2000;

-

Recommendation Rec(2001)10 on the European Code on Police Ethics and other relevant instruments of the Council of Europe.

 

Under the authority of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG1/164 “Criminal law and policy development, police, prison systems and alternatives to imprisonment” of the Programme of Activities, the Group is instructed:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

to follow the development of European police systems (national and international);

to assist the CDPC in reviewing the implementation of Recommendation Rec(2001)10 on the European Code of Police Ethics and other relevant instruments of the Council of Europe;

to propose to the CDPC the establishment of standards or guidelines for dealing with police matters including as regards their role in fighting specific types of crime (such as cybercrime, organised crime, terrorism, domestic violence, sexual exploitation and trafficking) as well as with crime prevention in general;

to prepare at the request of the Committee of Ministers or the CDPC, draft legal instruments and reports on police matters, as noted above, on the basis of ad hoc terms of reference;

to formulate opinions at the request of the CDPC;

to prepare conferences and high-level meetings on police matters;

to collect and disseminate documentation on police matters;

to promote research on police matters.

5.

Composition of the Committee:

5.A

Members

The Group shall be composed of seven members elected in their personal capacity by the CDPC (representatives of ministries responsible for the police, high-level representatives of national police administrations, scientific police researchers, high-level representatives of the judiciary involved in supervising the police, ombudsmen specialised in the police, etc).

The Council of Europe budget will bear their travel and subsistence expenses.

5.B

Observers

 

The CDPC may authorise the admission of observers to the Council for Police Matters, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

6.

Working methods and structures:

 

Two scientific experts will be appointed by the Secretary General to assist the Council in carrying out its duties. The Council of Europe budget will bear their travel and subsistence expenses.

The PC-PM has furthermore the possibility to hear consultants.

The working methods of the PC-PM are regulated by its rules of procedure. The term of office of the Chairperson is three years.13 Members are elected for three years and can be re-elected once for a period of two years.

7.

Duration:

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Appendix 8

    (Item 10.3a)

    Terms of reference of the Committee of Experts on the operation of European conventions in the penal field (PC-OC)

1.

Name of Committee:

Committee of Experts on the operation of European conventions on co-operation in criminal matters (PC-OC)

2.

Type of Committee:

Committee of Experts

3.

Source of terms of reference:

European Committee of Crime Problems (CDPC)

4.

Terms of reference:

 

Under the authority of the European Committee of Crime Problems (CDPC), and in relation with the implementation of Project 2004/DG1/199 “Monitoring the operation of conventions on co-operation in the criminal field” of the Programme of Activities, the Committee is instructed to:

i.

monitor the operation of the Conventions on international co-operation in criminal matters with a view to facilitating their practical implementation;14

ii.

consider various steps and initiatives to improve the efficiency of international co-operation in criminal matters This would be carried out in particular through various measures to improve practical co-operation and, in conformity with instructions given by the CDPC,15 through the development of normative texts;

iii.

follow developments in other international frameworks (e.g. United Nations, European Union) in the fields covered by these conventions and, where appropriate, propose measures likely to ensure their conformity with such developments;

iv.

follow the application of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to international co-operation in criminal matters.

5.

Composition of the Committee:

5.A

Members

 

Governments of member states are entitled to appoint representatives in the field of criminal law and with the following qualifications: experience and/or expertise in the field of international co-operation in criminal matters.

The Council of Europe budget will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one representative from each member state (two in the case of the state whose representative has been elected Chair).

5.B.

Participants

 

The following committees may each send a representative to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote and at the charge of the corresponding Council of Europe budget sub-heads:

 

- the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH);
- the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE);
- the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).

5.C

Other participants

i.

The European Commission and the Council of the European Union may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

ii.

The states with observer status with the Council of Europe (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico, United States of America) may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses.

iii.

The following intergovernmental organisations may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

- United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC);
- United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI);
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR);
- International Criminal Court (ICC);
- International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

5.D

Observers

 

The following non-member state may send representatives to meetings of the Committee, without the right to vote or defrayal of expenses:

- Israel.

6.

Working methods and structures:

The Committee may have recourse to consultants or scientific experts. It can organise hearings or exchanges of views with external experts/personalities.

The Bureau of the Committee is composed of the Chair and the Vice-Chair. The Chair and the Vice-Chair are elected for a term of one year. The terms of the Chair and of the Vice-Chair are renewable once.

The Committee may entrust a limited group of members to elaborate steps and initiatives to improve the efficiency of international co-operation in criminal matters mentioned under 4.ii. above. It would be composed of a maximum of nine members.

7.

Duration:

 

These terms of reference will expire on 31 December 2008.

Appendix 9

    (Item 10.3b)

    Recommendation Rec(2006)8
    of the Committee of Ministers to member states
    on assistance to crime victims

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

    Aware of the fact that criminal victimisation is a daily phenomenon affecting the lives of citizens throughout Europe;

    Having regard to Recommendation No. R (87) 21 on the assistance to victims and the prevention of victimisation, intended to complement the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime (ETS No. 116, 1983) and Recommendation No. R (85) 11 on the position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure;

    Noting that, since the adoption of Recommendation No. R (87) 21, several recommendations have been adopted by the Committee of Ministers and significant developments have occurred in the field of assistance to victims including developments in national legislation and practice, a better understanding of the victims’ needs and new research;

    Bearing in mind the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5, 1950), the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent crimes (see above), the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No. 196, 2005) and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197, 2005);

    Recalling the resolutions of the conferences of the European ministers of justice in 2003 and 2005, inviting the Committee of Ministers to adopt new rules concerning the support of victims of terrorist acts and their families;

    Noting the work of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), with regard to victims of terrorism;

    Having considered the Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 2002 and the Guidelines on the protection of victims of terrorist acts, adopted on 2 March 2005;

    Taking account of the standards developed by the European Union and by the United Nations with regard to victims;

    Noting with appreciation the achievements of non-governmental organisations in assisting victims;

    Aware of the need for co-operation between states particularly to assist victims of terrorism and other forms of transnational crimes;

    Aware of the need to prevent repeat victimisation, in particular for victims belonging to vulnerable groups;

    Convinced that it is as much the responsibility of the state to ensure that victims are assisted as it is to deal with offenders,

    Recommends that the governments of member states disseminate and be guided in their internal legislation and practice by the principles set out in the appendix to this recommendation which replaces Recommendation No. R (87) 21 on the assistance to victims and the prevention of victimisation.

Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2006)8

    1. Definitions

    For the purpose of this recommendation,

    1.1. Victim means a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a member state. The term victim also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim.

    1.2. Repeat victimisation means a situation when the same person suffers from more than one criminal incident over a specific period of time.

    1.3. Secondary victimisation means the victimisation that occurs not as a direct result of the criminal act but through the response of institutions and individuals to the victim.

    2. Principles

    2.1. States should ensure the effective recognition of, and respect for, the rights of victims with regard to their human rights; they should, in particular, respect the security, dignity, private and family life of victims and recognise the negative effects of crime on victims.

    2.2. States should ensure that the measures set forth in this recommendation are made available to victims without discrimination.

    2.3. The granting of these services and measures should not depend on the identification, arrest, prosecution or conviction of the perpetrator of the criminal act.

    3. Assistance

    3.1. States should identify and support measures to alleviate the negative effects of crime and to undertake that victims are assisted in all aspects of their rehabilitation, in the community, at home and in the workplace.

    3.2. The assistance available should include the provision of medical care, material support and psychological health services as well as social care and counselling. These services should be provided free of charge at least in the immediate aftermath of the crime.

    3.3. Victims should be protected as far as possible from secondary victimisation.

    3.4. States should ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable, either through their personal characteristics or through the circumstances of the crime, can benefit from special measures best suited to their situation.

    3.5. Wherever possible, the assistance should be provided in a language understood by the victim.

    4. Role of the public services

    4.1. States should identify and support measures to encourage respect and recognition of victims and understanding of the negative effects of crime amongst all personnel and organisations coming into contact with victims.

    Criminal justice agencies

    4.2. The police and other criminal justice agencies should identify the needs of victims to ensure that appropriate information, protection and support is made available.

    4.3. In particular, states should facilitate the referral of victims by the police to assistance services so that the appropriate services may be offered.

4.4. Victims should be provided with explanations of decisions made with regard to their case and have the opportunity to provide relevant information to the criminal justice personnel responsible for making these decisions.

    4.5. Legal advice should be made available where appropriate.

    Agencies in the community

    4.6. States should promote the provision of special measures for the support or protection of victims by organisations providing, for example, health services, social security, housing, education and employment.

    Role of embassies and consulates

    4.7. Embassies and consulates should provide their nationals who become victims of crime with appropriate information and assistance.

    5. Victim support services

    5.1. States should provide or promote dedicated services for the support of victims and encourage the work of non governmental organisations in assisting victims.

    Minimum standards

    5.2. Such services should:
    – be easily accessible;
    – provide victims with free emotional, social and material support before, during and after the investigation and legal proceedings;
    – be fully competent to deal with the problems faced by the victims they serve;
    – provide victims with information on their rights and on the services available;
    – refer victims to other services when necessary;
    – respect confidentiality when providing services.

    Specialised centres

    5.3. States are encouraged to support the setting up or the maintenance of specialised centres for victims of crimes such as sexual and domestic violence and to facilitate access to these centres.

    5.4. States may also consider it necessary to encourage the establishment or maintenance of specialised centres for victims of crimes of mass victimisation, including terrorism.

    National help lines

    5.5. States are encouraged to set up or to support free national telephone help lines for victims.

    Co-ordination of services for victims

    5.6. States should take steps to ensure that the work of services offering assistance to victims is co-ordinated and that:
    – a comprehensive range of services is available and accessible;
    – standards of good practice for services offering help to victims are prepared and maintained;
    – appropriate training is provided and co-ordinated;
    – services are accessible to government for consultation on proposed policies and legislation.

This co-ordination could be provided by a single national organisation or by some other means.

    6. Information

    Provision of information

    6.1. States should ensure that victims have access to information of relevance to their case and necessary for the protection of their interests and the exercise of their rights.

    6.2. This information should be provided as soon as the victim comes into contact with law enforcement or criminal justice agencies or with social or health care services. It should be communicated orally as well as in writing, and as far as possible in a language understood by the victim.

    Content of the information

    6.3. All victims should be informed of the services or organisations which can provide support and the type and, where relevant, the costs of the support.

    6.4. When an offence has been reported to law enforcement or criminal justice agencies, the information provided to the victim should also include as a minimum:
    i. the procedures which will follow and the victims’ role in these procedures;
    ii. how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain protection;
    iii. how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain compensation from the offender;
    iv. the availability and, where relevant, the cost of:

      – legal advice,
      – legal aid, or
      – any other sort of advice;

    v. how to apply for state compensation, if eligible;
    vi. if the victim is resident in another state, any existing arrangements which will help to protect his or her interests.

    Information on legal proceedings

    6.5. States should ensure in an appropriate way that victims are kept informed and understand:
    – the outcome of their complaint;
    – relevant stages in the progress of criminal proceedings;
    – the verdict of the competent court and, where relevant, the sentence.

    Victims should be given the opportunity to indicate that they do not wish to receive such information.

    7. Right to effective access to other remedies

    7.1. Victims may need to seek civil remedies to protect their rights following a crime. States should therefore take the necessary steps to ensure that victims have effective access to all civil remedies, and within a reasonable time, through:
    – the right of access to competent courts; and
    – legal aid in appropriate cases.

    7.2. States should institute procedures for victims to claim compensation from the offender in the context of criminal proceedings. Advice and support should also be provided to victims in making these claims and in enforcing any payments awarded.

8. State compensation

    Beneficiaries

    8.1. Compensation should be provided by the state for:
    – victims of serious, intentional, violent crimes, including sexual violence;
    – the immediate family and dependants of victims who have died as a result of such crime.

    Compensation scheme

    8.2. States should adopt a compensation scheme for the victims of crimes committed on their territory, irrespective of the victim’s nationality.

    8.3. The compensation awarded to victims should be based on the principle of social solidarity.

    8.4. The compensation should be granted without undue delay, at a fair and appropriate level.

    8.5. Since many persons are victimised in European states other than their own, states are encouraged to co-operate to enable victims to claim compensation from the state in which the crime occurred by applying to a competent agency in their own country.

    Damages requiring compensation

    8.6. Compensation should be provided for treatment and rehabilitation for physical and psychological injuries.

    8.7. States should consider compensation for loss of income, funeral expenses and loss of maintenance for dependants. States may also consider compensation for pain and suffering.

    8.8. States may consider means to compensate damage resulting from crimes against property.

    Subsidiarity

    8.9. State compensation should be awarded to the extent that the damage is not covered by other sources such as the offender, insurance or state funded health and social provisions.

    9. Insurance

    9.1. States should evaluate the extent of cover available under public or private insurance schemes for the various categories of criminal victimisation. The aim should be to promote equal access to insurance for all residents.

    9.2. States should encourage the principle that insurance be made available to as many people as possible. Insurance should be available to cover the person’s belongings, as well as their physical integrity.

    9.3. States are encouraged to promote the principle that insurance policies do not exclude damages caused by acts of terrorism unless other applicable provisions exist.

    10. Protection

    Protection of physical and psychological integrity

    10.1. States should ensure, at all stages of the procedure, the protection of the victim’s physical and psychological integrity. Particular protection may be necessary for victims who could be required to provide testimony.

10.2. Specific protection measures should be taken for victims at risk of intimidation, reprisals or repeat victimisation.

    10.3. States should take the necessary measures to ensure that, at least in cases where there might be danger to the victims, when the person prosecuted or sentenced for an offence is released, a decision may be taken to notify the victims if necessary.

    10.4. In so far as a state forwards on its own initiative the information referred to in paragraph 10.3, it should ensure that victims have the right to choose not to receive it, unless communication thereof is compulsory under the terms of the relevant criminal proceedings.

    Protection against repeat victimisation

    10.5. States should develop policies to identify and combat repeat victimisation. The prevention of repeat victimisation should be an essential element in all strategies for victim assistance and crime prevention.

    10.6. All personnel in contact with victims should receive adequate training on the risks of repeat victimisation and on ways to reduce such risks.

    10.7. Victims should be advised on the risk of repeat victimisation and of the means of reducing these risks as well as assistance in implementing the measures proposed.

    Protection of privacy

    10.8. States should take appropriate steps to avoid as far as possible impinging on the private and family life of victims as well as to protect the personal data of victims, in particular during the investigation and prosecution of the crime.

    10.9. States should encourage the media to adopt and respect self regulation measures in order to protect victims’ privacy and personal data.

    11. Confidentiality

    11.1. States should require all agencies, whether statutory or non-governmental, in contact with victims, to adopt clear standards by which they may only disclose to a third party information received from or relating to a victim under the condition that:
    – the victim has explicitly consented to such disclosure;
    – there is a legal requirement or authorisation to do so.

    11.2. In these two cases of exception, clear rules should govern the disclosure procedures. Complaints procedures should be published for dealing with alleged breaches to the rules.

    12. Selection and training of personnel

    12.1. States should assist and support victim support services to:
    – develop appropriate standards for the selection of all paid and voluntary staff providing direct assistance to victims;
    – organise training and support for all paid and voluntary staff to ensure that such assistance is delivered according to professional standards.

    Training

    12.2. Training should as a minimum include:
    – awareness of the negative effects of crime on victims;
    – skills and knowledge required to assist victims;
    – awareness of the risk of causing secondary victimisation and the skills to prevent this.

Specialised training

    12.3. Specialised training should be provided to all personnel working with child victims and victims of special categories of crime, for example, domestic or sexual violence, terrorism, crimes motivated by racial, religious or other prejudice, as well as to families of murder victims.

    Training of personnel in other services

    12.4. Member states should ensure that appropriate training is provided for:
    – the police and personnel involved in the administration of justice;
    – the emergency services and others attending the scene of a major incident;
    – relevant staff in health, housing, social security, education and employment services.

    12.5. Such personnel should be trained to a level which is appropriate to their contact with victims. Training should include, as a minimum:
    – general awareness of the effects of crime on a victim’s attitudes and behaviour, including verbal behaviour;
    – the risk of causing secondary victimisation and the skills required to minimise this risk;
    – the availability of services providing information and support specific to the needs of victims and the means of accessing these services.

    13. Mediation

    13.1. Taking into account the potential benefits of mediation for victims, statutory agencies should, when dealing with victims, consider, where appropriate and available, the possibilities offered for mediation between the victim and the offender, in conformity with Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R (99) 19 on mediation in criminal matters.

    13.2. The interests of victims should be fully and carefully considered when deciding upon and during a mediation process. Due consideration should be given not only to the potential benefits but also to the potential risks for the victim.

    13.3. Where mediation is envisaged, states should support the adoption of clear standards to protect the interests of victims. These should include the ability of the parties to give free consent, issues of confidentiality, access to independent advice, the possibility to withdraw from the process at any stage and the competence of mediators.

    14. Co-ordination and co-operation

    14.1. Each state should develop and maintain co-ordinated strategies to promote and protect the rights and interests of victims.

    14.2. To this end, each state should ensure, both nationally and locally, that:
    – all agencies involved in criminal justice, social provision and health care, in the statutory, private and voluntary sectors, work together to ensure a co-ordinated response to victims;
    – additional procedures are elaborated to deal with large scale victimisation situations, together with comprehensive implementation plans including the identification of lead agencies.

    15. International co-operation

    Preparation of states’ responses

    15.1. States should co-operate in preparing an efficient and co-ordinated response for transnational crimes. They should ensure that a comprehensive response is available to victims and that services co-operate in providing assistance.

Co-operation with the state of residence

    15.2. In cases where the victim does not normally reside in the state where the crime occurred, that state and the state of residence should co-operate to provide protection to the victim and to assist the victim in reporting the crime as well as in the judicial process.

    16. Raising public awareness of the effects of crime

    16.1. States should contribute to raising public awareness of the needs of victims, encouraging understanding and recognition of the effects of crime in order to prevent secondary victimisation and to facilitate the rehabilitation of victims.

    16.2. This should be achieved through government funding and publicity campaigns, using all available media.

    16.3. The role of the non-governmental sector in focusing public attention on the situation of victims should be recognised, promoted and supported.

    17. Research

    17.1. States should promote, support, and, to the extent possible, fund or facilitate fund-raising for victimological research, including comparative research by researchers from within or outside their own territory.

    17.2 Research should include:
    – criminal victimisation and its impact on victims;
    – prevalence and risks of criminal victimisation including factors affecting risk;
    – the effectiveness of legislative and other measures for the support and protection of victims of crime – both in criminal justice and in the community;
    – the effectiveness of intervention by criminal justice agencies and victim services.

    17.3 States should take into consideration the latest state of victimological research available in developing consistent and evidence-based policies towards victims.

    17.4 States should encourage all governmental and non-governmental agencies dealing with victims of crime to share their expertise with other agencies and institutions nationally and internationally.

Appendix 10

    (Item 10.6)

    Recommendation RecChL(2006)2
    of the Committee of Ministers
    on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Armenia

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
     

    The Committee of Ministers,

    In accordance with Article 16 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

    Having regard to the declarations submitted by Armenia on 25 January 2002;

    Having taken note of the evaluation made by the Committee of Experts on the Charter with respect to the application of the Charter by Armenia;

    Having taken note of the comments made by the Armenian authorities on the contents of the Committee of Experts' report;

    Bearing in mind that this evaluation is based on information submitted by Armenia in its national report, supplementary information provided by the Armenian authorities, information submitted by bodies and associations legally established in Armenia and information obtained by the Committee of Experts during its on-the-spot visit;

    Recommends that the authorities of Armenia take account of all the observations of the Committee of Experts and, as a matter of priority:

    1. improve the offer of Assyrian, Yezidi and Kurdish language education at all levels, in particular by ensuring adequate teacher training and updating teaching materials;

    2. improve the legal basis ensuring the use of regional or minority languages before courts;

    3. take measures to improve the presence of Assyrian and Greek on radio, and of Assyrian, Greek, Yezidi and Kurdish on television;

    4. clarify whether there are regional or minority languages used in Armenia other than those mentioned in Armenia’s instrument of ratification.

Appendix 11

    (Item 10.8)

    Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on
    accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967
    th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

    1. The Committee of Ministers notes Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states with interest. It has communicated the recommendation to the member states’ governments and has requested comments from the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR), the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

    2. The Committee of Ministers is of the opinion that the use of accelerated procedures for certain categories of asylum claims, in particular clearly abusive cases, is justified and is advantageous for the state as well as for asylum seekers themselves. However, the use of accelerated procedures in Europe must not lead to a higher risk of refoulement or of other forms of violation of the rights of asylum seekers as defined by international law.

    3. There are a number of internationally recognised standards that should apply to all asylum seekers irrespective of the type of procedure they are channelled through. The Committee shares the concern of the Assembly that any acceleration of asylum procedures must be implemented in full conformity with the international obligations resulting in particular from the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols.16 Other standards are laid down in recommendations of the Committee of Ministers.17

    4. The Committee of Ministers acknowledges that in the context of accelerated asylum procedures, these recommendations of the Committee of Ministers are not exhaustive and that there is a need to address a number of issues, inter alia, in connection with the handling of requests for asylum at the border and with access to an effective remedy. The Committee of Ministers sees the need to establish safeguards for asylum seekers in accelerated procedures and therefore finds merit in the proposal made by the Parliamentary Assembly for the drafting of policy guidelines and best practices. This work could constitute a useful source of inspiration also for those member states which are members of the European Union in the context of the recently adopted European Union Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which provides for the possibility to use accelerated procedures (Article 23, paragraph 3).

    5. In this context, it recalls that the Third UNHCR/Council of Europe Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Displaced Persons, which was held in Strasbourg on 14 October 2005, dealt with “The European Convention of Human Rights and the New Common European Asylum System”. One of the conclusions of the colloquy was that appropriate guidelines were required to ensure that accelerated procedures, as provided for by the European Council Directive, are in line with the requirements of the Council of Europe’s standards and the 1951 Geneva Convention. This could prevent an increase in the corresponding number of applications filed before the European Court of Human Rights.

6. The Committee of Ministers has given terms of reference to the CDDH to examine, in consultation with the CDCJ, the question of human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures and, as appropriate, to draft policy guidelines in this field. In this respect, the Committee agrees with the Parliamentary Assembly that full use should be made of information and standards emanating from the Council of Europe’s human rights monitoring mechanisms.

    7. As recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers would find it adequate to expand Council of Europe training initiatives for those involved in refugee status determination in general, and those involved in accelerated procedures in particular. It notes that under its assistance programmes for the promotion of European standards in the field of asylum and refugees, the Directorate General of Legal Affairs has organised training activities in this field on a regular basis.18 It also notes the recent and planned awareness-raising and training initiatives organised by the Directorate General of Human Rights in partnership with the UNHCR. The above-mentioned guidelines will be a useful instrument for future training initiatives in this field.

    Appendix 1 to the reply

    Comments by the Bureau of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states

    At its 943rd meeting (19 October 2005, item 3.1), the Committee of Ministers decided to communicate to the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) the above-mentioned Parliamentary Assembly recommendation for information and possible comments. The CAHAR adopted the following comments on 25 November 2005.

    The CAHAR took note with particular interest of Recommendation 1727 (2005), which should be considered in the light of Resolution 1471 (2005). The CAHAR is grateful to the Parliamentary Assembly for identifying in this document a number of difficulties that may arise in refugee status determination under accelerated procedures of asylum claims. The CAHAR is of the opinion that the use of accelerated procedures for certain categories of asylum claims, in particular in clearly abusive cases, is justified and is advantageous for the state as well as for asylum seekers themselves.

    The increased use of accelerated procedures in Europe must not lead to a higher risk of refoulement and of violation of the rights of asylum seekers under international law. There are a number of internationally recognised standards that should apply to all asylum seekers irrespective of the type of procedure they are channelled through. Some of these standards stem directly from the European Convention on Human Rights, notably Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13; others are laid down in existing recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. For instance, with respect to the concepts listed in Recommendation 1727 (2005), Article 3.1, the Committee of Ministers has adopted the following recommendations:

    - As regards the concept of “safe third country”: Recommendation (97) 22 containing guidelines on the application of the safe third country concept ;

    - With respect to procedures for dealing with asylum seekers at border points: Recommendation (94) 5 on guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum-seekers at European airports;

    -

Concerning rights of appeal, including the suspensive effect of appeals: Recommendation (81) 16 on the harmonisation of national procedures relating to asylum (paragraph 5, sub-paragraph 2: “the applicant shall be allowed to remain in the territory while an appeal or review is pending unless facts come to light in the course of the appeal or review procedure which, if they had been known at the time of the initial examination of the request by the central authority, would have led the latter to decide that the request was manifestly based on grounds having no connection with asylum.”); Recommendation (98) 13 on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (paragraph 2.4: “the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision […] is taken” by the competent judicial or administrative authority), and the 20 Guidelines on Forced Return adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 May 2005 (Guideline 5, paragraph 3: “The exercise of the remedy should have a suspensive effect when the returnee has an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to treatment contrary to his or her human rights as set out in guideline 2.1”).

    However, the CAHAR is of the opinion that, in the context of accelerated asylum procedures, the recommendations listed above are not exhaustive. In particular, they do not address a number of questions, inter alia, in connection with:

    - The proper use of the concept of safe country of origin;

    - The proper use of the concept of safe third country including that of “super safe third country”;

    - The proper use of border procedures.

    The CAHAR sees the need to establish safeguards encompassing all rights and guarantees for asylum seekers in accelerated procedures.

    The CAHAR is therefore of the opinion that, in the context of accelerated asylum procedures, additional work by the Council of Europe should be considered. It finds merit in the proposal made by the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers for the drafting of policy guidelines and best practices for dealing with accelerated procedures.

    This additional work would constitute a useful source of inspiration also for those member states which are members of the European Union in the context of the recently adopted European Union Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which provides for the possibility to use accelerated procedures (Article 23, paragraph 3).

    In this context, the CAHAR refers to the Third UNHCR/Council of Europe Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Displaced Persons entitled “The European Convention of Human Rights and the New Common European Asylum System” which was held in Strasbourg on 14 October 2005. One of the conclusions of the colloquy was that appropriate guidelines were required to ensure that accelerated procedures, as provided for by the European Council Directive, are in line with the requirements of the Council of Europe’s standards and the 1951 Geneva Convention. This should prevent an increase in the corresponding number of applications filed before the European Court of Human Rights.

    The CAHAR would be willing to contribute directly to this work, in co-operation with other relevant bodies of the Council of Europe, as it did with regard to the drafting of the Guidelines on forced return.

As recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly, the CAHAR would find it adequate “to expand Council of Europe training initiatives for those involved in refugee status determination in general, and those involved in accelerated procedures in particular, ensuring: […] full account of the human rights standards of the Council of Europe, notably the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights relevant to refugee status determination”. In this respect, it notes that under its assistance programmes for the promotion of European standards in the field of asylum and refugees, the Directorate General of Legal Affairs has organised training activities in this field on a regular basis. Recent examples of such activities include a seminar on “the role of the judge in examining asylum application in conformity with European standards” held in Predeal (Romania) on 13 and 14 May 2005 and a workshop on Council of Europe standards concerning the protection of asylum-seekers and IDPs held in Baku (Azerbaijan) on 28 and 29 September 2005 – both activities were co-organised with the UNHCR.

    Appendix 2 to the reply

    Opinion of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states

    1. The Steering Committee for Human Rights (“the CDDH”) notes with interest Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) and Resolution 1471 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states. It shares the concern of the Assembly that any acceleration of asylum procedures must be implemented in full conformity with the international obligations resulting in particular from the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) and its 1967 Protocol as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and its Protocols.

    2. The CDDH agrees with the Assembly that the establishment of accelerated asylum procedures raises important issues under the Convention and its Protocols. Although the right to political asylum is not protected as such, the Convention and its Protocols contain important substantial and procedural guarantees as regards in particular the expulsion and detention of aliens whose request for asylum has been rejected (see Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7).19

    3. Article 2 and 3 of the Convention imply, inter alia, the obligation not to expel any person to a country, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned faces a real risk of being executed or subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the receiving country. The protection afforded by Article 3 is of absolute character and supplements that provided by Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Article 8 of the Convention guarantees respect for private and family life. It applies to recognised refugees and persons enjoying temporary protection and offers protection against expulsion measures which would unlawfully or disproportionately interfere with their family life. Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 prohibits collective expulsions of aliens. Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 contains important procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens.

    4. Under Article 13 of the Convention, any person who has an “arguable complaint” that any of his or her rights and freedoms under the Convention have been violated is entitled to an effective domestic remedy to deal with the substance of the complaint and to grant appropriate relief. In this context, the European Court of Human Rights has stressed the importance of having remedies with suspensive effect.20 The notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires a remedy capable of preventing the execution of measures that are contrary to the Convention and whose effects are potentially irreversible. Consequently, it would be inconsistent with Article 13 for such measures to be executed before their compatibility with the Convention has been assessed by the competent national authorities. The Guidelines on forced return adopted by the

Committee of Ministers in May 2005 also provide that appeals against removal orders should have a suspensive effect when the returnee has an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to treatment contrary to his or her human rights. In this regard the CDDH is of the opinion that it is important to ensure a proper follow-up of the Guidelines.

    5. The CDDH considers that the need for additional work by the Council of Europe in this field can only be seriously evaluated once the draft EU Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status has been finalised and adopted. While recognising the role and work of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR), the CDDH expresses its willingness to contribute, from a human rights perspective, to any future activity in this field, notably in the light of the situation when activities of the CAHAR may be discontinued.

    6. Like the Parliamentary Assembly, the CDDH supports Council of Europe training initiatives for those involved in refugee status determination in general, and those involved in accelerated procedures in particular. It notes with satisfaction that recent and planned awareness-raising and training initiatives carried out by the Directorate General of Human Rights on issues related to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, including status determination, have been or will be carried out in partnership with the UNHCR.

    7. The CDDH welcomes the recent Colloquy on 14 October 2005 at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Displaced Persons. The event examined the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the protection offered by the UN instruments, and the EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted.

    8. Finally, the CDDH agrees with the Parliamentary Assembly that full use should be made of information emanating from the Council of Europe’s human rights monitoring mechanisms. Such information and standards established by these mechanisms are relevant not only for training initiatives in this field, but also for the development of policy guidelines and best practices.

    Appendix 3 to the reply

    Opinion of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)

    Strasbourg, 31 January 2006

    Dear Chairman,

    The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) is very grateful to the Committee of Ministers for having given it the opportunity to make comments on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1727 (2005) on accelerated asylum procedures in Council of Europe member states.

    A number of issues dealt with in the Recommendation are central to the CPT’s mandate. Indeed, on many occasions, visiting delegations encountered asylum-seekers, who were deprived of their liberty while their asylum application was being processed in an accelerated procedure.

The CPT shares the concerns expressed by the Parliamentary Assembly about the situation of asylum-seekers who are subject to an accelerated asylum procedure und fully supports the text of Recommendation 1727 (2005). In particular, it welcomes the fact that the Recommendation takes account of the relevant standards set out by the Committee in its 7th General Report (CPT/Inf (97) 10) and further developed in subsequent visit reports.

    Yours faithfully,
    Silvia CASALE

    Mr Gheorghe MAGHERU

    Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
    Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies
    Permanent Representative of Romania to the Council of Europe

Appendix 12

    (Item 10.8)

    Decision No. CM/868/14062006

    Ad hoc terms of reference with a view to examining human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures

    1. Name of Committee: Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

    2. Source: Committee of Ministers

    3. Duration: These terms of reference shall expire on 31 December 2007.

    4. Terms of reference:

    To examine the question of human rights protection in the context of accelerated asylum procedures and, as appropriate, to draft guidelines in this field. In this context, the CDDH shall take into account relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the standards laid down in Council of Europe human rights instruments as well as the information and standards emanating from their mechanisms, such as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

    5. Other bodies to be associated with the work of the CDDH:

    The European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) may send representatives to participate in the work of the CDDH.

Appendix 13

    (Item 10.9)

    Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005) on
    the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

    (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2006
    at the 967th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

    1. The Committee of Ministers welcomes Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005) on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Committee has communicated the recommendation to the governments of its member states.

    2. The Committee of Ministers highly appreciates the efforts of the UNHCR to fulfill its mandate and to develop new tools and agreements to enhance the refugee protection regime in the difficult and uncertain climate created today notably by terrorism, transnational crime and migration flows. It considers that processes like the UNHCR’s “Convention Plus” process, to which the Assembly’s recommendation refers, constitute useful tools for finding sustainable solutions to refugee problems and for improving refugee protection worldwide. The Committee therefore encourages member states, when appropriate, to take part in such processes with a view to addressing current and future refugee challenges more effectively. It underlines the aim that refugees be given protection as soon as possible and as close as possible to their original homes.

    3. With regard to the Assembly’s call on the Committee of Ministers to “further develop co-operation with the UNHCR on the legal interpretation of the status of refugees and asylum seekers”, the Committee wishes to underline that the UNHCR has always been closely associated with the Council of Europe’s standard setting work in this field as it enjoyed observer status, and actively participated in all the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR). It should also be noted that the Committee of Ministers has recently revised the terms of reference of the CDCJ with a view to enabling it to work in the field of asylum, refugees and stateless persons. It would welcome the UNHCR’s participation in any standard setting work the CDCJ may be invited to undertake.

    4. The Committee is pleased to inform the Assembly that in the framework of the Council of Europe’s assistance programmes, as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of 25 August 1999, the UNHCR and the Council of Europe are conducting national workshops on those European standards that are relevant for the protection of refugees, displaced persons and asylum-seekers. Such joint activities are planned in 2006 in Armenia, Georgia, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro and Ukraine. The two organisations also co-organised the 3rd Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights and the protection of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons in October 2005.

    5. In respect of the Assembly’s recommendation that the Committee of Ministers “encourage further collaboration, based on the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 14 March 2005 between the Council of Europe Development Bank and the UNHCR, in order to continue to contribute to finding just and durable solutions to the problems of refugees in the Balkans”, the Committee recalls that the Memorandum of Understanding defines relevant objectives, resources, arrangements and priority geographical sectors and consolidates already well-established co-operation.

    6. Since 1999, seven donations have been approved for projects implemented in full or in part by UNHCR for a total disbursed amount of €2.8 million. These projects in favour of refugees and internally displaced persons contributed to providing emergency assistance, housing solutions or local integration opportunities for refugees and IDPs in South-East Europe. The Bank’s Administrative Council also approved a loan, in November 2004, for an amount of €8 million in favour of the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a project aimed at permanent housing solutions benefiting approximately 4 500 IDPs registered with UNHCR and living in collective centres and alternative housing.

7. The Committee of Ministers underlines that the Development Bank maintains regular contacts with the authorities of the countries in South-East Europe and stands ready to contribute to the financing of further investment projects aimed at durable solutions to the problems of refugees that member countries may wish to present. It notes that co-operation with the UNHCR will continue to play an important role in refugee-related projects.

    8. The Committee of Ministers finally informs the Assembly that the Governing Board has decided to bring the Assembly’s recommendation to the attention of the Bank’s Administrative Council, which is competent for the approval of projects.

    Appendix 1 to the reply

    Opinion of European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)
    on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005)
    on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

    1. Following the adoption by the Parliamentary Assembly of Recommendation 1729 (2005) on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Committee of Ministers decided to communicate it to the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), for information and possible comments by 31 March 2006.

    2. The CDCJ took note of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly and, in relation to it, wishes to make the following comments.

    3. The CDCJ would first like to pay tribute to the UNHCR for assisting Council of Europe member states in providing adequate protection to those victims of persecution and violence who were forced to leave their place of origin. It is well aware that the UNHCR’s task is made all the more difficult in today’s climate of perceived threats related notably to terrorism, transnational crime and migration flows. The CDCJ supports the efforts of the UNHCR to fulfill its mandate in this difficult environment and to develop new tools and agreements to enhance the refugee protection regime.

    4. In this respect, the CDCJ believes that the UNHCR’s “Convention Plus” process (para. 3.1) constitutes a promising tool to improve refugee protection worldwide and to facilitate the resolution of refugee problems through multilateral special agreements. It encourages member states, when appropriate, to take part in the process with a view to address current and future refugee challenges more effectively.

    5. With regard to para. 3.2 of the recommendation in which the Assembly calls upon the Committee of Ministers to “further develop co-operation with the UNHCR on the legal interpretation of the status of refugees and asylum seekers”, the CDCJ notes that the UNHCR has always been closely associated with the Council of Europe’s standard setting work in this field as it enjoyed observer status, and actively participated in all the meetings of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR). The CDCJ also notes that - following the suspension of the activities of CAHAR - its own terms of reference are to be amended with a view to enabling it, at the request of the Committee of Ministers, to make proposals aimed at providing legal solutions, to problems which member states face in the field of asylum, refugees and stateless persons. In this light, the CDCJ stresses that it would welcome the UNHCR’s participation in any standard setting work which it might be invited to undertake.

    6. The CDCJ also notes with satisfaction that in the framework of the Council of Europe’s assistance programmes, the UNHCR and the Council of Europe are conducting national workshops on those European standards that are relevant for the protection of refugees, displaced persons and asylum-seekers. The CDCJ is of the opinion that the Council of Europe should remain in close co-operation with the UNHCR in the protection of asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons in Europe.

Appendix 2 to the reply

    Opinion of the Governing Board of the Council of Europe Development Bank
    on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1729 (2005)
    on the activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

    The Governing Board took note of paragraph 3.3 of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation 1729 (2005), asking the Committee of Ministers to: “3.3 encourage further collaboration, based on the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 14 March 2005 between the Council of Europe Development Bank and the UNHCR, in order to continue to contribute to finding just and durable solutions to the problems of refugees in the Balkans.”

    In this connection, it recalls that the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe Development Bank defines the relevant objectives, resources, arrangements and priority geographical sectors and consolidates the already well-established co-operation.

    Since 1999, seven donations were approved for projects implemented in full or in part by UNHCR for a total disbursed amount of €2.8 million. These projects in favour of refugees and internally displaced persons contributed to providing emergency assistance, housing solutions or local integration opportunities for refugees and IDPs in South-East Europe.

    The Administrative Council of the CEB also approved a loan, in November 2004, for an amount of €8 million in favour of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a project aimed at permanent housing solutions benefiting approximately 4 500 IDPs among the group of the most needy among IDPs registered with UNHCR and living in collective centres and alternative housing.

    It further recalls that the CEB maintains regular contacts with the authorities in the countries of South-East Europe and stands ready to contribute to the financing of further investment projects they might wish to present aimed at durable solutions to the problems of the refugees. Co-operation with the UNHCR will continue to play an important role in refugee-related projects.

Note + There were no decisions under this item.
Note 2 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 May 2006 at its 116th Session.
Note 3 CM(2006)39 Addendum, 13 April 2006, CDDH Activity Report: Reform of the European Convention on Human Rights – Declaration of the Committee of Ministers “Ensuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human rights at national and European levels” and CM(2006)39 final, 12 May 2006, Ministers’ Deputies Report: Ensuring the continued effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights – The implementation of the reform measures adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 114th Session (12 May 2004).
Note 4 See also document CM/AS(2006)Rec1727final.
Note 5 See also document CM/AS(2006)Rec1729final.
Note 6 In the context of adopting Resolution (97) 10 on 17 September 1997, the Committee of Ministers also adopted the following rule: “Decisions pursuant to Articles 24.1 and 25.2 of the Framework Convention shall be considered to be adopted if two-thirds of the representatives of the Contracting Parties casting a vote, including a majority of the representatives of the Contracting Parties entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers, vote in favour”.
Note 7 In the context of adopting Resolution (97) 10 on 17 September 1997, the Committee of Ministers also adopted the following rule: “Decisions pursuant to Articles 24.1 and 25.2 of the Framework Convention shall be considered to be adopted if two-thirds of the representatives of the Contracting Parties casting a vote, including a majority of the representatives of the Contracting Parties entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers, vote in favour”.

8 Subject to specific rules applicable to the state marked *.

9 Adopted: see CM/Del/Concl(87)410/35(10) and CM(87)167, Addendum V
Revised: see CM(91)118, item I.B.9 and CM/Del/Concl(91)461/20a(9)
see CM/Del/Dec(94)516/10.4 and CM(94)112, item 3
see CM/Del/Dec(94)523, item 11.3
see CM/Del/Dec(95)551, item 11.2 (first part) concl10
see also CM/Del/Dec(96)572, item 10.1 and CM(96)99, Appendix VII

Note see CM/Del/Dec(97)600, item 10.2a and Appendix 18 (Appendix 19 for the revised rules of procedure)

10 European Treaty Series of the relevant conventions: 24, 30, 51, 82, 86, 98, 99, 112, 126, 167 and 182. Reference number of the relevant recommendations: R (80) 11; R (82) 16; R (82) 17; R (84) 10; R (84) 11 ; R (84) 12; R (86) 13; R (87) 20; R (88) 6 ; R (88) 13; R (89) 12 ; R (91) 1; R (92) 16; R (97) 12; R (98) 7; R (99) 19; R (99) 22 ; Rec(2000)22; Rec(2003)22; Rec(2003)23 and Rec(2006)2.

Note 11 Inter alia Rec 1656 (2004) and Rec 1257 (1995)
Note 12 As adopted by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 335th meeting (June 1981) and revised at their 600th meeting (September 1997), and their 967th meeting (June 2006) which constitutes a dispensation from Article 12.e of Appendix 1 of Resolution Res(2005)47
Note 13 In dispensation from Article 12.e of Appendix 1 of Resolution Res(2005)47.
Note 14 These Conventions include ETS No. 24 (extradition, and Protocols ETS Nos 86 and 98), 30 (mutual legal assistance and Protocols ETS Nos 99 and 182), 51 (supervision of sentence), 52 (road traffic offences), 70 (validity of criminal judgments), 73 (transfer of criminal proceedings), 88 (deprivation of right to drive), 97 (information on foreign law), 101 (possession of firearms), 112 (transfer of sentenced persons and its Protocol ETS No. 167), 116 (compensation of crime victims), 156 (illicit traffic by sea).
Note 15 On the basis of the elements presented in the following documents: Report to the CDPC – follow-up to the “new start report” (PC-OC(2006)10); Note on modernisation of the European Conventions on international co-operation in the criminal field (PC-OC(2006)9) and the final report of the PC-TJ (PC-TJ(2005)10).
Note 16 Although the right to political asylum is not protected as such, the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols contain important substantial and procedural guarantees as regards in particular the expulsion and detention of aliens whose request for asylum has been rejected (see Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7).
Note 17 For example: Recommendation (97) 22 containing guidelines on the application of the safe third country concept, Recommendation (94) 5 on guidelines to inspire practices of the member states of the Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum-seekers at European airports, Recommendation (81) 16 on the harmonisation of national procedures relating to asylum, Recommendation (98) 13 on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 20 Guidelines on Forced Return adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 May 2005.
Note 18 Recent examples of such activities include a seminar on “the role of the judge in examining asylum application in conformity with European standards” held in Predeal (Romania) on 13 and 14 May 2005 and a workshop on Council of Europe standards concerning the protection of asylum-seekers and IDPs held in Baku (Azerbaijan) on 28 and 29 September 2005 – both activities were co-organised with the UNHCR.
Note 19 See the UNHCR Manual on Refugee Protection and the ECHR (Updated March 2005), available at
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.htm?tbl=PUBL&page=home&id=3ead312a4.
Note 20 Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, judgment of 4 February 2005, § 124; Čonka v. Belgium, judgment of 5 February 2002, § 79.


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings