Ministers' Deputies
CM Documents
CM(2000)172 (Part. I) (Restricted) 14 November 2000
————————————————
729 Meeting, 15 November 2000
4 Human rights
4.4 European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (Rome, 3-4 November 2000)
Report of the Secretary General
————————————————
Page
PART I:
1. Text of the two Resolutions and the Declaration adopted by the Conference.............. 3
2. Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
on sub-theme I: Institutional and functional arrangements for the protection
of Human Rights at National and European levels...................................................... 17
3. Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
on sub-theme II: Respect for Human Rights, a key factor for democratic
stability and cohesion in Europe: current issues........................................................... 31
4. List of Ministers and Heads of Delegation.................................................................. 47
5. Programme of the Conference...................................................................................... 57
* *
*
PART II1
6. Summary Report by the Secretary General....................................................................
7. Statements made at the opening session.........................................................................
8. Statements by Heads of Delegation...............................................................................
9. Statements made at the Commemorative Ceremony on the occasion
of the 50th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.........................
10. Statements made during other events linked to the Conference/Commemoration........
Resolutions and Declaration
Resolution I
Institutional and Functional Arrangements for the Protection of Human Rights at National and European Level
1. The European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (“the Conference”), meeting in Rome on the 50th Anniversary of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950;
2. Noting with satisfaction the outstanding work accomplished in Europe over the last fifty years with regard to the protection and development of human rights, and stressing the unique and crucial role played in this respect by the Convention and its judicial enforcement machinery;
3. Stressing that the development of the legal protection of human rights within the framework of the Council of Europe constitutes a significant contribution towards the realisation of the aims stated in the Charter of the United Nations and of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
4. Recalling the political impetus given to the human rights work of the Council of Europe at the First and Second Summits of Heads of State and Governments of 1993 and 1997;
5. Noting, however, that there remains a need to reinforce the effective protection of human rights in domestic legal systems as well as at the European level ;
6. Calling upon the member States of the Council of Europe to give new impetus to their commitments in the human rights field, essential for the security and the well-being of individuals and for the stability of the continent;
7. Recalling that the Convention contains common basic standards that must be implemented at national level;
8. Recalling that the status of member State of the Council of Europe implies respect for the obligations under the Convention;
9. Recalling the subsidiary nature of the control mechanism of the Convention, which presupposes that the rights guaranteed by the Convention should, first and foremost, be fully protected at national level and implemented by national authorities, in particular the courts;
10. Stressing that everyone whose rights and freedoms, as set forth in the Convention, are violated shall have the right to an effective remedy before a national authority in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention;
11. Welcoming the efforts made by member States to give full effect to the Convention in their domestic law and to conform to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”);
12. Welcoming in this respect the fact that the Convention has been given direct effect in the domestic legal order of almost all member States,
13. Stressing, in any case, the need to improve even further the implementation of the Convention by the member States,
14. ENCOURAGES member States to:
(i) ensure that the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention benefits from an effective remedy at national level;
(ii) undertake systematic screening of draft legislation and regulations, as well as of administrative practice, in the light of the Convention, to ensure that they are compatible with the latter’s standards;
(iii) ensure that the text of the Convention is translated and widely disseminated to national authorities, notably the courts, and that the developments in the case-law of the Court are sufficiently accessible in the language(s) of the country;
(iv) introduce or reinforce training in human rights for all sectors responsible for law enforcement, notably the police and the prison service, particularly with regard to the Convention and the case law of the Court;
(v) examine regularly the reservations they have made to the Convention with a view gradually to withdrawing them or limiting their scope ;
(vi) consider the ratification of protocols to the Convention to which they are not yet Party.
15. Paying tribute to the exceptional achievements of the Court and the former European Commission of Human Rights;
16. Concerned by the difficulties that the Court has encountered in dealing with the ever-increasing volume of applications and considering that it is the effectiveness of the Convention system which is now at issue;
17. Noting with interest the creation by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the Liaison Committee with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 April 2000 which has the task of maintaining a dialogue between the Committee of Ministers and the Court on the future of the protection of human rights in Europe and on questions relating to the Court,
18. CALLS UPON the Committee of Ministers to:
(i) identify without delay the most urgent measures to be taken to assist the Court in fulfilling its functions;
(ii) initiate, as soon as possible, a thorough study of the different possibilities and options with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the Court in the light of this new situation through the Liaison Committee with the European Court of Human Rights and the Steering Committee for Human Rights.
C. Improving the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the execution of Court judgments
19. Stressing the importance of the supervision of the execution of judgments for the effectiveness and credibility of the control system of the Convention;
20. Convinced of the need to exercise optimum supervision of the execution of Court judgments, which would help to avoid new violations, and to render such supervision more transparent ;
21. Welcoming the adoption of Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,
22. CALLS UPON the Committee of Ministers to:
(i) continue consideration of the ways in which this supervision can be made more effective and transparent;
(ii) pursue the revision of its Rules of Procedure concerning Article 46 of the Convention;
(iii) pursue examination of issues such as the necessity to keep applicants better informed during the supervision phase, the possible re-opening or re-examination of the case, and possible responses in the event of slowness or negligence in giving effect to a judgment or even non-execution thereof;
(iv) keep the public better informed of the result of the supervision phase.
23. Recalling the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights;
24. Recalling the contribution of the case law of the Convention to the protection of social rights;
25. Reaffirming the importance of the European Social Charter (1961) and the Revised Social Charter (1996) and recalling that a new decisive impetus for the Charter was given by the Declaration of the second Summit of Heads of State and Government (Strasbourg, 10 – 11 October 1997), which called for the widest possible adherence to the Charter, and welcoming the ratifications which followed or which are being processed ;
26. Welcoming the adoption of Recommendation No. R (2000) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the Right to the Satisfaction of Basic Material Needs of Persons in Situations of Extreme Hardship,
27. ENCOURAGES member States to accept the greatest possible number of provisions of the European Social Charter and Revised European Social Charter, to ratify the Protocol relating to collective complaints, to apply fully in their domestic systems those provisions of the Charter which they have accepted and to implement the above-mentioned Recommendation No. R (2000) 3;
28. INVITES the Committee of Ministers to continue consideration in order to improve the protection of social rights in Europe, including through intergovernmental co-operation and assistance.
* * *
Resolution II
Respect for Human Rights,
a Key Factor for Democratic Stability
and Cohesion in Europe: Current Issues
1. The European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (“the Conference”), meeting in Rome on the 50th Anniversary of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950;
2. Recalling that in the Vienna Declaration adopted at the First Summit of the Council of Europe (8-9 October 1993), the Heads of State and Government of member States committed themselves to rendering the Council of Europe fully capable of contributing to democratic security as well as meeting the challenges of society in the 21st century, giving expression in the legal field to the values that define our European identity, and to fostering an improvement in the quality of life;
3. Also recalling that the Final Declaration of the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997) underlined the essential standard-setting role of the Council of Europe in the field of human rights and expressed full support for an intensification of the Council of Europe’s contribution to cohesion, stability and security in Europe ;
4. Reaffirming the conviction expressed in the Final Declaration that the promotion of human rights and the strengthening of pluralist democracy both contribute to stability in Europe;
5. Preoccupied by situations of conflict or crisis in Europe, which pose fundamental questions of respect for human rights;
6. Recognising that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations poses a serious threat for human rights, democracy and the rule of law;
7. Noting that, notwithstanding that the Council of Europe’s prime vocation is to defend human rights and that its composition is pan-European, the potential of this Organisation is not sufficiently exploited to respond to serious and massive human rights violations or to prevent such violations,
8. FIRMLY CONDEMNS all situations of serious and massive violations of human rights, including any use of torture, the systematic practice of rape and extra-judicial executions;
9. REQUESTS the appropriate bodies of the Council of Europe to assume fully their respective responsibilities, in accordance with their mandates, so that they can rapidly and effectively respond to, or prevent, such situations:
(i) The Committee of Ministers as well as the Parliamentary Assembly, each having their own political role to play whenever such violations occur in one of the member States;
(ii) the Secretary General, who can, in particular, ask any High Contracting Party to furnish explanations of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention;
(iii) the Commissioner for Human Rights who has a preventive role which he can exercise with regard to situations of crisis or conflict which could lead to serious and massive human rights violations;
(iv) the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and those responsible for other Council of Europe bodies and mechanisms, including those monitoring member States’ compliance with their commitments (the monitoring exercises), which can play a role in preventing such situations, within their respective areas of responsibility and according to their own specific means of action;
10. ENCOURAGES the Council of Europe to develop a wider range of responses to cases of failure of member States to abide by Council of Europe human rights standards;
11. CONSIDERS that it would be desirable for the Committee of Ministers to initiate consideration of the protection of human rights during armed conflicts as well as during internal disturbances and tensions, including as a result of terrorist acts, with a view to assessing the present legal situation, identifying possible gaps in the legal protection of the individual and to making proposals to fill such gaps.
12. Noting that a few member States have not yet abolished the death penalty nor ratified Protocol No. 6 to the Convention,
13. URGENTLY REQUESTS that the member States:
(i) ratify as soon as possible, if they have not yet done so, Protocol No. 6, and in the meantime, respect strictly the moratoria on executions;
(ii) refrain from extraditing or expelling individuals to countries where they run a real risk of being sentenced to death or being executed;
14. INVITES:
(i) the member States which still have the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war, to consider its abolition;
(ii) the Committee of Ministers to consider the feasibility of a new additional protocol to the Convention which would exclude the possibility of maintaining the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war.
C. Principles of equality and non-discrimination
15. Expressing its concern about the various threats to the principles of equality and non-discrimination, such as racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance;
16. Recalling the Declaration and Plan of Action on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intoleranceadopted at the 1st Council of Europe Summit (Vienna, 8-9 October 1993) and the Final Declaration of the 2nd Council of Europe Summit (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997), which stress the need to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance;
17. Endorsing the general conclusions and the Political Declaration of the European Conference “All different, all equal: from theory to practice” held in Strasbourg, from 11‑13 October 2000 (European Contribution to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance);
18. Deploring, in particular, the recurrent instances of discrimination against migrants, refugees, stateless persons and asylum-seekers on grounds of their national, ethnic or cultural origin, their language, or religion, whether they belong to national minorities or not, and referring notably to the situation of Roma/Gypsies;
19. Expressing also its concern about the continuing inequalities affecting women and welcoming the work carried out by the Council of Europe in order to overcome them;
20. Endorsing also Recommendation No. R (2000) 11 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on action against trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation,
21. ENCOURAGES member States to reaffirm their commitment to promoting the principle of equal dignity for all as the very foundation of human rights;
22. STRESSES the adoption by the Committee of Ministers, of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, which introduces a general prohibition of discrimination;
23. INVITES the States Parties to the Convention to consider signing Protocol No. 12 and beginning the ratification process with a view to its early entry into force;
24. ENCOURAGES member States to consider further legal, policy and other measures at the national level prohibiting incitement to hatred and discrimination;
25. INVITES the member States that have not yet done so to consider or reconsider the possibility of becoming a Party to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) and the States Parties to co-operate fully with the monitoring mechanism set up by this Convention;
26. INVITES member States to reinforce their co-operation in the framework of the Council of Europe concerning equality of women and men, with a view to:
(i) promoting increased participation of women in particular in decision-making and the balanced representation of women and men in all fields of society;
(ii) combating all forms of violence against women and particularly trafficking in women and young girls;
(iii) envisaging new initiatives in order to eliminate inequalities between women and men;
27. INVITES member States to implement the recommendations drawn up by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).
28. Aware of the benefits of technological developments, but also of the possible abuses to which they could give rise, and which could threaten human dignity;
29. Welcoming the Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine (1997) and its additional protocol on the prohibition of cloning of human beings (1998),
30. ENCOURAGES member states that have not yet signed and ratified the above-mentioned Convention and protocol, to consider doing so;
31. SUPPORTS the activities of the Council of Europe with a view to providing for further protection in fields such as organ transplantation, biomedical research and human genetics and the protection of the human embryo and foetus;
32. ENCOURAGES the Council of Europe to:
(i) study appropriate measures in order that other technological developments, such as in the fields of the environment and applied biotechnologies concerning products destined for human consumption, respect the quality of life and the requirements of human rights;
(ii) protect the confidentiality of private communications including those using the Internet;
(iii) pursue its work against uses of the Internet which threaten human rights, such as activities concerning child pornography, trafficking of women, racism and extremist movements.
33. Reaffirming the importance of human rights education and awareness-raising and stressing that these are effective ways of preventing negative attitudes towards others and of promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and solidarity in society;
34. Recalling that such education can raise awareness of the responsibility of each individual to respect the human rights and dignity of others;
35. Stressing the importance of human rights education for the legal profession;
36. Recognising the important contribution that Ombudsmen, national human rights institutions and NGOs make to the promotion and protection of human rights and welcoming their co-operation with the Council of Europe;
37. Recalling that ensuring transparency within public administrations and guaranteeing the right of access of the public to official information are requirements of a pluralistic democratic society;
38. Recalling the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and information, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and the relevant case law of the Court, in regard to the objectives of pluralistic democracy and the protection of human rights, which are at the core of the Council of Europe action, and noting that this freedom and the freedom of the media are often among the first to be affected when massive human rights violations are committed,
39. WELCOMES the contribution of NGOs to the preparation of this Conference and the important role they play in civil society, in particular through raising awareness of human rights issues;
40. INVITES member States to take all appropriate measures with a view to developing and promoting education and awareness of human rights in all sectors of society, in particular with regard to the legal profession;
41. REQUESTS the Committee of Ministers to examine possibilities for creating a focal point within the Secretariat of the Council of Europe in order to consolidate the co-operation with Ombudsmen and national human rights institutions of the member States;
42. ENCOURAGES member States which have not yet done so to consider the possibility of establishing Ombudsmen and national human rights institutions of the member States in accordance with the relevant Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and to ensure that there are institutions which are able to intervene in the fight against racism and intolerance ;
43. WELCOMES the ongoing drafting work within the Council of Europe concerning principles which could constitute a minimum basis for access to official information, taking into account the new environment created by information and communication technology;
44. STRESSES the necessity of guaranteeing, also in situations of conflict and tension, the freedom and independence of the media, so that they are able to inform the public without being exposed to threats, attacks or arbitrary sanctions;
45. UNDERLINES the importance of the contribution of the media to the achievement of the objectives set out by this Conference, in particular through awareness-raising of the public to human rights questions.
* * *
Declaration
The European Convention on Human Rights at 50:
What future for the Protection of Human Rights in Europe?
The European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (“the Conference”), meeting in Rome on the 50th Anniversary of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950;
Recalling that the inherent dignity of every human being is the basis of human rights;
Reaffirming the central role of the Council of Europe in the promotion and protection of human rights in Europe and the eminent position of the Convention, with its unique system of control, as a concrete realisation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with regard to civil and political rights;
Emphasising the impact of the Convention and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) on the States Parties, and the resulting unification in Europe and welcoming the significant progress achieved in this respect across our Continent and notably, through the enlargement of the Council of Europe after 1989, in new member States;
Stressing that the Committee of Ministers’ function of supervising the execution of Court judgments is absolutely essential for the effectiveness and credibility of the control system of the Convention;
Expressing willingness to strengthen further the human rights mechanisms of the Council of Europe, and in particular the control mechanism set up by the Convention, to enable them to continue to perform their function of protecting human rights in Europe;
Welcoming the commitment of other international organisations to the advancement of human rights on the continent;
Welcoming the increasing attention given to human rightswithin the European Union, as expressed recently through the elaboration of a Charter of Fundamental Rights;
PAYS TRIBUTE to the real progress in human rights protection made in the past 50 years;
DEPLORES the fact that, nevertheless, massive violations of the most fundamental human rights still persist in the world, including in our continent, and calls upon States to put them to an end immediately;
RECALLS that it falls in the first place to the member States to ensure that human rights are respected, in full implementation of their international commitments;
CALLS UPON all member States, to this end, to ensure constantly that their law and practice conform to the Convention and to execute the judgments of the Court;
BELIEVES that it is indispensable, having regard to the ever-increasing number of applications, that urgent measures be taken to assist the Court in carrying out its functions and that an in-depth reflection be started as soon as possible on the various possibilities and options with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the Court in the light of this new situation;
STRESSES the need for synergy and complementarity between the Council of Europe and other institutions, particularly the United Nations, the OSCE, and the European Union, each acting in co-operation with the others and within its own field of competence.
STRESSES also the need, in regard to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, to find means to avoid a situation in which there are competing and potentially conflicting systems of human rights protection, with the risk of weakening the overall protection of human rights in Europe;
EXPRESSES THE WISH that the Council of Europe bring together all European States and CALLS ON the latter to make the necessary progress in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, in order to achieve a greater unity in those key fields for the stability of the continent;
REAFFIRMS that the Convention must continue to play a central role as a constitutional instrument of European public order on which the democratic stability of the Continent depends.
* * *
Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on sub-theme I: Institutional and Functional Arrangements for the Protection of Human Rights at National And European Level
Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on sub-theme I: Institutional and Functional Arrangements for the Protection of Human Rights at National And European Level
1. Introduction: the development of a European system of Human Rights protection
What began as an experiment or even an adventure 50 years ago with the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights has since developed into an impressive constellation of machinery for the protection of human rights at European level. Not only has the Convention system itself grown to maturity through gradual reinforcement of the supervisory system - the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 two years ago certainly was a landmark in this regard - but also other human rights conventions have been drawn up since 1950 which complement the Convention in various ways: they contain different standards, they provide for a supervisory mechanism of a different character, or both.
Some key dates may suffice to illustrate this:
1950 adoption of the ECHR
1961 adoption of the Social Charter
1987 adoption of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1994 adoption of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
1995 adoption of the collective complaints Protocol to the Social Charter
1996 adoption of the Revised Social Charter
1996 adoption of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
In addition, certain non-convention-based institutions in the field of human rights have been established in the wake of the two Summits of the Council of Europe: the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) was created by the Vienna Summit of 1993 and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was instituted last year, after the Strasbourg Summit of 1997.
At the political level, mechanisms have been set up by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, respectively, in order to monitor respect by member States of their commitments as members of the Organisation.
All in all, this picture is surely an impressive one, and one must pay tribute to the courage, foresight and perseverance of all those who were involved in bringing about this wide-ranging human rights protection machinery: the Governments of our member States, the Parliamentary Assembly, non-governmental organisations as well as individuals both outside and inside the Secretariat.
At national level, too, significant progress can be noted in developing and reinforcing institutional and functional arrangements for the protection of human rights over the last 50 years. Among many examples to be found in many member States, reference can be made to improved access to legal counselling and to justice, a stronger respect for the independence of the judiciary, the rise of constitutionalism, the impressive Europe-wide development of the Ombudsman institution and, to a lesser extent, of independent national human rights institutions, and enhanced accountability of administrative authorities, including through control by independent courts. [2]
More generally, the post-War period has seen an unprecedented development of the role of the courts in our societies and legal systems. This role has expanded not only on account of the gradual widening of their jurisdiction (cf. the development of administrative law), and the development of what has been termed a “claims culture” in society. Our legal systems have also moved away from earlier positivistic attitudes (which saw the role of courts essentially as being limited to applying the law) towards a very different conception which recognises the law-making function of the courts as legitimate and necessary in modern societies. This phenomenon has gone hand in hand with, and is partly explained by, important changes in the function of legislation. In the past fifty years, the law’s role in society has shifted considerably from codification to modification: a growing instrumentalisation of laws and regulations as tools to further certain policy aims and bring about social change. In addition, laws increasingly contain open-ended expressions, thus (sometimes deliberately, as a result of political compromise) opening the way for a more important interpretative role of the courts. All these changes point towards a more active and protective role of the courts.
These various developments have created a huge potential for human rights protection, both within national legal systems and in the framework of the Council of Europe. Of course, this potential has acquired an historic new dynamic with the momentous changes in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989, which led to a doubling of the membership of the Council of Europe and a corresponding increase in the geographical reach of our human rights instruments.
At first sight, one may wonder, given this density and variety of available mechanisms and institutions, why it was considered necessary to include this sub-theme on institutional arrangements at national and European level in the agenda of this Ministerial Conference.
However, a closer examination of the issues involved shows that this choice is fully justified.
Firstly, there are a number of issues relating to the functioning of the Convention’s mechanisms which require political attention. This concerns both the Court and the Committee of Ministers. They will be addressed in sections 2 and 3 below, respectively.
Secondly, it would seem necessary to raise some issues concerning a distinct area of human rights protection: the protection of social rights (section 4).
Thirdly, a European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights held on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Convention seems an excellent occasion to reflect upon the future of our human rights protection systems in the wider context of European construction. Some thoughts on this subject will be offered in the concluding part of this report (section 5).
Questions concerning the protection of human rights and the implementation of European standards at national level will not be addressed separately but be integrated in appropriate places in the different parts of this report.
Similarly, human rights mechanisms and institutions other than those connected with the Convention or with the Social Charter will not receive separate treatment here. They will be referred to in the introductory report on the other sub-theme of the Conference: Respect for Human Rights, A Key factor for Democratic Stability and Cohesion in Europe: Current Issues.[3]
2. The European Court of Human Rights
The outstanding success of the Convention is largely due to the exemplary work done by the former Commission and Court of Human Rights and, in the last two years, by the new Court of Human Rights. It is therefore appropriate to begin by paying tribute to the vast body of case law which they have built up over the years, which has given concrete content to the Convention rights, specified the nature of the obligations of Contracting States, adapted the Convention standards to evolutions in society, always bearing in mind the overriding interest of the effectiveness of the human rights guarantees guaranteed by it. The case law of the new Court shows continuity rather than a radical break with the past, a welcome indication that development of the case law will respect the acquis. It is thanks to this case law that a European human rights law exists which permeates the national legal orders of our member States. Thus, the Convention has acquired such an established and fundamental place in the European legal order that it has appropriately been described as a constitutional instrument of European public order. However, one should not forget either that other great achievement of the Convention: offering a European judicial remedy for aggrieved individuals against any form of State action or inaction which they believe violates their rights under the Convention. The recognition of the right of individual petition, considered too controversial in 1950 to be fully incorporated into the Convention system, is nowadays an integral part of it, thanks to Protocol No. 11 and the State practice which preceded its adoption.
This is not to say that everything is satisfactory. One cannot but be seriously concerned by the tremendous and continuing increase in the number of individual applications that reach the Court. At the Ministerial Conference held ten years ago in Rome celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Convention, my predecessor Catherine Lalumière, presented a report in which she expressed concern at the fact that, at the time, there were 2000 individual applications pending before the Commission at the admissibility stage. Today, there are more than 15.000 applications pending before the Court.
It is partly in response to the need to rationalise the Convention procedure that Protocol 11 was elaborated, setting up a single Court of Human Rights replacing the former two-tier system of Commission and Court. Of course, the new permanent Court, set up only two years ago, has needed, and probably still needs, some time to reach full cruising speed and deal with this mass of applications in the most efficient way possible.
Nonetheless, it seems totally unrealistic to expect that the -necessary- practical measures such as increased financial and human resources for the Court and a further streamlining of the Court's internal working methods would in themselves be capable of solving the workload problem through the capacity increases or input reductions they could bring about.
This raises the question of a further reform – amendment - of the Convention system. In this regard, some ideas were already mentioned by the President of the Court, expressing personal views at a meeting in Strasbourg on 8 June 2000. He tentatively mentioned some of the reform options that could be examined with a view to limiting the influx of cases into the Convention system : (i) raising the hurdles which the individual applicant has to overcome in order to have access to the Court for a full decision on the merits by giving the Court a certain discretion to refuse adjudication and to select, for example, only those cases which actually contribute to preserving or raising the standard of human rights protection in Europe as a whole as well as in the country concerned; (ii) instituting a preliminary reference procedure whereby national courts could refer questions to the Strasbourg Court, comparable to the procedure used by national courts vis-à-vis the Court of Justice of the European Communities under Article 234 of the Treaty on European Union; (iii) allow specially elected senior Registry officials to carry out the filtering functions now performed by Committees of three judges, and (iv) again separating the filter function and the judicial function and assigning them to two different bodies: a tribunal of first instance and a Court (the idea being that it would not be necessary for both organs to operate on a full-time basis or to be composed of 41 members).
Some of these options – and there are more, such as wider possibilities for the Court to give advisory opinions, the introduction of some form of class actions, and so on- obviously raise fundamental questions about the objectives of the Convention system. We may ask ourselves with President Wildhaber whether, with 41 States, 800 million inhabitants and a likelihood of 20.000 applications per year, it is realistic to continue to give all applicants a right to have their cases dealt with by the Court. Or should the Court become more like a quasi-constitutional court, perhaps not accessible for everyone but at least able to hand down decisions without undue delays that undermine the credibility of the whole system? In the future, should the Court not be dealing first and foremost with the major problems that are of fundamental importance in the country concerned and for the application and interpretation of the Convention in general? Is the Court not simply getting bogged down by numerous clear-cut but time-consuming cases, such as those concerning the length of proceedings before the domestic courts? Should such cases be dealt with on the merits by the European Court of Human Rights?
These are very difficult questions indeed. However, it is necessary to address them, and to address them urgently. They require in-depth study and the time does not yet seem ripe for rushing into political decisions at this Ministerial Conference as to the direction which the Convention system should take in the years to come and the fundamental purposes it should serve.
However, it is only right and proper to ask that the Governments of the member States give political attention to these questions and to expect that this Conference will acknowledge the urgent need to launch a thorough study of all possible reform options, with a view to taking a political decision in the not too distant future. It should be stressed - and the few options mentioned already demonstrate this - that the ultimate decision as to the functions we wish to assign to the Convention system and the objectives it should pursue remains eminently political, for it is directly linked to the process of European construction and architecture. So far, the Convention system has been able to fulfil two key roles: to provide an avenue of redress accessible for every individual with human rights complaints and to elucidate, safeguard and develop the legal standards of human rights protection laid down in the Convention.[4] Should the first role be sacrificed or curtailed in order to allow the Court to continue to fulfil the second one? Or is it possible to find less radical solutions?
These questions among others will have to be addressed in the context of the Steering Committee for Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers’ Liaison Committee with the Court.
There is another, domestic, dimension to this whole issue. The role of the Convention system cannot be dissociated from the protection role of national authorities. The Court has time and again referred to the principle of subsidiarity: the whole logic of the Strasbourg system rests on the fundamental premise that it is primarily for national authorities, especially the courts, to protect the rights laid down in the Convention. If the Strasbourg system is suffering under an exorbitant workload, is this not because there is something wrong with the capacity of national courts and other authorities to offer adequate protection of the Convention rights or, at the very least, with the faith of individuals in the capacity of national courts to offer an effective remedy for their human rights complaints? Are the length of proceedings cases against Italy and other countries not a case in point?
It must be stressed that this phenomenon is not limited to any particular part of Europe. The statistics indicate that in many Contracting States, increasing numbers of individuals are turning to Strasbourg.
It would appear that much more can and should be done at the national level: establishing effective preventive and remedial/compensatory mechanisms at national level; systematic training of prosecutors, judges, the police in the Convention should become standard practice in all Contracting States as an integral part of their national training; publication and dissemination of key Strasbourg judgments for the legal community, if necessary in translated form, etc. These needs have been fully recognised and addressed by some of our member States which have undertaken impressive efforts, for example in the field of training.
However, training of judges and law enforcement officials is not sufficient if the legal and political climate is such that they are reluctant to take the protective decisions required in order to observe the Convention rights. The status, authority and working conditions of judges must therefore be such that they can exercise their judicial role in full independence, free from any direct or indirect political interference. For, as long as that is not fully guaranteed, judges will all too often be inclined - even if they know full well that their judgment will violate the Convention - not to address what they fear might be embarrassing questions but to leave it to litigants and their lawyers to bring the matter before the Court in Strasbourg. Conversely, individuals who have confidence in their national courts will be less inclined to pursue their case in Strasbourg.
Of course, it is, 50 years hence, a most welcome fact that the Convention has been given direct effect in almost all Contracting States, which creates good opportunities for effective protection of its rights at national level. However, as the experience in several Contracting States shows, this in itself is again not sufficient to guarantee such protection: national judges must also be made aware of the Convention standards as interpreted in the Strasbourg case-law.
In short, the Convention system rests on the assumption that there are strong and effective protection systems in place at national level. Here, the question arises of whether the overburdening of the Convention system should not be attributed, in part at least, to the fact that not enough is done at national level. As was noted in the introduction above, there is an impressive potential for domestic protection. The question is: is that potential fully exploited?
Let us ask ourselves: how many Contracting States pursue active training and information policies as regards the Strasbourg case-law? How many Contracting States have proper guarantees in place so that draft legislation is systematically screened on compatibility with the Convention? Here, Government agents and national human rights institutions, for example, can play a pivotal preventive role by ensuring that the different government departments are fully aware of potential compatibility problems. Inevitably, individuals who believe that national authorities have had insufficient regard to their fundamental rights and freedoms will turn to the Strasbourg Court.
However, it is not only the number of applications that is revealing. It is also the nature of the cases brought to Strasbourg. More and more, the Court is being asked to fulfil a function which really should be carried out by national courts: that of establishing in great detail the facts of the case and /or acting as a further court of appeal ("fourth instance"). Surely, this should not be necessary if, in accordance with Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, national procedures not only exist but also function which allow examination of the substance of Convention issues.
It is my firm belief that, in examining options for a further structural reform of the Convention system, the maintenance of the principle of subsidiarity should be an overriding consideration. Solutions that would envisage a departure from this principle, by assigning to the Court functions that simply must be carried out by national authorities, would be fundamentally flawed. This would not only be totally impracticable in terms of workload and resources needed, it would also, in the long run, be detrimental to the ultimate objective of the Convention: the effective protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of every individual. The primary duty to protect these rights lies with national courts and other authorities; it is at the national level that violations of these rights can and should be prevented or remedied most effectively. In other words, any solutions to the workload problem in Strasbourg cannot and should not be a substitute for solutions within the legal systems of the Contracting States. On the contrary, consideration should be given to including, with the control system of the Convention, further incentives for national authorities to assume fully their primary responsibilities under the Convention. But here again, one also has to ask whether existing possibilities for doing so are sufficiently exploited.
It would seem, for example, that the assistance and cooperation programmes of the Council of Europe should be much more tailored to addressing structural problems which stand in the way of effective human rights protection at national level. One possibility which would merit reflection would be to create a European support fund or other mechanism to assist States in overcoming such obstacles. This could be a means of providing targeted training and assistance in the drafting of legislation in conformity with European standards and thus of offering a form of back-up for the protection system of the Convention and other human rights mechanisms.
After all, we must not forget that the effectiveness of the Convention and of the protection of the rights guaranteed by it is a collective responsibility of all States Parties. This is, for example, the basic philosophy underlying the inter-State application procedure of Article 33 of the Convention. Seen in this light, lodging an application against another State is, contrary to what is often thought, not an unfriendly act against that State but it can be an exercise of that same collective responsibility for upholding respect for our common European human rights standards which can be to the benefit of all, not least the country that is asked to answer allegations of human rights violations. There are obviously situations of massive and serious human rights violations in respect of which it would be morally wrong to remain idle and where the need to exercise collective responsibility is at its most acute. This matter will be addressed further in the Report on sub-theme 2.
3. Supervision of execution of Court judgments by the Committee of Ministers
The area of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is a fundamental aspect of the Convention system which deserves full attention at the Ministerial Conference, because it is the key aspect in the proper functioning of the Convention’s mechanism. Indeed, a judgment of the Court is by no means the end of the story. Looking back on the experience of the past decades, there are certainly positive elements to be noted. The record so far has been one of general compliance with and execution of judgments of the Court. It is also a positive feature that, today, it is uncontested that, depending on the case, such execution may require not only payment of just satisfaction to the victim, but also general measures (whether through legislative changes, a change of domestic case-law, or measures of another kind) to prevent a repetition of the violation found, as well as individual measures such as non-expulsion or release of the victim from detention. In addition, the need has been recognised to modernise the Rules of procedure of the Committee of Ministers so as to enhance the position of the successful applicant and increase transparency of the procedure vis-à-vis that applicant and the wider public. The draft revised Rules were finalised recently; they will be forwarded soon to the Committee of Ministers for adoption.
Nonetheless, it would seem necessary to recall the need for the Committee of Ministers to respect the judicial nature of the Convention procedure. In certain cases, there seems to be a tendency to politicise the procedure, which is wholly alien to the role of the Committee as an organ of the Convention. This is not to say that there is never a political context to a judgment and its execution, for there may well be one. In this respect, court cases in Strasbourg are not different from cases before national courts. What matters is that such a context must never be allowed to lead to immunity and to departure from the firm rule that judgments must be executed in all cases, even where this might be politically embarrassing or uncomfortable. This is nothing less than a key requirement of the rule of law. Unfortunately, there are increasing signs that it is becoming urgent to examine possible responses, political and other, to late or even non-execution of a judgment by a Contracting State.
Here again, the Convention role assigned to the Committee of Ministers can and should be looked at from a totally different angle. Not only is execution and supervision thereof central to the credibility of the Convention system as a whole, as already indicated, it also presents excellent opportunities for effective action to prevent human rights violations in the future. Because of this supervisory role, the Committee of Ministers is ideally placed to note the existence of structural problems in Contracting States likely to engender more cases on the same issue in the future and, on the basis of this information, to ensure that such problems are addressed in the intergovernmental programmes as well as in assistance programmes for the countries concerned. To give just a few examples of such problems repeatedly revealed by the Court’s judgments in respect of different States: non-execution of decisions of national courts by the executive; excessive length of proceedings in civil and criminal cases; torture and ill-treatment during police interrogations. I would welcome it if on such issues (and there are more) a comprehensive effort would be undertaken – quite apart from the individual cases which, however serious they may be, are mere symptoms of the problem - in order to address the underlying structural problems. Of course, it is in the first place for the Contracting States themselves to do so, but the Council of Europe, as a framework for co-operation and assistance, as well as the Commissioner for Human Rights, also have a role to play here.
This is not to minimise the importance of ensuring that Court judgments are also fully executed in respect of the individual victim. As stated, it is nowadays accepted that individual measures may be required which go well beyond payment of just satisfaction. However, difficulties are still being encountered in ensuring satisfactory follow-up in order to remove the consequences which the violation has had for the applicant, for example through a re-opening of judgments of national courts after the finding of a violation in a Strasbourg judgment. The recent adoption by the Committee of Ministers of a Recommendation to member States on this question is a positive first step, which should be followed by concrete measures of implementation by the member States. In this respect, it is encouraging to note recent developments in national case law and legislation in some States as well as developments under way in certain other States.
It is particularly encouraging that the Parliamentary Assembly has, in recent years, paid increasing attention to the question of execution of judgments of the Court, insisting on the fundamental importance of proper execution for the effectiveness of the Convention’s mechanism. It has thus addressed numerous questions (written and oral) to the Committee of Ministers or its Chair concerning individual cases and, at its most recent session, considered a comprehensive report on the issue (Document 8808) leading to a Recommendation on ways to improve such execution.
4. The protection of social rights
Human rights are indivisible. The fundamental notion underlying all human rights, whether they are classified as civil, political, social, economic or cultural, is human dignity: the need to respect and uphold the dignity of every human being in all situations and in all its manifestations. The principle of indivisibility has been reaffirmed time and again in European and international fora, including at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. The importance and everyday relevance of this principle becomes abundantly clear when we look at the realities of our societies. It is in the social sphere where perhaps the greatest number of attacks on the dignity of the individual can be seen. One only has to think of the persistence of poverty and long-term unemployment, the situation of many elderly people, the disabled, children who are abused, the social dimension of migrations, and so on.
Yet, there is a wide gap between the official recognition of this indivisibility and giving concrete effect to it. It somehow seems as if we have become hostage to the categorisation of human rights into civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social rights, on the other. It is one thing that the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has led, both in the Council of Europe and in the United Nations itself, to two distinct instruments for these two categories of rights. But are the consequences that have been drawn from this fact not too rigid, with the result that we lose sight of that unifying underlying notion of human dignity? Invisibility of indivisibility seems to be current practice.
It would seem that the explanation for this wide gap between theory and practice lies to a large extent in the manner in which the question of the protection of social rights is frequently approached. It is argued, first, that social rights are just as important as civil and political rights but that their different character requires a different protection mechanism. Social rights, it is said, do not lend themselves to judicial protection whereas civil and political rights do. While there is already much to be said against the simplicity of such traditional thinking[5], the next step in this reasoning is fundamentally flawed: it seems that for some, because the system of protection of social rights is not judicial, it should or can be taken less seriously than the system for the protection of civil and political rights. From there, it is only a very small step to the conclusion – even if it often remains implicit - that social rights are a less important category of human rights or even that they are not human rights at all.
We see this when comparing the operation of the two twin conventions of the Council of Europe: the European Convention on Human Rights and the Social Charter. Is the Social Charter really taken seriously as the full counterpart of the Convention in the area of social rights? If we look at the negative attitudes of some Contracting States towards their obligations under the Charter and the need to follow-up recommendations, are we not seeing the very opposite?
Of course, there are positive developments to be noted: the relaunch of the Social Charter decided at the Ministerial Conference in Turin in 1990 has resulted in a revised Social Charter and in an innovative Collective Complaints Protocol to the Charter. The Parliamentary Assembly is campaigning for more ratifications of the revised Charter and I hope that a good number of such further ratifications will take place between now and the 40th anniversary of the Charter next year.
However, these positive steps are only a partial answer to the questions outlined above. On a more fundamental level, is it not time to rethink our traditional categorisation of human rights? Can Europe credibly claim to be a Europe of Human Rights as long as social questions are seen in terms of social problems, an amalgam of difficulties and obstacles, not as a natural feature of life in any society inseparately linked to the dignity of each of its members?
Reinforcing the social dimension of human rights could be a way of overcoming the consequences of categorisations. In addition, more thought should be given to the question of judicial protection of social rights, also at European level. From the point of view of indivisibility of human rights one can only be satisfied with the fact that the drafting work on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has resulted in a text encompassing the traditional different categories of rights. But this raises the question of whether a similar return to human dignity as the basis for all human rights should not be undertaken by the Council of Europe. I believe there are ample reasons for doing so and I regret that this issue has not been given a more prominent place in the texts to be submitted to the Ministerial Conference.
5. Concluding observations
This report has focused on the two oldest human rights conventions of the Council of Europe. However, they are part of a much broader constellation of institutions and arrangements. The coexistence of this multitude of arrangements has made it necessary to pay increased attention to the question of synergies and complementarity between them. Earlier this year, this subject was examined in depth at a Conference organised by the Irish Chair of the Committee of Ministers.[6] Among the many valid points made, one general issue should be highlighted. The coexistence of different mechanisms should not lead to a situation of paralysis, that is, a situation where the existence of another mechanism becomes an excuse for inaction under a different mechanism. Whether it is the Commissioner of Human Rights, the procedure under Article 33 or that of Article 52 of the Convention, the political monitoring systems or any other arrangement, all these mechanisms should be governed by two key principles: unity of purpose and specificity of competence. The various arrangements ultimately serve the common goal of ensuring respect for and protection of human rights in Europe. This should always be borne in mind. In this spirit, and with a view to enhancing synergies and complementarity between the different human rights treaty bodies of the Organisation, consideration should be given to organising – as is the case within the United Nations system – annual meetings of such bodies. More generally, the different actors within the Organisation (specialised Ministers, Committee of Ministers, Parliamentary Assembly, Steering Committees, etc.) would do well to take into greater account the results of the various human rights mechanisms so as to anticipate and address, in a timely and adequate fashion, issues which are clearly of a structural nature (e.g., length of domestic proceedings).
In view of its Statutory position, the Committee of Ministers has to play a key role in promoting synergies so that the common goal is achieved. This presupposes vigilance to ensure that the different institutions can do their work. Most treaty-based mechanisms cannot fully determine their own workload; there is an autonomous growth which, realistically, cannot be managed under the zero budget growth of the Council of Europe in recent years. Other solutions will have to be found and here, as in other respects, it is vital that our member States recommit themselves to giving full political support to the human rights work of the Council of Europe, which constitutes the backbone of the Organisation and which responds to real needs existing in our societies.
Finally, the Ministerial Conference is also a proper forum for looking at the place of the Council of Europe’s human rights institutions in the broader context of European integration. In a few weeks time, the European Union is expected to adopt its Charter of Fundamental Rights. Similarly, a new Intergovernmental Conference will examine important institutional issues concerning the future development of the European Union.
Both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly have stressed the importance of a coherent development of European construction, without “construction errors” so to speak, in order to create a Europe without dividing lines. This is important in all areas, but especially in the field of human rights, where the principle of universality is fundamental.
It is therefore most welcome that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes a direct link with the European Convention on Human Rights as far as the interpretation of the Charter’s provisions is concerned, even if it is to be regretted that no such link was made in relation to the revised European Social Charter.[7] However, the Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament and the European Commission, amongst many others, have advocated that the European Union go one step further and become a Party to the Convention. This would create an additional organic link between human rights protection in the Union and the Strasbourg system for the protection of human rights. It would provide for external control of EU institutions by an independent Court, similar to the way the national courts and other authorities are subjected to control by the Strasbourg Court. I hope that the forthcoming IGC will show political vision and reach agreement on appropriate amendments to the Treaties so as to enable such accession to the Convention. As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, making such accession possible will require some prior amendments to the European Convention. I would express the wish that already now a preliminary technical study be undertaken by our expert bodies, with the participation of the European Commission, in order to identify the amendments that could be envisaged, without prejudice to the ultimate decision about accession itself, but simply with a view to removing legal obstacles to accession. A similar approach could be followed in regard to a possible accession by the Union to the Social Charter.
* *
*
Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on sub-theme II: Respect for Human Rights, a Key Factor for Democratic Stability and Cohesion in Europe: Current Issues
Introductory Report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on sub-theme II: Respect for Human Rights, a Key Factor for Democratic Stability and Cohesion in Europe: Current Issues
1. Introduction
The title of this sub-theme of the Ministerial Conference reflects a truth that may have appeared almost irrelevant to our Continent for decades but that has been brought with force to the forefront of political attention during the ten years that have passed since the Informal Ministerial Conference on Human Rights was held here in Rome to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. Respect for human rights is a sine qua non for the development and maintenance of stable democratic societies in Europe as well as elsewhere.
This very same truth inspired the creation of the Council of Europe and the development of its human rights machinery in the wake of the Second World War. Significantly, its Statute provides that "the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation" and that one of the methods by which the Council's aim of achieving a greater unity between its Members is to be pursued is "the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms". Nonetheless, this truth was for a long time almost taken for granted in Europe until the events in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. Suddenly, what seemed self-evident became a formidable challenge for the Council of Europe: assisting the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in their transition from communism to free, open and democratic societies adhering to the rule of law and where fundamental rights and freedoms are respected. We all know that this transition process has encountered difficult phases, involving varying degrees of instability for several countries, which were inseparably linked to difficulties in anchoring democratic human rights values in their societies and branches of government.
Sadly, we were even more forcefully reminded of the importance of human rights observance for stability through the tragic conflicts and crises that have appeared in our Continent over the last 10 years: the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Kosovo tragedy, the conflict in Chechnya, not to mention areas of ongoing tension such as Nagorno-Karabach or Abkhazia. While the background, nature and intensity of the violence involved is different for each of these situations, it is invariably the population that has suffered most severely from them, their most basic rights and freedoms being ignored on a massive scale.
The potential for situations of conflict or tension – and hence the relevance of establishing and developing societies where the human rights of all are respected and protected – is by no means restricted to new or candidate member States. One is compelled to think of the - very real - human suffering which has resulted from the situations in Northern Ireland, the Basque country or South-East Turkey. Post-conflict rehabilitation and restoration of human rights may be a long and difficult process, but it is not impossible, provided the conflict is settled through political solutions which give the basis for developing a climate that is receptive to respect for human rights. In the past five years, this was borne out by positive developments in such different situations as Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
However, it would be wrong to think that such potential for conflict or tension exists only in respect of certain situations in specific countries. It is significant that the Declaration on combating racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance adopted at the First Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government (Vienna, October 1993) expresses alarm at the “resurgence of racism, xenophobia, the development of a climate of intolerance, the increase in acts of violence, notably against migrants and people of immigrant origin, and the degrading treatment and discriminatory practices accompanying them” as well as at “the development of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism which constitute new expressions of xenophobia”. Likewise, the Declaration pointed to the risk that forms of social exclusion may develop which are likely to foster social tensions and threaten the cohesion of European societies. The Heads of State and Government were convinced that these various manifestations of intolerance “threaten democratic societies and their fundamental values and undermine the foundations of European construction”. Finally, the Vienna Declaration recognised that the protection of national minorities is an essential element of stability and democratic security in our continent.
These points were echoed in the Second Council of Europe Summit (Strasbourg, October 1997), inter alia in the general statement that “the promotion of human rights and the strengthening of pluralist democracy both contribute to stability in Europe”.
What does all this mean for the Council of Europe of today? In a speech delivered at the aforementioned Conference organised by the Irish Chair of the Committee of Ministers earlier this year[8], I said:
“The exponential enlargement of the Council of Europe over the past 10 years has brought about a variety of human rights challenges which require the different forces inside the Organisation to come into play. Indeed, enlargement must not lead to a lowering of our human rights standards and requires special vigilance to that effect. Equally, we must recognise that, given the nature and scale of the different human rights problems that have arisen in the wake of the enlargement process, the traditional treaty-based approach is no longer sufficient in all cases. A far more comprehensive approach is called for, including rapid and imaginative responses.”
Against this general background, this Introductory Report will deal with some key challenges to respect for the human rights and dignity of all, which in the shorter or longer term pose a threat to democratic stability and cohesion in Europe. It will also address the question of the Council of Europe’s response to those challenges.
2. Serious and massive violations of Human Rights
There is little doubt that situations of serious and massive human rights violations pose the most acute threat for stability and cohesion, both within societies and on the wider European scale. It is therefore appropriate that this issue be addressed at the Ministerial Conference.
Nonetheless, the preliminary point must be made that it would have been unthinkable for this issue to be on the agenda of a high-level meeting of the Council of Europe as recently as ten or fifteen years ago. The very fact that it is a subject for urgent political discussion shows the changes which Europe, and the Council of Europe, have undergone in recent years.
It is true that, during that same period, the treaty-based approach has gradually been complemented by more visible political and operational approaches, including an active presence in the field in areas such as Kosovo and Chechnya, for example.
However, we should not delude ourselves into believing that the current responses to situations of serious and massive violations are satisfactory. Is it realistic to expect that the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), set up as a preventive mechanism, can on its own effectively address situations in which torture is practised on a large scale? Similarly, can one expect the system of individual applications under the Convention to provide a suitable response, and put an end to, situations of massive violations? Is a Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States in itself sufficient to eradicate the phenomenon of trafficking of human beings, especially of women and children? The answers must clearly be no, and the public as well as non-governmental organisations rightly expect additional, more effective responses from an Organisation which has been described as "the conscience of Europe".
This issue goes to the heart of the philosophy and mission of the Council of Europe and raises the question of the duties of each State inherent in membership of the Organisation.
Over the last 10 years, the enlargement process has by and large been dominated by the political wish to welcome new member States into the Organisation, in order to support them on the road to democratisation, even where serious criticism could be levelled against them as far as respect for human rights was concerned. In most cases, this "logic of inclusion" was considered preferable to the "logic of exclusion", because is was felt to contribute more to democratic stability and be more beneficial for the populations concerned.
While I do not wish to call into question the political wisdom of this general approach, it is questionable whether the full consequences have been drawn from it. Especially in the field of human rights, I do not believe that this "logic of inclusion" has been pursued consistently once a country has been admitted as member of the Organisation. Membership of the Council of Europe certainly offers possibilities for enhanced co-operation with and assistance to the country concerned, and the operation of our treaty-based and other human rights mechanisms can only be beneficial for that country. However, bringing a country into these cohesive and stabilising structures also presupposes that all actors involved ensure that membership actually fulfils this cohesive and stabilising function to the full. If not, what is the point of membership? This places a special responsibility, in the first place on the government of the country itself, but also on the Committee of Ministers, the governments of the other member States and the Parliamentary Assembly. One very concrete concern is that the necessary financial consequences must be drawn if the Council of Europe is to play a meaningful role in providing assistance to new member States. We know this is a long-term task necessary for long-term stability in our Continent, and there should be a sound basis for it in the general budget, without stop-gap solutions, such as having recourse to voluntary contributions by individual countries, however generous they may be.
These responsibilities become particularly acute in the face of serious and massive violations of human rights. Such situations should simply not be allowed to happen in a member State and, where they do occur, the Committee of Ministers should not shy away from its moral and political responsibility to take action: reminding the State concerned in clear terms of its responsibilities as a member State and under the relevant human rights conventions; dispatching high-level political missions to the country; making public statements on the matter, and so on.
The Secretary General, too, has responsibilities in this regard, including under the Convention. Reference is made to the - hitherto under-used - powers of inquiry which Article 52 of the Convention confers on the Secretary General. In the context of the events in Chechnya, I decided that, given the scale of the violations reported, I should avail myself of these powers, thus departing from the past practice by using them for the first time in respect of a single State Party. Expert analysis has confirmed that the replies received from the Russian Federation on the manner in which the Convention was applied in Chechnya were unsatisfactory and failed to meet the obligation under Article 52 to provide adequate explanations. In the light of this unsatisfactory conclusion of the Article 52 procedure, I referred the question of the Russian Federation’s implementation of commitments concerning human rights to the Committee of Ministers under the monitoring procedure (Article 1 of the 1994 Declaration on Compliance with Commitments accepted by member States of the Council of Europe). More generally, I confirm what I stated at the aforementioned Conference in Dublin, namely that, given the continued existence of potential pockets of instability and sources of human rights violations in today’s Europe, I shall not hesitate in the future to use these powers again in respect of other States Parties, whether they be old or new member States of the Organisation.
Likewise, individual governments of member States should never forget that, as States Parties to our human rights conventions, they share collective responsibility for upholding the human rights systems of the Council of Europe. In this connection special attention must be drawn to the possibility under Article 33 of the European Convention on Human Rights for any Contracting State to bring an application before the Court of Human Rights against any other Contracting State. Fifty years ago, the drafters of the Convention intended to base the collective enforcement of the Convention rights first and foremost on such inter-State complaints. This procedure is, it should be recalled, not confined to allegations of violations in individual cases and is thus a more appropriate means of addressing widespread human rights violations than the individual complaints system would be. In addition, especially in areas of conflict or crisis, whether emergency rule applies or not, local remedies for aggrieved individuals are generally not available or effective. The “individual approach” is therefore mostly inadequate for dealing with large-scale violations. Finally, allowing the Court to rule, in the more general manner possible in the context of inter-State cases, on compliance of certain laws or practices with the Convention is an important means of ensuring that such laws and practices are, where necessary, rapidly brought into line with European standards.
In the light of the practice of the last decades, I can only note hesitations of Contracting States to use this procedure[9], remind the governments of the comparative advantages it offers and, above all, recall that the effectiveness and credibility of the collective enforcement system of the Convention relies on the active co-operation of all partners in this system. I regret therefore that the draft texts submitted to the Ministerial Conference do not even mention this possibility to make use of the procedure envisaged by Article 33 of the Convention.
When considering the question of the Council of Europe’s response to serious and massive violations, it is important to draw some lessons from the recent experience with the conflict in Chechnya.
First of all, this experience has made it absolutely clear that there is no contradiction in insisting on full responsibility and accountability of a member State in regard to its human rights performance in such a situation, while at the same time offering assistance with a view to finding solutions to alleviate the human suffering invariably engendered by conflict situations, providing human rights expertise on the ground, and contributing to working out longer-term solutions to end the underlying conflict. That is a first positive conclusion.
Also positive is the general recognition that a State remains under a duty to respect human rights, including where this concerns the behaviour of its armed troops and security forces in the context of anti-terrorist or any other operations involving the use of force. The fight against terrorism can never be an excuse for the State itself to violate basic human rights, if the State is not to resort to terror itself. This is an important political confirmation of what has been spelt out clearly in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: if it were otherwise, there would be a risk of destroying human rights and democracy on the very ground of defending those values.[10]
Nonetheless, there are a number of areas of concern where improvement is possible and indeed necessary. These are, in my view, the result of the fact that the practice of the Council of Europe’s involvement in such situations is relatively recent.[11]
* There is a need to enhance our capacity to respond to such situations of serious and massive violations, especially at the earliest possible stage, both in terms of (i) our technical response capacity, and (ii) the political response capacity of the Organisation.
The first point refers to our capacity to mobilise, at short notice, the human and financial resources necessary to deploy our expertise wherever it is needed. Increasingly, the Organisation is being called upon to be a human rights fire fighter and to contribute to the rapid establishment of a minimum level of respect for human rights in hot spots around Europe: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, Chechnya... So far, the Secretariat has, in co-operation with other organisations, by and large been able to respond to these challenges, but with increasing difficulty. These additional tasks draw heavily on the existing staff of the human rights sector, including the human rights treaty bodies. In order to be able to pursue this work in an effective and credible manner in the future, I propose to examine possibilities for creating additional capacity in the Secretariat by setting up a "human rights taskforce" which would be flexible and able to react rapidly to the evolving needs on the ground. Such a task force could be also instrumental in meeting the crying need for human rights training for personnel (to be) deployed in field missions, an area where the Council of Europe has gained a wide experience. In order to boost the Council of Europe’s capacity for quick response to urgent requests, I have also proposed to the Committee of Ministers the setting up of an intervention fund to be financed, inter alia, by the credit balance of the ordinary budget by the end of the budget year. This proposal is still under consideration.
The second question raises the fundamental issue of the Council of Europe's political response to situations of large-scale human rights violations. I do not believe anyone would contest that this political response should comprise a firm stance against such violations. However, when it comes down to giving teeth to such condemnations, we suddenly appear to enter the realm of Realpolitik and raison d'État: disproportionate emphasis is put on assistance to, and co-operation with, the country, at the expense of backing up our demands for full respect of human rights, if necessary with tough measures. We should not be as naive as to think that effective investigations into violations, full accountability for perpetrators of violations, redress for the victims and, ultimately, restoration of respect for human rights can be attained simply by organising seminars and training sessions. Those indisputably useful tools are more geared towards prevention of future violations. They do not constitute an effective and credible measure capable of putting an end rapidly to ongoing violations. More generally, the question must be asked: is co-operation an aim in itself? Is it more important than respect for human rights? The Statute of the Council of Europe quoted in the introduction of this report suggests otherwise. If one takes seriously the principle that a greater unity in Europe is to be achieved through the maintenance of human rights, it must be recognised that there are limits to what can be achieved through a consensus-based approach. Experience in different regional organisations has shown that there is a point where this approach cannot always be maintained if it is not to be perverted into a system under which a single State - more often than not the State that is the object of the discussion - is in a position to block certain decisions.
Another part of the explanation for this imbalance is the fact that, for the Committee of Ministers at least, the range of political response options is basically very limited: it is either co-operation or the ultimate sanction envisaged by Article 8 of the Statute: suspension of the State concerned from the Council of Europe. While one can in principle understand the reluctance of member States to resort to that extreme measure, the very logic of Council of Europe membership, the credibility of the Organisation and, last but not least, public opinion simply demand that some form of effective action is taken. There is a wide gap between the two existing options, and it would seem that the time has come to move away from this “all or nothing” dilemma and to devise new forms of constructive pressure and warning which can be more effective in ensuring restoration of respect for human rights wherever they have been violated on a massive scale. I therefore believe that it is important that the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly examine this question together in a serene way, that is: outside the context of any particular situation.
* Possible standard-setting work
While the human rights standards of the Council of Europe have more than proven their relevance where normal circumstances prevail in society, their significance in situations of conflict and crisis is a subject that has received much less attention in the Council of Europe. Are they sufficiently adapted to situations which may involve, for example, extrajudicial killings, rape practices, disappearances, trafficking in human beings? It would be useful to examine whether the perceived gap between our human rights standards and the vital question of the protection of individual rights in situations of conflict and crisis or tension is apparent or real and I fully endorse the idea that our intergovernmental committees take up this issue, taking due account of existing norms, also in the field of humanitarian law.
One specific area where the time seems ripe for standard-setting is the abolition of the death penalty also in time of war. Europe can rightly pride itself for the tremendous progress made in the abolition of the death penalty and putting moratoria on executions. The year 2000 is the third consecutive year in which no death sentences have been executed in the 41 States that are members of the Council of Europe. This is a major achievement which needs to be consolidated soon by formal abolition and ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention by the very few member States that have not yet done so. Any step backwards would be unthinkable and intolerable. On the contrary, the Council of Europe should continue to move forward and take up the Recommendation which the Parliamentary Assembly made already in 1994, namely to prepare a new additional Protocol to the Convention which excludes the possibility of maintaining the death penalty for acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war. At the same time, we should pursue our efforts to persuade countries in other regions of the world that the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. This is particularly important vis-à-vis countries that have observer status with the Council of Europe and which are deemed to share our fundamental values in the field of human rights and human dignity.
* Need for more emphasis on preventive action
Finally, this question of serious and massive violations of human rights has reminded us forcefully of the old truth that to prevent is better than to cure.
Much of the human rights work of the Council of Europe is geared towards prevention, for example in certain specific fields such as ECRI's role of assisting States in combating racist and intolerant attitudes, and the prevention of ill-treatment through the work of the CPT. As regards potential CPT work for the prevention of violations outside the geographical area of the Council of Europe, attention must be drawn to the possibility of inviting non-member States to accede to the Convention against torture which will materialise when Protocol No. 1 to this Convention will have obtained the last two ratifications necessary for its entry into force.
However, I believe we can and should do more in the field of prevention generally through stepping up work in the field of education, training and awareness-raising. Since these issues are not confined to prevention of massive and serious violations, they will be addressed below (in section 5: Human rights and civil society).
Especially as concerns latent or emerging problems that may degenerate into crises or other situations where human rights are violated on a massive scale, the Council of Europe should be more pro-active and better able to anticipate such situations. In May this year, the Italian Chairmanship drew attention to the need to apply early warning and monitoring systems that reflect the strength of the Organisation's commitment to effective protection for the main values of our civilisation. It should be examined how existing procedures and institutions could be given such an early warning role: one could think of including an urgent action element in the Committee of Ministers' monitoring procedure. Likewise, the Commissioner for Human Rights could play a role to this effect.
However, it cannot be stressed enough that the existence of early warning mechanisms in itself is not sufficient: what is necessary above all is the political will to take effective preventive action once such early warnings are received. In this regard, one can only subscribe to what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated in a lecture delivered in London a year ago in respect of the Kosovo tragedy:
"There are many lessons to be learned from Kosovo but to my mind the most important is that Kosovo represented a failure by the international community to act in time to prevent a tragedy which everyone predicted. For ten years observers on the ground had been warning about the need for action to address a deteriorating human rights situation in Kosovo. Nobody could have failed to see the red light flashing. What was lacking was the foresight and the political will to do something before the situation reached crisis point. The result was an attempt at conflict management instead of conflict prevention with an appalling cost in human lives and material damage."[12]
This only illustrates why it is important to enhance also the Council of Europe's response to flagrant failures of member States to respect our human rights standards, as was advocated above.
3. Equality and non-discrimination
The persistence or resurgence of various forms of discrimination and inequality should be taken as a serious threat to stability and cohesion in our societies and in Europe. These phenomena constitute the very opposite of cohesion: they are inherently divisive factors for each society.
A key challenge for the very near future is how States will solve the problem of racism and intolerance. This was the subject of a separate European Conference which the Council of Europe organised last month as a European contribution to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Since the general conclusions and the Political Declaration of this Conference provide important signposts for the development of new policies and strategies and European and at national level, only a few areas of concern will be highlighted here.
While there is undeniably a growing recognition by the governments of our member States of the need to take effective measures against racism and intolerance and to persuade public opinion in this regard, extreme vigilance is called for in the field of immigration and asylum policies. At a time where such policies become more and more restrictive, to the point where "fortress Europe" has become a reality for many, there is a real risk of a growing gap or even contradiction between such policies and the accepted need to fight racism and promote tolerance. This is a high-risk area, because experience has shown that especially in this field it is only too tempting even for mainstream political parties to adopt elements of extreme right-wing racist discourse which contributes to a "banalisation" of racist and xenophobic thinking. The Council of Europe should perhaps address more directly the risks that political parties with such extremist elements pose for a growing number of our member States.
Governments should stand firm to protect the human rights of aliens also and especially in the context of immigration policies and, just as importantly, make every effort to explain to their populations that these rights belong to every human being without discrimination. At the same time, one must recognise that aliens residing in our countries constitute in many respects a vulnerable category from the point of view of human rights. As developments in several member States have shown, this reality forces us to reflect on the kind of "citizenship" we want to have for Europe: an exclusive one based on formal criteria or an inclusive one based on someone's long-term presence in and belonging to society? The universality of the human rights approach taken by the European Convention on Human Rights clearly suggests the latter.[13] I therefore welcome the idea launched by the Italian Chairmanship to take up the question of the rights of migrants in the intergovernmental work of the Council of Europe, possibly in the form of a new protocol to the Convention. But here, as elsewhere, measures at national level are the most effective ones and it must be recalled that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has found that, in a substantial number of member States, there is still no adequate framework of legal measures against discrimination. Given the scale of the problem in today's Europe, this situation should be addressed without delay. Likewise, it goes without saying that States could usefully review their existing legislation in various fields with a view to removing provisions that could be discriminatory or produce discriminatory results, along the lines of the non-discrimination review project developed by the Council of Europe in the context of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe. Finally, having appropriate laws is one thing, but eradicating widespread everyday or institutional racism is another. Here, important efforts are necessary in the field of training of police and immigration officers, to name just two key categories of civil servants.
In only a few years’ time, ECRI has been able to formulate many useful general and country-specific recommendations concerning measures to combat racism and intolerance. The time now seems ripe for considering further steps in order to reinforce further the independence and legal basis of this mechanism. The experience gained with this mechanism shows that it has proven its worth and asserted itself as an integral part of our human rights system.
The importance of the protection of national minorities for the stability of our continent was stressed at the highest political level at the first Council of Europe Summit in 1993. Seven years later, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which is the first ever – and for the time being only – general international treaty in the field, has been ratified by no less than 32 States, and its Advisory Committee has already commenced the first monitoring cycle foreseen. The Committee has developed good co-operation with the States Parties, not least through country visits and other forms of dialogue, and the Committee of Ministers has rightly been very attentive to the requirement of independence when electing the members of the Advisory Committee. The first Opinions on four state reports are about to be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers. Given the legal nature and independent status of these opinions on countries’ implementation of the Framework Convention, it goes without saying that the Committee of Ministers, when deciding on recommendations to be addressed to individual countries, should base itself on the legal assessment made by the Advisory Committee, which was specifically set up for this purpose.
An important recent breakthrough at European level is the adoption of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, which will be opened for signature at an official ceremony in Rome on 4 November. Many member States have announced their intention to sign this new instrument against discrimination in Rome and others are invited to follow suit as soon as possible, thus marking their firm commitment to the fight against discrimination of any kind, including racial discrimination. As a sign of the times, the Protocol decisively puts an end to the unnecessarily limited character of the prohibition of discrimination in the Convention, which had become no longer tenable in today’s Europe. It thus gives the Court of Human Rights a solid legal basis for dealing with allegations of discrimination and for developing a case-law which can only assist the Contracting States in combating discrimination in all its forms, not only discrimination based on race and related grounds, but also discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, membership of a minority, and so on. Even if it has not been possible to include expressis verbis a positively worded equality principle in the new Protocol, the latter may, as its preamble indicates, be expected to contribute also to bringing closer the positive realisation of the principle of equality, beyond prohibiting discrimination in a strict sense.
Equality between women and men is an area where important progress has been made in the last 50 years. Gradually, Europe has shifted away from a rather limited vision of equality (as the mere absence of discrimination) to a broader approach which encompasses economic and social, civil and political equality between the sexes. In most countries, equality of rights for women and men is laid down in the constitution or other legislation.
Nonetheless, this must remain a priority area for the Council of Europe. Women remain under-represented in many sectors of society and there is still a long way to go towards full equality in practice. The work of the Council of Europe in recent years has focused on gender-mainstreaming so as to ensure that the gender equality perspective is taken into account in all areas and at each stage of decision-making processes. However, such mainstreaming is not only important for the national level. The gender perspective should also be taken into account in the interpretation and application of international human rights instruments including the Council of Europe’s conventions and, here again, one may expect a positive impact from Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. In this context, the increase of the number of female judges on the Court - even if it is still not on par with the number of male judges -should also help to make a difference.
*
However, in some respects it is difficult to speak of progress in the full enjoyment of human rights by women. Regression seems a more appropriate word to describe the manifold manifestations of violence against women, be it within the family, at work or elsewhere, and which take an extreme form during armed conflict. It is simply unacceptable that, in this Europe of the 21st century, sexual exploitation and trafficking degrades an increasing number of women and girls to a state of slavery and the Ministerial Conference should give a strong political impulse for redoubling our efforts to combat these phenomena.
4. Human rights and technological developments
The unparalleled development of technology and its applications in our societies has raised fundamental questions about ethics, the need to respect and protect human dignity and, consequently, about human rights. These developments are essential to social and economic progress and make an important contribution to improving the quality of life. We should never forget that those developments also contribute to progress towards full realisation of human rights. Medical research and technology leads to improved health care; the Internet provides enormous possibilities for exercising the right to receive and impart information and ideas; biological research contributes to reducing the levels of pollution in the environment, etc.
However, we are forced time and again to consider also the risk of possible abusive applications of new technologies. The human rights challenges are extremely varied: they concern the personal autonomy of every individual, the physical and mental integrity of the human being, other aspects of privacy such as confidentiality of private communications and data protection, the right to protection of a healthy living environment, the right to protection from racial discrimination and incitement to various forms of hatred or any other activities which (seek to) degrade human beings.
A general consideration which arises whenever new technologies appear on the market is the question of access, more particularly equal access opportunities for all. All too often, the costs involved or the special skills needed make access at the most a very theoretical possibility for the less privileged sectors of our societies. Here, stability and cohesion of our societies demands special measures and policies to ensure equality of opportunity. The alternative is simple: a division of society into "haves" and "have-nots", whether it be in the field of information technology (and thus: knowledge), access to sophisticated forms of health care, or other areas. We should not allow the already existing gaps to widen and deepen.
In the field of biomedicine, the Council of Europe has developed specific legal instruments, including on such topical questions as the prohibition of cloning of human beings. There is no
doubt that the control systems of our general human rights conventions will be more and more confronted with issues arising out of technological developments. At the same time, standard-setting work is under way in fields such as organ transplantation, biomedical research and human genetics, research on the human embryo and foetus.
In view of the central mission of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and promote their respect, the European Ministerial Conference should address these challenges arising out of new technologies and provide a clear political signal that respect for human dignity and human rights may never be sacrificed on the altar of technological progress but that the two should go hand in hand.
5. Human rights and civil society
The relationships between human rights and civil society are as complex and interlocked as those between democracy and human rights. If we take civil society in the wide sense of all parts and actors of society that are not directly connected with the exercise of public authority, it is clear that the existence of a strong civil society is a sign of democratic health, of an open society, where freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, and freedom of religion are fully respected, a society with a lively debate on issues of public concern, with public scrutiny of any exercise, or non-exercise, of public authority. Thus, civil society - NGOs, the media, and last but not least individual members of society - plays an indispensable role in drawing the attention of the public and of authorities to problems that need to be addressed, including human rights problems. Civil society actors are vital to stability and cohesion, not only because of this early warning role, but also on account of their capability to turn sectoral or segmented interests into issues of public interest, that is: of interest to society as a whole. In a genuine democracy, based on human rights values, each member of society’s enjoyment of human rights is an issue of public concern. In short, a vibrant civil society and the existence of a human rights culture are in many respects two sides of the same coin.
By the same token, the attitudes of public authorities and of officials towards civil society are a measure of democracy and of respect for human rights. Listening to the voices of civil society, early consultation of sectors likely to be affected by any envisaged new policy, transparency and accountability of administrations, respecting the freedom of the media, promotion of media pluralism and religious pluralism are hallmarks of democratic government, of a "civil service" in the true sense of the word. They are diametrically opposed to the oppressive and stifling attitudes and policies which characterise totalitarian regimes.
On most of these issues, the Council of Europe undertakes a wide range of activities: promoting and protecting media freedoms, advocating and supporting the setting up of Ombudsmen and national human rights institutions as important interfaces between government and civil society, running a Police and Human Rights Programme, etc. While this is not the place to elaborate on all these issues, one important area will be highlighted where work is under way and two others where there would seem to be a need for further action at European level.
Transparency of public administrations, including a guaranteed right of access of every individual to documents held by public authorities, is a topic which has been under consideration for a while in the Steering Committee for Human Rights. The aim is to arrive at a legal instrument which will define the basic principles governing such a right of access to official information. This is clearly a matter closely linked to public accountability of public authorities in a democratic society and to freedom of information. In the last decades, more and more member States have recognised this and adopted laws providing for such a right of access subject, of course, to legitimate restrictions relating to privacy, the need to protect national security, etc.. The same is true for the European Union, which has established regulations in this field. Other States are preparing legislation recognising access rights. So far, it is still an open question whether the text to be adopted in the Council of Europe will be legally binding or not and the experts appear to await political guidance on this issue. It is submitted that it would be an important and concrete result if this Ministerial Conference would adopt a clear position and signal political willingness to adopt the draft principles on access in the form of a Council of Europe Convention.
Secondly, it seems appropriate to raise, under this heading of human rights and civil society, a question which most of us have perhaps taken for granted for a long time but which seems very relevant in today's Europe: what do we mean when we speak of "democracy", "democratic institutions" or "democratic society"? While the promotion of pluralist democracy is at the very heart of the work of the Council of Europe, alongside respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights, it is surprising to note that attention has been given almost exclusively to the latter two. It is true that several texts adopted by the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly deal with this or the other specific aspect of democracy (for example, participation of young people in political life, financing of political parties, etc.) but there is no concise text bringing together the key principles and elements that characterise a pluralist democracy based on respect for human rights. Such a text - which would not aim to be legally binding - would be a useful reference and of great educational value in a Europe which is more and more confronted with trends which threaten democratic and human rights values and where there is a widely recognised need to educate young people in the values of democratic citizenship. It is suggested that the Ministerial Conference recognises the need to elaborate such a text in the framework of the Council of Europe, the European organisation with statutory competence in this field.
Finally, if there is one thing that has clearly been illustrated by the Council of Europe's experience with assisting countries in transition towards democracy and respect for human rights, it is the fact that it is one thing to bring laws and regulations into line with European standards, but quite another to change attitudes and mentalities. Here, one must recall the negative conclusion that efforts in the field of human rights education and awareness-raising so far have been clearly insufficient which was reached at a colloquy organised by the Council of Europe two years ago in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Only very few member States, old or new, can say that they pursue a consistent policy of ensuring that human rights values and principles are fully integrated and made operational in different levels and forms of general education, in university education and professional training for the legal professions, for the police and for any other civil servants, especially those dealing directly with the public.
It is hoped, first of all, that this Ministerial Conference will recognise the importance of such measures as necessary investments in creating and maintaining a genuine human rights culture in society, in preventing human rights violations and preventing crime, and, ultimately, in peace and tolerance. At this juncture, it must be stressed that human rights education is as much, if not more, about the need to respect the human rights of other members of society than it is about gaining knowledge of one's own rights. Secondly and more importantly, it is hoped that the recommendations resulting from this Conference will not remain empty words or promises, but the start of comprehensive efforts at national level to take such measures in the fields of education and training. It should be added that the Council of Europe has so far never received the means to carry out a general continent-wide human rights awareness and training programme. Such a programme could be an excellent way of stimulating and assisting national efforts in this field and serious consideration should be given to this idea.
6. Concluding remarks
The overall conclusion of this report can be brief. There are still several areas of concern in the human rights field where action by the Council of Europe is required, either in terms of standard-setting and other forms of intergovernmental cooperation, in terms of assistance and awareness-raising activities, or in the form of a combination of both. This will not be easy within the current budgetary constraints of the Council of Europe, but this report has hopefully demonstrated that the required additional financial investment is certainly very modest when seen in the light of the long-term harvest they yield for stability, cohesion and peace in Europe. It is important that this first European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in the new century recognises these current human rights challenges and that it provides appropriate political impulses for taking corresponding action.
* *
*
LIST OF MINISTERS AND HEADS OF DELEGATION /
LISTE DES MINISTRES ET DES CHEFS DE DÉLÉGATION
I. Heads of National Delegations / Chefs des Délégations nationales
A. Member States of the Council of Europe / Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe
ALBANIA/ALBANIE
Mr Paskal MILO, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
ANDORRA/ANDORRE
M. Albert PINTAT, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Relations extérieures
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Dr. Albert ROHAN, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
BELGIUM / BELGIQUE
M. Louis MICHEL, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
BULGARIA / BULGARIE
Ms Nadezhda MIHAILOVA, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
CROATIA / CROATIE
Mr Tonino PICULA, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
CYPRUS / CHYPRE
Mr Nicos KOSHIS, Minister of Justice and Public Order / Ministre de la Justice et de l’Ordre public
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Mr Petr UHL, Deputy Vice-Prime-Minister for Human Rights and Government Representative for Human Rights / Vice-Premier Ministre adjoint pour les Droits de l’Homme et représentant du Gouvernement pour les droits de l’homme
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Mr Niels Helveg PETERSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
ESTONIA/ESTONIE
Mr Märt RASK, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Mr Johannes KOSKINEN, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
FRANCE/FRANCE
M. Charles JOSSELIN, Alternate Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre Délégué aux Affaires étrangères
GEORGIA/GEORGIE
Mr Irakli MENAGARISHVILI, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Mr Eckhart PICK, Deputy Minister of Justice / Ministre adjoint de la Justice
GREECE/GRECE
Mrs Elisabeth PAPAZOÏ, Alternate Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre délégué aux Affaires étrangères
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Mrs Ibolya DÁVID, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
ICELAND/ISLANDE
Mrs Sólveig PÉTURSDÓTTIR, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
IRELAND/IRLANDE
Mr John O’DONOGHUE, Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform / Ministre de la Justice, de l’Egalité et de la Réforme législative
ITALY / ITALIE
M. Lamberto DINI, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères,
President of the Conference / Président de la Conférence
Mr Piero FASSINO, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
Co-President of the Conference / Co-Président de la Conférence
LATVIA/LETTONIE
Mrs Ingrida LABUCKA, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
LIECHTENSTEIN
Ms Andrea WILLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
LITHUANIA / LITUANIE
Mr Oskaras JUSYS, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre adjoint aux Affaires étrangères
LUXEMBOURG
Mme Lydie POLFER, Vice Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs and of External Trade / Vice Premier Ministre, Ministre des Affaires étrangères et du Commerce extérieur
MALTA / MALTE
Mr Austin GATT, Minister of Justice and Local Government / Ministre de la Justice et du Gouvernement local
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA / REPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Mr Nicolae TABACARU, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS
Mr Jozias VAN AARTSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Ms Hanne HARLEM, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
POLAND / POLOGNE
Mr Jerzy KRANZ, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre adjoint des Affaires étrangères
PORTUGAL
M. Francisco SEIXAS DA COSTA, State Secretary to European Affairs / Secrétaire d’Etat aux Affaires européennes
ROMANIA / ROUMANIE
M. Mihai Ràzvan UNGUREANU, State Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Secrétaire d’Etat au Ministère des Affaires étrangères
RUSSIAN FEDERATION / FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Mr Yury Ya. CHAYKA, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
SAN MARINO / SAINT-MARIN
M. Gabriele GATTI, Minister for Foreign and Political Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères et politiques
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Mr Pál CSÁKY, Deputy Prime Minister for Human Rights / Premier Ministre adjoint pour les Droits de l’Homme
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
M. Alojz PETERLE, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Mr Angel ACEBES, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
SWEDEN / SUEDE
Ms Britta LEJON, Minister for Democratic Issues and Public Administration / Ministre des questions démocratiques et de l’Administration publique
SWITZERLAND / SUISSE
Mme Ruth METZLER-ARNOLD, Federal Counsellor, Head of Federal Justice and Police Deparmtent / Conseillère fédérale, Cheffe du Département fédéral de justice et police
"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" /
"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"
Mr Aleksandar DIMITROV, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
TURKEY / TURQUIE
Mr Rüstü Kazim YÜCELEN, Minister of State responsible for Human Rights / Ministre d’Etat responsable des Droits de l’Homme
UKRAINE
Mrs Suzanna STANIK, Minister of Justice / Ministre de la Justice
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
Lord BASSAM of BRIGHTON, Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Home Office / Ministre délégué aux Affaires intérieures
B. Non-member States of the Council of Europe /
Etats non membres du Conseil de l’Europe
HOLY SEE / SAINT-SIEGE
SE Monseigneur Julian HERRANZ CASADO, Président du Conseil Pontifical pour les textes législatifs
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / ETATS-UNIS D’AMERIQUE
Ms Corinne C. BOGGS, United States Ambassador to the Holy See / Ambassadrice des Etats Unis auprès du Saint-Siège
CANADA
Mr Malcom McKECHNIE, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Canada in Italy / Ministre Conseiller, Ambassade du Canada en Italie
JAPAN / JAPON
Mr Mizuho MORITA, Consul of Japan in Strasbourg / Consul du Japon à Strasbourg
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
Ms Rosario GREEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
ARMENIA / ARMENIE
Mr Vartan OSKANIAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
AZERBAIJAN / AZERBAIDJAN
Mr Makhmud MAMED-GULIEV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador of Azerbaijan to the United Kingdom / Ministre adjoint des Affaires étrangères, Ambassadeur de l’Azerbaidjan au Royaume Uni
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA / BOSNIE ET HERZEGOVINE
Mr Jandrako PRLIC, Minister for Foreign Affairs / Ministre des Affaires étrangères
MONACO
Mr René NOVELLA, Ambassador / Ambassadeur
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA / REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE DE YOUGOSLAVIE
Mr Vojin DIMITRIJEVIC, Representative of the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / Représentant du Président de la République fédérale de Yougoslavie
II. Secretariat General of the Council of Europe / Secrétariat Général du Conseil de l'Europe
Mr Walter SCHWIMMER, Secretary General / Secrétaire Général
Mr Hans Christian KRÜGER, Deputy Secretary General / Secrétaire Général adjoint
M. Pierre-Henri IMBERT, Director General of Human Rights / Directeur général des Droits de l'Homme
III. Judges of the European Court of Human Rights / Juges de la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme
M. Luzius WILDHABER, President / Président
Mme Elisabeth PALM, Vice-President / Vice-présidente
M. Christos ROZAKIS, Vice-President / Vice-président
M. Georg RESS, Section President / Président de section
M. Jean-Paul COSTA, Section President / Président de section
M. Benedetto CONFORTI, Judge / Juge
M. Antonio PASTOR RIDRUEJO, Judge / Juge
M. Luigi FERRARI BRAVO Judge / Juge
M. Giovanni BONELLO, Judge / Juge
M. Loukis LOUCAIDES, Judge / Juge
M. Jerzy MAKARCZYK, Judge / Juge
M. Ireneu CABRAL BARRETO, Judge / Juge
M. Riza TÜRMEN, Judge / Juge
Mme Françoise TULKENS, Judge / Juge
Mme Viera STRÁŽNICKÁ Judge / Juge
M. Peer LORENZEN, Judge / Juge
M. Karel JUNGWIERT, Judge / Juge
M. Marc FISCHBACH, Judge / Juge
M. Josep CASADEVALL, Judge / Juge
M. Boštjan ZUPANČIČ, Judge / Juge
Mme Nina VAJIĆ, Judge / Juge
M. John HEDIGAN, Judge / Juge
Mme Wilhelmina THOMASSEN, Judge / Juge
Mme Margarita TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Judge / Juge
Mme Hanne Sophie GREVE, Judge / Juge
M. Rait MARUSTE, Judge / Juge
M. Egils LEVITS, Judge / Juge
Mme Snejana BOTOUCHAROVA, Judge / Juge
M. Mindia UGREKHELIDZE, Judge / Juge
M. Anatoly KOVLER, Judge / Juge
IV. Parliamentary Assembly / Assemblée Parlementaire
Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON, President / Président
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights / Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l’homme
Mr Gunnar JANSSON, Finland, Chairperson
Mr Rudolf BINDIG, Germany, 1st Vice-Chairperson
Mrs Lydie ERR, Luxembourg , 3rd Vice-Chairperson
Mr Cevdet AKCALI, Turkey
M. Giuseppe ALEFFI, Italie
Mr Piotr ANDRZEJEWSKI, Suisse
Mr Giuseppe ARZILLI, San Marino
Mr Michael ASCIAK, Malta
M. Jaume BARTUMEU CASSANY, Andorra
M. Jacques BAUMEL, France
M. James BORDAS , France
Mr Domenico CONTESTABILE, Italy
M. Gustavo DE ARISTEGUI, Espagne
Mr Dick DEES, Netherlands
Mr Stavros DIMAS, Greece
Mr Thomas ENRIGHT, Ireland
Mr Nikolaos FLOROS, Greece
Mr Nickolay FYODOROV, Russia
Mrs Tayyibe GÜLEK, Turkey
Mr Holger GUSTAFSSON, Sweden
Mrs Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Finland
Mr Jerzy JASKIERNIA, Poland
Mr Eric JURGENS, Netherlands
Mr Serhiy HOLOVATY, Ukraine
Mr Andreas KELEMEN, Hungary
Mr Nikolay KOVALEV, Russia
Mr Peter KRESAK, Slovakia
M. Angelo LAURICELLA, Italie
Mr René van der LINDEN, Netherlands
Mr Eduard LINTNER, Germany
Mrs Maria José LOPEZ GONZALEZ, Spain
Mr Boris MALTSEV, Russia
Mr Makhmud MAMED-KULIYEV, Azerbaijan
Mrs Natalija MARKOVIC-DIMOVA, « the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »
M. Dick MARTY, Suisse
Mr Kevin McNAMARA, United Kingdom
Mr Joao Bosco MOTA AMARAL, Portugal
Mme Lili NABHOLZ-HEIDEGGER, Suisse
M. Adrian NASTASE, Romania
Mme Rosa POSADA, Espagne
Mme Danièle POURTAUD
Mr Ivo SKRABALO, Croatia
Mr Michael SPINDELEGGER, Austria
Mr Cyril SVOBODA, Czech Republic
Mr Csaba TABAJDI, Hungary
Mr Ivar TALLO, Estonia
Mme Renate WOHLWEND, Liechtenstein
Mrs Gisela WURM, Austria
V. Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe / Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l'Europe
M. Alvaro GIL ROBLES, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe / Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l'Europe
VI. Representatives of International Bodies, Organisations and Courts /
Représentants d’instances, organisations et juridictions internationales
A. International Institutions and Organisations / Institutions et organisations internationales
Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities / Bureau du Haut Commissaire aux minorités nationales
Mr John PACKER, Director / Directeur
European Commission/ Commission européenne
Apologised/excusé
B. Council of Europe Bodies / Organes du Conseil de l'Europe
Steering Committee for Human Rights / Comité directeur pour les droits de l'homme (CDDH)
M. Guido RAIMONDI, Chairperson / Président
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities /
Comité consultatif de la Convention-cadre pour la protection des minorités nationales
M. Alan PHILLIPS, First Vice-President / Premier Vice-Président
Committee on the Rehabilitation and Integration of People with disabilities /
Comité pour la Réadaptation et l’Intégration des Personnes Handicapées (CD-P-RR)
Mme Maria do Pilar MOURÃO-FERREIRA, Chairperson / Présidente
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance / Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance (ECRI)
Mr Nikos FRANGAKIS, President / Président
European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment / Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT)
Ms Silvia CASALE, Chairperson / Présidente
Steering Committee on Bioethics / Comité directeur pour la bioéthique (CDBI)
Dr Elaine GADD, Chairperson / Présidente
Steering Committee for equality between women and men / Comité directeur pour l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes (CDEG)
Dr Clara COLLARILE, Member / Membre
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) / Commission européenne pour la démocratie par le droit (Commission de Venise)
M. Antonio LA PERGOLA, President
C. International Court / Juridiction internationale
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia/Tribunal pénal international pour l’ex-Yougoslavie
M. Almiro RODRIGUES, Judge / Juge
Court of Justice of European Communities / Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes
D. Non Governmental Organisations / Organisations non gouvernementales
Aire Centre
Mrs Nuala MOLE, Director / Directrice
Amnesty International
Ms Jill HEINE, Legal Adviser / Conseillère juridique
International Federation of Human Rights Leagues / Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme
M. Pierre BOULAY
Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) /
Fondation Marangopoulos pour les Droits de l'Homme (FMDH)
Mrs Alice YOTOPOULOS-MARANGOPOULOS Chairperson / Présidente
European Center (Albania/Albanie)
Mr Ledi BIANKU, Executive Director / Directeur exécutif
International Commission of Jurists / Commission internationale de Juristes
Apologised / excusé
VII. Additional Participants in the Commemorative Ceremony /
Participants supplémentaires à la Cérémonie Commémorative
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights / Haut Commissaire aux Droits de l’Homme des Nations Unies
Ms Mary ROBINSON, High Commissioner for Human Rights
Joint Coordinating Committee of the International Ombudsman Institute and European Ombudsman Institute (IOI-EOI)
Mr Anton CANELLAS, President / Président
Head of Delegation / Chef de Délégation:
Mr Antonio A. CANCADO TRINDADE, President / Président
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
Mr. Michael E. SHERIFIS, Chairperson / Président
Liaison Commitee of the NGOs enjoying consultative status with the Council of Europe / Comité de Liaison avec les ONG dotées du statut consultatif auprès du Conseil de l'Europe
M. Marc LEYENBERGER, 1er Vice Président / Premier Vice-Président
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU)
Ms Orsolya HEUER, Lawyer / juriste
International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
Dr Robert WINTEMUTE
International Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW International)
Ms Livia RICCI, Past International Chairperson / Présidente
European Roma Rights Center (ERRC)
Ms Dimitrina PETROVA, Executive Director / Directrice exécutive
Mr Selahattin ESMER
Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS)
Apologised/excusé
European Coordinating Group for National Institutions for the promotion and protection of Human Rights
Apologised/excusé
African Commission on Human and Peoples’Rights (ACHPR)
Apologised/excusé
Committee against Torture (CAT)
Apologised/excusé
European Commissions Justice and Peace
Apologised / excusé
Apologised / excuse
Apologised / excusé
Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) / Association pour la prévention de la torture (APT)
Apologised / excusé
PROGRAMME
Friday, 3 November 2000
8.00 – 8.45 am: Registration
8.45 am: Photocall
9.00 am: Opening of the Conference
Speeches
Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Walter SCHWIMMER
Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lamberto DINI
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON
Presentation of sub-themes I and II and opening of discussions
Introductory Reports presented by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Sub-theme I:
Institutional and Functional Arrangements for the Protection of Human Rights at National and European Level
First speaker : President of the European Court of Human Rights,
Mr Luzius WILDHABER
Sub- theme II:
Respect for Human Rights, a Key factor for Democratic Stability and Cohesion in Europe: Current Issues
First speaker : Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands,
Mr Jozias VAN AARTSEN
12.00 – 12.30 pm: Audience with the Holy Father for Heads of Delegation, Vatican City, Sala Clementina
For other participants: Reception given by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Palazzo della Farnesina
1.15 pm: Luncheon hosted by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Heads of Delegation, Palazzo della Farnesina
For other participants: Luncheon given by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Palazzo della Farnesina
3.00 pm: Continuation of discussions on sub-themes I and II
6.00 pm: End of Session
6.30 pm: Reception given by the President of the Italian Republic, Palazzo del Quirinale
Saturday, 4 November 2000
9.00 am : Continuation of discussions
Adoption of political texts concerning the sub-themes (Resolutions) and the theme (Declaration). Possibly, adoption of a political text on a topical issue.
11.00 a.m: Close of the Conference
11.00 – 11.30 am: Press Conference given by the Chair of the Conference and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
* * *
Commemorative Ceremony for the 50th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights
Palazzo della Farnesina,
Saturday, 4 November 2000
11.30 a.m.: Opening of the Ceremony
Speeches (list of speakers to be confirmed)
Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lamberto DINI
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON
Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Walter SCHWIMMER
President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Luzius WILDHABER
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary ROBINSON
12.45 pm : Close of the Ceremony
* * *
1.30 pm Campidoglio – Sala Giulio Cesare
Ceremony for the opening for signature of Protocol N° 12 (non-discrimination) to the European Convention on Human Rights, followed by reception given by the Mayor of the City of Rome, Campidoglio
[1] Part II of this report will appear in due course as a separate document, in time for the 733rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (7 December 2000).
[2] The key role played by non-governmental organisations, the media and other parts of civil society will not be addressed here since it would be inappropriate to consider these actors as “institutional or functional arrangements” for the protection of human rights. Their role will be highlighted in the Introductory report on the second sub-theme (in section 5 on Human Rights and Civil Society).
[3] As a last, general caveat, it must be stressed that it neither possible nor appropriate for these reports, which are intended to be introductory, to examine in detail the functioning of each of the different institutions and mechanisms or to do justice to the manifold results achieved by them; each arrangement on its own would be a fitting subject for, and merit, a lengthy analysis. These reports will therefore be limited to highlighting what would appear to be the most important issues and questions that deserve political attention of the member States and their Ministers responsible for human rights.
[4]See the Ireland v. United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A vol. 25, paragraph 154.
[5]This is amply illustrated in the various papers and contributions to the Colloquy “The Social Charter of the 21st Century”, Strasbourg, 14-16 May 1997. A main point is of course the fact that most social rights are judicially protected at the national level.
[6]Conference on the Protection of Human Rights in the 21st Century: Towards Greater Complementarity within and between European Regional Organisations, Dublin, 3-4 March 2000.
[7]It is hoped that this question will be pursued in another context, for example during the discussions on the future status of the EU Charter.
[8] See the Introductory report on sub-theme 1, section 6.
[9] Since the Convention’s entry into force, only 21 applications were brought by States, dealing with no more than 7 situations. Recently, the Parliamentary Assembly appealed on several occasions to member States, as Contracting States to the Convention, to refer to the Court alleged breaches of the Convention and its Protocols by the Russian Federation in the context of the Chechnya conflict (see, e.g., Recommendation 1456 (2000) on the Conflict in the Chechen Republic – Implementation by the Russian Federation of Recommendation 1444 (2000)). However, no application under Article 33 of the Convention has been introduced so far.
[10] See the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A vol. 28, paragraph 49.
[11] It is recalled that in the past, the Council of Europe as such did not yet generally assume an important role in respect of such situations (cf., for example, the “troubles” in Northern Ireland or the peak of the anti-terrorist operations in South-East Turkey).
[12] "Meeting the Challenge of Human Rights", Sounding the Century Lecture, London 23 September 1999.
[13] Article 1 of the Convention provides that the Convention's rights and freedoms shall be secured to "everyone within the jurisdiction" of the Contracting States.