Repatriation and integration of the Tatars of Crimea
Preliminary Draft Report
Rapporteur: Lord Ponsonby, United Kingdom, Socialist Group

Summary
The Crimean Tatars are a Turkic people who inhabited the Crimean peninsula, now part of Ukraine, for more than seven centuries. In the 1440s they established their own Khanate and remained an important power in Eastern Europe (with a population of up to 5 million) until 1783, when Crimea was annexed to Russia. The massive exodus and Russification that followed resulted in a rapid decline of the Crimean Tatar population. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population was deported, mostly to Central Asia. A 1967 Soviet decree cleared the Crimean Tatar people of all charges. However, nothing was done to facilitate their return or to compensate the Crimean Tatars for the loss of life and property. Today, up to 260 thousand of them have returned to their historic homeland. To them, the problems are not over yet; they continue their struggle for political, economic and cultural rights.
The Assembly wishes to draw the attention of all member-states to the humanitarian plight of this long-suffering people. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in concert with other international organizations as appropriate, take steps to intensify or launch assistance projects in Ukraine with a view to ensuring that Council of Europe standards are upheld in the resettlement and integration process. With this aim in view it asks the Committee of Ministers to share with the government of Ukraine the expertise available to the Council of Europe in the legal field relating to the integration of returnees, such as access to citizenship, residence permits, etc. It calls on the member states to contribute, not least financially, to assistance programmes in place and those to be activated. It further recommends that the Council of Europe Social Development Fund explore possible areas of action to facilitate returnee Crimean Tatar integration. The Assembly calls upon Ukraine to join the Social Development Fund.
I. Preliminary draft recommendation
1. The entire Crimean Tatar population (some 200,000) were deported from their historic homeland in 1944 for alleged collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War. In the wake of this forced displacement, primarily to Uzbekistan and other Central Asian republics, up to 46 per cent of them perished within two years, succumbing to malnutrition and disease. A 1967 Soviet decree cleared the Crimean Tatars of all charges but did nothing to facilitate their return, let alone compensate them for damages incurred. Until almost the very last days of the USSR the Crimean Tatars were not allowed to return to Crimea.
2. The Assembly recalls the general principles and recommendations set out in its Recommendation 1334 (1997) on refugees asylum seekers and displaced persons in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and regrets the fact that most of the proposals
therein are yet to be implemented.
3. Over the last ten years, some 260,000 of the estimated 400,000 to 550,000-strong Crimean Tatar Community have returned to Crimea. However, the problems confronting returnees remain complex and multi-faceted. They include citizenship, employment, housing, social protection, and cultural revival. Until these problems are solved, the full national identity of returnee Crimean Tatars cannot be restored. Integration calls for the eradication of all vestiges of xenophobia and discrimination faced at times by returnees.
4. The Assembly is concerned that the integration assistance programmes run by the Ukrainian government have had to be scaled down significantly and are underfunded as a result of the severe economic crisis in the country. It welcomes the readiness of the Government in Ukraine to facilitate reintegration, in particular, the steps taken to smooth the acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship. The Assembly commends efforts by the European Union (EU) and international organizations, notably the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), to speed up and facilitate the integration process and calls on member states to give their full support to these on-going programs.
5. The Assembly stresses that returnee Crimean Tatars will not be able to lead a normal life until they are properly housed and the requisite infrastructure is in place. Aid in this area should be a priority, and the Council of Europe Social Development Fund should explore the possibility of making a contribution in this area. By the same taken, the Assembly believes that Ukraine's joining the Social Development Fund would facilitate such a contribution.
6. To avoid the social erosion of the returnee Crimean Tatar community, education and job creation schemes need to be launched or intensified. For these purposes international aid and assistance programs are particularly needed. The member states and international community at large should contribute to the broader economic revival of Crimea.
7. The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. intensify dialogue with European Union institutions and international organizations active in assisting the Crimean Tatars, in particular the UNHCR and the OSCE, in order to make arrangements for increased involvement by the Council of Europe in projects that fall
within its area of competence, notably, legal issues relating to the integration of returnees, such as citizenship, residence permits, etc.;
ii. invite Ukraine to join the Council of Europe Social Development Fund;
iii. invite the Social Development Fund to explore what it can do to assist returnee Crimean Tatars, in particular in the housing and infrastructure sectors;
iv. invite the European Union to increase its involvement in assistance projects targeting returnee Crimean Tatars;
v. invite the UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the OSCE to convene a second conference on refugees, displaced persons and other forms of involuntary displacement and repatriation in the CIS that would focus, inter alia, on the situation of returnee Crimean Tatars;
vi. urge the member states to contribute generously, at bilateral and multilateral levels, to assistance projects targeting returnee Crimean Tatars, in particular housing and infrastructure construction schemes, education and job-creation projects, paying special attention to the most vulnerable groups;
vii. invite the states concerned to enter into bilateral negotiations with Ukraine with a view to agreeing on a simplified procedure for the acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship, accessible to Crimean Tatars residing in those states.
II. Preliminary draft order
1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Recommendation.....(....) on the repatriation and integration of Crimean Tatars.
2. Given the magnitude of the problem, which calls for a comprehensive approach, it instructs its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography to continue to follow the humanitarian situation of returnee Crimean Tatars and report back, as appropriate.
III. Explanatory memorandum by Lord Ponsonby
1. Introduction
1. The entire Crimean Tatar population (some 200,000) were deponed from their historic homeland in 1944 for alleged collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War. In the wake of this forced displacement up to 46 per cent of them perished within a two-year period, succumbing to malnutrition and disease. Until almost the very last days of the USSR the Crimean Tatars, banished primarily to Uzbekistan, but also elsewhere in the then Soviet Union, were not allowed to return to Crimea. A 1967 Soviet decree cleared Crimean Tatars of all charges but did nothing to facilitate their return, let alone compensate them for damages incurred.
2. It was not until 1989 that a Government-sponsored resettlement programme was launched, allowing for the return of up to 50,000 per year. Since gaining its independence in 1991, Ukraine has been funding this program, largely unassisted by the international community, including member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Shortage of funds did not allow the programme to yield expected results. Overall, since 1991, the Ukrainian Government has spent 300 million dollars to solve the problem.
3. To date, roughly 260,000 of the estimated 400,000-550,000 Crimean Tatar population have returned. Of late, though, the repatriation process has slowed down due to the unfavorable economic situation in Ukraine, as well as legal tangles that still persist in certain post-Soviet states. Sizeable Crimean Tatar communities can be found in Uzbekistan (roughly 30,000), as well as Kazakhstan and Russia. The estimated two to four million Crimean Tatars residing in Turkey, predominantly the descendants of 19th century immigrants, are now well-integrated and fall beyond the scope of this report.
4. The Crimean Tatars are returning to Crimea after forty years of exile driven by a desire to return to their historic homeland, rather than in a quest for a better economic environment. Unlike other ethnic groups deported from Crimea a few years before their tragic eviction (in August 1941, 61,000 other residents of Crimea, mostly ethnic Germans, but also Jews, Armenians, Greeks and Bulgarians, were also sent into internal exile) they lay claim to the status of indigenous people. Although this Rapporteur could not get an answer as to what that status implies in legal terms he was led to believe that this is a euphemism for titular nation. As such, it could be viewed by Crimean Tatar extremists as a first step to national autonomy. Many Crimean Tatars, while making a decision to return to Crimea, were guided by unrealistic expectations fostered by some of their political leaders.
5. Returnees and their descendants now form about 12 per cent of the population of this still Slav-dominated autonomous republic. Most of the returnees are younger people belonging to the post-World War II generation. With a birth rate of 4.5 per thousand, more than double that of their Slavic compatriots, Crimean Tatars are emerging as an increasingly important ethnic group in the peninsula.
6. The objective of this report is to examine, in particular, the humanitarian situation and living conditions of returnees and to alert the Assembly to the gravity of the problem. It is also the intention of the Rapporteur to highlight associated legal and social problems that add to the complexity of the repatriation and integration of returnees. The report seeks to offer the Assembly proposals for the Committee of Ministers aimed at alleviating the plight of those concerned.
7. This report is also a follow-up to the CIS Migration Conference (Geneva, May 1996) that was dedicated to the examination of the situation of refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced persons in the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is intended to amplify the general principles set out in the report on refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Doc. 7829 of 15 May 1997) by focusing on a specific range of associated problems. It further seeks to call the attention of member states to the fact that a significant proportion of the recommendations (cf. Recommendation 1334 (1997)) adopted on the basis of the above report are yet to be implemented.
8. With a view to preparing the report, the Rapporteur conducted a fact-finding visit to Ukraine. In Ukraine, in addition to having discussions in the capital city of Kyiv, the Rapporteur also made field visits to the settlements of returnee Tatars in Crimea. Throughout the mission extremely fruitful discussions were held with parliamentarians, government and local officials, representatives of Crimean Tatar NGOs and international organisations, notably the UNHCR and the OSCE, as well as of the EU.
9. The Rapporteur wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude to all his interlocutors in Ukraine as well as to the Ukrainian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for their hospitality and assistance. His very special thanks go to the staff of the UNHCR for their excellent co-operation, not least in solving the rather complicated logistical problems.
2. Situation Analysis
10. To say that the situation of Crimean Tatar returnees is far from idyllic would be a great understatement. The representatives of the returnees claim that their communities are being made into ghettos. Most returnees live in compact settlements on the periphery of the cities, which adds to their isolation.
11. A major political issue is that of under-representation at local and regional levels. This, in part, can be attributed to the boycott of local elections declared by the Crimean Tatar Mejlis in 1995. By contrast, Crimean Tatars have two members in the Ukrainian Parliament, one elected under the majority system, the other one elected under the proportional system (at the national level the system is mixed fifty-fifty). Until last year, Crimean Tatars had a quota of 14 seats in the 96-seat Crimean Parliament. This situation changed in 1998 with the ^ adoption of a new constitution for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Unlike the Ukrainian Parliament, the parliament in Crimea is elected under a majority system. As a result, the Crimean Tatars, constituting everywhere a minority, albeit a significant one, and dispersed throughout the peninsula, could not get a single candidate to the parliament. The only Crimean Tatar member of the Crimean Parliament was elected on the Communist Party list and is not considered by his ethnic kinsfolk as their representative. The more radical Crimean Tatars advocate a quota system, and even a return to all the rights and privileges they used to have before the deportation (30 percent quota, with the Crimean Tatar language having the / status of a national language in the Crimea). This preferential treatment can hardly be l justifiable in a multi-ethnic state. On the other hand, a proportional electoral system in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) could remedy the situation.
12. Crimean Tatars are all but absent from management posts in various administrative bodies. This complicates matters when it comes to lobbying for specific projects that could benefit this stratum of the Crimean population. As a result, municipalities that include compact settlements of Crimean Tatars in most cases have no integrated municipal plans, relegating returnees, as it were, to reservation-like living conditions and makeshift housing. Only 1 percent of Crimean Tatars are represented in Crimea's Government bodies; 0.1 - percent of them serve in the police force and security service. At the same time, by decree, all deputies to heads of Government bodies in Crimea are Crimean Tatars.
13. Ukraine has inherited from the erstwhile USSR the so-called propiska system, whereby all citizens and their places of residence have to be duly registered with the Ministry of the Interior; any absence from the place of residence beyond a specified length of time has to be reported to local police stations. The system creates a "Catch-22" situation: without a propiska there can be no employment, without employment it is extremely difficult for a returnee to get a propiska. Not having permanent residency or official employment, a sizeable portion of Crimean Tatar returnees lived for years and continue to live without a propiska. This could expose them to police harassment. A sizeable albeit falling proportion of the registered Crimean Tatar refugees to this day do not have Ukrainian citizenship. This is not only due to the legal tangles (sec below), but can also be attributed to the difficulties involved in proving the place of birth or ancestry, given that birth certificates were kept in mosques destroyed by Soviet troops in the wake of the deportation.
14. Upwards of an estimated 60 percent of the returnee Crimean Tatars are unemployed, while others arc primarily employed in menial jobs that do not correspond to the level of their training or professional experience. Most have lost their life-long savings in the economic debacle and hyperinflation that followed the break-up of the USSR.
15. Crimean Tatars claim they are still being routinely discriminated against. Old misperceptions are still rather widespread with returnees being stigmatized as Nazi collaborators. The local Slavic population displays a regrettable degree of xenophobia vis-a-vis returnees and, at best, is disinterested in their plight. The de facto segregation further increases the communication gap between the two major ethnic communities. In fact, this segregation is self-imposed by the Crimean Tatars who prefer to live in compact settlements and send their children to Crimean Tatar, rather than mixed or Russian schools. The wide-scale squatting by Crimean Tatars, unauthorised occupation by them of abandoned or unoccupied property and agricultural land, only further compounds their problems with the Slavic population.
16. Decades of subjugation and exile have eroded the language and culture of the Crimean Tatars. While Tatar remains the medium of communication within the community, knowledge of it is largely superficial and confined to unsophisticated conversational dialect. The spoken language is out of date and, notably, lacks the vocabulary to cater for scientific and technological advances.
3. Citizenship and efforts to assist returnees
17. Upon gaining independence, Ukraine granted citizenship to all persons residing in Ukraine on 13 November 1991 who were not citizens of other states. Thousands of Crimean Tatars who arrived after that date were faced with the requirement to pass the Ukrainian language test, produce proof of lawful employment, proof of having relinquished any other citizenship and pass an AIDS test.
18. The demand of Crimean Tatar leaders that all returnees should be automatically granted Ukrainian citizenship remained unheeded by the authorities. Furthermore, the latter felt and continue to feel very strongly against allowing dual citizenship on the grounds that a newly independent state could not afford this and needed to consolidate its national identity. As a result, until very recently, a sizeable proportion of the returnee population not only did not have Ukrainian citizenship, but was, de facto, stateless. This could largely be attributed to the fact that the Citizenship Law of Uzbekistan, the country from which the bulk of returnees originated, was not adopted before 28 July 1992. Thus, ex-Uzbekistan Crimean Tatars (roughly 25 thousand) who entered Crimea before that date, and never applied for Uzbekistan citizenship in an Uzbeki consulate in Ukraine, were left in a legal limbo.
19. By way of corrective action, amendments to the Ukrainian Citizenship Law were adopted, entering into force on 20 May 1997. The law, as amended, provides for a simplified procedure for granting Ukrainian citizenship by affiliation to persons, and their first and second-degree descendants, who during Soviet times were forcibly transferred from Ukraine, on condition that they do not hold the citizenship of another state. The deadline for acquisition of Ukrainian citizenship by affiliation is 31 December 1999. Upon the expiration of the said period Crimean Tatars will still be in a privileged situation as obtaining citizenship through naturalization will only be subject to a) availability of legal sources of subsistence, b) recognition of and compliance with Ukrainian legislation and c) absence of any foreign citizenship.
20. While this new legislation was a major step in the right direction and effectively reduced the risk of statelessness for returnees already in Ukraine, it did not guard against interim statelessness for new arrivals. In addition, the requirement to relinquish any other citizenship as a conditio sine qua non remains in force.
21. Statelessness has severe implications. Stateless persons cannot be employed in the civil service, higher education is more expensive with certain faculties closed to the stateless (e.g. law school), they cannot participate in the privatisation of household plots and enterprises, travel abroad (Russia included) is restricted to those with post-Soviet passports, and, finally, such persons cannot participate in national or regional elections.
22. Until recently, the rate of applications for Ukrainian citizenship was very low. Over a five-year period (1991-1995) only 97 persons were restored to Ukrainian citizenship and two persons received it. There existed obstacles to both applying for and obtaining Ukrainian citizenship. As far as the former is concerned, there is still a widespread lack of understanding of the importance of citizenship as distinguished from ethnicity. Up-to-date and accurate information on citizenship-related issues is still, despite concerted efforts by the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior and awareness-raising campaigning by Crimean Tatar NGOs, a rare commodity, with heavy reliance by returnee communities on rumours. By contrast, what is really ubiquitous is the misperception that a simplification of the amended citizenship law could grant automatic citizenship to Crimean Tatars. Quite a few potential applicants are deterred from applying in anticipation of heavy costs as well as other difficulties associated with applying. Obtaining citizenship is associated with certain expenditures, until recently, in particular, for those having to relinquish their Uzbeki citizenship (see para. 23 below). The process remains highly confusing given that many administrators still have inaccurate or dated information that only adds to the confusion. Many are confronted with difficulties locating documents that might have been lost or destroyed in exile or by Soviet troops. Finally, the poorest had difficulty raising cash needed to obtain documents and cover removal costs.
23. In a welcome development, in September 1998 the Governments of Ukraine and Uzbekistan concluded an agreement to simplify the process of renunciation of Uzbeki citizenship by formerly deported people of Crimea. The new accord even provided for the waival of the relinquishment fee of about S 100.00 previously charged by Uzbekistan for executing the procedure. That single act represented an important breakthrough in the reintegration process and was made possible thanks to concerted efforts by the two governments concerned and a host of international organisations involved, notably, the UNHCR, IOM and the OSCE. The Ukrainian Government should get special credit for taking the initiative to engage Uzbekistan in negotiations that finally bore fruit. As a result, by mid-June 1999 some 25 thousand stateless Crimean Tatars received Ukrainian passports. The next group consists of some 40 000 Uzbekistan citizens with 26 000 renunciation files already sent to Tashkent. By the time of writing, 60 percent of Crimean Tatars not holding Ukrainian citizenship had applied for it. It is expected that by the end of 1999 that number should reach 90 percent. The remaining ten percent are primarily Crimean Tatars holding Uzbekistan passports who, given their property interests, do not wish to obtain Ukrainian citizenship for the time being. It may be said that the problem of statelessness is almost fully resolved. This is a major success story with all the credit going to Ukraine and Uzbekistan, with the UNHCR providing unfailing support. It is regrettable that other CIS countries with sizeable Crimean Tatar communities display little interest in entering into similar simplified procedure arrangements with Ukraine.
24. In the wake of the signature of the agreement the UNHCR launched a comprehensive information campaign in Crimea on the new procedure. UNHCR allocated 2.3 million dollars in aid during 1999 to assist in promoting the simplified procedures and to carry out programmes to create jobs and housing for returnee Crimean Tatars. More than 37 projects to repair or build dwellings have already been completed offering shelter to some thousand formerly homeless families. A major part in this awareness raising campaign is played by Crimean Tatar NGOs, notably Assistance and Initsium, sponsored and assisted by the UNHCR.
4. Socio-economic needs
25. The resettlement in Crimea has taken a severe toll on the Crimean Tatars. The stressful conditions of their new life, with poor employment opportunities, lack of housing and infrastructure, including social infrastructure, have led to the creation of a dislocated community with few opportunities for socializing and little cohesion. The divorce rate is rising, traditional family values are on the wane, and crime is on the increase. Before repatriation, 71 percent of Crimean Tatars lived in towns or cities. Today, 70 percent of them live in rural areas, in 300 settlements.
26. Basic infrastructure is still a rare commodity in the Crimean Tatars' compact settlements. Lack of water, roads and electricity makes life particularly harsh and is not conducive to speedy return and reintegration. The overwhelming majority of those living in such compact settlements are affected by the problem. The virtually non-existent infrastructure compounds the problem of housing construction. As a result, construction is lengthy and a sizeable proportion of houses remains uncompleted. The later the settlements were commissioned, the poorer the infrastructure they tend to have. Conditions are particularly appalling in those settlements that were not commissioned formally. Of all the compact settlements and residential neighborhoods, 70 percent have electricity, 27 percent have water, 10 percent have tarmac roads and only 4 percent have gas. None have sewers. Between 1989 and 1996 capital investments in compact settlements were financed by the Government of Ukraine. This funding was literally brought to a halt in 1996. According to official Ukrainian estimates capital investment requirements to complete infrastructure projects in compact settlements stand at $ 148 million, while Crimean Tatar sources put that figure at a hefty one to two billion dollars. In 1999, Ukraine budgeted 20 million grivnas (about S 5 million) to fund resettlement programmes, although actual disbursement only amounted to 5 million grivnas.
27. The returnees arrived in a country already in the grips of a housing crisis made even more acute by the economic collapse that followed the disintegration of the USSR. In 1995 one Ukrainian family in seven had no separate or permanent housing, sharing a roof with relatives or living temporarily in rented apartments or hostels. A declining rate of new housing construction further compounded the problem. Even in 1995 new housing construction dropped to just 20 percent of the not particularly high 1990 levels. In the framework of the Government's programme of resettlement of Crimean Tatars, 196.8 thousand square metres of private housing were commissioned in 1991-1995. This, according to existing Government norms in Ukraine (13.56 sq. metres per person) would, in theory, meet the requirements of 14.513 persons. In addition, the Ukrainian Government provides subsidies for housing construction/purchase by the most vulnerable groups of returnees (households with many children, the disabled, elderly, etc.). Delays in actual disbursements and inflation have significantly reduced the efficiency of this assistance tool. The annual house/apartment purchase rate is about 200. In the wake of the currency reform and under current conditions of high inflation, new housing construction has nearly ground to a halt. Construction itself is extremely lengthy, dragging on for years, given the absence of adequate funding and the fact that the personal lifetime savings of those concerned have been eaten up by inflation.
28. Unemployment and lack of reliable legitimate income generation remain a serious challenge for returnee Crimean Tatars. Jobs are not only scarce, but they seldom correspond to the professional experience and training of the successful candidates. Low employment rates among Crimean Tatars can be attributed to a number of factors, not least uncertain legal status (primarily, lack of propiska or citizenship), widespread nepotism, etc. Even those having a job or entitled to a pension increasingly suffer financial insecurity, given that salaries, as a rule, are low, unreliable (pay delays, short-term contracts), or, at times not paid at all, with remuneration being made in kind. Under such circumstances, Crimean Tatar households are increasingly shifting their financial reliance from salaries or pensions to self-employment and small businesses. Low investment levels, seasonal fluctuations and a high degree of informality characterize activities in this sector.
29. Although never regarded as a high priority area against the backdrop of other problems, social services remain a field where significant improvements could be made. Given the low incomes characteristic of the returnee Crimean Tatar community on the whole, costs of social services are all but prohibitive. Access to social services is impeded by formal costs (medicines, supplies, transportation) and informal costs (bribes and other baksheesh to doctors to ensure good attention and treatment). The latter component is said to have increased significantly, not least since the medical profession are ill paid or not paid at all.
30. To Crimean Tatars, the revival of their language and culture, all but destroyed over decades of persecution, is a very sensitive issue. Their widely spread belief is that language is at the core of ethnicity, which makes current difficulties easier to weather. At the same time, language knowledge is mostly confined to the spoken dialect heavily corrupted by imports from other languages. Furthermore, the returnee community is split on how to tackle the problem of the revival of the language. While most returnees advocate the opening of schools with Crimean Tatar as the medium of instruction, others fear that this could give rise to linguistic isolationism and put students of such schools at a disadvantage as they pursue higher education and seek better paid jobs. Others still would favour mixed schools, considering them as cultural melting pots that promote inter-ethnic understanding and coexistence. As far as culture and education are concerned, the Ukrainian authorities have invested significant funds and effort to meet the requirements of the returnee community. In today's Crimea, there are eight Crimean Tatar schools (it may be mentioned here that in this predominantly Russian-speaking peninsula there is only one Ukrainian school), there is a Crimean Tatar library, a Crimean Tatar theatre, etc. Crimean Tatars attend the Crimean Pedagogical Institute, there is a Crimean Tatar faculty at the Simferopol National University, mixed schools as well as higher education institutions elsewhere in Ukraine and abroad. In addition, there is a specialised school for Crimean Tatar teachers, while six newspapers and magazines in Crimean Tatar language cater to the cultural and international needs of the returnees.
5. Conclusions
31. The magnitude of problems confronting returnee Crimean Tatars is enormous. Their precarious humanitarian situation is compounded by legal tangles and associated uncertainty in the social field. If the international community were to be helpful in alleviating the plight of this long-suffered people it would have to apply a comprehensive approach, in accordance with the principles outlined in the draft recommendation and order accompanying this report. The Rapporteur hopes that the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and the member States will pay heed to the recommendations therein