Dear Helmut,

Dear colleagues and friends,

• First of all, allow me to thank our hosts here, in this charming city of Vienna, a city which for centuries has embodied a unique harmony between cultures, ideas, and influences.
• As Stefan Zweig beautifully described in ‘The World of Yesterday,’ the richness of this city lies in its ability to unite seemingly divergent elements and merge them into an incomparable harmony. Vienna has always been a meeting place where the reconciliation of differences creates a new intellectual and cultural harmony.
• This is also our tradition at CAHDI, a tradition that exemplifies, in an exemplary manner, our President Helmut Tichy.
• As has been the practice, I will present to you the most important developments within the Council of Europe (“CoE”) since the last meeting of the CAHDI.

1. Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine

• On the topic of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, I draw your attention to the decision taken by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2024 authorising the Secretary General to prepare any necessary documents to contribute to consultations within the Core Group. The Core Group is an informal group of approximately 40 states, the European Union (“EU”) and the Council of Europe called together by Ukraine in January 2023 to discuss the legal and technical feasibility and features of establishing a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
• This mandate included the preparation of a possible draft agreement between the Council of Europe and the Government of Ukraine on the establishment of such a special tribunal, including its statute, and on a possible draft enlarged partial agreement governing its modalities of support.
• The Committee of Ministers further requested the Secretary General to report regularly to the Deputies and agreed to consider any possible next steps in this process, as and when appropriate, taking account of any proposals that may be made by the Secretary General.
• The Core Group held its 11^th meeting this Tuesday, equally here in Vienna. The Group is making considerable progress, despite the difficult issues before it. The negotiations are ongoing and remain confidential. I therefore cannot go into details.

2. Informal Conference of Ministers of Justice on “Towards Accountability for International Crimes Committed in Ukraine”

• On 5 September 2024, the Ministers of Justice of the Member States of the Council of Europe convened in Vilnius, Lithuania, under the auspices of the Lithuanian Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for an informal conference addressing critical justice and accountability issues related to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
• This informal conference resulted in the adoption of the Vilnius Declaration, supported by 42 member and observer states of the Council of Europe. The declaration was agreed in the presence of the Vice-President of the European Commission.

3. Opening for signature of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law

• The informal conference of Ministers of Justice in Vilnius on 5 September 2024 also marked the opening for signature of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law (CETS No. 225). The Framework Convention had been adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 May 2024, after being negotiated by the 46 Council of Europe member states, the EU and 11 non-member states (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the Holy See, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Peru, the United States of America and Uruguay). Representatives of the private sector, civil society and academia actively contributed to the process as observers.
• On 5 September last, the Framework Convention was signed by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the EU. The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe member states, have ratified it.

4. Register of Damage for Ukraine and the Claims Commission

• Since its opening for submission of claims on 2 April 2024, significant developments have taken place in relation to the Register of Damage (“RD4U”). First some notable achievements of a technical nature have been made such as: the launch of several new categories of claims[1] and the adoption of rules and claims forms for them ; the launch of an awareness campaign aimed at involving representatives of Ukrainian cities and regions in promoting RD4U's mandate and the process of submitting claims to the Register ; or the decision by the European Council to change the EU's status in the Register from Associate Member to fully-fledged Participant. The next meeting of the Conference of Participants is due to take place next month in Strasbourg.
• New developments also occurred regarding the establishment of a Claims Commission for Ukraine (“CCU”). Indeed, a first preparatory meeting was organised in The Hague on 9-10 July 2024 by the RD4U. A second meeting was held last week, equally in The Hague. DLAPIL accompanies this work which is being implemented by the Secretariat of the Register of Damage. The purpose of the two meetings was to exchange views on further implementation of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-11/5 “Furtherance of remedy and reparation for aggression against Ukraine” of 14 November 2022. Participants discussed various modalities of establishment of the claims commission for Ukraine, including on the possible forms of the international instrument required, models of organisation and governance of the commission and the requirements for its independence and impartiality.
• During the second meeting, several concrete preparatory documents presenting different possible institutional and technical options for the establishment of a CCU were discussed, including on a potential role of the Council of Europe in the setting up of the mechanism. A third preparatory meeting will take place in mid-November 2024.

5. The change of the SG

• I would like to draw your attention on a major institutional development. On 25 June 2024, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) elected Mr. Alain Berset (Switzerland) as Secretary General of the CoE for a five-year term which actually began yesterday. Mr. Alain Berset was a member of the Swiss Government from 2012 to 2023. During this time, he held, in particular, the office of President of the Confederation twice, in 2018 and 2023.
• Yesterday, the Secretary General spoke about a range of specific challenges and priorities, and singled out one in particular, saying: "First among these is of course our need to support our member state, Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its democratic future in the face of the Russian Federation’s war of aggression. Supporting that country will remain our number one priority."

6. European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’): Georgia v. Russia (IV), Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) and EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR, the Convention’)

• I will now report on two major ECtHR’s judgments in two inter-State cases where the respondent State is the Russian Federation.
• The first of these judgments is the Court’s chamber judgment (on the merits) in the case of Georgia v. Russia (IV). It concerned the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 that led to a process, which started in 2009 and is known as “borderisation”, blocking people from crossing the administrative boundary lines freely between Georgian-controlled territory and the Russian-backed breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Court found that it had sufficient evidence, in particular lists of victims, testimonies, media reports and international material, to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents alleged were not isolated and were sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and the general application of the measures to all people concerned proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.
• The second relates to the Grand Chamber judgment (on the merits) in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). It concerned Ukraine’s allegations of a pattern (“administrative practice”) of violations of the ECHR by the Russian Federation in Crimea beginning in February 2014. It also concerned allegations of a pattern of persecution of Ukrainians for their political stance and/or pro-Ukrainian activity (“Ukrainian political prisoners”) which had occurred predominantly in Crimea but also in other parts of Ukraine or in the Russian Federation since early 2014. The Court held, unanimously, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation of judgments), that Russia had to take measures as soon as possible for the safe return of the relevant prisoners transferred from Crimea to penal facilities located on the territory of the Russian Federation. The Court considered that it had sufficient evidence – in particular intergovernmental and nongovernmental organisation reports, corroborated by witness testimony and other material – to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents had been sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and/or the general application of the measures to all people concerned, among other things, proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.
• The Court considered, in both cases, that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready and that, therefore, judgments on just satisfaction issues would be rendered at a later stage.
• Regarding the EU’s accession to the ECHR, I would like to draw your attention to two recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘ECJ’), Joined Cases C-29/22 P - KS and KD v Conseil e. a. and Case C‑351/22 - Neves 77 Solutions SRL of 10 September 2024.
• The ECJ clarified the scope of the jurisdiction of the Courts of the EU in relation to acts or omissions falling within the scope of the Common foreign and security policy (‘CFSP’). The ECJ explained that EU courts in fact have jurisdiction to assess the legality of acts or omissions coming under the CFSP which are not directly related to political or strategic choices or to interpret them. In the case of Eulex Kosovo, this applied to the choice of personnel or the establishment of review measures or remedies, which only constituted acts of day-to-day and administrative management of the mission’s mandate.
• While we are still analysing these judgments, we sincerely hope that they will pave the way to finalise the negotiations on EU accession to the ECHR.

7. Closing remarks

• Thank you again for your participation and I look forward to hearing some insightful discussions during the meeting. The Secretariat rests at your disposal for all questions you may have.
• Thank you very much for your attention.

Appendix: Accessions to Council of Europe conventions by non-member States[2]

• • Since the last CAHDI meeting, 5 non-member states have asked to be invited to become party to a Council of Europe treaty:
• Kenya, Kiribati, Malawi and Papua New Guinea – Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185);
• Tanzania – Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters as amended by the 2010 Protocol (ETS No. 127).
  • In addition, 5 signatures were affixed by non-member states:
• Chad – Council of Europe Convention on counterfeiting of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health (CETS No. 211);
• European Union, Israel, and the United States of America – Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225);
• Sierra Leone – Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence (CETS No. 224).
  • Lastly, there were 8 accessions by non-member states: 
• Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Grenada, Kiribati, and Sierra Leone – Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185);
• Benin – Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (ETS No. 189);
• Kyrgyzstan – Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (ETS No. 112).