TABLE OF CONTENTS

* * *

1. Introduction

1. On 10 November 1994 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which is the first ever legally binding multilateral instrument devoted to the protection of national minorities in general. Opened for signature on 1 February 1995, the Framework Convention entered into force, after the deposit of 12 ratifications, on 1 February 1998.

2. During the period covered by the present report (1 June 1999 – 31 October 2000), six States acceded to the Framework Convention (Albania, Ireland, Lithuania, Sweden, Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Georgia signed this treaty. As a result, as at 31 October 2000, the Framework Convention had been signed by 37 member States, 29 of which have also ratified it. In addition, three non-member States have ratified the Framework Convention (see Appendix I).

3. The monitoring mechanism of the Framework Convention is based on Articles 24 - 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and on the Committee of Ministers' Resolution (97) 10. The evaluation of the adequacy of the implementation of the Framework Convention by the Parties is to be carried out by the Committee of Ministers, which shall be assisted by an Advisory Committee.

4. The Parties are required to submit a report containing full information on legislative and other measures taken to give effect to the principles of the Framework Convention within one year of the entry into force. These state reports are made public and examined by the Advisory Committee, which is to prepare an opinion on the measures taken by each reporting State. Having received the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the Committee of Ministers is called on to adopt conclusions and, where appropriate, recommendations in respect of the State Party concerned.

5. In accordance with Resolution (97) 10, the Advisory Committee is composed of up to 18 independent and impartial experts appointed by the Committee of Ministers. The Advisory Committee was set up in 1998. As at 31 October 2000, the Advisory Committee has 17 members (see Appendix II). In addition, experts in respect of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Switzerland have been elected to the List of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee.

6. The first state reports were submitted in February 1999, and by 31 October 2000, the Advisory Committee had received 18 state reports in one of the official languages of the Council of Europe (see Appendix I). During the reporting period, the Advisory Committee began the examination of most of these reports with a view to adopting opinions on them. On 22 September 2000, the Advisory Committee adopted its first four opinions, which were subsequently transmitted to the Committee of Ministers.

7. The purpose of the present report is to provide the Committee of Ministers and others interested in the implementation and monitoring of the Framework Convention with an overview of the work carried out by the Advisory Committee. Whereas the first Activity Report covered the first year of activities of the Advisory Committee, the coverage of the present report was extended to 18 months so as to include developments up to the adoption of the first opinions. In Section II, the report outlines the main decisions taken during the reporting period. It further explains the efforts made by the Advisory Committee to make the Framework Convention known to the public at large. In Section III, the report addresses the principal organisational issues related to the work of the Advisory Committee, including the resources allocated to its work.

2. Activities during the reporting period

A) Meetings of the Committee

8. In the course of the reporting period, the Advisory Committee held four plenary meetings:

5th plenary meeting: 13 September - 16 September 1999

6th plenary meeting: 22 November -24 November 1999

7th plenary meeting: 6 June - 9 June 2000

8th plenary meeting: 18 September - 22 September 2000

9. In addition, the Bureau of the Advisory Committee, which usually met in the context of plenary meetings, held a meeting on 10 December 1999.

10. The plenary meetings concentrated on the discussion on working methods as well as on the drawing up of country-specific opinions. The main goal of this was to produce high-quality opinions that would assist the Committee of Ministers in its monitoring functions and thereby contribute to the full implementation of the Framework Convention in the States Parties. In pursuing this goal, the Advisory Committee established and/or strengthened a number of key elements of its working methods. These are detailed, in a non-exhaustive manner, under specific themes below.

B) Examination of state reports

11. As at 31 October 2000, the Advisory Committee had received initial reports, in one of the official languages of the Council of Europe, from the following States Parties: Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Malta, Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, San Marino, the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

12. The Advisory Committee considers that state reports are the most important starting point of the Committee's country-specific work. It therefore welcomes the fact that Governments have made considerable efforts to produce comprehensive reports. Indeed, many of these reports provide such an in-depth overview of minority protection in the country concerned that they can serve as a useful reference tool also outside the monitoring mechanism.

13. By the same token, many of the state reports still focus too heavily on the legislative framework and provide only a limited amount of information on the relevant practice. In order to overcome this tendency, the Advisory Committee invites the reporting States to pay increasing attention to the outline for state reports, adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 642nd meeting of the Deputies (CM/Del/Dec(98)642/4.4).

14. In addition to relying on the outline, the reporting States can enhance theirstate reports by consulting minorities, non-governmental organisations and other independent sources in the course of the drafting. The Advisory Committee has noted with satisfaction that several States have already included such consultations in their drafting process, and the Committee encourages other States Parties to do the same.

15. The Advisory Committee welcomes the timely submission of reports by a number of States. However, the Committee regrets the fact that a large number of States Parties did not finalise their reports within the deadline foreseen in Article 25 of the Framework Convention. The Advisory Committee considers it essential that the Parties concerned implement this treaty obligation in a more rigorous manner. Thus the President of the Advisory Committee addressed letters, at regular intervals, to the representatives of those States that had not reported as required under the Framework Convention, drawing their attention to the requisite deadline. In those cases where the reporting delay was particularly long, the President of the Advisory Committee informed the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies of this situation.

16. In this connection, the Advisory Committee would reiterate that, in those cases where a State is not able to submit a report in due time, the Committee - while not being in a position to authorise any formal extension of the reporting deadlines provided by the Framework Convention - would appreciate being informed about the reason for the delay, as well as receiving an indication of the expected submission date.

17. As concerns the language of state reports, the Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that many States, in accordance with the outline for state reports, have submitted their state report also in the original language, thereby improving access of local experts to the process. The Advisory Committee would however emphasise that this practice does not obviate the need to submit the report in one of the official languages of the Council of Europe, failing which, the Committee is not in a position to commence the examination of the report concerned.

C) Written correspondence with reporting States

18. The Advisory Committee has found that, in virtually all cases, the examination of the implementation of the Framework Convention would benefit from written exchanges with the representatives of the reporting State. The Advisory Committee has thus established the practice of addressing, after the first examination of a state report, a questionnaire in writing to the State Party concerned, seeking further information and focusing notably on the implementation of relevant norms in practice.

19. States Parties have reacted to these questionnaires in a commendable fashion, recognising that such an exchange constitutes an element of a constructive dialogue between the Advisory Committee and the States Parties. Many of the responses received by the Advisory Committee - despite having been drawn up at short notice - contain information that is instrumental for the Advisory Committee’s understanding of the situation in the country under examination. Indeed, in some cases, such responses have constituted a source of information comparable to the state report itself.

D) Meetings with representatives of reporting States

20. In addition to written procedures, the Advisory Committee may, under Rule 32 of Resolution (97) 10, hold meetings in order to seek further information. As explained in its first Activity Report, the first meeting of this type took place with representatives of the Government of Finland, in Helsinki, on 23-24 August 1999. Following the visit, the Advisory Committee concluded that such meetings with representatives of reporting States should become a customary element of the monitoring procedure.

21. The Advisory Committee is pleased to report that this view has indeed been shared by reporting States. In the course of the reporting period, the Committee received invitations for meetings from several reporting States and, consequently, delegations of the Advisory Committee paid visits to the following seven States:

Finland: 23 August - 25 August 1999

Hungary: 29 November - 1 December 1999

Slovak Republic: 28 February - 2 March 2000

Denmark: 22 May - 24 May 2000

Romania: 19 June - 21 June 2000

Czech Republic: 16 October - 18 October 2000

Croatia: 23 October - 26 October 2000

Furthermore, visits to Italy and Cyprus are scheduled to take place before the end of 2000.

22. The Advisory Committee is increasingly convinced that such meetings are extremely valuable and applauds the fact that all such meetings took place in a genuinely constructive atmosphere. Indeed, the Advisory Committee believes that such meetings are not only useful for the purposes of preparing its own opinions but also that such exchanges may in themselves contribute to the protection of national minorities in the countries concerned.

E) Contacts with independent sources

23. Immediately after commencing its work, the Advisory Committee felt that, in order to gain a comprehensive picture of country situations, it required written information not only from Governmental sources but also from independent sources. Contacts with various independent sources have since become a regular feature of the work of the Advisory Committee. This process has been facilitated by the support given by the Ministers' Deputies The latter have taken a number of procedural decisions under Resolution (97)10 which have enabled the Advisory Committee to establish and maintain free and frequent contacts with such sources.

24. As a result, the Advisory Committee has received a number of useful contributions from Ombudsman Offices, NGOs and other independent sources, many of which were drawn up specifically for its attention and focused on the practical situation in the countries concerned.

25. Over and above written procedures, the Advisory Committee considers that meetings with independent sources can be an invaluable additional means for examining issues related to the implementation of the Framework Convention. It has therefore decided to devote a significant portion of its visits to the States Parties to contacts with NGOs and other independent sources. In this context, the Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that the Ministers’ Deputies, at their 708th meeting on 3 May 2000, authorised the Committee to hold meetings with non-governmental bodies and independent institutions in the context of the visits it conducts upon the invitation of the States Parties concerned. Such authorisation was given for the entire initial monitoring cycle, thereby relieving the Committee of the obligation to request a separate mandate for each such meeting as normally required under Rule 32, paragraph 2, of Resolution (97)10.

F) Submission of opinions to the Committee of Ministers

26. The Advisory Committee was able to adopt its first opinions on 22 September 2000 in the course of its 8th meeting. These opinions concern the following States Parties: Finland, Denmark, Hungary and Slovakia. The Advisory Committee hopes to be in a position to adopt further opinions in the coming months.

27. Now that the first opinions have been submitted to the Committee of Ministers, it will be the task of the latter to draw up its first conclusions and possible recommendations in respect of the States Paries concerned. While it is for the Committee of Ministers to establish the working methods for this stage of the monitoring, the Advisory Committee would reiterate the remarks made in the first Activity Report to the effect that it would welcome the opportunity to be involved in this exercise in an appropriate manner. The Advisory Committee would further emphasise its readiness to be involved in the follow-up to be given to the results of the monitoring, in accordance with Rule 36 of Resolution (97)10.

28. Finally in this context, the Advisory Committee would stress the importance of the principle, contained in the Explanatory report of the Framework Convention, that the implementation and monitoring of the Framework Convention shall, in so far as possible, be transparent.

G) Information and co-operation activities

29. In order to make the Framework Convention better known among experts and the public at large, members of the Advisory Committee and the Secretariat of the Framework Convention took part in several events organised on minority issues during the reporting period. Many such events were carried out by the Council of Europe in the framework of its Activites for the development and consolidation of democratic stability (ADACS) programme and of the 2nd Joint Programme "National Minorities in Europe" with the European Commission.

30. Given that the Framework Convention has a prominent place in the minority-related projects carried out under the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, it is natural that the Advisory Committee, while not seeking any formal role in the process, has followed closely developments. Reference might also be made to a key-note address by the President of the Advisory Committee at the Portorož Conference on Inter-Ethnic Relations and Minorities in South-Eastern Europe on 16-17 March 2000.

31. The Advisory Committee was represented at several other relevant international events organised during the reporting period, not least at the European Conference "All Different All Equal: from Principle to Practice" held in Strasbourg on 11 - 13 October 2000, as the European contribution to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, South Africa, 31 August – 7 September 2001).

32. During the reporting period, the Advisory Committee also established and/or strengthened contacts with various bodies of the Council of Europe. For example, on 6 April 2000, the President of the Advisory Committee addressed the Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the developments related to the monitoring of the Framework Convention.

33. Since the entry into force of the Framework Convention, the demand for materials related to this treaty has continued to increase. The Advisory Committee noted already in its first Activity Report that, in order to serve the public better and more efficiently, state reports and other public documents must be made available on the Internet. It therefore welcomed the launch of the Web site of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention and of the DH-MIN in May 2000 (http://www.humanrights.coe.int/minorities/ index.htm). This site contains comprehensive and up-to-date information on the Framework Convention and its monitoring, including the full texts of state reports as well as news items related to the Framework Convention. The need for such electronic information is manifested in the high number of recorded visits to this site. The Advisory Committee hopes that the site will be further expanded and that it will ultimately include also other texts resulting from the monitoring process.

34. Members of the Advisory Committee and the Secretariat of the Framework Convention have also provided input to an on-going project of the NGO Minority Rights Group (MRG) aimed at strengthening NGOs awareness of, and role in, the implementation and monitoring of the Framework Convention. In the context of this project, an NGO guide on the Framework Convention was published by the MRG in September 1999.

3. Organisational issues

A) Membership

35. As at 31 October 2000, the Advisory Committee has 17 ordinary members (see Appendix II). The terms of office of 8 ordinary members will expire on 1 June 2002. Following the drawing of lots by the Ministers' Deputies at their 718th meeting on 19 July 2000, on the basis of Rule 16 of Resolution (97) 10, the terms of office of 9 ordinary members were extended by two years will thus expire on 1 June 2004.

36. Developments related to membership involved the resignation of the members elected in respect of Malta, Spain and Finland. In the first two cases, the ordinary members concerned considered that their new functions within the executive branch of the Government would pose difficulties from the point of view of the independence and impartiality requirement contained in Rule 6 of Resolution (97)10. The member elected in respect of Finland found that other international duties posed such problems of availability that she felt it advisable to resign.

37. The new members in respect of Malta and Spain were appointed by the Ministers' Deputies on 16 February 2000 and the casual vacancy caused by the resignation of the expert appointed in respect of Finland is scheduled to be filled on 15 November 2000.

38. The Advisory Committee considers that these resignations demonstrated the seriousness with which the members of the Advisory Committee treat their membership requirements, including the requirement of independence and impartiality. It welcomes the fact that the Committee of Ministers has continued to pay careful attention to these requirements in the course of elections to the List of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee.

38bis. As regards the gender balance of the Advisory Committee, it should be noted that at present only 5 out of 17 members of the Advisory Committee are women. The Committee hopes that, in due course, a more balanced representation of women and men on the Committee will be achieved.

39. At its seventh meeting, on 6 June - 9 June 2000, the Advisory Committee elected the members of its Bureau. Mr Rainer HOFMANN (Professor of International Law at the University of Kiel, Germany) was re-elected as President for a term of two years. Mr Alan PHILLIPS (Executive Director of the NGO Minority Rights Group, London, UK) and Mr Gáspár BÍRÓ (Lecturer at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary) were re-elected as First and Second Vice-President respectively, for a term of two years.

B) Resources

40. In its first Activity Report, the Advisory Committee stressed that, in order to ensure the effective functioning of the monitoring mechanism of the Framework Convention, adequate resources must be allocated for the work of the Advisory Committee. In this connection, it emphasised that, while the remarkably rapid increase in the number of States Parties was a welcome development, it also generated a considerable work-load for the Committee and its Secretariat.

41. From the outset of its activities, the Advisory Committee considered that the resources available to it were incommensurate to its workload. During the reporting period, the Advisory Committee witnessed certain improvements, for which it should like to express its appreciation to the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers. In particular, the Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that, as regards daily allowances, the Advisory Committee is now treated on an equal basis with other independent human rights treaty bodies of the Council of Europe.

42. Notwithstanding these improvements the question of the human resources allocated to the Secretariat of the Framework Convention remains a matter of concern. These resources, while slightly increased in the course of the reporting period, remain inadequate and need to be further augmented as a matter of urgency. Indeed, as the President of the Advisory Committee noted in his letter to the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies on 15 December 1999, a failure to address these staffing concerns rapidly could not only cause delays in the submission of opinions by the Advisory Committee but could undermine the effective functioning of the entire monitoring mechanism.

4. Concluding remarks

43. The period covered by the present report was a critical period for the Framework Convention and its monitoring mechanism. The geographic reach of the Framework Convention expanded further and the monitoring mechanism reached an important landmark with the adoption of the first four opinions of the Advisory Committee in September 2000.

44. The fact that the Advisory Committee was able to reach this first point of the monitoring cycle is largely due to the support it received from the States Parties concerned. The Advisory Committee notes with satisfaction that Parties were prepared to engage in a genuinely constructive dialogue. The same supportive stance vis-à-vis the Advisory Committee has also been taken by the Committee of Ministers. Indeed, the Advisory Committee finds that, as anticipated in the first Activity Report, a spirit of trust and co-operation has continued to guide the relations between the two bodies involved in the monitoring of the Framework Convention. In this spirit, the Advisory Committee is confident that the Committee of Ministers will address its remaining concerns concerning its resources.

45. While in general satisfied with the progress so far, the Advisory Committee is well aware of the fact that this is still an early stage in the monitoring of the implementation of the Framework Convention. The effectiveness in practice of the monitoring mechanism can only be tested once the Committee of Ministers has adopted its conclusions and recommendations, which the States Parties concerned will then be expected to put into effect. The Advisory Committee is confident that that stage will confirm the commitment of all parties concerned to the full and effective implementation of the principles of the Framework Convention.

* * *

APPENDIX I

CHART OF SIGNATURES AND RATIFICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES AND SUBMISSION OF INITIAL STATE REPORTS

ETAT DES SIGNATURES ET RATIFICATIONS DE LA CONVENTION-CADRE POUR LA PROTECTION DES MINORITES NATIONALES ET SOUMISSION DES RAPPORTS ETATIQUES INITIAUX

Updated 30 November 2000 / Mise à jour le 30 novembre 2000

The dates below refer to the submission of reports in one of the official languages of the Council of Europe. This is without prejudice to a possible earlier submission in the original language.

http://www.humanrights.coe.int/minorities/index.htm

* * *

APPENDIX II

ORDINARY MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE

PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

*.*.*