Seite - 20 - in Austrian Law Journal, Band 1/2020

ALJ 2020 Lessons Learned 19 Regarding Turkey, as in the “Greek case” at the time, there is also the argument that its status of a NATO ally should be taken into account although Turkey is not an easy one. Typically, from the perspective of a state government other political – and economic – considerations may outweigh the human rights ones. Does the size of the country matter? In the case of the Russian Federation this might be the case. The Council of Europe suffered a lot from the withholding of the Russian contribution, which with EUR 32.6 Mio in 2019 was one of the largest of its members. In the case of Russia, this country has annexed a part of another member state and went away with it, an unprecedented case in spite of the creation of breakaway regimes in Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and Moldavia (Transnistria), also with Russian involvement.77 The “toolbox” of the Council of Europe for the protection of human rights in its member states has significantly increased over time. But this could not prevent or remedy major backlashes of human rights and democracy as described. This raises the question whether the tools of the Council are not strong enough to prevent backsliding or whether they have not being used strongly enough? The Council of Europe is sometimes called the democratic conscience of Europe. In the recent years, the Council has come under pressure to live up to its mandate, also because it lacked full support from its member states. There is a common accountability towards history. What would have been the reputation of the Council with the Greek, but also many other peoples if it had given in to pressures not to act at the time? Any dictatorship, but also every authoritarian government ends some time and then those who betrayed their principles will be held accountable. Therefore, the maintenance of a principled position in line with the mandate is key even if it cannot be enforced at the moment. The Council of Europe and its institutions are constantly put to the test by regressive forces and can only grow in meeting those challenges. They might have lost appeal, in particular for authoritarian states, but they still are needed to provide some legitimacy to governments. It is also important to insist on fact-finding, on investigations on the spot. Countries like the Russian Federation have refused to allow PACE rapporteurs and even the European Commissioner for Human Rights to visit the country in response to measures taken against them. Only after the face- saving agreement between the Council and Russia was concluded, such visits became possible again. Today there is an increasing practice of “joint responses” – several bodies act together within their mandates. A more coordinated response can increase its efficiency. Like in the United Nations, where there is an growing practice of joint action, such as joint visits and statements by several special rapporteurs could Council of Europe bodies join forces, at least the non-judicial ones. The Parliamentary Assembly recommended to strengthen the authority of the Council by a “joint response procedure” of a more structured coordination between PACE, the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General in cases of violations of the statutory obligations by member states.78 It shows that there is an urgent need to preserve the legitimacy of the Council through 77 Benedikt Harzl, The Law and Politics of Engaging De facto States: Injecting New Ideas for an Enhanced EU Role (Brookings Institution Press 2018). 78 Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2277 (2019) of Apr. 10, 2019 on Role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly: main challenges for the future, Para. 15.3 and 15.4.