Doc. 11302 Report interest of parliament as a whole, and its work must not be primarily influenced by considerations of short-term political rivalry.259 Any majority, in a democratic system, can become the minority at the next election, and should have an interest in protecting parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. I therefore welcome the decision of the opposition representatives on the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry to apply to the Federal Constitutional Court for a clearer definition of the scope of the doctrine of the executive’s own responsibility (exekutive Eigenverantwortung).260 311. My last remark about the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry concerns the reception of its work by public opinion. The committee’s work revealed some very questionable aspects of certain decisions taken by the former Minister in charge of the Co-ordination of the Special Services (now Minister for Foreign Affairs), in particular as regards the case of Mr Kurnaz; the latter could apparently have been released from Guantánamo by the United States much earlier, if only the German authorities had agreed to repatriate him.261Whilst some media outlets raised the question of whether the Minister concerned should remain a member of the government, his popularity as measured by opinion polls did not suffer at all; it even grew. The cases of Mr ElMasri and Mr Kurnaz, whose responsibility was never established, and who suffered extreme hardships, spending months and years in unlawful detention without any excuse having been offered or compensation paid, gave rise to unpleasant comments in the tabloid press about these two men of Arab origin and of Muslim faith.262The apparent success of this media strategy may also be a symptom of latent Islamophobia,263a worrying phenomenon which should cause concern to political leaders and to all who play an active role in civil society. 7.1.3.2. The Munich prosecutor’s office 312. The prosecutors in Munich continue to encounter difficulties as a result of the refusal by the authorities in the United States and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to co-operate in the search for the truth. The assistance of these countries’ authorities is vital in order to prove the facts and establish responsibilities. It has now been established that there is no truth whatsoever in the replies given by the Macedonian authorities. Another official request for assistance, containing very specific questions, would seem to be necessary. 7.1.4. Deception and failure to account on the part of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” 313. A Macedonian parliamentary committee concluded on 18 May that the country’s secret services “did not overstep their powers” in the case of Mr El-Masri.264Its chairman, Mr Rahic, was quoted in the media as saying that “until El-Masri’s account is proved and we are presented with strong evidence, we will believe the Interior Ministry”. This seems a fairly rash thing to say, even allowing for the fact that this report had not been published when those words were spoken. However, the new facts now brought into the public domain should finally trigger action on the basis of the “readiness of this committee and the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia to fully investigate and solve this case”, to which Mr Rahic reportedly referred. 259. As seems to be the case, according to Mr Stadler, within the German Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry: while the representatives of government parties, especially the Christian Democrats who were in the opposition at the material time, take a very active and open attitude during the examination of witnesses, government discipline comes fully into play when the facts are being assessed, with the representatives of government parties never having voted for a motion to take evidence (Beweisantrag) tabled by minority representatives or having tabled such a motion themselves. 260. See Tagesthemen.de of 21 May 2007, announcing the appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court. 261. The Assembly’s rapporteur on Guantánamo, Kevin McNamara (United Kingdom/SOC), received on 28 February 2005 an official reply from the German Government regarding the case of Mr Kurnaz to a questionnaire sent to all member states as to whether the authorities knew of a national or permanent resident now held in Guantánamo and if so, what they were doing to secure the person’s repatriation. The answer was laconic: the United States authorities were not approached by the German authorities as Turkey is responsible for and able to grant diplomatic protection to Mr Kurnaz. In Resolution 1433 (2005) the Assembly appealed to all member states “to enhance their diplomatic and consular efforts to protect the rights and ensure the release of any of their citizens, nationals or former residents currently detained at Guantánamo Bay, whether legally obliged to do so or not”. 262. See Bild.de, 22 May 2007 (“Warum lassen wir uns von so einem terrorisieren”); 5 February 2007 (“Ausgerechnet ElMasri”); 31 January 2007 (“Wie wurde aus diesem Libanesen eigentlich ein Deutscher?”). This campaign by Bild is criticised by Hans Leyendecker in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 21 May 2005. 263. Mr Stadler also said that he was disappointed by this lack of solidarity with victims perceived as “alien”. Even inside the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, some members remained hesitant until such time as the MPs personally heard moving accounts of their appalling sufferings given by Mr El-Masri and Mr Kurnaz. 264. In a letter of 5 June 2007, the Head of the Macedonian Delegation, Mr Sambevski, transmitted this assessment to me officially. 60