governmental organization), CM (the Committee of Ministers) [16, 17].
. Texts of CoE resolutions and recommendations are rich in internationalisms. This is due to the peculiarities of functioning of diplomatric documents: they are intended for several states and should be interpreted unambiguously [5, p. 14]. Eg: system, national, institutionalization, legal instrument, integration, ombudsman, resolution, co-ordination etc.
. One more distinctive feature of CoE documents is functioning of non-assimilated words and word-combinations of Latin and French origin [7, p. 99]. In CoE resolutions and recommendations which constitute the data of our study the following Latin and French borrowings are used: inter alia (между іншім), ad hoc (для даного випадка), en banc (у ПОВНЕ складі ) [16, 17] .
6. CoE documents should be logical, official, precise and stereotypical. Therefore, their language is impersonal. They are characterized by absence of any emotions, stylistic devices and expressive means.having much in common, texts of CoE administrative documents differ from texts of international binding documents due to special legal and political status of this international organization and development of integrative processes in Europe . is one of the most authoritative international organizations. Its activity is based on the principles of the rule of law, the pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. This means that CoE does not interfere into internal affairs of its member states and its activity has a subsidiary character. All this is reflected in texts of CoE official documents. On one hand, provisions of CoE binding documents are precise, clear, stripped of excessive abstract notions, vague phraseological units and abstruse theory. On the other hand, CoE documents do not impose any direct bans on going back on its provisions. They have an advisory character and help member states bring their legal systems into compliance with CoE standards and principles. Still, it s clear that if a member state does not satisfy the demands of a resolution or a recommendation, it may be expelled for non-compliance with the commitments to CoE [4, p. 293-295]. To the aforementioned reasons, the language of CoE documents is milder than the language of international binding documents. For example, in CoE they avoid saying and writing "fulfilment of obligations before the Council of Europe" or "protection of human rights "giving preference to more flexible and positive variants" honouring of obligations and commitments of a member-state " and
