"Article 42" is pleased to announce that Nana Mchedlidze, international expert joined the team.
Nana Mchedlidze obtained LLM from the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom (2005-2006); LLM from Utrecht University in the Netherlands (2007-2008); LLB+LLM from Tbilisi State University in Georgia (1994-1999). Studied in Birmingham University in the United Kingdom, in the Council of Europe Human Rights Programme and within the same programme underwent internship at a non-governmental human rights organisation based in London, the Aire Centre (2002). Since 2009, has been a visiting lecturer of the Law School, the LLM programme of Tbilisi State University in international human rights law; since 2015, PhD candidate at the same university. Currently works for the EU4Justice project supporting penitentiary and probation systems as a senior human rights expert. Since 2018, has been cooperating with the Georgian Bar Association in terms of the adaptation programme and continued legal education.
In 2012-2016, as a legal expert of the EU/CoE funded projects provided consultation to the courts of general jurisdiction concerning the application of the ECHR in their judgments and decision; in 2008-2012, worked as a legal expert of UNDP Georgia; in 2001-2007, worked for the Constitutional Court in various positions, last position being the Hof the Legal Department; in 1998-2001, worked for the Ministry of Justice in various positions, last position being the Government’s Agent before the ECtHR.
In 2002-2019, under the auspices of the CoE, EU, UNDP, USAID/PROLoG, US Embassy’s Department of Justice, IRZ, GIZ, NRC, GYLA and other organisations, conducted training sessions for judges, assistant judges, prosecutors, lawyers, senior management of penitentiary establishments, medical professionals of the penitentiary system, the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia, NGO activists, journalists and students. As a CoE international expert provided training sessions on the ECHR for the supreme court judges, constitutional court judges and prosecutors of Montenegro, in Podgorica.
Nana Mchedlidze has published up to 40 works (handbooks, researches, and articles).
On October 22, the organization "Article 42 of the Constitution" is launching a large-scale training course at Tbilisi and Kakheti schools, which will help to increase tolerance towards students from foreign countries. About 300 students will take part in this venture.
Under the training module the lawyers of “Article 42 of the Constitution” will inform students about the refugees, persons with humanitarian status and asylum, will introduce the general information provided by the law about international protection tools, at the same time the students will learn what is the difference among the refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants' status.
The aim of the course is to increase tolerance towards the students from foreign countries. In addition, with this training module they will be able to distinguish between refugee and IDP status. They will also receive information on the situation in the countries of origin, of which the highest number of citizens come to Georgia. Students will be given an idea of the status of aliens or stateless persons granted refugee or humanitarian status in Georgia and what rights and responsibilities they enjoy while in Georgia.
The training course is held in the framework of the UNHCR project "Protecting and Strengthening Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Persons in Georgia".
The Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary reacts to discussions concerning the authenticity of the diploma of Shalva Tadumadze, Prosecutor General of Georgia.
On October 9, Shalva Tadumadze was introduced to the Parliament Legal Committee as a judicial candidate for the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Prosecutor General’s diploma attracted the attention of the deputies and the public.
During the hearing, the Prosecutor General provided an explanation regarding the year of his admission to the university, which was mistakenly indicated in the diploma, because this educational institution was not yet established in 1993, meaning Shalva Tadumadze could not have started his studies that year. This fact corroborates doubts that the information in the document is authentic.
Under Article 352 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, the issuance or/and purchase, as well as the use of forged official document, are punitive actions. Thus, this issue exceeds the realm of a political discussion over professional competence of a candidate and adds a legal dimension.
During the hearing, Shalva Tadumadze stated that, under the 1997 amendments to the Law on Education, he was allowed to graduate from the university in 1998, a year before the anticipated graduation date. The university reflected this information by changing the year of admission to 1993. Despite this explanation, it is still unclear why 1993 was indicated as his admission year, when at the time, the institution was not registered. Also, the university did not indicate in the diploma that the graduate took some exams without attending classes (a so called “externate program”).
It is worth mentioning, that the diplomas of several candidates raised questions, and the Legal Committee asked them to submit a document confirming compliance of their legal education with the requirements of the legislation before the voting procedure begins.
Higher legal education is a statutory requirement not only for a Supreme Court judicial nominee, but also for the Prosecutor General. The absence of such education makes a Prosecutor General unauthorized to perform his functions. This may have a legal effect on many official actions.
In addition to legal consequences, such facts may have a severely negative influence on public trust in governmental institutions. When the position of the Prosecutor General of the country is allegedly occupied by a person who does not comply with the requirements of the legislation and, furthermore, may have taken this position as a result of the use of a forged document, the reputation of the entire Prosecutor’s Office is damaged.
Thus, we believe that it is essential:
● to undertake a comprehensive investigation of authenticity of the diploma of the Prosecutor General to provide solid answers to legitimate questions concerning its and an alleged use of a forged official document;
● the Parliament shall not put Shalva Tadumadze’s candidacy to the vote until the above-mentioned procedures are finalized and all the questions concerning his diploma are addressed;
● the Parliament shall check the authenticity of the diploma of Shalva Tadumadze in accordance with the procedures envisioned in the law, and in case of establishing signs of a crime in the actions of Tadumadze, start the procedure of impeachment of the Prosecutor General under Article 48 of the Constitution of Georgia.
As it is known to the public, on September 4, 2019, the first phase of the selection of judges of the Supreme Court has been completed, as a result of which a list of 20 persons has been submitted to the Parliament of Georgia for consideration. The 14 candidates on the list are former or current judges of common courts. Article 42 of the Constitution requested the Tbilisi City Court to release the verdicts (judgments) adopted by the candidates (judgments) in the past, but the City Court has declined on the grounds that "the decisions of individual judges are not recorded, processed or posted in the public database."
We would remind the public that, pursuant to Article 13 of the Law on Common Courts, a decision made at an open court hearing is published in full on the court's website.
According to the Article 28, Part 1 of the General Administrative Code 1: Public information shall be open except as provided for by law and in the manner prescribed by state, commercial or professional secrets or personal data.
Legislation does not recognize the grounds for refusing to disclose public information, such as the absence of court records in the database.
Given the ruling team's announcement that they would guarantee the "unprecedentedly transparent and open procedures" for selecting Supreme Court judges and making statements that the parliamentary majority will "observe these candidates" under the microscope, without examining the candidates' professional experience is devoid of any real substance. The decisions made by the judge most clearly reflect the judge's competence and integrity.
Accordingly, we call on the judiciary to publicize the past judgments made by the judicial candidates and make them available to the Parliament as well as the general public as soon as possible.
The Georgian legislation envisions creation of a Working Group by the Legal Committee in the process of selection of Supreme Court justices. The purpose of the Working Group is to check candidates’ compliance with the requirements of the Constitution and supporting legislation.
On September 11, the Committee invoked this clause. The Working Group was created. The Chair of the Committee stated that “the logic of the legal provisions and the Parliament Rules of Procedure do not envision a substantive assessment of a candidate by the Working Group, considering its format.”
The Coalition is assessing this decision by the Parliament Legal Committee. An institution suggested by the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament is a so called “mixed commission,” consisting of both MPs and invited specialists. The main purpose of this institution is to study an issue comprehensively, considering both politicians’ and experts’ points of view. In “mixed commissions,” decisions are based on substantive and consensus-oriented discussions.
Under the Organic Law on Common Courts, judicial candidates must comply with two main criteria—competence and integrity. The purpose of the Working Group, as established in the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, is to assist the Committee in checking candidates’ compliance with the requirements of the law. This purpose may not imply only formal review of decisions made by the High Council of Justice; the main purpose of the Working Group is to help the Committee decide whether the candidates nominated by the HCoJ substantively comply with the requirements of law.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the Working Group’s contribution involves efforts of both politicians and outside experts. This excludes a technical nature of this institution. The aims of the Working Group as defined by the Committee during the hearing can easily be reached by the Parliament staff.
Currently, 16 members of the Working Group are known, including 7 representatives of the ruling party, 5 from the opposition, 2 from academia, one from the Legal Aid Service and one from the Georgian Bar Association. Consultations are in progress with independent MPs. No civil society organizations, including Coalition members, are represented in the Working Group. Considering the Coalition’s active engagement in the recent developments, this decision excludes a critical and competent player from the process. Moreover, the political quotas in the Working Group are inflated, and academic institutions were not involved in selecting their representatives.
The Coalition urges the Committee to review its decision and to ask the Working Group to substantively assess candidates nominated by the High Council of Justice, to decrease the number of MPs, to ensure engagement of civil society organizations and to increase the number of experts.
 The Parliament of Georgia Rules of Procedure, Article 205, Paragraph 2.
The Parliament web-page, http://parliament.ge/ge/saparlamento-
dadgenis-xelshewyobis-miznit-komitetis-samushao-djgufi-sheqmna.page, renewed: 12.09.2019
On May 10, 2019, the High Council of Justice (HCoJ) commenced the process of selection of Supreme Court judicial candidates to be nominated to the Parliament of Georgia. The process lasted for 4 months and was finalized on September 4, 2019.
The publicity and transparency of this process deserves a positive assessment, as it allowed a wider society to realistically perceive the state of the judiciary and the integrity and competence of both acting judges and members of the HCoJ.
The competition did not attract representatives of different legal professions. Very few representatives of the bar and academia participated. This was allegedly caused by cronyism and the lack of openness of the judiciary, undesirable position of fair-minded lawyers in the court system, the lack of trust in the competition procedures (unsubstantiated decisions, secret vote) and in the selection body (HCoJ).
The process of selection of Supreme Court justices was based on legislative amendments adopted by the Parliament. However, the regulatory framework was itself flawed. During the drafting process, the ruling party did not demonstrate a political will to ensure competitiveness of the selection process aimed at the submission of the most qualified candidacies to the Parliament. The ruling party did not even take into account the recommendations of an important international partner, the Venice Commission. Consequently, the legislative framework allowed the formation of a list of candidates suiting the interests of the dominant group of judges and the ruling party.
The selection process revealed several problematic issues that were neglected by HCoJ. There were clear legal grounds for the recusal of two judge members, Tamar Oniani and Irakli Shengelia, due to the participation of their relatives in the competition. Despite this, they refused to recuse themselves. Zaza Kharebava, a non-judge member did not refrain from participation either, even though the study of several documents revealed that his candidacy was submitted to the Parliament by an unauthorized entity back in 2017. This was grounds for termination of his authority. Nevertheless, he took part in the process. This case is even more interesting, as the recusal of these three candidates would have significantly decreased the power of the dominant group of judges in the system and would have allowed a consensus-based decision making involving non-judge members of the HCoJ. Thus, it would have decreased the chances of getting the list of candidates that was finally adopted on September 4.
The HCoJ made a decision about nominations without studying the information on several candidates. The university diploma of the acting Prosecutor General, Shalva Tadumadze, remains questionable. The study of papers shows that Mr. Tadumadze studied at N. Dumbadze Humanitarian Institute in the period of 1993-1998, while according to the Public Registry, the institute was established in 1994 and received a license to operate as an educational institution in the same year. The HCoJ did not express its interest in the matter and did not explore how Mr. Tadumadze had been admitted to the Institute in 1993, when it was established in 1994. Only one non-judge member of the Council raised a question regarding the diploma during the interview with the Prosecutor General.
The final list of 20 candidates includes 5 nominees out of 10 individuals from the initial problematic list. The Prosecutor General and his deputy also ended up on the list, which was largely predictable. The current list includes influential judges, their affiliates and candidates associated with the ruling party. Additionally, some of the judges whose previous work raises questions, including questions related to corruption allegations, were included the list. It is worth mentioning that after the first secret vote held in the Council, the Public Defender’s Office revealed a pattern which was allegedly followed by the Council members in the process of decision-making.
Several significant shortcomings of the selection process are discussed in greater detail below.
Selection Process at the HCoJ
Composition of the HCoJ
Two members of the HCoJ, Tamar Oniani and Irakli Shengelia, had a clear conflict of interest with the candidates, Zurab Aznaurashvili (Oniani’s brother-in-law) and Levan Tevzadze (Shengelia’s brother-in-law). The Organic Laws of Georgia on Common Courts and on Conflict of Interest and Corruption in the Public Service hold members of the HCoJ liable for declaring a possible conflict of interest in advance and refraining from the decision-making processes related to judicial candidates. Nevertheless, neither Tamar Oniani nor Irakli Shengelia declared the existence of a conflict of interest in advance and refused to recuse themselves from the process. Despite several statements and addresses made by the civil society organizations , neither of the two stepped out of the process, and both participated in interviews and the secret vote.
It came to our attention that the candidacy of Zaza Kharebava, an acting non-judge member, had been submitted to the Parliament by an unauthorized entity. This is a severe violation of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia and the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts, and grounds for termination of powers of a HCoJ member. Even though back in May 2019 the Coalition addressed the Speaker of the Parliament with a request to review this matter, the legislative body has not discussed this issue up to now. Correspondingly, Zaza Kharebava has maintained the status of member of the HCoJ and thus participated in the selection process of Supreme Court justices. Zaza Kharebava’s participation in the Council had critical importance, as 11 nominated candidates received minimal votes from the Council (10 votes). In these cases his vote was decisive.
The Secretary of HCoJ, Giorgi Mikautadze (who was one of the candidates for the Supreme Court), did not preside over the sessions of the Council. However, he was still in control of the staff responsible for collecting and checking information about the candidates for Supreme Court Justice. Hence, he kept the levers for influencing the process.
The first secret vote
On June 20, 2019, the first secret vote was held at the HCoJ. Each member had to select no more than 20 candidates out of 137 registered individuals. As a result, the 50 top candidates were allowed to the next stage of the process — the interviews. After observing the voting procedure, the Public Defender’s Office identified a specific pattern, according to which, a part of ballots was marked, raising a reasonable doubt that several members of the Council had colluded with each other.
Refusal of HCoJ to issue public information on candidates
In order to ensure greater transparency of the process, certain guarantees were included in the Organic Law, including the obligation of a candidate to allow the disclosure of information concerning his/her candidacy (including personal information other than the medical records). The day after the first secret vote, several civil society organizations requested information on candidates from the Council. The Coalition was interested in collecting and processing information on candidates before commencement of interviews in order to inform the public about individuals interested in taking seats at the Supreme Court. However, HCoJ first refused to disclose information about candidates, citing the obligation to protect their personal data. The refusal was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, according to which the applicant’s consent only referred to handing over his/her information (including personal data) to the Parliament of Georgia, rather than making this information public.
Following the statements made by representatives of the Public Defender’s and State Inspector’s offices, who emphasized the importance of publishing information on candidates for the selection process, the Council decided to issue the data on candidates shortlisted for the next stage of the competition, the interviews. The decision was made 5 days prior to the commencement of interviews, leaving insufficient time for processing data on 50 candidates and eventually diminishing the importance of making this information public.
Interviews were held from July 17 to August 15, 2019. 49 candidates were interviewed.
At the beginning of the interviews, the Council aimed to hold 5 interviews per day, with a duration of 45 minutes to an hour. However, the interview of the first candidate and the number of questions raised by the members demonstrated that it was impossible to hold more than two interviews a day during the working hours. Despite this, at first the timeframe of interviews was kept irregular, lasting for 10-11 hours without a break. The non-judge members objected to this kind of work schedule. Ana Dolidze and Nazi Janezashvili stepped out of the interviews held after the working hours several times. The Coalition concluded that irregular working hours were damaging the process of selection and violating the rights of candidates, the Council staff and monitors.
The judge members of the Council rejected the non-judge members’ proposition to decrease the number of interviews per day. Consequently, the interviews were held beyond any reasonable timeframe, until July 26. These circumstances supported the doubts that the majority of the Council members aimed to finalize the process as quickly as possible. However, since July 26, in response to one of the judge member’s initiative, the Council decided to decrease the number of interviews to two per day. This has to be assessed as a positive development.
The interviews were held in a non-constructive manner. There were several instances when colleagues addressed each other in an unethical or impolite manner. The judge members of the Council interrupted and verbally attacked Ana Dolidze and Nazi Janezashvili during the interviews because of the critical nature of questions. They became particularly hostile when questions concerning the problems of judiciary, Mikheil Chinchaladze and Levan Murusidze, existence of the clan-based governance in the system and the judges’ dissenting opinions were asked. The judge members of the Council accused Ana Dolidze and Nazi Janezashvili of an attempt to destabilize the process and turn it into an “interrogation” of candidates.
The transparency of interviews and their TV broadcast were highly important aspects of the process of selection of Supreme Court candidates. The idea was to familiarize the public with the candidates and ensure credibility and legitimacy of the process. Transparency of the process allowed the wider public to observe the professional qualifications and integrity of judges deciding cases in the court. It also revealed the level of their general education, values, argumentation and analytical skills, and attitudes to important and topical issues.
Prior to the interviews, the members of the Council agreed that they would not ask questions about specific statutory norms. Instead, the questions had to assess the candidates’ analytical skills and their values. However, monitors observed several instances, when such norm-specific questions were asked, especially during interviews of non-judge candidates or candidates with critical opinions about the problems of the judiciary.
The statistics collected by the Coalition during interviews revealed that non-judge members of the Council, Nazi Janezashvili and Ana Dolidze, asked more questions than other members of the Council. The tone of questions posed by judge members of Council to the candidates, who openly talked about problems in the court system, was aggressive and ironic. This created an impression that the judge members were trying to create a perception that these candidates were incompetent, thereby putting psychological pressure on them.
During interviews the majority of candidates revealed a lack of in-depth knowledge of the European Court of Human Rights case law. Unfortunately, most of them demonstrated a superficial understanding of fundamental human rights. Notably, there were cases when the majority of Council members (judge members particularly) asked directed questions (mostly while “following up” with a question). Also there were cases when they gave hints or suggested answers to questions asked by other members of the Council.
During two weeks after completion of the process of interviews, the members of the High Council of Justice scored the candidates. The scores assessing the candidates’ integrity are not clear, because the lowest scores were given to candidates who openly talked about the problematic past of the court system, while highest assessment was given to candidates who did not admit that there are or have been systemic problems in the court system.
On September 4, 2019, the Council carried out the second secret vote to reveal the Supreme Court nominees for the Parliament of Georgia. The top 20 candidates were identified. Afterwards, the Council members voted for each candidate individually. All of them received the number of votes required for nomination (2/3 of the Council members). The list of nominees did not coincide with the 20 candidates who received the highest scores.
Notably the list of nominees included the judges who were included in the list of 10 candidates submitted to the Parliament in December 2018. The list excluded candidates whose biography, and knowledge and experience, revealed in the process of interviews, created a positive impression, while the qualification and integrity of several candidates who ended up on the list raise significant doubts.
The statistics related to interviews:
Duration of interviews: 3:08 minutes.
The longest interview: Merab Gabinashvili, 5:55 minutes.
The shortest interview: Shota Laitadze, 1:34 minutes.
The biggest number of questions, 160 was posed during Zurab Aznaurishvili’s interview.
The smallest number of questions, 37 questions, was posed in Shota Laitadze’s interview.
Nazi Janezashvili, a Council member asked the biggest number of questions, 1384 (including 408 legal questions, 65 questions about work experience, 911 questions of general nature).
Shota Kadagidze, a Council member, asked the smallest number of questions: 109 (including 92 legal questions and 17 questions of general nature).
The Council members asked a total of 4101 questions (including 2224 legal questions, 130 questions about work experience, and 1747 questions of general nature).
To sum the points raised above, it is clear that in the process of developing the legislation, the ruling party did not demonstrate a political will to ensure selection the most competent candidates for the Supreme Court. The confirmation of 20 nominees submitted to the Parliament will increase the influence of the ruling party and dominant judges in the Supreme Court, thereby undermining prospects for the creation of a proper justice sector.
It needs to be reiterated that the analysis of developments related to this issue and the nomination of predictable candidates make us believe that the process was mostly formalistic and was not directed at solving the problems of the justice system. The legal framework created by the Parliament allowed the High Council of Justice to enforce the interests of the dominant group of judges and the ruling party, thereby exacerbating the state of the justice sector.
 17 July, 2019 Statement of the Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary - http://coalition.ge/index.php?article_id=213&clang=1
 14 May, 2019 Statement of the Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary -
 One candidate - Amiran Dzabunidze - withdrew his candidacy a day prior to the interview.
 24 July, 2019 Statement of the Coalition for an Independent and Transparent Judiciary - http://coalition.ge/index.php?article_id=214&clang=1
 Tamar Alania, Merab Gabinashvili, Giorgi Mikautadze, Nino Kadagidze, and Paata Silagadze.
Tbilisi – 21 August 2019 – The Georgian Coalition for International Criminal Court (GCICC) condemns the continual expansion of the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) inside Georgia’s territory by Russian and de facto South Ossetian authorities, an illegal process which involves mass human rights violations.
Soon after the end of the 2008 August War, the government of the Russian Federation started a so-called “borderization” process in Georgia’s territory, in gross violation of the rights of the local population. The Russian border guards and representatives of the de facto administrations of South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region and Abkhazia are arbitrarily installing border markers, fences and barbed wire alongside the occupation line. These illegal actions aim to physically separate territories administered by the de facto Abkhazian and South Ossetian authorities, from the rest of Georgia. By 30 November 2017, over 30 incidents of borderization were observed in Georgia which impacted 33 villages alongside the dividing line of South Ossetia and seven villages alongside the dividing line of Abkhazia.
On 7 August 2019, the arbitrary installation of artificial barriers resumed along the Administrative Boundary Line in the village Gugutiantkari, a process which is still ongoing. As a result, houses of two families and their agricultural plots, which represented their main source of income, became occupied. The families were forced to dismantle their own houses in the strict time limit set by the occupying forces and bring the parts to the territory controlled by Georgia. The local population fears that as a result of the continual erection of barriers, other houses will also be captured in the occupied territories. According to the information provided by the local population, the irrigation system might fall into the occupied territories and the population may lose access to water as a result.
The illegal detention of Georgian citizens by the representatives of the border forces of the Russian Federation are continuing as well. On 17 August 2019, in the village Akhalubani in Gori municipality, the representatives of military forces of the Russian Federation abducted seven local residents under the charges of the so-called illegal crossing of border. According to various media sources, they were detained at the church located along the ABL and are now detained in Tskhinvali temporary detention facilities. The family members do not have information when they will be released. According to the information provided by the local population, there are no warning and so-called border signs in the villages. Therefore, the local residents may be taken from anywhere. The representatives of the border forces of Russian Federation abducted one more local resident from the village Artsevi in Gori municipality on 18 August, charged with illegally crossing the border.
Restriction of freedom of movement and illegal detention along the Administrative Boundary Line have been ongoing for several years. According to the Public Defender of Georgia, between 2011 and 2018, 2,706 individuals were victims of illegal detention/abduction along the ABL of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region. These individuals, subsequently detained in facilities in the occupied territories, frequently face ill-treatment and are deprived the right to contact their families.
The continuing systematic and severe violations of fundamental human rights by Russia and de facto governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region may be qualified as persecution of ethnic Georgian civilians. These unlawful acts by occupying forces directed against the civilians living along the dividing line are organised and regular, and may amount to crimes against humanity.
In light of the situation described above, we call on:
Government of Georgia:
· Use every diplomatic and international legal mechanism in order to end occupation of Georgia’s territory by the Russian Federation and stop severe violations of fundamental human rights of Georgian citizens;
· Instate patrolling in the villages situated along the dividing lines of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region where illegal detention and borderization take place;
· Ensure human security in the highest-risk, most dangerous places through relevant informational and educational work.
· Stop occupation of Georgia’s territory and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia;
· Stop illegal borderization and mass human rights violations, including the illegal detention of citizens of Georgia and restriction of their freedom of movement.
· Take measures against the mass human rights violations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region and secure access for their representatives to conduct monitoring in the occupied territories.
International Criminal Court:
· Observe ongoing processes, analyse the crimes and react accordingly.
· Holding the individuals responsible for international crimes committed during the 2008 August War accountable may have a preventive effect on the ongoing violations. Therefore, the ICC must ensure the completion of ongoing investigation in a timely manner and issue arrest warrants against those who bare the greatest responsibility for these crimes.
Member Organizations of Georgian Coalition for ICC:
Article 42 of Constitution
Georgian Center for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (GCRT)
Georgian Young Lawyers Association
Human Rights Center
International Center on Conflict and Negotiation
Norwegian Helsinki Committee
 For more information on the consequences of this illegal process of creeping borders, see FIDH-HRIDC 2018 report “Living on the edge”: https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/international-justice/international-criminal-court-icc/the-russia-georgia-war-the-forgotten-victims-10-years-on
For several weeks now, the Central Criminal Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been investigating the incident that took place during the rally held outside Parliament on 20-21 June 2019 on the grounds of organisation of and participation in group violence. As of today, the following persons have been charged: Georgian MP Nika Melia, whose pre-trial restrictions include bail and a number of other measures; politician Irakli Okruashvili and 17 people who have been placed in pre-trial detention. According to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, an investigation is also under way into concrete instances of the use of excessive force by the police during the rally dispersal, although only two police officers have been charged so far.
Unfortunately, the steps that the state has taken to date have failed to gain public trust with regard to impartiality and objectivity of the investigation, namely:
1. The requests for pre-trial detention submitted by the Prosecutor’s Office are mainly formulaic and based on nothing but general reasoning.
2. As of today, 19 protesters and only two police officers have been indicted.
3. The steps taken by the investigative agencies, in some cases, create a perception that, rather than serving a full and objective examination of the issue, they work to form a negative public opinion about the accused. For example, the related to Bezhan Lortkipanidze’s case which was disseminated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and then the of the same incident disseminated by the media cause objective viewers to have different perceptions about what had happened.
It is clear that political or legal responsibility of all groups that participated in the events that unfolded on the night of 20-21 June should be established and assessed appropriately. There is no doubt that everyone is equal before the law, and legal response to all violations (whether committed by the protesters or the police) is necessary. However, such response must be based on strict adherence to the Constitution and the law, high standard of substantiation and maximum degree of public awareness. Against the background of the ongoing crisis, submitting formulaic requests and using pre-trial detention against the rally participants en masse based on unsubstantiated decisions – all that in parallel with the large-scale protest by independent groups of the public – rather points to the wish to exact vengeance on the part of the government. This assessment is made harsher by the fact that, to this day, with the exception of two cases, the public has not received a comprehensive response concerning real measures carried out against police officers who acted violently on 20-21 June; specifically, all the police officers who violated the law have not yet been identified and indicted. In addition, the minister of internal affairs has not assumed political responsibility and the systemic problems that surfaced during the dispersal of the rally have not been analysed and understood either.
Transparency International Georgia
Georgian Democracy Initiative
Human Rights Center
Article 42 of the Constitution
International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy
Media Development Foundation
Center for Research Journalism and Economic Analysis
Human Rights and Monitoring Center
 On 10 August, pre-trial detention was replaced by bail for one of the detainees, Bezhan Lortkipanidze, due to deterioration of health.