1. The Assembly welcomes the efforts Georgia has made since its accession on 27 April 1999 towards honouring some of its obligations and commitments, which it accepted in Assembly Opinion No. 209 (1999).
2. With regard to the signature and ratification of conventions, the Assembly is pleased to note that:
i. Georgia ratified, within the deadlines in Opinion No. 209, the European Convention on Human Rights as well as its Protocols Nos. 4, 6 and 7;
ii. to date, Georgia is the only member state which has, on 15 June 2001, ratified Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights;
iii. Georgia also ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Protocols Nos. 1 and 2, the European Convention on extradition and its Protocols, the European Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters, the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and its Protocols, and signed the revised European Social Charter;
iv. it also ratified the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto.
3. On the other hand, the Assembly regrets that Georgia:
i. did not ratify within one year after its accession the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights it signed on June 1999, nor the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities it signed in January 2000;
ii. did not sign nor ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation and its additional Protocols, nor the European Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds from crime.
4. With regard to domestic legislation, the Assembly recognises that Georgia has adopted laws in many fields, including an Electoral Code, a Law on the Bar, a new Law on Imprisonment, a General Administrative Code, a law amending the Law on the Ombudsman, a law amending the Law on local self-government, but is preoccupied by the lack of enforcement and recalls the need for a proper implementation of existing legislation.
5. The Assembly also supports initiatives taken to combat and eradicate endemic and wide-spread corruption in the country and in this context welcomes the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Programme.
6. With regard to the implementation of reforms, the Assembly acknowledges that measures have been taken to improve the functioning of the judiciary, especially in respect of the fight against corruption and incompetence in the judiciary, the monitoring of the execution of judgments, as well as the reform of the Prosecutor’s Office. It also notes positive steps undertaken to reform the penitentiary system, i.e. the transfer of the prison administration from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice, the building of a new prison, and measures to fight corruption.
7. In order to solve the persisting problems in the administration of justice, the Assembly calls on Georgia to accelerate these and other reforms underway and to implement them according to Council of Europe standards, in particular as regards the functioning of the judiciary and the conditions of detention in prisons and pre-trial detention centres.
8. With regard to domestic legislation and implementation of reforms, the Assembly urges Georgia to strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe in order to ensure full compatibility of Georgian legislation with the Organisation’s principles and standards, and in particular:
i. to co-operate with the Council of Europe legal experts on a number of bills which have been prepared recently, including a new draft law on the police, a draft law amending the law on the Prosecutor’s Office, a draft law on development of alternative punishment;
ii. to implement the recommendations made by Council of Europe experts on criminal procedures, the role of the Prosecutor Office, police arrest, pre-trial investigation and pre-trial detention;
iii. in close co-operation with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to implement the recommendations made following its visit in May 2001;
iv. to submit for expertise the newly adopted Election Code to the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in order to assess that the current electoral legislation takes full account of recommendations made in 1999 by the Parliamentary Assembly ad hoc Committee on the observation of elections and by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR);
v. to co-operate with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) in a constructive manner, and in particular:
a. to implement recommendations the Congress made in 1999 to enhance local and regional self-government in Georgia, including adoption of amendments to existing legislation, new legislation and administrative measures, in accordance with the European Charter on Local Self-Government;
b. to transmit for expertise the text of the law amending the Law on Local Self-Government;
c. to accept assistance in the preparation and observation of the forthcoming local elections;
d. to organise without delay a colloquy on regionalisation which could help to clarify Georgian regional structure and territorial organization.
vi. to step up co-operation within the “Group of States against corruption” (GRECO) with a view to applying its recommendations on the fight against corruption;
vii. to accelerate the work undertaken with the Council of Europe and the UNHCR on the question of the repatriation of the deported Meskhetian population, including on-going legal expertise of the draft Law “on repatriation of persons deported from Georgia in the 1940s by the Soviet regime”.
9. As regards the freedom of the press and mass media, the Assembly calls on Georgia to draft and adopt a law on the electronic media, in order to regulate media activity and to guarantee independence, pluralism and objectivity of Georgian electronic media, and to consult Council of Europe’s experts on any new draft legislation.
10. In respect of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Assembly regrets that the new Code which was initially drafted in close consultation with Council of Europe experts, was expurgated by numerous amendments adopted by the Parliament in the weeks following the accession of the country to the Organisation in May and June 1999, and that a new package of amendments was adopted in June 2001 without previous consultation of Council of Europe experts. It strongly urges the Georgian authorities to improve substantially co-operation with the Council of Europe in this respect.
11. The Assembly regrets that little progress has been made as regards respect of human rights:
i. it expresses its deep concern on allegations of ill-treatment or torture of detainees in police custody and pre-trial detention, cases of arbitrary arrests and detentions, violation of rights under police arrest or in pre-trial detention - in particular the right to consult a lawyer and the right to communicate with the family -, complaints on violation of procedural rights, cases of intimidation, violation of the right to privacy, phone taping, etc;
ii. it is alarmed by the behaviour of police and other law enforcement bodies and condemns any disproportionate violence used by security forces against peaceful demonstrators;
iii. it is also strongly concerned about repeated cases of violence by Orthodox extremists against believers of minority religious groups such as Jehovah’ Witnesses and Baptists.
12. The Assembly urges the Georgian authorities to conduct a proper investigation into all cases of human rights violation and abuse of power, to prosecute their perpetrators irrespectively of their functions, and to adopt radical measures to bring definitely the country into line with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe.
13. The Assembly invites the Georgian authorities to authorise publication of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture an Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the visit it carried out in May 2001.
14. In respect of commitments related to the status of the autonomous territories and the settlement of territorial conflicts by peaceful means, the Assembly welcomes progress made in granting autonomous status to Adjaria in April 2000, but regrets that no substantial progress has been made on a political settlement of the South Ossetian and Abkhaz conflicts, in spite of the efforts of the Georgian government.
15. However, the Assembly recognises that the conditions were not met for the Georgian authorities to fulfil their commitments to enact a legal framework determining the status of the autonomous territories, and to elaborate a legal framework for the establishment of a second parliamentary chamber.
16. As regards the Abkhaz conflict, the Assembly:
i. calls on Georgian and Abkhaz leaders to continue their talks on the status of Abkhazia and on the return of all displaced persons who wish to do so, to Abkhazia;
ii. recalls that Georgia must take legislative and administrative measures providing for restitution of property or compensation for property lost by persons forced to abandon their homes in the 1990 - 1994 conflicts.
17. In the light of the considerations above, the Assembly concludes that, although some progress has been made since accession, Georgia is far from honouring its obligations and commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe. The Assembly resolves to pursue the monitoring procedure in respect of Georgia in close co-operation with the Georgian delegation.
II. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly refers to its Resolution … (2001) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia, in which it:
i. welcomes the efforts made by Georgia to honour some of its obligations and commitments entered into upon its accession to the Council of Europe on 27 April 1999, in particular the ratification of some conventions, the adoption of several legislative texts, reforms of the penitentiary system and administration of justice, and initiatives to combat corruption;
ii. calls on Georgia to accelerate reforms underway and to implement them properly and according to Council of Europe standards, in particular as regards the functioning of the judiciary and the conditions of detention;
iii. urges Georgia to strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe in order to ensure full compatibility of Georgian legislation with the Organisation’s principles and standards;
iv. expresses its deep concern as regards respect of human rights and behaviour of police and other law enforcement bodies, and urges the Georgian authorities to adopt radical measures to bring definitely the country into line with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe;
v. welcomes progress made in granting autonomous status to Adjaria in April 2000, regrets that no substantial progress has been made on a political settlement of the South Ossetian and Abkhaz conflicts and on the return of all displaced persons who wish to do so, to Abkhazia;
vi. concludes that Georgia is far from honouring its obligations and commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe, and resolves to pursue the monitoring procedure in respect of Georgia.
2. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers pursue co-operation with the Georgian authorities in particular on the following subjects:
i. legal expertise of a number of bills which have been prepared recently, including a new draft law on the police, a draft law amending the law on the Prosecutor’s Office, a draft law on development of alternative punishment;
ii. legal expertise of relevant new legislation, including the amended Code of Criminal Procedure;
iii. implementation of the recommendations made by Council of Europe experts on criminal procedures, the role of the Prosecutor Office, police arrest, pre-trial investigation and pre-trial detention;
iv. implementation of the recommendations made the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture an Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment following its visit in May 2001;
v. continuation of legal expertise of the draft Law “on repatriation of persons deported from Georgia in the 1940s by the Soviet regime”.
3. The Assembly also invites the Committee of Ministers to consider strengthening co-operation with the Georgian authorities as regards:
i. expertise by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the newly adopted Election Code, in order to assess that the current electoral legislation takes full account of recommendations made in 1999 by the Parliamentary Assembly ad hoc Committee on the observation of elections and by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR);
ii. implementation of the recommendations made in 1999 by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) to enhance local and regional self-government in Georgia, and legal expertise of the law amending the Law on Local Self-Government;
iii. assistance in the preparation and observation of the forthcoming local elections;
iv. expertise of the expected draft law on the electronic media.
III. Explanatory memorandum by the Rapporteurs
CONTENTS Page
I. INTRODUCTION 9
II. PLURALIST DEMOCRACY 10
A. Elections 10
B. Autonomous territories 12
C. Local and regional self government 15
III. THE RULE OF LAW 16
A. Legislation 16
B. Law enforcement 17
i. Courts 17
ii. The Prosecutor’s Office 18
iii. Practising lawyers 18
iv. The police 19
v. The fight against corruption 20
IV. HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 21
A. Council of Europe conventions 21
C. The prison system 23
D. Police custody and pre-trial detention 24
E. The ombudsman and the parliamentary human rights committee 26
F. Freedom of expression, notably of the media 27
G. Rights of minorities, including religious minorities 28
H. Refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) 29
V. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 31
APPENDICES
I. Comments by the Georgian authorities on the preliminary draft report
[AS/Mon (2000) 43 rev] 33
II. Programmes of the visits of the rapporteurs to Georgia
(10-13 May 2000 and 31 October-5 November 2000 ) 46
III. Opinion n° 209 (1999) 51
IV. Table : Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia 54
V. Treaties ratified and treaties signed but not ratified by Georgia 57
VI. Co-operation programmes 60
1. Georgia joined the Council of Europe on 27 April 1999. It accepted the obligations incumbent upon all member states under Article 3 of the Statute: respect for the principles of pluralist democracy and of the rule of law and enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also entered into a series of specific commitments, to be honoured within concrete deadlines, which are listed in Opinion 209 (1999).
2. The monitoring procedure was opened six months after accession, in November 1999, in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Terms of Reference of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe [Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997)].
3. We paid a first visit to Georgia from 10 to 13 May 2000, that is one year after Georgia’s accession to the Organisation. Since this was our first visit to Georgia as rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, it was focused on meetings with Georgian interlocutors. We made a short visit to Tskhinvali where we met with the South Ossetian leader, Mr Chibirov (for the detailed programme of our first visit see Appendix II).
4. We paid a second, longer visit to Georgia from 31 October to 5 November 2000, which included a one-day visit to Abkhazia. On this occasion, we met in Tbilisi President Shevarnadze, State Minister Arsenishvili, and the Ministers of Justice, of the Interior and for Refugees. In Abkhazia we met the de facto Prime Minister and the de facto Minister for Foreign Affairs (a detailed programme of our second visit appears also in Appendix II).
5. We are grateful to the Georgian authorities for their co-operation and their frankness, and to the Georgian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly for their hospitality and perfect organisation of the visits.
6. Our second visit took place against a difficult economic and political background.
7. Regarding the economy in Georgia, tax collection is the weakest point in economic reforms and the lack of transparency of the tax code remains an important problem. As concerns expenditure, the government is working closely with the World Bank to increase efficiency in public spending. Shortfalls in tax collection have resulted in meagre public capital investments and a backlog in payments of salaries to public servants. Georgia is close to unlocking financial assistance from its main creditor, the International Monetary Fund, but more action is needed for a final decision by the Fund on a US$ 150 million program.
8. Having studied the reforms in Georgia, our major impression is that there is a huge gap between legislation and implementation of the laws. As it will be elaborated later,–– the Parliament of Georgia adopted numerous laws in many fields albeit with certain delays, in order to meet Council of Europe standards, but serious problems remain with the implementation of the new pieces of legislation.
9. On the political front, even within the majority group of the Georgian Parliament and within the Georgian Government itself, the political struggle between the “reformist” and the “old type” forces still continues. This struggle is reflected in the differences of opinion between the newly-appointed Minister of Justice, Mr Saakashvili, former Chairman of the Georgian parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly, and the Minister of the Interior, one of the close collaborators of President Shevarnadze.
10. What follows is a survey of information collected during our two visits regarding progress by Georgia in honouring each of its commitments. We have tried to group the various commitments under three headings corresponding to the statutory obligations of any member state (democracy, rule of law and human rights).
II. PLURALIST DEMOCRACY
A. Elections
11. During its first year of membership of the Council of Europe, Georgia went through both parliamentary and presidential elections. The former were held on 31 October 1999, the latter on 9 April 2000. They were both observed by ad hoc committees of the Bureau of the Assembly.
12. The ad hoc committee which observed the parliamentary elections concluded (see Doc. 8605) that “the vote marked a significant and welcome improvement over previous elections” but also noted that the Electoral Law was “far from perfect” leaving “a lot of room for interpretation by the Central Electoral Committee” and urged the new parliament to rectify this situation. The committee also expected complaints about the conduct of the pre-election campaign, the composition of election committees and allocation of time and space in the media “to be investigated in time for the Presidential election”. Finally, in order “to ensure that the next election [was] a further improvement”, the committee called on the Georgian authorities
- “to take measures to avoid any police harassment during the election campaign;
- to investigate all reported instances of police presence (in particular Ministry of the Interior plain clothes men) inside polling stations and rigorously enforce a ban on such presence during future elections;
- to provide training for members of election committees”.
13. Allegations of serious violations of the electoral legislation during the 1999 parliamentary elections are the object of an application to the European Court of Human Rights lodged by the Georgian Labour (Shromis) Party [GL(S)P]. The GL(S)P – which representatives of the civil society described as the “real opposition” to the ruling majority and which, in the last local elections, had won the majority – failed narrowly to reach the 7% necessary to be represented in the parliament.
14. Upon their request, we met the Chairman of the GL(S)P and members of the Political-Executive Committee during our second visit to Georgia. They alleged that their failure to win seats in parliament was the result of a violation of the electoral law which they had denounced to the European Court on Human Rights. As an example, they referred to the allegedly illegal annulment of the results in the Martvili electoral district in which their candidate, Mr Injia, had won the single mandate elections.1
15. Regrettably, the presidential elections of April 2000 did not show any improvement – rather the contrary, according to the ad hoc committee of the Assembly which observed these elections (see Doc. 8742).
16. Amendments to the electoral legislation were adopted only three weeks before the presidential elections, thus creating confusion in terms of interpretation and implementation of the legislation. The ad hoc committee also noted that, in certain instances, amendments paid “only lip service to previous recommendations by international observers, retaining essentially the old flawed framework.”
17. The ad hoc committee formulated a series of concrete recommendations to improve the electoral legislation, notably as regards the composition of the electoral committees and the need to introduce a clear provision on campaign funding, to enhance transparency (for instance by obliging the electoral committees to publish their protocols) and to allow for complaints to be addressed to the courts directly, and not only via the precinct committees. Moreover, the electoral legislation should be uniformly interpreted and applied, and for this reason training of electoral officials was indispensable.
18. The ad hoc committee on the presidential elections further urged that legal regulations relating to campaigning and equitable media coverage should be unconditionally observed and rigorously implemented, and that in future elections all candidates should have equal and unbiased media coverage.
19. But what is more worrying is that serious violations took place on election day: the ad hoc committee reported repeated incidents of ballot box stuffing, heavy police presence and other forms of pressure at the polling stations, as well as the lack of opposition members at the different electoral committees or their lack of influence on electoral committee decisions, as a result of which the domestic monitors – International Society for Fair Elections – considered ironically that the electoral process resulted in a “Gamgebelis2 elected President”. Thus the ad hoc committee stated that although the outcome of the elections could not be contested, the official figures of the turnout could hardly be accepted.
20. As the ad hoc committee on the presidential elections noted, lack of time could be the reason why only about one third of the recommendations made by international observers in the wake of the parliamentary elections were implemented at the presidential elections. It might also have been impossible for the central authorities to check up on local officials responsible for the conduct of the elections.
21. Whatever the reason might be, during our first visit in May 2000, we advised the Parliament to start immediately discussing amendments to electoral legislation, in consultation with international and non-governmental organisations active in the field, in order to address shortcomings. We received assurances from the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Mr Zhvania, who shared our concerns for the conduct of the recent elections, that the Georgian Parliament would focus on electoral legislation immediately after the formation of the new government.
22. During our second visit to Georgia, we learnt that a special, inter-faction committee had been set up to discuss the new law on parliamentary and presidential elections (see below for local elections). The committee was composed of nine representatives of the ruling majority and nine representatives of the opposition. The Speaker of the Georgian Parliament expressed his confidence that the committee would reach consensus, even on the most delicate issues, such as the composition of electoral committees, and that a draft would be finalised by the end of November 2000.
23. The Electoral Code was adopted in August 2001. As it has not been sent for expertise to the Council of Europe, we are not in a position to assess whether the new electoral law takes into account all suggestions made by international observers during the last parliamentary and presidential elections.
24. Moreover, Georgia should ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which in its Article 3, guarantees the right to free elections. This ratification should have occurred one year after accession to the Council of Europe, that is before 1st May 2000 (see also below).
B. Autonomous territories
25. Georgia comprises three autonomous entities, Adjaria (capital: Batumi), Abkhazia (capital: Sukhumi) and South Ossetia (capital: Tskhinvali). Out of them only the former, Adjaria, is fully integrated into the Georgian state. In fact, Georgia joined the Council of Europe without having restored its territorial integrity, lost following armed conflicts in Abkhazia (1992-94) and in South Ossetia (1990-93). We share the position of the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee on Georgia’s accession, Mr Terry Davis (Doc. 8275), who had stated that “Abkhazia cannot be allowed any veto on Georgian membership”, especially since Georgia had demonstrated its determination to settle the conflict in Abkhazia by peaceful means. As regards South Ossetia, even before accession relations with Georgia had substantially improved and its leader, Mr Chibirov, had given full support to Georgia’s accession to the Council of Europe.
26. Although accession was allowed despite the absence of full territorial integrity, Georgia accepted specific commitments in this field, the respect of which depends only partly on Georgia:
“- to enact, within two years after its accession, a legal framework determining the status of the autonomous territories and guaranteeing them broad autonomy, the exact terms of which are to be negotiated with the representatives of the territories concerned;
- to continue the efforts to settle the conflict [in Abkhazia] by peaceful means and do everything in its power to put a stop to the activities of all irregular armed groups in the conflict zone and to guarantee the safety of the collective peace-keeping forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the United Nations Observer Mission (UNOMIG) and representatives of all international organisations involved;
- to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable groups of the population affected by the consequences of the conflict [in Abkhazia];”
- to create, within four years after its accession, the legal framework for the establishment of a second parliamentary chamber, in conformity with the constitutional requirements;”
27. There has been significant progress recently regarding Adjaria, which was granted autonomous status through amendments to Articles 67 and 102 of the Georgian Constitution in April 2000. The details of this status, separation of powers and competencies between the central government in Tbilisi and the autonomous authorities in Batumi are to be regulated in future by means of a constitutional law. A special joint state committee, including representatives of Adjaria, has been set up to draft this law.
28. In our view, finalising the constitutional law on Adjaria’s status would not only solve this problem definitely, but could also serve as a precedent for finding a solution to the more difficult problems that represent South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
29. As regards South Ossetia, there has been no agreement on its status, but developments are moving, even if not quickly enough, in the right direction. On 31 May 2000, the two sides initialed an agreement on the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). An experts’ meeting took place in Vienna/Baden from 11 to 13 July 2000, in conformity with the OSCE Istanbul Summit Declaration adopted the year before. This meeting proposed a political endorsement for a “package” approach: negotiations on outstanding issues (that is recognition of the territorial integrity of Georgia, coupled with attributes of future South Ossetian status and acceptance of special links between South Ossetia and North Ossetia-Alania in the Russian Federation) should proceed in parallel with consultations on a mechanism of guarantees (political and security measures, economic support and protection of the human rights, particularly of refugees and ethnic minorities).
30. During our first visit to Georgia (May 2000), we met the South Ossetian leader, Mr Chibirov in Tskhinvali. He said that Georgia had underestimated the conflict and delayed economic rehabilitation assistance. The abolition of the South Ossetia Autonomous Region was still in force, although all other legislation from the time of Georgian President Gamsakhourdia had been withdrawn. The Georgian media were building up a negative image of South Ossetia. On the positive side, Mr Chibirov expressed satisfaction that President Shevarnadze had been re-elected given the latter’s commitment to a peaceful solution of the conflict.
31. Mr Chibirov asked us to help in the economic rehabilitation of the region. The energy crisis is impeding industry and is contributing to the further deterioration of the economy. In this context, Mr Chibirov underlined the importance of the long overdue signature of the updated text of the Georgian-Russian economic rehabilitation agreement, which would allow South Ossetia to receive financial contributions due from both sides.
32. We believe that a compromise solution could be found between the positions of Mr Chibirov and the Georgian Government in a relatively short time if, contrary to the present situation, negotiations on this issue were to go ahead, independently of those on the Abkhaz conflict, which is clearly more difficult to solve.
33. Regarding the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, we had the occasion, during our second visit to Georgia, to visit Sukhumi and witness for ourselves the devastation of a region which used to be the former Soviet Union’s Côte d’Azur. We are grateful to the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (Unomig) for having organised the programme of our visit and ensured our transport to and from Sukhumi in aircraft.
34. The helicopter flight from Senaki (Western Georgia) to Sukhumi allowed us to see the enormous number of roofless houses bearing witness of a conflict which, regardless of the responsibility for its origin, led to an ethnic cleansing resulting in the displacement of approximately 250 000 ethnic Georgians (out of a total pre-war population in Abkhazia of approximately 525 000 people).
35. In Sukhumi, we met the de facto Prime Minister and the de facto Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as a number of local non-governmental organisations. In their talks, the Abkhaz political leaders focused on the history of the Abkhaz people and the origin of the conflict.3 They said that they would be ready to discuss with the Georgian leadership the building up of a “common state” (or “two states with common borders”) only if Abkhazia and Georgia were dealt with as equal entities. They also said that, for instance, Abkhazia needed its own army.
36. This position seems to be far from the “widest possible degree of political autonomy” within a single state that Georgia is ready to grant Abkhazia, according to recent statements by President Shevarnadze, which he reiterated to us.
37. In fact, since 1997, the Abkhaz side has refused to discuss the question of its status. As to the UN-led Geneva peace process, a draft proposal prepared earlier this year on the division of the constitutional powers between Abkhazia and the central Georgian Government has been blocked because of disagreements within the group of the friends of the Secretary General in Georgia (France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and United States).
38. Whereas the political positions were more or less as expected, we were especially impressed by the talks we had in Sukhumi with representatives of civil society. They were unanimously in favour of Abkhazia’s independence and told us that even if Abkhaz politicians were to come to an agreement with the Georgian central government, the people would not respect it. And this despite the current bad economic situation and the fact that their region was in a much worse position than the rest of Georgia. A reason for their reluctance to reach agreement with the Georgian central government was apparently their fear that Georgian IDPs would return to Akhazia, and claim their houses, now occupied by Abkhazi.
39. The representatives of local NGOs raised with us a particular human rights problem that was of a major and immediate concern to them. As of January 2001, new Russian passports would be issued and their old Soviet passports would no longer be valid for travelling. If no special agreement could be reached with the Russian Government, Abkhazi would be ready to apply for Russian citizenship and obtain Russian passports.
40. We raised this problem with the de facto Minister of Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia and suggested that Abkhaz residents apply for Georgian passports. He excluded this possibility saying that even if the Georgian Government were ready to provide them, Abkhaz people would not accept Georgian passports.
41. We raised the same question with President Shevarnadze and suggested that, even if only few Abkhazi might apply, it would be important to offer the opportunity to obtain a Georgian passport to all residents of Abkhazia, so that none of them would be legally deprived of the possibility to hold a passport.
42. In general, we felt an urgent need for confidence-building measures. The United Nations and the OSCE work in this direction. A conference on this theme was scheduled for the end of November 2000 but, at the time of our visit, the Abkhaz side was no longer ready to participate.
43. For his part, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Gil-Robles, organised a seminar, together with the Venice Commission, on “state legal aspects of the settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia”, held in Sukhumi on 12 and 13 February 2001. UNOMIG attaches considerable importance to this event. We understand that the reason is not so much that a major breakthrough is expected, but because such a seminar will offer an opportunity for both sides to resume discussions, possibly on the status question. But we agree with the Georgian leadership that substantial progress towards a political settlement of the conflict largely depends on Russia.
44. In the absence of any substantial progress in the negotiations on a political settlement of the South Ossetian and Abkhaz conflicts, it is clear that there are no developments in the elaboration of a legal framework for the establishment of a second chamber in Parliament which would consist of representatives of the three autonomous territories (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adjaria).
C. Local and regional self-government
45. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia undertook “to amend, within three years after its accession, the law on autonomy and local government to enable all the heads of councils to be elected instead of appointed”.
46. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) has in fact considered that "the practice of appointment by the President of the heads of the executive organs of major cities and districts (rayoni) is contrary to the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government4.” The CLRAE has observed that in Georgia "only the smallest territorial entities, i.e. municipal administrative units, fully match the definition of local government". Batumi, the capital of the autonomous entity of Adjaria, is the only entity where the mayor is elected by the municipal councillors.
47. Moreover, the 1995 Georgian Constitution does not define the administrative and territorial organisation of the country and Article 2.3 stipulates that "this will occur later, when the country's territorial integrity has been restored".
48. On the eve of the presidential elections, President Shevarnadze declared that all mayors would be elected with the exception of the mayor of Tbilisi. During our first visit in May 2000, we were told that since the political decision had been taken, the elaboration of the law should not create any special problems or meet further delays.
49. During our second visit to Georgia, five months later, the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament informed us that he had asked the President of the Republic to create a state commission, composed of representatives of the regions, of minority groups and of political groups, which would discuss the revision of the territorial organisation of the country and amendments to the law on autonomy and local government, notably concerning the election of mayors and heads of districts (“Gamgebelis”). Concerning the territorial organisation of the country, the aim would be to simplify the current structure which has too many layers.
50. This discussion had apparently started within the majority group whose leader, Mr Lekishvili, former mayor of Tbilisi, told us that he was personally in favour of the election of Gamgebelis as well as of all mayors of major cities, including Tbilisi. The remaining question was whether they should be elected directly, or indirectly by the elected councils.
51. The Speaker of the Georgian Parliament was confident that following Georgia’s commitment, the amendments to the Law on autonomy and local government would be adopted by February 2001. The Chairman of the Committee on Regional Affairs, however, did not expect these amendments to be adopted before the territorial reorganisation of the country had been completed. For our part, we told to our Georgian interlocutors that, although the deadline envisaged for this commitment would only expire in April 2002, it was essential that amendments be adopted before the next local elections (scheduled for autumn 2001).
52. On 2 August 2001, the Parliament adopted a law amending the Law on Local Self-Government. However, it would have been advisable that before amending the relevant law the Georgian authorities had consulted the CLRAE to ensure that their legislation is compatible with the European Charter of Local Self-Government.5
III. THE RULE OF LAW
A. Legislation
53. Following its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia continued to receive considerable assistance from our Organisation in drafting legislation. A study of the compatibility of domestic legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, by independent Georgian experts and the Council of Europe’s Human Rights general directorate, has just been completed and should hopefully soon be published and disseminated.
54. During both visits to Georgia, we heard criticisms about the legislation, notably as regards the numerous amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure which were adopted by parliament in May and July 1999 just after the new code (drafted following consultation of Council of Europe experts) had entered into force (15 May 1999), and only a few weeks after Georgia had become a full member of the Council of Europe. We asked that the amended Code be transmitted to the Council of Europe for an expertise so that we could also assess the complaints we received. This was not done, in spite of several promises to this effect.
55. A number of recommendations already made by Council of Europe experts regarding provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on police arrest and pre-trial detention (see below, Chapter IV, section D), the Law on Imprisonment and the Police Act (see below, Chapter IV, section C) have not been implemented yet.
56. Finally, a new package of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted in June 2001. Despite renewed promises from the Ministry of Justice, the Council of Europe experts never did receive a copy of the draft Law and are therefore not in a position to give an opinion whatsoever.
B. Law enforcement
57. We received many complaints concerning the implementation of legislation, notably regarding the provisions granting rights to persons under police arrest or in pre-trial detention (contacts with families and lawyers, maximum time-limits, requests for forensic examinations etc.).
58. Aware that this lack of law enforcement is one of the major problems in the country, risking to compromise any success of recent legal reforms, the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament told us that Parliament had decided to increase significantly its survey of the executive. For this purpose, a system of rapporteurs would be introduced: MPs would be appointed to monitor implementation of each legal act adopted over the last five years and of each new legal act.
59. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia undertook “to maintain and continue the reforms of the judicial system.”
60. In order to combat corruption and incompetence in the judiciary, all judges in Georgia underwent qualification examination in the presence of European and American observers. The last examination were held for the judges of the Supreme Court in the beginning of May 2000; those who failed the examination will keep their salary until the end of their mandate. To date, 75% of posts in the judiciary have been filled with judges who have passed the examination.
61. Practising lawyers told us that since the qualification examination, the quality of judgments has improved in the higher courts. In lower courts mainly outside the capital, problems persist, because not all judges who failed the examination have been replaced yet.
62. The main problems have appeared in the functioning of the judicial system: firstly, due to corruption which obviously could not be solved from one day to another, especially since not all judges have been replaced yet (see also below); secondly, due to the lack of execution of judgments. According to the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Parliament, about 60% of court judgements in civil cases have not been executed.
63. Although the level of implementation of the Constitutional Court’s judgements is higher than that of ordinary courts, not all of its decisions are executed. For instance, an MP whose election was declared unconstitutional by the Court is still member of parliament.
64. The new Minister of Justice said that since he was personally at the origin of the judicial reform, improving the execution of judgments would be one of the priorities of the Ministry.
65. The Council of Europe has assisted Georgia considerably over the past year to bring about judicial reform. Currently, co-operation includes assistance in the transformation of the existing training centre for judges into an official public school for judges. A draft law organising a unified judiciary is also under discussion.
66. Georgia has also undertaken “to maintain and continue the reforms of the public prosecutor’s office.”
67. At the time of our May visit, serious tension existed between the Prokuratura and other Georgian institutions. Some amendments had been proposed to the Law on the Prokuratura, which were considered by some as a step backwards to restore powers that the Prokuratura enjoyed during the Soviet era. The President of the Republic has stated that there will be no step backwards and has supported the request by chairmen of parliamentary commissions, the Minister of Justice and the Council of Justice that Council of Europe experts give an opinion on the amendments.
68. During our second visit, October/November 2000, we were informed that the controversial amendments had become less topical since the majority in Parliament was against them. The important issue now seemed to be the organisation of examination which prosecutors had to pass. According to the 1997 Organic Law on the Prosecutor’s Office, these exams should be organised by the Council of Justice. But we were informed that the Prosecutor’s Office preferred to organise the exams itself guaranteeing full transparency.
69. These issues were also discussed at the Council of Europe round table on the role and powers of public prosecutors, which took place in mid-November in Tbilisi. We hope that a satisfactory solution will soon be found, since the term of office of prosecutors expires at the end of the year and there will be no new appointments before examination have taken place.
70. Another issue is criticism expressed by Council of Europe experts of the fact that the Prosecutor‘s Office is responsible for monitoring the execution of sentences, including detainees’ complaints on violation of procedural rights and allegations of ill-treatment. These experts have recommended that an independent inspector be entrusted with this task. In response to these concerns, the Georgian authorities have simply introduced a separation within the Prosecutor’s Office between the department responsible for crime investigation and prosecution and the department responsible for the supervision of the execution of sentences and individual complaints (the Inspector’s Department, placed under the supervision of the Prosecutor General). This is a step forwards, but not sufficient to ensure full compliance with the Council of Europe experts’ recommendations.
71. Last but not least, as the General Prosecutor himself put it, the Prosecutor’s Office has not escaped the “disease of corruption”. To combat this phenomenon, the internal control has been intensified and there is a telephone “hot-line” with duty officers responding around the clock to complaints from citizens (see also below for the anti-corruption programme).
72. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia undertook “to adopt a law on attorneys within a year after its accession.”
73. A law was adopted in June 2001, but following a great deal of beating about the bush. It appears that the process, marked with a lack of political will, has been delayed, at least initially, because of the competition between the defenders of an American system and those of a European system. This has led to great confusion - if not anarchy - in the legal profession.
74. Following the mission of Council of Europe experts to Tbilisi in mid-April 2000, various drafts had been prepared. On 6 June 2000, the President of Georgia had presented to the parliament a new draft which had been prepared by the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs. Subsequently, the Legal Affairs Committee had transmitted the draft to the Council of Europe experts for assessment by the end of June 2000 and authorised its publication in the press to arouse a public debate, given the importance of the matter and the wide interest shown by the community. The Legal Affairs Committee had received comments and remarks on the draft not only from the Council of Europe experts but also from other foreign experts and Georgian lawyers. After examination of all these comments, the Committee had prepared the final version of the draft law by the end of October 2000 and promised to send a translation to the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe which had organised the expertise on the previous draft.
75. To date, neither the translation of the draft law nor that of the adopted law never reached the Council of Europe. We are thus not in a position to confirm that the present legislation fully reflects the recommendations proposed by the Council of Europe experts.
76. Co-operation with the Council of Europe extends also to the creation of a training centre for legal professions, as well as to the development of a system of free legal aid.
77. When Georgia joined the Council of Europe, it committed itself
- “to maintain and continue the reforms of (…) the police force;
- to give human rights training to (…) the police, with the assistance of the Council of Europe;
- to ensure strict observance of the human rights of detainees.”
78. The conduct of the police is probably the major human rights problem in Georgia, and this opinion was shared by senior political personalities during both visits to the country.
79. More specifically, in our May meeting with the Minister of the Interior we went through the list of the most serious allegations of human rights violations by the police force, a list which we had received from non-governmental organisations:6
- certain law enforcement agencies and other government bodies illegally interfered with citizens' right to privacy, and notably security police entered homes and places of work without any legal sanction;
- security forces dispersed or restricted some peaceful rallies violently;
- the majority of detainees were subjected to torture or ill-treatment as a routine method of extracting 'confessions' or other information and abuses security forces have led to several deaths in custody;
- the limits placed on pre-trial detention and police custody by the Constitution, were often not observed in practice.
80. The minister said that he had not seen any evidence of these allegations, but labelled those who made the allegations as “enemies of Georgia”. He admitted however that certain problems existed but assured us that those who violated the law were brought to justice, as could be seen on the statistics which he handed over. These statistics do, however, not show how many policemen were definitely sentenced and imprisoned. Concerning disciplinary actions, the Minister told us that 123 policemen were dismissed in 1991 and 265 in 2000 for abuse of power. In response to the complaint that law enforcement agencies and other government bodies, especially the Ministry of Communications, monitor private telephone conversations without court orders, the Minister told us that the technical devices for such monitoring were not available in Georgia.
81. The Minister admitted that occasionally the police did stop and search vehicles without apparent reason to extort bribes and that arbitrary arrests and detentions did occur. But he reiterated that those responsible for such abuses were always brought before justice.
82. During our second meeting at the beginning of November 2000, the Minister informed us that exams had been organised amongst the traffic police to limit abuses. Out of 692 candidates, only 219 had passed the exams and received a certificate.
83. On the other hand, the Minister of the Interior underlined the economic problems police went through: there was a one year-delay in the payment of salaries to the policemen which was of course no excuse for torture, but could partly explain recourse to bribes.
84. The attitude of police was one of the main subjects discussed with the Minister of the Interior during a hearing organised in the majority party, the Citizens’ Union Faction, just before our arrival to the country. The hearing was on the television and lasted approx. 8 hours. We were told that the parliamentarians were highly critical towards the Minister and their criticisms were widely welcomed by the public opinion which reacted very positively to the idea of such a hearing. We understood from the Speaker of the Parliament that this hearing was one of the examples showing the determination of the Parliament to increase its supervisory role over the executive.
85. We hope that the co-operation programmes of the Council of Europe will also help in improving police attitudes and thus Georgia’s human rights record. In the framework of the 1999 programmes, 20 Georgian police officers underwent a training session at the Police Academy of the Basque Country (Spain). Activities regarding police organisation and police ethics will be proposed in the co-operation programme for 2001.
86. Upon its accession, Georgia undertook “to continue and reinforce the fight against corruption in the judiciary, the public prosecutor’s office and the police force.”
87. According to the Minister of the Interior, although in general levels of criminality are falling, hard criminality is increasing. Corruption, however, continues to be one of the greatest problem of Georgian society. It can be partly explained by the economic crisis and the fact that salaries are not being paid to civil servants, judges and policemen, thus rendering them more vulnerable to corruption.
88. At the beginning of our second visit to Georgia (November 2000), the Guidelines for the National Anti-Corruption Programme were published. This text was prepared by a special commission headed by the Chairman of the Supreme Court, Mr Lado Chanturia, a man well known in Georgia for his integrity and high moral.
89. In an introduction to this text, President Shevarnadze says that “corruption demoralises the foundations of Georgian statehood” and adds: “if we fail to avoid this national disaster, if we fail to cure the nation, public and State of the horrible, poisoning malady of corruption – Georgians, as a civilised nation, and Georgia, as an independent, democratic state, will have no future”.
90. The text of the guidelines, some twenty pages long, describes corruption in Georgia, analyses its causes and outlines measures intended to eradicate it pending the adoption of the final programme. It gives seven interesting key reasons for the spread of corruption in Georgia:
- the legacy of the communist regime;
- State weakness in the process of its multiple transformations;
- extreme weakness of the State conditioned both by conflict situations and by the lack of civic cohesion;
- the special role of “powerful ministries” (Ministry of Internal affairs, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of State Security);
- underdevelopment of civil society;
- deep economic crisis;
- the moral climate.
91. It is too early to assess the chances that the anti-corruption programme has of succeeding. Much will depend on how courageous the Georgian authorities will be in targeting not only low-level civil servants asking for bribes to survive but also senior officials who have illegally acquired large sums of money. In any event, we welcome, encourage and support this initiative.
92. As regards co-operation in this field with the Council of Europe, Georgia has since 1999 been a member of the joint European Commission-Council of Europe OCTOPUS Programme for fighting corruption and organised crime. Georgian authorities were represented in all seminars and study visits organised on the various topics of the programme. Moreover, in 1999, Georgia signed the Criminal Convention on corruption and the Civil Convention on Corruption and acceded to the GRECO mechanism which provides for visits to the country and assessment of the measures adopted to fight corruption. Such an assessment mission recently took place in Tbilisi. In June 2001, the Georgian Parliament adopted a Law on the control of enterprises which is considered an important instrument in the fight against corruption.
IV. HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
93. Georgia has honoured its commitment to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights at the time of its accession, and Protocols 4, 6 and 7 within a year after its accession. On 20 June 2000 Georgia also ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its protocols. The ratification and entry into force (on 20 July 2000) of this convention in Georgia is extremely important given the problems related to human rights violations by the police and the prison conditions which could then be monitored by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). A complete list of Council of Europe conventions ratified by Georgia appears in Appendix V.
94. Other conventions which had to be ratified within one year after Georgia’s accession and have not been ratified so far are the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (signed on 21 January 2000), the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (not yet signed) and the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (concerning mainly the rights to property), signed on 17 June 1999 (see also below, section H).
95. During our May visit, we were told that the difficulties in the ratification of the first two conventions were the same as those linked to the adoption of a law on minorities, namely that the minorities themselves do not want such a law (see below, section G). We were told that the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities might be ratified subject to reservations.
96. However, during our November visit, the new Chairman of the Georgian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly said that Georgia could not ratify the Framework Convention as long as the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were not definitely solved and the country had not acquired its full territorial integrity. The main problems seemed to be the definition of what a minority is and/or the definition of a list of minorities currently living in Georgia. Lack of experience might explain the fact that the Georgian authorities had undertaken a commitment in this field and that the Georgian Government had even signed this convention at the beginning of 2000.
97. For our part, we suggested that, before taking a firm position not to honour a commitment undertaken and confirmed by signature of the convention, the Georgian authorities consult Council of Europe experts on the possibility to ratify with reservations covering the problematic issues for Georgia. This suggestion was accepted by the Speaker of Parliament.
98. Expert consultations are currently taking place on ratification of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. A seminar will soon be organised with Council of Europe experts to help the Georgian Government to formulate the necessary reservations which would allow it to ratify the Protocol pending resolution of disputes regarding the property rights of displaced persons.
99. Georgia undertook upon accession “to abolish within six months after its accession the existing prison system, which puts prisoners with prior political activities in the same cells as other prisoners; (…) to review the cases of persons convicted or detained for their part in the political upheavals of 1991-1992 within two years after its accession;”.
100. We were pleased to learn that, after his election, all prisoners with prior political activities were pardoned by President Shevarnadze. Others were pardoned and released last year. Thus, one of the alleged political prisoners who the eminent lawyers had visited in 1997, Mr Kitovani, even stood for election in Parliament in 1999. Mr Iosselani, who the eminent lawyers had also visited in detention, had been released in April 2000.
101. As regards the commitment “to prosecute resolutely and impartially the perpetrators of war crimes committed during the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, even within its own armed forces”, no charges for war crimes have so far been brought against any person in Georgia. We understand that progress in the honouring of this commitment may be linked to progress in the political settlement of the conflicts.
C. The prison system
102. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia undertook
- “to adopt the law concerning the transfer of responsibility for the prison system from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice within three months after its accession and to ensure the effective implementation of this law within six months after it has been adopted;
- to ensure strict observance of the human rights of detainees;
- to continue to improve conditions of detention in prisons and pre-trial detention centres.”
103. The transfer of the prison administration from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice has become effective since 1st January 2000. It included both prisons and pre-trial detention centres. The Georgian authorities are to be congratulated for honouring their commitment in this field. The Council of Europe, for its part, has assisted Georgia in fulfilling this commitment since a large part of the co-operation programmes with this country was devoted to the prison system, expertise on the Law on Imprisonment and other related laws.
104. In the course of our second visit to Georgia (November 2000), we were granted our request for a surprise visit to Remand Prison No. 5 and the Prison Colony of Ortachala in Tbilisi.
105. We were shocked by the dramatic overcrowding in the pre-trial detention centres, mainly in the section of adult men. It is hard to describe without emotion the circumstances under which human beings are kept. We described the situation to Georgian officials, including President Shevarnadze, and explained that in the European Union it is not permitted to keep even pigs under such conditions. One cell of some 18 square meters contained 42 persons – presumed to be innocent – who disposed of 26 beds. In all the cells we visited in the pre-trial detention centre for adult men, there were more detainees than beds. The cells were primitive and uncomfortable and without ventilation. Some of the detainees told us that they had been waiting for trial for a year or more (although the law establishes a maximum time-limit for detention of nine months).
106. We also found that in Ortachala Prison each of the life-sentenced prisoners (they were seven in total) was kept alone in a large cell, unable to communicate with anybody for months because the law said that they should be kept “separately”. We informed the Minister of Justice who explained to us that this situation was due to a erroneous interpretation of the law, which prescribed that those sentenced to life imprisonment should be kept separately from other convicts, but not from each other.
107. Next day we went back to the Ortachala prison and we were pleased to see that, on instruction of the Minister, four of the life-sentenced prisoners were put in one cell and three in another.
108. The Minister regretted the overcrowding in pre-trial detention centres and said that US$ 2 million would be enough to complete a building for pre-trial detention which would solve this problem. For the rest, the Minister reassured us that he would combat corruption in prisons, and he informed us that he had already dismissed the head of a prison administration who was accepting bribes from prisoners’ families.
109. From a legal point of view, during our May visit we were concerned that certain amendments made to the Police Act at the time that the law on the transfer of the penitentiary system to the Ministry of Justice was adopted, provided for the appointment of a police officer in all penitentiary establishments after their transfer to the Ministry of Justice. These police officers, who were to be responsible for crime investigation in prison, would be appointed by and accountable to the Minister of the Interior. These amendments could compromise the success of the transfer of the prison administration from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice and therewith the respect of Georgia’s relevant commitment. The Council of Europe experts have indicated that this provision is contrary to the European Prison Rules. Consequently, we had asked that this provision be abolished and, in the meantime, not be implemented. During our November visit, we heard that the amendments in question had not been removed but had not been implemented.
110. A list of the most important recommendations of Council of Europe experts on amendments to the Law on Imprisonment was recently addressed to the Minister of Justice, who promised to ensure that the recommended amendments were made rapidly. Furthermore, the Georgian Parliament has requested an expertise of prison-related provisions in the Police Act. A whole Action Plan concerning the reform of the prison system in Georgia was agreed at the beginning of November between the Council of Europe and the Minister of Justice; this Action Plan includes a seminar and an advisory mission on the treatment of long-term and life sentenced prisoners, a seminar on the recruitment and training of prison staff, and various study visits.
111. The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment entered into force in October 2000. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) undertook a two-weeks visit in Georgia in May 2001 and will submit concrete recommendations to the Georgian authorities as regards the prison system and the conditions of detention. We believe that co-operation with the CPT will be extremely fruitful for Georgia.
112. As regards Georgia’s commitment “to review the scale of sanctions with a view to the reduction of the length of detention and to foresee alternative sentences to prison sentences”, we have not been informed of any legislative changes.
113. Regarding the major problems related to human rights violations by the police during custody at the police station (incidents of torture and ill-treatment) we refer to Chapter III. B. iv. above.
114. In respect of legislation, Council of Europe experts have raised doubts as to the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allow for the police to arrest and detain in custody a person for twelve hours without informing him or her of the reasons of his or her detention. During this time, the person has no access to a lawyer.
115. What is even more worrying is that we have received allegations that in practice the police often does not record the arrest so that the time-limit of twelve hours does not even start running. In other cases, at the expiry of the twelve-hour period, the person under arrest is not told that he or she has the right to contact a lawyer, and those who already have a lawyer are not allowed to call him or her. In this way, detainees often do not have access to a lawyer within 48 hours (when they appear before a judge).
116. As regards the commitment “to implement within six months after its accession the right of a detainee to choose his (own) lawyer”, practising lawyers told us that there has been no progress. The same practical problems identified by the eminent lawyers7 continue to exist, since the cause is not lack of legislation but lack of implementation. Defence lawyers suspect that tactics to restrict access to, or manipulate the choice of, a lawyer are intended to avoid allegations of torture, to keep abusive officials from being prosecuted, or to prevent individuals who have signed false testimony or confession from proving later that it was obtained through torture.
117. Another problem seems to be that after arrest the maximum period of 72 hours within which the detainee must be transferred from the police station to a pre-trial detention centre (under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice) is not always respected, with all the consequences that this might have for the treatment of the detainee at the police station.
118. Regarding Georgia’s commitment “to respect the maximum length of preventive detention”, we have been informed by practising lawyers that often the maximum time-limit of nine months is not respected in practice. We also met detainees in the pre-trial detention centre who had been waiting for trial for a year or more.
119. Moreover, as far as pre-trial detention is concerned, there are problems with the legislation itself to which the Georgian Parliament should respond. For instance, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that after 48 hours of police custody, the judge has to decide between release or pre-trial detention for a fixed period of three months during which there is no automatic judicial review of the grounds of detention. This rigidity raises serious doubts of compatibility with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Council of Europe experts have already recommended that the relevant provisions should be amended to allow more flexibility for the judge when fixing the initial period of pre-trial detention, and above all to provide for regular judicial review of the grounds of detention (which may well cease to exist during the three-month period).
120. The Council of Europe experts have also recommended that the law on imprisonment be amended to ensure that the unconvicted prisoners’ right to communicate with families, to receive visits, parcels, and so on, no longer be formulated as an exception, following permission by the prosecutor, but as a right which can only be restricted in individual cases when this is necessary to prevent the obstruction of criminal investigation.
121. We were informed that the experts’ recommendations to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law on imprisonment on the above-mentioned points would be proposed to parliament and we expect to be informed of further developments.
122. During our second visit, we also discussed at length with the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted in May and June 1999, a few weeks after Georgia’s accession to the Council of Europe. These amendments have restricted access to a court to submit a complaint about a procedural violation during investigation. This means that those under criminal investigation, as well as others who may be involved in investigations, such as witnesses, in many cases have to wait until a trial begins before they can submit to a court a complaint about a procedural violation, including incidents of torture or ill-treatment.
123. Another problem is that police officials often misclassify criminal suspects as "witnesses" to deprive them of rights that they should be entitled to, including the right to consult a lawyer.
124. Lawyers and representatives of the civil society told us that later on in the investigation it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an impartial forensic medical examination to back up a complaint of torture. Police, prosecutors and other investigators simply deny lawyers' requests for examination. Although an individual may appeal to higher-level officials in the procuracy, he or she has little or no opportunity to complain to a court while waiting for the trial to begin. This restriction on access to a court is alarming because in Georgia criminal investigations can take as long as nine months (and often longer), yet evidence needed to back up a torture complaint can be lost in as little as two weeks, as bruises from beatings and burn marks from electric shocks applied in police stations begin to heal.
125. We have asked to receive a copy of the May-July 1999 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure but were told that they do not exist in English. However, the new Minister of Justice reassured us that these amendments would be looked at again and reconsidered, and that he would submit to the Council of Europe for expertise further amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure to rectify the problems as soon as possible.
126. New package of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted in June 2001 without previous consultation of Council of Europe experts. We are therefore not in a position to assess whether these amendments positively addressed our concerns mentioned above.
127. Georgia has honoured its commitment “to amend the law on the Ombudsman within six months after its accession, so that a report on the Ombudsman’s activities shall be presented to Parliament and made public every six months”.
128. In October 1999, the former ombudsman resigned after complaints of inefficiency, since less than 2% of the complaints addressed to his Office had been successfully concluded. There was in general great disappointment with regard to the functioning of this institution which could have a very important role to play in Georgia.
129. We met the new ombudsperson, Mrs Nana Devdariani, who was actually a member of the parliamentary opposition (Revivals’ Group) and had been appointed that summer. She would present her first report to the Parliament by the end of November. Her budget limit was US$ 60 000 from which she had to pay salaries for 44 staff members, twelve of whom were lawyers. She had made several recommendations to the former Minister of Justice concerning treatment and occupation of detainees but she had received no positive reply. She hoped things would improve under the new Minister of Justice.
130. At parliamentary level, the committee on human rights and ethnic minorities has continued to play an important role of extra-judicial guarantor of human rights in Georgia.
131. The Chairperson of this Committee, Mrs Tevdoradze, told us that as a consequence of the public hearings by the Committee and her insistence, several criminal investigations against policemen (including cases where detainees died under suspicious circumstances) which had been closed shortly after they had started, were re-opened. Some of these policemen had been accused and kept in detention.
132. The largest number of human rights complaints that the committee had received recently concerned non-execution of court judgements in civil cases.
133. As regards abuses by the police, Mrs Tevdoradze told us that she was not satisfied with the level of training that was organised for policemen; it was almost exclusively organised by non-governmental organisations. The former ombudsman had initiated two training courses but no follow-up was given after his resignation.
134. Recently, the Committee has conducted hearings regarding police attitudes towards perpetrators of acts of violence against representatives of minority religious groups (see also below).
135. For our part, we told Mrs Tevdoradze that in a democratic country governed by the rule of law, human rights violations do occur, but that perpetrators of such violations are brought before the courts and are punished according to the law. Therefore, the work of the parliamentary committee she chaired, to inform the prosecution of such violations and demand that criminal investigations be properly conducted against their perpetrators, was extremely important for the human rights record of the country and we encouraged her to continue her efforts despite the difficulties she encountered.
F. Freedom of expression, notably of the media
136. Upon its accession to the Council of Europe, Georgia undertook “to adopt a law on the electronic media within a year after its accession”.
137. Before accession, a law on the electronic media had been under preparation with the aim of turning state media into public channels under the supervision of an administrative board composed of independent members, thereby eliminating direct control by the authorities. After accession, a law was adopted on the Regulatory Board of Telecommunications, an institution to grant licences. However, this law is not the one envisaged in Georgia’s commitment.
138. The media representatives gave us the impression that there was no consensus on this issue: some journalists present ever appeared hostile to the idea of a law regulating their profession, whereas others were in favour of the adoption of a code of ethics for the journalist profession. Nobody seemed to object to a law on the electronic media which would simply turn the state electronic media into public institutions, thus guaranteeing independence, pluralism and objectivity, which was not the case at present.
139. During our second visit, in November 2000, the media representatives reiterated that the 1992 Law on the Mass Media probably needed updating but that a new law was not necessary.
140. For our part, we think that the necessity of regulating the electronic media is also demonstrated by the lack of objectivity during the recent campaign for the presidential elections. The ad hoc committee of the Assembly’s Bureau which observed these presidential elections stated that the situation was “particularly deplorable in state-owned electronic media”. According to the analysis made by the European Institute for the Media, in defiance of the existing legislation and international standards, the incumbent received two-thirds of the air time allocated to candidates and there was a clear bias in terms of tone and range of coverage. The ad hoc committee noted that, by the same token, media in Adjaria showed a clear preference to Adjaria’s leader, Mr Abashidze.
141. To sum-up, we believe that the Georgian Government and/or Parliament should resume discussions with the media representatives on the elaboration of a law on the electronic media as soon as possible, in consultation with the Council of Europe.
142. As regards the printed media, the journalists we met said that the press in Georgia was free. They also praised the recent adoption of legislation on access to information – as part of the law on the Administrative Court – obliging the administration to hand over all information that was not considered to be a state secret. The law gives a list of what is considered to be a state secret. Thus, information related to charges of corruption can never be defined as a state secret. The journalists complained that the implementation of such a law was difficult, since the state officials had still to acquaint themselves with it. But despite initial difficulties, journalists who insisted on implementation of the law succeeded in getting access to the requested information. For our part, we commend the Georgian Parliament on the adoption of very progressive legislation on access to information and urge authorities at all levels to ensure its full implementation.
143. The general view that the printed media are relatively free does not mean that several of them are not biased. This was reflected during the co-rapporteurs’ second visit to Georgia, when we refused to give any interviews to the media, as a result of the rules of the monitoring process. The media reported that although the co-rapporteurs would not make their findings public before the Assembly had discussed the report, they were satisfied and that Georgia was on the right track. The co-rapporteurs objected to this and repeated to the media (both electronic and printed) that at this point they could make no statement and only express the hope that Georgia was on the right track. The following day, television and newspapers repeated only the last part of our statement.
G. Rights of minorities, including religious minorities
144. Upon its accession, Georgia undertook “to adopt, within two years after its accession, a law on minorities based on the principles of Assembly Recommendation 1201 (1993)”.
145. During our May visit, our meeting with minority representatives was without any doubt one of the most interesting: all representatives of minorities were categorically against the adoption of a special law on minorities. They had shared this view already with the eminent lawyers in 1997 and again with the rapporteurs on accession when they visited Georgia in the course of 1998, so they could not understand how the issue could have been included in the list of commitments undertaken by Georgia. In reality, this commitment was not in the list negotiated by Mr Davis, rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, with the Georgian authorities, but was added through an amendment adopted by the Assembly at the last moment.
146. The minority representatives argued that the Georgian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights offered sufficient protection and that a law would only create artificial distinctions in a traditionally multi-ethnic society in which different ethnicities had been living together in perfect harmony for centuries.
147. Minority representatives repeated exactly the same arguments when we met them during our second visit to the country.
148. We think that what people feel is more important than any commitment, especially if it was never agreed in advance with the Georgian authorities, and therefore we do not intend to insist on this issue.
149. However, as regards religious minorities, we are concerned about recent cases of violence against representatives of minority religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists. Members of these groups have complained of being subjected to violent attacks by Orthodox extremists. Often police have witnessed these attacks, but have not intervened. Moreover, complaints filed against perpetrators of such attacks would not have led to prosecution, despite the presence of eye-witnesses.
150. These incidents are all the more regrettable since Georgia claims to have a long tradition of religious tolerance.
H. Refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs)8
i. IDPs from Abkhazia and South Ossetia
151. Georgia honoured its commitment and ratified the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto, before expiry of the deadline in May 1999.
152. Recently, the arrival of Chechen refugees was a test for the implementation of the Geneva Convention. UNHCR representatives said they were satisfied with the way in which Georgia granted asylum and provided accommodation to these refugees, in application of the Geneva Convention.
153. As regards the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons who were forced to abandon their homes during the 1990-1994 conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia undertook upon its accession
“to take the necessary legislative measures within two years after its accession and administrative measures within three years after its accession in order to permit the restitution of ownership and tenancy rights or the payment of compensation for the property lost by [these] people…”
154. In respect of the return of refugees to South Ossetia, there is satisfaction at the South Ossetian side since 4 000 to 5 000 refugees were allowed to return from Russia. But only 25 families have returned to the areas controlled by the central Georgian Government.
155. As early as September 1998, the Council of Europe, together with the OSCE and the UNHCR organised a round table in Tbilisi on ownership issues following the 1990-1994 conflicts, which concluded with concrete recommendations. However, no follow-up was given until very recently. A draft Law on Restoration and Protection of Housing and Property Rights of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons was presented by President Shevardnadze to the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Mrs Benita Ferrero-Waldner, during her visit to Georgia from 1 to 3 May 2000. The Georgian Government requested the international community’s opinion on the draft. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Council of Europe contracted an expert mainly to assess its compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and its consistency with international best practice in dealing with mass population displacements. The expert prepared an opinion, which has been presented to the Georgian authorities. A seminar should be organised shortly on this matter in Strasbourg, focusing on property issues arising from the conflicts and on the possibility for Georgia to ratify the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
156. During our second visit to Georgia, in November 2000, we visited IDPs from South Ossetia accommodated in the Abkhazi Hotel and IDPS from Abkhazia accommodated in the Iberia Hotel in Tbilisi. Their living conditions are difficult to describe: a whole family and often three generations have to live together in very small rooms. This situation has been the same for seven years with no perspectives of improvement in the near future. We share the impressions of the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights, which were also confirmed by hints from Georgian officials, that IDPs have become hostages of the situation, in the sense that Georgia is concerned that improving the living conditions and human rights of the IDPs might lead to a decrease of the international pressure on the Abkhazi people, acceptance of the present status and, finally, the loss of the opportunity for the IDPs to return home.
157. Recently, a UN resolution has recognised the right of refugees and IDPs to be treated as equal citizens.
158. This is especially important for the voting rights of the IDPs, which are restricted: IDPs can only vote for the majority list in general elections and they cannot vote at all in municipal elections, although they may have been residing in the same place for seven years. For the Georgian authorities to give them full voting rights would mean that they recognise their status and renounce their return. For our part, we stressed that of course the long-term goal should be to ensure the return of these people to their places of origin, but in the meantime full participation in the political life of the state of which they are citizens would only be fair.
159. The Minister of Refugees told us that he had been pleading in favour of granting full voting rights to IDPs who were Georgian citizens for a long time. If these people were the victims of ethnic cleansing, for which they were not responsible, would there be any reason to punish them even further by treating them as second-class citizens?
ii. The Meshketian population
160. Upon its accession, Georgia undertook
Ť to adopt, within two years after its accession, a legal framework permitting repatriation and integration, including the right to Georgian nationality, for the Meskhetian population deported by the Soviet regime, to consult the Council of Europe about this legal framework before its adoption, to begin the process of repatriation and integration within three years after its accession and complete the process of repatriation of the Meskhetian population within twelve years after its accession.”
161. During our May visit the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Zhvania, told us that the commitment related to the granting of Georgian nationality to the Meshketian population – deported from the Meshketian region of Georgia to Siberia and Central Asia in 1944 by Stalin – and their repatriation was not simply a technical matter, but required a political decision by President Shevarnadze and himself. But he said they were ready to work on this matter.
162. It seems that, in any case, only one-third of the approximately 230 000 to 300 000 Meshketians living outside Georgia would wish to return. On the other hand, the Georgian leadership had promised to grant those who lived in Georgia Georgian citizenship; currently, only five out of 107 applicants are now citizens of Georgia.
163. Efforts have been made to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the joint mission to Georgia by experts from the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the UNHCR in July 1999, but they cannot be considered sufficient. A draft law on “repatriation of persons deported from Georgia in the 40’s of the 20th century by the Soviet regime” has been prepared by a special state commission, and sent to the Council of Europe for expertise. The experts recognised that many steps had been taken to find a solution to these difficult and complex issues.
164. The Council of Europe should be ready to provide additional legislative assistance to Georgia in this field.
V. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
165. During its first year of membership of the Council of Europe, Georgia went through both parliamentary (in October 1999) and presidential (in April 2000) elections. The country has thus been continuously in a period of electoral campaign. Moreover, following the recent presidential elections, political tensions between President Shevarnadze and the parliamentary majority delayed the formation of the government. These factors, combined with a serious economic crisis, go some way to explain some delays in the elaboration or implementation of legislation to honour Georgia’s commitments.
166. Even so, the fact remains that Georgia has only honoured some of the commitments it undertook upon accession: the transfer of the responsibility for the prison system from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice, legislative changes concerning the ombudsman, ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and so on. No other law that had to be adopted within one year after accession has been adopted, the results of judicial reform and of the reform in the Procuratura are yet to be seen, the conduct of the police has not been improved and ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has been refused. Moreover, reform of the electoral law, promised after the poor conduct of the last presidential elections, has started but not yet produced any concrete results.
167. To sum-up, some progress has been noted, but many initiatives need still to be taken before Georgia’s record in honouring its commitments is satisfactory. We call on the Georgian authorities to accelerate their efforts and on the Parliamentary Assembly to ensure that the Council of Europe provides; all possible assistance to the Georgian institutions concerned.
APPENDIX I
Comments on the draft report by the Georgian Authorities
[AS/Mon (2000) 43 Rev.]
I. Introduction
Georgia, upon its accession to the Council of Europe, has accepted certain obligations and commitments according to Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe in the framework of promoting principles of pluralistic democracy, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Georgia has clearly and decidedly demonstrated its will of building statehood based on principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights and freedoms. This will is expressed in the Constitution of Georgia adopted on August 24, 1995. Legislative basis for institutionalization of those principles enshrined in the Constitution has been developed.
Nevertheless, Georgia considers as necessary to further improve existing legislature and introduce new acts in order to create better mechanisms for steady and timely fulfillment of constitutional principles and commitments taken according to the Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Opinions and recommendations elaborated upon monitoring visits of experts of the Council of Europe to Georgia stipulate that the country has not fulfilled all of its obligations and commitments that it has been obliged to fulfil until this time.
Clearly, Georgia largely shares the opinions and recommendations of the monitoring group. Current document demonstrates Georgia’s presentation of already implemented, ongoing or planned activities to comply with its obligations and commitments, as well as obstacles on the way of achievement of this goal.
The Comments, just like the preliminary draft report, will be divided into three main fields: democracy, rule of law and human rights.
II. Pluralist Democracy
A. Elections
Both parliamentary and presidential elections took place within the year after accession of Georgia to the Council of Europe.
These elections have demonstrated that relevant legislation needs some adjustment and improvements. Noticeably, legislation had been misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Shortcomings of composition of electoral commission and media campaigning identified during last elections were mainly caused by imperfection of legislature. Though, it should be noticed that some political parties have given distorted information to the monitoring group taking into account strong position of their “rivals”.
Every citizen of Georgia has right to apply to European Human Rights Court. In our case, Labor Party has resorted to this right. Though, the mere fact of their application does not mean that somebody’s rights have been violated. This is something European Human Rights Court has to qualify.
The process of examination of credentials of Mr. Pridon Injia elected in second round in Martvili Electoral District in October 2000 was prolonged solely due to activities of Mr. Injia contradicting with his representation status. Those contradictions needed to be eliminated through relevant legal process that required certain time. Upon completion of necessary procedures, Mr. Injia’s credentials have been ratified on December 8, 2000.
Ministry of Interior is obliged by Georgian legislation to oversight and to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance of police activities with election legislation. Though, there is no doubt that due to different circumstances police has at some degree abused its duties.
Georgian television was actively involved in broadcasting 1999 and 2000 election campaigns. This had been the first attempt of proper broadcast of democratic elections. This process has revealed mistakes and shortcomings as well as achievements on the way of providing population with objective and timely information. Deep reforms have been launched in State Broadcasting Company to transform it into truly public TV-radio station. Necessary laws and amendments are drafted to perfect legal base for electronic, state, public and private media.
Special working group for preparing draft Election Code has been established with support of the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia Mr. Zurab Zhvania. Political parties from the Parliament as well as outside of it and foreign experts have been actively participating in drafting process to improve election legislation as experts of the Council of Europe have recommended.
Draft Election Code of Georgia is prepared fully taking into consideration all recommendations of experts of the Council of Europe. Namely, the draft envisages such principles as equal participation of political parties in composition of electoral commission, transparency of election funds, protection of rights of candidates through court system, etc.
First additional protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights will be ratified in the nearest future contributing into protection of right of free elections in Georgia. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Parliament of Georgia has already approved it with some proviso and, thus, it is now submitted to the Session for ratification.
B. Autonomous Territories
The Constitution identifies only autonomous republic – Ajara. Its status has been laid down in April 2000. That fact was a step forward for development of organizational structure of Georgian state.
Special state commission has been formed upon above-mentioned fact of defining autonomous status of Ajara to elaborate Draft Constitutional Law determining responsibilities of central and Ajarian authorities. Currently this process is on the way and rather soon this Draft Law will be presented to public for discussion.
As to the current state of relations between central Georgia authorities and de facto government of Former South Osetian Autonomous District, they could be characterized as mutual willingness for further improvement of these relations.
Autonomous status of South Osetia was abolished on December 11, 1990. After all developments and current state of affairs, it is unacceptable to discuss status of this territory unilaterally before finding framework acceptable for both parties.
Georgian authorities have stated again their readiness to conduct negotiations on the status of Former South Osetian Autonomous District. Unfortunately, analogous step of de facto government of Former South Osetian Autonomous District is constantly delayed.
Special attention should be paid to the situation with regards of resolution of conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia.
Grave social-economic and legal situation of Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia cause rightful concern of Georgia as well as international organizations.
Georgian position on unconditional return of IDPs remains unchanged. There still exist no real guarantees for such return despite numerous promises of secessionist government.
For resolving the conflict, Georgia is ready to grant Abkhazia the widest possible autonomous status at the same time insisting on the principle of territorial integrity of the country.
Unfortunately, Abkhaz secessionists keep position unchanged and still demand full independence. This, naturally, blocks any negotiation whatever the framework.
Abkhaz secessionists still enjoy support of official Moscow. This has been demonstrated several times, when Russian Federation has blocked document on status of Abkhazia prepared by the Group of States Friends of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Furthermore, imposition by Russian federation of visa-free regime on the Abkhaz part of Russian-Georgian border represents attempt of direct annexation of that territory of Georgia.
Georgia has several times express its readiness to solve the issue of providing Georgian passports to Abkhazia population. Secessionist government itself is opposed to this idea. Nevertheless, part of Abkhaz population has already obtained Georgian national passports.
Despite numerous protests of Georgia, relevant authorities of Russian Federation continue practice of granting Russian citizenship to persons living in Abkhazia. Six hundred people living in Abkhazia have become Russian citizens in this way in 1999, while same number stands at 3500 for November 2000. Besides, most of the members of secessionist government are in fact Russian citizen that gives them possibility to travel abroad using Russian passports.
It is important to involve the Council of Europe more actively in the process of conflict resolution. Obviously, it can play significant role for addressing humanitarian aspect of the conflict.
Difficulties regarding restoration of territorial integrity of Georgia, naturally, hinders establishment of bicameral parliament as it is supposed by the Constitution.
C. Local and Regional Self-Governance
Georgia in this regard shares opinions and recommendations of experts of the Council of Europe and serious work is conducted to improve relevant legislation.
Clearly, infringed territorial integrity contributes into prolongation of process of searching for proper arrangements in the field.
Nevertheless, the President of Georgia has established state commission with representation from almost every political party along with civil sector. The task of this Commission is to draft appropriate legislation.
Draft Law on Amendments of the Law of Georgia on Local Self-Government is already prepared and submitted for adoption.
This Draft Law, in accordance with the European Charter on Local Self-Government, provides:
a) that the President appoint mayors in cities which do not belong to specific administrative districts (Raion), but only from members of local representative body (Sakrebulo);
b) that heads of local executive structures (Gamgebeli) of raions will be appointed by the President, but, also, only from members of Sakrebulo;
c) clear distribution of competencies between local self-governance bodies (Sakrebulo) and its executive structures (Gamgebelis, mayors) to avoid misinterpretation and duplication of responsibilities;
d) rules and procedures of transferring certain responsibilities from central government to local authorities.
Certainly, final version of the draft law will be provided to the Council of Europe for expertise.
III. The rule of law
A. Legislature
Georgia has committed itself for harmonization of its legislature with European standards. Georgia has concluded work in this direction in cooperation with independent experts and support of Directorate General Human Rights of the Council of Europe. The Directorate has published its findings.
Monitoring group of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has expressed some critical views regarding Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. This resulted in a study performed by Directorate General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe on compliance of the Code with European standards. The Directorate has published findings of the work.
The Parliament of Georgia currently works on new Draft Law on Police. It will become subject to public discussion in the nearest future. Naturally, recommendations of experts of the Council of Europe will be taken into consideration. Georgia has already adopted new Law on Confinement, which has become major step forward for reforming penitentiary system.
B. Law Enforcement
The Parliament of Georgia has started active implementation of control mechanisms provided to it by the Constitution and legislature.
First Deputy Chairpersons of Parliamentary Committees have been specifically entitled to oversight enforcement of laws.
Regular reporting has been introduced that obliges representatives of executive to present a report of activities within specific time-period or on specific issue to the Parliament of Georgia.
Several investigative commissions are established in the Parliament aimed at examining information regarding abuse of power and law infringement by any official and, in case of collecting substantial proof, transferring the case to the relevant authorities.
Plan for supervision of law enforcement is elaborated at the beginning of Spring and Fall Sessions of the parliament and is lead by one of the Vice-Speakers.
Parliamentary control has been considered a priority. This helped substantially to minimize law enforcement gaps.
The President has submitted to the Parliament Draft Constitutional Law on Amendments to the Constitution for ensuring strict and uniform execution of laws, deepening economic reforms, strengthening institutional basis of the state, establishing financial order, improving business environment and minimizing corruption.
Several fundamental principles underline the Draft Law. Namely:
a) Establishment of Georgian government as a collective body. Government has to act along the same program line and be accountable to the President and the Parliament as a team. This principle will eliminate interagency and personal tensions in the government and increase responsibility of each of its member;
b) Further strengthening of legislative branch. The Parliament will have real possibility and relevant leverages for evaluating government action plan and controlling its implementation. Dual – parliamentary as well as executive – responsibility for fiscal and monetary policies will ensure avoiding use of state budget for personal ambitions;
c) The role of the President as a head of state and primary guarantor of stability and democracy, proper functioning of state.
Constitutional changes implemented according to above-mentioned principles will become a guarantee for solving problems of the state, deepening of processes of democratic development and increasing political responsibility.
i. Courts
Reform of court system is on its way. Today, 80% of judges are appointed after examination. Nevertheless, some problems remain in the court system. There are facts of corruption, especially involving those judges who have not passed exams and their term has been extended. Council of Justice oversights judges for adherence to legislation.
The Parliament of Georgia has adopted amendments to the Law on Execution on December 5, 2000 to assist in execution of court decisions.
Execution department has been formed in the Ministry of Justice upon adoption of relevant law. Execution Police Division is subordinated to this Department. Above-mentioned structure is necessitated by specifics of execution of court decisions and need for bringing all tasks related to the execution under responsibility of a single body. Execution Police assists executor in executing court decisions and maintains public order during this process. Furthermore, Execution Police Division performed investigation of law infringements during execution process.
Second field of changes concerns financing of the system. According to changes, currently there is no need to conclude an agreement between creditor and execution bureau. The sum needed for execution process is calculated based on estimations of execution official and can be changed in the course of execution process.
Furthermore, 15% of amount retrieved upon execution of court decision is transferred to the special account of the Ministry of Justice and is spent for technical and financial needs of Execution Department as well as entire system.
Amendments in the Law also concerned procedural aspects of execution. These procedures are now significantly simplified, responsibilities of execution officials increased, mechanisms for taking to auction of arrested property revised. Transfer of property to creditor has been introduced. Besides, the Law now regulates prioritizing distribution of retrieved sum, which was not the case previously.
Important novelty of the Law concerns the provision regulating forceful execution of court decisions towards those institutions financed by the state budget.
We think that all these changes will substantially improve execution of court decisions.
The Constitutional Court considers claims on constitutionality of elections under Sub-Provision “d” of Provision 1 of Article 89 of the Constitution. At the same time, the Parliament examines credentials of elected representative and makes decision on its ratification under the Article of 54 of the Constitution. The list of grounds for annulment of ratified credentials, provided in the Article 54 of the Constitution, does not include decision of the Constitutional Court. As the Constitutional Court is the highest judicial authority, its decision is final and automatically enforced. In this particular case, the Constitutional Court has not decided to cancel results of election of the Member of Parliament. Such decision would, again, automatically mean that the person is no more an MP without taking the issue to the floor of the Parliament. But, as no such decision of the Court has been made, the Parliament is not examining credentials.
ii. The Prosecutor’s Office
The reform of procurator’s office is natural continuation of the reform of court system. The President of Georgia has submitted to the Parliament a Draft Law on Amendments of the Law of Georgia on Procurator’s Office. This Draft Law is introducing entirely new concept of the Office and will contribute into improving and modernizing the Office.
The Draft Law provides qualifications for persons to be appointed procurators and investigators. Namely, passing exam of Council of Justice of Georgia is mandatory for candidates.
Furthermore, the Draft Law provides appointments of procurators and investigators to be conducted through competitive selection. Hence, appointment criteria will include results of exams, candidate’s professional and moral reputation, and work experience. Such approach will assure recruitment of highly professional and morally indisputable cadre to the Procurator’s Office.
As to current employees of the Procurator’s Office, the Draft Law provides free of charge courses at the Education Center of the Office.
In addition, the Committee on Legal Issues, Rule of Law and Administrative Reforms of the Parliament submitted a proposal to the Parliament for establishing an office of Inspector General outside of the Procurator’s Office. It will be authorized by law to perform disciplinary prosecution against employees of the Procurator’s Office in certain cases.
Significant changes of personalities took place in the Procurator’s Office just recently. Namely, new Procurator General has been appointed. This process will continue to fill the Office with professional and honest cadre.
iii. Practicing Lawyers
The Draft Law of Georgia on the Bar has been voted in first reading at the floor of the Parliament. Than it has been transferred to parliamentary committees for comments and now is submitted for second reading that is already scheduled for next Session.
The Draft Law provides entirely new approach to organization of the institution of practicing lawyers by making it independent body. Lawyers form the Chamber of Lawyers with congress of lawyers as a highest authority in it. The Chamber will prepare procedure and program of qualification exams for lawyers, statute of Examination Commission and Professional Ethic Code of Lawyers of Georgia.
The Draft Law provides criteria for practicing lawyers – highest legal education and passing qualification exams.
Lawyers will be authorized to work individually or establish bureaus, offices or companies of legal counseling in partnership with other lawyers.
The Draft Law envisages substantial increase of procedural rights for lawyers. Namely:
a) Lawyer will have right to receive all materials regarding a particular case immediately after preferring charges against and first interrogation of a person;
b) Witness now has right to have lawyer during interrogation;
c) Lawyer will have right to protest in court against decisions of investigative bodies at preliminary stage of investigation.
The Draft law provides that only Procurator General, Deputy Procurator Generals, Procurators of Ajarian and Abkhazian autonomous republics are authorized to institute proceedings against a lawyer, while circuit court has to authorize detention or search of a lawyer.
Noteworthy, the Draft Law takes into account recommendations provided by experts of the Council of Europe.
iv. Police
Police is one of the main targets of Anti-Corruption Program elaborated according to decree of the President of Georgia.
The Program recommends abolishing stationed police posts and substituting them with mobile patrols. Stopping cars without specific reason should be forbidden.
The Committee on Legal Issues, Rule of Law and Administrative Reforms of the Parliament has started, in co-operation with relevant authorities, preparation of necessary legislative basis for reform of police system. Ministry of Interior has presented a concept for police reforms that envisages establishment of unified investigative body outside of the Ministry.
Establishment of unified investigative agency necessitates fundamental changes in relevant legislation. This should be done taking into consideration experience of leading world and European countries and recommendations of the Council of Europe.
The Committee considers it appropriate to take traditionally civilian functions, such as issuing legal state documents (personal identification cards and passports), technical licensing and control of automobiles, driving licences, etc., out of responsibility of the Ministry of Interior.
Additionally, special concept is being prepared for singling out military component from the Ministry of Interior as well as other paramilitary agencies and establishing separate body (like National Guard or Carabinieri).
We think that above-mentioned reforms of police system will help reducing human rights violations there to the minimum.
v. Fight Against Corruption
The scale of corruption in Georgia has become threatening to the very existence of our young state. As everybody now is aware, the Program for fight against corruption is already prepared. The president of Georgia just recently has established 12-member group consisting of professionals with doubtless moral reputation in Georgian society to implement the Program.
Implementation of reforms of state governance systems as well as institutional legislation is necessary to minimise corruption. Recent initiative of the President for introducing institution of cabinet of ministers based on team responsibility from political as well as legal perspective provides best example of above-mentioned necessity. Constitutional changes for this reform are already drafted and presented to general public for discussion.
Anti-Corruption Group will closely examine legislation to prepare necessary changes in order to avoid loopholes in laws and, thus, will decrease possibility of abuse of legal documents by bureaucrats.
IV. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
A. Council of Europe Conventions
In compliance with its obligations and commitments, Georgia has already ratified European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its protocols 4, 6, 7 and 12, while work on the first protocol is on the way. Also, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its protocols 1 and 2 are already ratified.
The first additional protocol concerning property rights has been submitted to the Parliament for ratification and currently goes through relevant legislative process. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Parliament has already discussed the protocol and decided to pass it to the Session with proviso referring to need of restoring Georgia’s territorial integrity for some provisions to enter into full force.
Georgia always has been multiethnic country and it still continuous to be such. No discrimination by ethnicity has occurred throughout of thousands of years. Today such respect of minority rights is fixed constitutionally and each and every national of Georgia enjoys them equally. Therefore, the Parliament of Georgia does not currently consider ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages as such move could create additional problems for Georgia in settling existing conflicts as well as threatening stability of the country.
B. Political Prisoners and War Crimes during the Osetian and Abkhaz Conflicts
Georgia has undertaken obligation upon accession to the Council of Europe to release approximately 400 prisoners imprisoned for different charges during armed and political opposition in 1991/92. The President has pardoned them from serving remaining sentence in spring 2000.
Currently, some 40 cases with different criminal charges are under reconsideration by the Supreme Court and Commission of Pardon. It should also be noticed that special amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code have been introduced to prepare ground for such reconsideration.
Therefore, upon completion of above-mentioned processes, the issue of political prisoners in Georgia might be considered totally exhausted.
C. Prison System
Launch of fundamental reform of prison system has been inaugurated by adoption of new Law of Georgia on Confinement. It should be noticed that new Minister of justice and substantially renewed ministry apparatus are eagerly working on reform of entire system.
New prison is being built in Rustavi scheduled to be opened in fall 2001. It will solve the problem of Prison №5. It will accommodate 1200 prisoners, 4 prisoner a cell, which drastically differs from current 25 prisoners a cell.
Showers have been mounted in the prison №5, thus making breakthrough for this place which has lacked them for over 15 years.
Civil Council is established at the ministry consisting from representatives of civic organizations, minorities, religious confessions, interest groups, individual experts. It provides effective mechanism of control of penitentiary system. Council even approves new appointments in the Ministry, including prison system.
The current processes of changing prison officials, establishing tight control on logistics, mounting control contribute into fight against corruption in prison system.
Restoration of voluntary labour in prisons is planned for the nearest future. Sewing shop is already operational in female prison employing 30 women. Operating greenhouse is also planned.
Computerisation of penitentiary system and establishment of unified database are on their way.
Medical service has been transferred under direct subordination to the Minister. Current medical personnel is formed with new people selected through competition. They already constitute 80% of all employees of medical service. The main aim here was to minimise cases of false diagnoses. Also, special anti-tuberculosis program is running with assistance of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Courses, trainings and seminars are regularly organised to raise qualification of medical personnel in prisons.
The Ministry closely co-operates with the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Criminal Code of Georgia provides such forms of confinement as home arrest and bail as well as alternative means of punishment (such as fines, public works, etc).
D. Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention
It is hard to oppose concerns and recommendations of the monitoring group. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that problems are not related to the Criminal Code, which is in compliance with European standards, but rather to gaps in its proper execution by police. Nevertheless, recommendations of the monitoring group will be taken into consideration most seriously. In fact, Ministry of Justice has already started working on the ways for their implementation.
Legislation concerning forensic service is being drafted aimed at elimination of possibility for falsification of results of forensic expertise.
The Parliament has already passed in first reading the Draft Law providing protection of witness rights by lawyer.
E. Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights
The Parliament of Georgia has adopted all amendments recommended for the Law of Georgia on Public Defender.
New ombudsman tries her best to use actually all her rights according to legislation despite grave financial difficulties.
Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights continues active involvement in daily work for protection of those rights. The Committee and Mrs. Tevdoradze, its Chairperson, are actual initiators of putting many police officers into custody.
F. Freedom of Expression and Media
Georgian television was actively involved in broadcasting 1999 and 2000 election campaigns. This had been the first attempt of proper broadcast of democratic elections. This process has revealed mistakes and shortcomings as well as achievements on the way of providing population with objective and timely information.
Fundamental reforms have been launched in State Broadcasting Company to transform it into truly public TV-radio station. Necessary laws and amendments are drafted to perfect legal base for electronic, state, public and private media.
Commission for Regulation of Telecommunication Market, an independent public entity, is operating in Georgia. Its functions include licensing, regulation of market, supervision, support of competitive environment. The Commission actively co-operates with international organizations, such as World Bank and USAID. The Commission with active participation of above-mentioned international organizations has prepared amendments into the Law on Communications. These amendments envisage significant liberalization of licensing process with abolishment of many types of licenses existing today. Only registration, ranking and codes for international operators will need licenses after adoption of this Draft law. Frequencies will be sold through auctions. In addition, special work is done to set regulations for licensing broadcasting activity.
Work on adoption of new legislation on the freedom of press and mass media is actively moving forward despite significant differences in public opinion on the subject. Its results will soon become subject to wide discussion in the society.
General Administrative Code has been adopted recently in Georgia providing high degree of transparency of state structures with availability of public information other than containing state secrets to virtually every interested person or organization. Though, it should be noticed that still there are some problems in implementation of provisions of the Code due to misinterpretation or inability or unwillingness of some officials to comply with them. Number of international and civil organizations implement activities for promoting the Code and its provisions in order to help society to comprehend them. No doubt, these efforts will bear fruits.
G. Right of Minorities, including religious Minorities
Public opinion in Georgia and position of minorities themselves make adoption of any specific legal document in this regard an unnecessary step.
The Constitution and legislation of Georgia equally protects rights of representatives of all social and ethnic groups, no matter to which kind of minority they belong. There is no discrimination in this regard in Georgia.
As to religious minorities, it should be noticed that Georgian Orthodox Church has signed memoranda with all churches present in Georgia. Furthermore, the Parliament has recently adopted constitutional amendment laying ground for regulating relations between State and all religious confessions.
Regarding Jehova’s Witnesses, Procurator’s Office has preferred charges in 8 cases that are currently streamlined into one process. Necessary investigation in performed to bring the cases to the court. It also should be noticed that Georgian authorities strongly condemn activities of Father Basil Mkalavishvili and his followers as well as the way police has approached the situations. The parliament has several times brought discussion on the facts at its floor resulting in adoption of Resolution condemning religious extremism and intolerance at the same time urging police to act according to legislation.
Georgia takes responsibility of and commits itself to address issue of religious tolerance extremely seriously and pay special attention to any fact of violence.
H. Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
i. IDPs from Abkhazia and former South Osetia
The Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation has prepared and submitted to the Parliament Draft Law on Amendments in the Law of Georgia on Refugees aimed at bringing refugee status in compliance with international conventions.
These amendments include principles of family unity, simplification of refugee registration and non-expulsion rights. This norm also will cover asylum seekers. The draft law introduces international understanding of the term Refugee.
The Ministry also has prepared and submitted to the Parliament a Draft Law on Amendments in the Law of Georgia on IDPs. These amendments include:
a) retention of IDP status to those who committed crime;
b) postponing any social benefits before the end of process of giving a person IDP status;
c) free medical service is kept only for most vulnerable IDPs;
d) funeral costs will be covered by local budget;
e) distributing lands to IDPs;
f) introducing tax exemption, etc.
The issue of IDP participation in local elections and elections of representatives of constituency districts in the Parliament has been raised several times. It still is subject to discussions.
Adoption of a law on restitution or compensation would help substantially in settling existing problems. Though, implementation of such law will heavily depend on financial capabilities, as it seems that number of persons eligible to such restitution or compensation will be rather big. Furthermore, it is inconceivable to adopt such law before final settlement of Abkhazian conflict.
There is some progress with regards to return of IDPs to South Osetia, which can not be stated for IDPs from Abkhazia. Settlement of this issue, clearly, depends not only on central authorities of Georgia.
ii. The Meskhetian Population
The process of rehabilitation and repatriation of Meskhetian population deported from the south regions of Georgia in 1940s is not going fast. This has several reasons, such as big number of IDPs from Abkhazia and South Osetia and problems related to them, fears of the population in the southern regions of Georgia of possible violence on social or religious grounds in case of compact repatriation, and, of course, country’s economic situation.
Despite all these above-mentioned problems, 655 Meskhetians are already repatriated to different regions of Georgia. 570 out of them have already received Georgian citizenship. Ministry of Justice considers cases of remaining people. The delay is caused by need to finish procedures of leaving other nationality, as Georgian Constitution forbids dual or multinationality.
Integration process of repatriant is also going rather smoothly. Some young representatives voluntarily study Georgian language. Children of repatrians study in Georgian schools and all of those repatriants who have received Georgian citizenship have restored their historic family names.
The president of Georgia initiated establishment of state commission to address the issues of settlement of repatriation process. The Commission has already discussed several preliminary drafts of law on rehabilitation and repatriation of population deported from Meskhetia in 1940s. The version presented by the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation prepared by Young Lawyers Association of Georgia has been approved. Discussion included experts of the Council of Europe. Currently, this preliminary Draft Law is transferred to the Ministry of Justice for final preparation before submission to the Parliament.
Conclusions
In the conclusion it might be said that some of the obligations and commitments taken by Georgia upon accession to the Council of Europe have been completely and time honoured.
Some of the obligations and commitments need, as it is rightfully noticed in the preliminary draft report, more time and introduction of fundamental structural reforms, which, from the legislative point of view, is already well on its way. Honouring number of obligations and commitments is closely connected with restoration of territorial integrity of the country.
Georgia, with hope for support, will continue co-operation with the Council of Europe for full integration of the country within European institutions.
APPENDIX II
Programme of the visit of the co-rapporteurs to Georgia
(10-13 May 2000)
Co-rapporteurs: Mr M. EÖRSI (Hungary, LDR)
Mr L. DIANA (Italy, EPP/CD)
Secretariat: Mr E.J. AUSEMS
Ms D. CHATZIVASSILIOU
Thursday, 11 May
8.30 Meeting with:
Ambassador Jean-Michel Lacombe, Head of the OSCE Mission to Georgia
Mr Ekbert Menemencioglu, Representative of the UNHCR to Georgia
Mr Dirk Hebecker, Protection Officer of the UNHCR
Mrs Catherine Dale, Special Assistant to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
10.15 Meeting with the Georgian Parliamentary Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe, headed by Mr Micheil Saakashvili
11.30 Meeting with the Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights, Petitions by Citizens
and Construction of Civil Community, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze
12.15 Meeting with the leader of the parliamentary majority, Mr Niko Lekishvili
13.00 Working lunch with the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Issues, the Legitimacy
and Administrative Reforms, Mr Gia Meparishvili
14.30 Meeting with representatives of the parties belonging to the parliamentary opposition:
15.15 Meeting with the Executive Director of the International Society for Fair Elections, Mr Nugzar Ivanidze, and the Director of the National Democratic Institute, Mr Mark Mullen
16.15 Meeting with media representatives:
Mr Sopio Nikoveishvili, “Prime News” (information agency)
Mr Sopio Kulividze, “Mail Express” (information agency)
Mrs Inga Vanidze, “GMS” (information agency)
Mrs Eka Jugushvili, “Caucasus Press” (information agency)
Mrs Baia Kavtaria, “Avia” (newspaper)
Mr Eliso Jurgenidze, “7 Days” (newspaper)
Television Rustavi-2
19.30 Meeting with the representatives of ethnic minorities:
Mrs Irena Jikia, Lithuanian society
Mrs Regina Jakobidze, Latvian society
Mrs Regina Kakhidze, Estonian society
Mrs Nina Tuayeva, Ossetians of Georgia
Mrs Stella Izhevskaya, Polish Educational Centre
Mrs Nelli Rodionova, “Slavianskij Dom” of Georgia
Mr Zaur Khurhilov, Public Multi-nation Movement of Georgia
Mrs Misha Bavitashvili, Public Multi-nation Movement of Georgia
Mrs Bezenzeva Alla, Public Multi-nation Movement of Georgia
Mrs Emilia Khalilova, Azeri Youth Association of Georgia
Mrs Suleimanova Leila, Aeri Youth Asscoiation of Georgia
Mr Teimuraz Smojev, Centre of Ezids’ traditions “Razibun”
Mr Mirzoev Agit, Centre of Ezids’ traditions “Razibun”
Mrs Olga Rytenbach, Association “Einung” Rustavi
21.00 Working dinner hosted by the Georgian Parliamentary Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Friday, 12 May
8.30 Working breakfast with NGOs:
Mrs Pamela Gomez, Caucasus Officer Director, Human Rights Watch
Mr Ghi Nodia, Chairman of the Board of the Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development
Mr Kakhaber Gogashvili, Chairman of the Georgian Committee against Torture and of the Tbilisi International Human Rights School
12.00 Meeting with Mr Chibirov, “President” of the so-called “Republic of South Ossetia”
14.00 Working lunch hosted by Mr Chibirov, “President” of the so-called “Republic of South Ossetia”
16.00 Meeting with the Minister of Refugees and Placement, Mr Valerian Vashakidze
17.00 Meeting with the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Kakha Targamadze
18.00 Meeting with the Prosecutor General, Mr Jamlet Babilashvili
19.00 Meeting with the Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia, Mr Zurab Zhvania
20.00 Meeting with the Patriarch of Georgia
21.30 Working dinner with the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mr Avtandil Demetrashvili, the Chairman of the Supreme Court, Mr Lado Chanturia, and the Minister of Justice,
Mr Joni Khetsuriani
Saturday, 13 May
09.00 Meeting with the Young Lawyers Association
Programme of the visit of the co-rapporteurs to Georgia
(31 October - 5 November, 2000)
Co-rapporteurs: Mr M. EÖRSI (Hungary, LDR)
Mr L. DIANA (Italy, EPP/CD)
Secretariat: Mr E.J. AUSEMS
Ms D. CHATZIVASSILIOU
Tuesday 31 October
16.45 Arrival at Tbilisi airport from Vienna
18.00 Meeting with Ambassadors of Council of Europe Member States
19.15 Departure for Tori Hotel
20.15 Departure for Mtatsminda Business Centre
20.30 Working dinner with Representatives of International Organisations
(Chimney Hall)
Wednesday 1 November
08.30 Working breakfast with representatives of Human Rights NGOs
09.50 Departure for the Parliament of Georgia
10.00 Meeting with Ms Elene Tevdoradze, Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rights and Ethnic Minorities (Ms Elene Tevdoradze's Office)
11.00 Meeting with the Georgian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
12.00 Meeting with Mr Zurab Zhvania, Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia
(Mr Zhvania's Office)
13.00 Meeting with the parliamentary majority (Mr Lekishvili's Office)
14.00 Working lunch with Mr Gia Meparishvili, Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Issues
15.30 Meeting with the parliamentary opposition (Royal Hall)
16.30 Meeting with representatives of mass-media (Royal Hall)
17.30 Meeting with representatives of ethnic minorities (Armenians, Azeris, Jews, Poles, Greeks and others) - (Royal Hall)
18.30 Meeting with representatives of "New Faction" and “Industrialists” (Royal Hall)
19.15 Meeting with Mr Roman Kutsiani, Chairman of the Committee on Regional Affairs and Self-governance (Mr Kutsiani's Office)
20.00 Departure for the Ministry of Justice
20.15 Meeting with Mr Mikheil Saakashvili, Minister of Justice
Thursday 2 November
06.00 Breakfast at the hotel
07.00 Departure for the airport
08.00 Departure for Sukhumi
9.45 Arrival to UNOMIG HQ.
10.00 Meeting with Mr Roman Sischuk, Head of the Human Rights Office in Abkhazia
11.00 Meeting with local NGO Ms Natella Akaba, “Center for Human Rights and Support for Democracy, Association of Women of Abkhazia”
14.00 Meeting with de facto Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Sergei Shamba
15.00 Meeting with de facto Prime Minister, Mr Viacheslav Tsugba
17.00 Meeting with UNOMIG Senior Political Adviser, Mr Dominique Indjoudjian
Friday 3 November
11.30 Departure from UNOMIG HQ. to Sukhumi airport
16.00 Arrival at Tbilisi airport
17.00 Departure for the State Chancellery
17.15 Meeting with the State Minister, Mr Giorgi Arsenishvili
18.00 Meeting with the President of Georgia, H.E. Eduard Shevardnadze
19.00 Departure for the Patriarch's office
19.15 Meeting with the Patriarch of all Georgia, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II
20.00 Departure for the hotel
21.15 Departure for Sachashnike Hotel
21.30 Working dinner hosted by the Georgian National Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
Saturday 4 November
8.30 Meeting with the President of Young Lawyers Association, Ms Tinatin Khidasheli
09.45 Departure from the hotel
10.00-12.00 Visit of refugee camps
12.00 Meeting with Mr Valerian Vashakidze, Minister of Refugee and Settlement Affairs
13.00 Departure for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
13.15 Meeting with Mr Shota Dogonadze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
14.15 Departure for the hotel
14.30 Working lunch at the hotel with the Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia, Ms Nana Devdariani
16.45 Departure for the Ministry of Interior
17.00 Meeting with Mr Kakha Targamadze, Minister of Interior
17.55 Departure for Prosecutor's Office
18.00 Meeting with the Prosecutor General, Mr Jamlet Babilashvili
19.00 Departure for the Constitutional Court
19.15 Meeting with Mr Avtandil Demetrashvili, President of the Constitutional Court
20.00 Departure for the hotel
21.15 Departure for Nikala Restaurant
21.30 Dinner with Mr Zurab Zhvania, Chairman of the Parliament, Mr Lado Chanturia, President of the Supreme Court of Georgia and Mr Revaz Adamia, Chairman of the Georgian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Sunday 5 November
06.00 Breakfast at the hotel
6.30 Departure for the airport
