Source:

Official website of the Georgian Parliament: The Court System in Georgia ("Official website of the Georgian Parliament") [ID 4804]

"Court System of Georgia consists of:

The Supreme Court of Georgia
Constitutional Court
The Supreme Courts of Autonomous Republics
Courts of Appeal
Circuit Courts
Regional and City (districts of town) Courts
Terms of reference of the Constitutional Court of Georgia cover: considering the laws or decisions adopted by the bodies of state or local administration as regards their correspondence to the Constitution.

The Chairman of the Constitutonal Court is appointed by the Parliament according to the President’s nomination.

Other courts make a general system of courts, which is formed by the President of Georgia in accordance with the Law.

Members of the Council of Justice - advice body, created by the President of Georgia, - are appointed by the President and the Parliament.

The first level of general courts is formed by the Regional, City (districts of principal towns ) Courts. These courts are created by the President, the President considers the area of activities of the courts, and a number of judges (2 members minimum). The Council of Justice chooses and appoints judges. The Chairman of the Court is appointed by the President of Georgia for 5 year term. A judge in the Autonomous Republic is appointed by the Highest Representative Body of the Autonomous Republic on the basis of the President permission in written form. If local court consists of just two judges, one considers criminal cases, another one - civil cases. If local court consist of more then two judges, a detailed specialization is possible.

Circuit Courts are formed by the President of Georgia on the nomination of the Council of Justice. Bodies (on Criminal Law, Civil Law, etc.) are created in Circuit Courts. Chairmen of the Circuit Court and Deputy Chairmen ( chairmen of collegiums ) are appointed by the President of Georgia for 5 year term In Autonomous Republics Chairmen are appointed by the Highest Representative Body on the basis of President consent in written form."

Document(s): Official website of the Georgian Parliament

10.04.2008 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Lawyer starts hunger strike to fight for independence of country's judiciary ("Hunger Strikes Highlight Mounting Civic Despair") [ID 22860]

Document(s): Open document

07.04.2008 - Source: Civil Georgia

Dozens of lawyers strike in bid of defending independence of judiciary ("Lawyers on Strike") [ID 22858]

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2008 - Source: EurasiaNet

Former defence minister Okruashvili was sentenced in absentia to an 11-year prison term on 28 March 2008 for blackmail; the case raises concerns over the independence of the justice system because of alleged political influence ("Justice System Faces New Doubts Over Its Independence") [ID 22856]

Document(s): Open document

03.07.2007 - Source: Civil Georgia

Parliament approves a proposal to ban video recordings and photo coverage from court buildings and courtrooms by media sources ("Parliament Backs Media Restrictions in Courts") [ID 20628]

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

The judiciary is not fully independent and continues to suffer from extensive corruption and pressure from the executive branch; lack of professionalism ("Freedom in the World 2007") [ID 20426]

"The judiciary is not fully independent and continues to suffer from extensive corruption and pressure from the executive branch. The payment of bribes to judges is reported to be common, and efforts to reform the judicial system have not moved forward in a meaningful way. The judiciary has been unable to date to establish itself as an independent institutional actor and still suffers from a lack of professionalism. The judiciary also often relied on pretrial detention regardless of the gravity of the offense."

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary still finds it difficult to withstand political pressure ("Nations in Transit 2007") [ID 20547]

"The Georgian Constitution provides important safeguards for the protection of human rights and the independence of the judiciary. However, after the Rose Revolution the judiciary still finds it difficult to withstand political pressure. Although there is a notable decrease in torture at preliminary detention facilities, there have been scandalous cases of abuse by law enforcement officers and serious problems in the penitentiary system. In 2006, the government took positive steps to increase the independence of the judiciary, creating better safeguards for excluding torture through amendments to the criminal procedures code and reforming the penitentiary system."

Document(s): Open document

14.05.2007 - Source: Child Rights Information Network

Report on the juvenile justice system (international treaties, instruments, the criminal process for children aged 14-18, arrest and detention of juvenile offenders, pre-trial detention and sentencing) ("Analysis of the juvenile justice system in Georgia") [ID 19906]

Document(s): Open document

17.04.2007 - Source: Civil Georgia

According to the Venice Commission vaguely worded provisions pose a real threat to the independence of the judiciary and ultimately to the rule of law ("Venice Commission on Judicial Independence ") [ID 19596]

Document(s): Open document

27.03.2007 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Georgia’s judiciary has not managed to guarantee its independence; its decisions were criticized for being unfair and politically motivated; in its campaign to fight corruption, the government also targeted the judicial system by removing allegedly corrupt judges ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2007 (Events of 2006)") [ID 19524]

"Georgia’s judiciary underwent reforms in the 1990s but has not managed to guarantee its independence: also in 2006 its decisions were criticized for being unfair and politically motivated. Even President Saakashvili admitted during a meeting with lawmakers from the ruling National Movement on 17 April that the judiciary “remains the most problematic sector,” and noted that improvements will take a long time.1 It appeared that no real progress was made in the course of 2006 in this field.  

The 2004 constitutional amendments increased the president’s authority to dismiss and appoint judges. In its campaign to fight corruption, the government also targeted the judicial system by removing allegedly corrupt judges. These measures, however, lacked transparency and due process. The forced resignations under pressure in 2005, and non-transparent disciplinary proceedings that led to dismissals, had a chilling effect on new and remaining judges, who recognized their positions as tenuous and their decisions subject to the approval of the executive."

Document(s): Open document

23.02.2007 - Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting

Abolition of several forms of sanctions as alternative to pre-trial detention leaves only possibility of release on bail; poor defendants cannot afford bail, while rich clients get off lightly: paradox of justice, say critics ("Georgia's Bail Lottery") [ID 18913]

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Human Rights Watch

21 of 37 Supreme Court judges resigned under governmental pressure; nine judges became subject to disciplinary proceedings ("World Report 2007") [ID 18514]

"Constitutional amendments in early 2004 increased the Georgian president’s authority to dismiss and appoint judges. The government then began an effort to address corruption in the judiciary, but the procedures for removing allegedly corrupt judges have lacked transparency and due process. In 2005 the authorities told a number of judges that they should either resign or face disciplinary hearings; 21 of 37 Supreme Court judges resigned under this pressure. Nine refused to resign but were then made subject to disciplinary proceedings in December 2005, were found guilty, and were suspended from office. The proceedings addressed matters related to the judges’ interpretation of law rather than issues of ethics or conduct subject to disciplinary evaluation. On August 10, 2006, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision against the judges. These steps have had a chilling effect on new and remaining judges, who may legitimately see their positions as tenuous and their decisions as subject to executive approval."

Document(s): Open document

22.09.2006 - Source: EurasiaNet

Harsh Sentence for Juvenile Offender Raises Questions about Georgia’s Justice System ("Harsh Sentence for Juvenile Offender Raises Questions about Georgia’s Justice System") [ID 18548]

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Report on democratisation (electoral process, civil society, independent media, governance) and rule of law (corruption) ("Nations in Transit 2006") [ID 15635]

"Judicial Framework and Independence. The Georgian Constitution provides important safeguards for the protection of human rights and the independence of the judiciary. However, in 2005 the judiciary was still not able to withstand political pressure, and courts rarely disagreed with the prosecution’s demands. There was a notable decrease in torture at preliminary detention facilities, at least in the capital. Further, important progress was made in curbing violence against religious minorities, with some perpetrators of past violence sentenced to prison, and new registration provisions improved the legal standing of religious organizations. Owing to improvements on the issues of torture and religious freedoms, the rating for judicial framework and independence improves from 5.00 to 4.75."

Document(s): Open document

05.01.2006 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Methods to replace corrupt judges in Constitutional and Supreme Courts are dubious; first Saakashvili proposed to dismiss them all upon amendment of constitution, finally they were given possibility of resigning against life-long pensions ("Implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 10779]") [#41527], [ID 4779]

"114. A serious and contentious issue continues to be the method of appointment of judges of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. In December 2004 President Saakashvili submitted to Parliament draft constitutional amendments, according to which all judges of the Supreme and Constitutional Court would be elected by Parliament upon proposal of the President. […] In addition, all sitting judges of the Supreme and Constitutional Court would have lost their office following the entry into force of the amendments.
115. It is clear that the main objective of this last provision was to remove from office the "old guard" in the two institutions. Such an endeavour in itself is understandable, especially against the background of the corrupt and inefficient justice system that the new authorities inherited. The methods however have to be chosen in such a way that they do not contradict the democratic principles that the authorities are striving to promote in reforming the judiciary.
116. Following criticism of the draft by the Venice Commission, the provision that the sitting judges would lose their office was withdrawn from a new draft that the authorities submitted for appraisal. [...]
119. [...] in March 2005, the relevant legislation for the Supreme and Constitutional courts was amended, introducing the possibility for judges to resign voluntarily after 3 years in office for the Supreme Court and 5 years for the Constitutional Court against life payment of their salaries, without any condition linked to age. According to information received at the Supreme Court, about 10 of its judges have taken advantage of this form of golden handshake, which appears to be extraordinarily generous.
120. In a country as poor as Georgia, this is not the proper way of solving the problem of the replacement of judges that are considered to be either incompetent or corrupt or both. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

05.01.2006 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

New 3-stage court system with city and district courts, appeal courts and Supreme Court; specialised courts are established in Tbilisi as a test case ("Implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 10779]") [#41527], [ID 4780]

"110. A 3-stage court system has been introduced: 1/ city and district courts (with one single judge); 2/ appeal courts (with three judges) and 3/ Supreme Court, comprising 3 cassation chambers with 9-10 judges each specialised in civil, administrative and criminal cases. A new disciplinary chamber has also been set up.
111. The authorities have also introduced the concept of specialised courts, starting with Tbilisi as a test case. The Tbilisi Regional courts were merged and one Tbilisi City Court was created with three Specialised Court Collegiums, dealing with administrative, civil and criminal cases."

Document(s): Open document

26.12.2005 - Source: Civil Georgia

Judicial Discipline Commission of the Council of Justice ruled that 4 judges should be dismissed for misconduct; all of them publicly spoke out against persisting pressure on judiciary coming from authorities ("Four Judges Sacked") [#41814], [ID 4781]

Document(s): Open document

09.12.2005 - Source: Civil Georgia

Judiciary is considered to be most corrupt institution in Georgia, followed by Customs and Political Parties ("Judiciary Tops Georgia’s List of Corrupt Institutions") [#41806], [ID 4782]

Document(s): Open document

06.12.2005 - Source: Civil Georgia

At least 5 judges on Georgian Supreme Court resigned as according to amendment to law on Supreme Court of Georgia passed by Parliament and signed by President those judges who resign before December 31, 2005 will receive pension equal to their current salary ("Judges Quit Supreme Court Amid Alleged Pressure from Authorities") [#41799], [ID 4783]

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2005 - Source: Civil Georgia

Chairman of the Supreme Court as well as Chairman of Justice Council accused of pressuring judges ("Judges Say they are Under Pressure") [#41962], [ID 4784]

Document(s): Open document

29.07.2005 - Source: Prima News

Georgian prosecutor general refused Azerbaijan's request of handing over 2 Georgian nationals, suspected of murdering editor-in-chief of Baku-based Monitor magazine ("Georgia refuses to extradite suspects in Elmar Gouseinov’s murder") [#35927], [ID 4786]

Document(s): Open document

20.07.2005 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Team of EU legal experts assisted government in drafting blueprint for reform of criminal-justice system; independence of judges still contested by political authorities on daily basis ("Georgia: Chief Of EU Judicial Mission Leaves With Mixed Feelings") [#34343], [ID 4787]

Document(s): Open document

19.05.2005 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

President empowered by constitutional amendment to appoint and dismiss judges ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events of 2004)") [#32106], [ID 4788]

"Another amendment empowered the president to appoint and dismiss judges, a move that increased the president’s control over a judiciary that already suffered from a lack of independence. A January 2005 PACE resolution voiced concern about the exclusive right of the president to nominate candidates for judges of the Supreme and the Constitutional Courts. It said that, combined with the provision that all sitting judges be dismissed when the new rules come into force, the possibility that judges may serve two consecutive instead of one single mandate may have a negative effect on the independence of these crucially important judicial institutions."

Document(s): Open document

14.03.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Secretary General

Reform of the judiciary: summary ("Compliance with commitments and obligations: the situation in Georgia [SG/Inf (2005) 6]") [#31811], [ID 4790]

"A new “Concept on the Judiciary” has been elaborated by an operational group involving the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court and the High Council of Justice in consultation with EU JUST THEMIS resident experts. The CoE stands ready to provide an opinion on this text.

26. Reform of the Courts: Reform of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and common courts is pending. CoE experts’ comments on the reform of the Supreme Court, the High Council of Justice and common courts were transmitted to the Ministry of Justice in early February 2005.
27. In late December 2004, constitutional amendments related to the reorganisation and reform of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts were discussed by the Bureau of the Parliament and sent back for improvements. At the request of the Constitutional Court, the Venice Commission examined these draft amendments which provided, inter alia, for the nomination of all Constitutional Court judges by the President and the dismissal of all current Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges (except for the Supreme Court President). The Venice Commission delegation, during its visit to Georgia at the end of January 2005, expressed reservations vis-à-vis this draft. The Minister of Justice informed the delegation that a revised draft would be presented taking into account their observations on which the Venice Commission would soon be invited to comment.

28. The Venice Commission received the new draft on 2 March 2005 and adopted its opinion at its 62nd plenary session on 11-12 March 2005 with the participation of the President of the Constitutional Court and the Deputy Minister of Justice of Georgia (see doc. CDL-AD(2005)005). The principal change in what is proposed in the revised amendments is the establishment of the Constitutional Court separated from the ordinary judiciary as a body of constitutional review. The Constitutional Court will be enlarged to comprise 15 judges who will be nominated by the President and approved by the Parliament with a 3/5 majority.

29. According to the opinion of the Venice Commission, the revised amendments present a significant progress as compared to the previous text. The Venice Commission welcomed in particular the introduction of a "real’ constitutional complaint and the limitation of the tenure of judges of the Constitutional Court to a single term. However, some other issues remain subject to concern, notably the nomination of all of the judges of the Constitutional and Supreme Court by the President, the near-total immunity from prosecution conferred on judges and the provision for renewable terms of office – rather than tenure until retirement – for ordinary judges including the judges of the Supreme Court.

30. High School of Justice: Reform of the educational system for judges is ongoing. The reform aims at transforming the present structure into a European style school of magistrates, which will be obligatory for judges. The CoE appraisal of the Law on the High School of Justice was transmitted to the Georgian authorities in 2004. Following a request of the Georgian authorities to assist in preparation of the curricula and the organisation of training for trainers, a workshop in Strasbourg on the methodology and curricula of the School is planned for March 2005.

31. Bar association: Following the adoption of the Law on the Bar Association, the Founding Assembly was planned for end of February/beginning of March 2005. It is expected that the Code of Ethics for Advocates will be adopted by the Assembly. However, further work is needed on the development of lawyers’ ethics. The CoE stands ready to assist the Bar Association in this field upon request.

32. Reform of the legal aid system: A concept for the future system of free legal aid already exists. Pilot projects for several Georgian regions have been planned for early 2005 with a view to extending them to the whole country. The CoE re-iterates its offer for further co-operation to develop the system of free legal aid. A more proactive attitude is expected from the Georgian authorities in order to move forward with the reform."

Document(s): Open document

14.03.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Secretary General

Reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office ("Compliance with commitments and obligations: the situation in Georgia [SG/Inf (2005) 6]") [#31811], [ID 4791]

"The elaboration of the concept of the reform started in January 2004. Certain structural reforms related to the Public Prosecutor Office’s internal organisation and optimisation have been carried out already. The next step will be the introduction of new selection procedures. Training of prosecutors in plea-bargaining is also needed. Moreover, the adoption of the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office is conditioned by the adoption of the new Code of Criminal Procedure."

Document(s): Open document

19.07.2004 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

EU formally opens its first-ever “rule of law” mission to a non-EU country aiming to advise Georgia on reforming its judiciary, criminal law, police, and penitentiary systems ("Georgia: EU Deploys 'Rule of Law' Mission") [#24209], [ID 4571]

Document(s): Open document

15.08.2003 - Source: Civil Georgia

Human rights advocacy groups fear that the government is trying, by increasing pressure on the judicial system, to avoid politically undesirable rulings by the courts ("Civil Rights Activists Say Shevardnadze Threatens Judicial System") [#15179], [ID 4792]

Document(s): Open document

08.2003 - Source: Human Rights Center

The Council of Judges Discipline dismissed 16 judges during three years ("Monthly Bulletin No 8 (54), August 2003") [#15124], [ID 4793]

"The Council of Judges Discipline dismissed 16 judges during three years, among them the chairman of the Court. The council discussed 89 cases in 2002, 49 of them were initiated by the Chairman of the Court. According to the decision, a note was given to 15 judges, 13 were given recommendations, five received reprimands and seven received severe reprimands. Two judges were dismissed last year whilst three were dismissed this year."

Document(s): Open document

22.07.2003 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

Justizreform führe zwar zu modernen Gesetzen und zur Einsetzung vieler am neuen Recht geschulter Richter, die verbreitete Korruption konterkariere allerdings auch innerhalb der Gerichte die Wirksamkeit der Reformen ("Reisebericht Georgien 18. - 25. Mai 2003") [#14436], [ID 4794]

"Nach Angaben des Beauftragten der deutschen Bundesregierung für Menschenrechtspolitik
und humanitäre Hilfe ist Georgien auf dem Weg zur Einführung europäischer
Rechtsstandards weiter fortgeschritten als seine Nachbarländer Armenien und
Aserbaidschan. „Nicht nur Nichtregierungsorganisationen, auch staatliche
menschenrechtliche Institutionen wie die Volksanwältin und die Beauftragte für
Menschenrechtsfragen im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat, haben sich Schritt für Schritt Freiräume
geschaffen und machen - trotz chronisch geringer Mittelausstattung – engagierte Arbeit im
Menschenrechtsbereich. Innerhalb der Regierung zeigt sich der Justizminister
reformorientiert und zur Zusammenarbeit mit der Zivilgesellschaft bereit.“ Dennoch sind die
Probleme bei der Implementierung der Standards nach Angaben des Beauftragten für
Menschenrechtspolitik und Humanitäre Hilfe denen in anderen Reformstaaten vergleichbar.
Die Justizreform führe zwar zu modernen Gesetzen und zur Einsetzung vieler am neuen
Recht geschulter Richter, die verbreitete Korruption konterkariere allerdings auch innerhalb
der Gerichte die Wirksamkeit der Reformen.11
Die International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) betont in ihrem Bericht vom
März 2003, dass die Justizreform im Jahr 2002 zwar weiterhin vorangetrieben wurde, das
Parlament aber noch immer verabsäumt habe, die im Mai 1999 bereits festgeschriebenen
Verbesserungen des Strafprozessrechts in die Praxis umzusetzen. Nach vollzogenem Beitritt
zum Europarat hat Georgien nach Angaben der IHF noch einmal ca. die Hälfte der
Bestimmungen seines Strafrechts geändert, was gemessen an europäischen Standards zu
einer Verschlechterung der Gesetzeslage führte; die Rechte von Personen in
Untersuchungshaft wurden unterhöhlt und der Zugang zu Gerichten für Personen
beschränkt, gegen welche strafrechtliche Untersuchungen eingeleitet wurden. Folglich ist es
nicht möglich, Anklage wegen während der Untersuchungshaft von Sicherheitskräften
begangener Menschenrechtsverletzungen einzubringen.12"

Document(s): Open document

24.06.2003 - Source: Council of Europe - Secretary General

Growing threats against the independence of the judiciary ("Compliance with commitments and obligations: the situation in Georgia [SG/Inf(2003) 25]") [#14597], [ID 4795]

"31. In addition to the above-mentioned concern, several interlocutors remarked that there are growing threats against the independence of the judiciary. Some media – under the influence of various political and other forces – exert pressure on judges, notably by sometimes questioning their integrity (cases of corruption) and when broadcasting live court proceedings (including interviews of detainees during court proceedings). It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights recognised that the judiciary can indeed be protected against destructive attacks, which are essentially unfounded, particularly since judges have a duty of discretion that prevents them from replying.

32. At the same time, it should also be stressed that, according to the Strasbourg Court, the public must have information on the functioning of the judiciary, which is an essential institution for any democratic society. The press is one of the means by which politicians and public opinion can verify that judges are discharging their heavy responsibilities in a manner that is in conformity with the task entrusted to them (for more details, see doc. Monitor/Inf(2003)3 and CM/Monitor(2002)17). In March 2003, the International Press Institute expressed its concern at the decision of the Supreme Court to call for a criminal inquiry into the news programme “60 Minutes”, broadcast on the Tbilisi-based television station Rustavi 2, due to its reports on corruption in the judiciary and the police (see IPI open letter, dated 27 March 2003). Even if the judiciary has to be protected against undue interference, this should not be used as a pretext to hamper media freedoms and investigative journalism. At the same time, concrete implementation of ethical principles could be a very positive step to improving the relationship between the judiciary and the media (see also doc. CM/Monitor(2002)17 in this respect).

33. Some interlocutors indicated that there was some one-sided coverage of trials due to particular arrangements between one side and media companies. The Strasbourg Court is again particularly rigorous in supervising press coverage of trials (for more details, see doc. Monitor/Inf(2003)3)."

Document(s): Open document

24.06.2003 - Source: Council of Europe - Secretary General

Key legislative measures: Code of Criminal Procedure, Law on Police, Law on the Prosecutor General’s Office ("Compliance with commitments and obligations: the situation in Georgia [SG/Inf(2003) 25]") [#14597], [ID 4796]

"23. The draft Code of Criminal Procedure, the draft Law on Police and the draft Law on the Prosecutor General’s Office constitute different but inter-related aspects of the same reform package, following the ‘Concept’ elaborated by the then Inter-Agency Commission headed by the President of the Supreme Court, Mr Lado Chanturia. The drafts of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on Police were transmitted to the Council of Europe for appraisal in May 2003. Other institutions are also expected to provide expert opinions on the draft Code of Criminal Procedure. A consultation should take place in the near future in order to ensure a coherent approach.

24. However, the draft Law on the Prosecutor General’s Office, which remains a central element of the reform concept, has still not been transmitted to the Council of Europe for expert advice.

25. As concerns the existing Code of Criminal Procedure (see doc. SG/Inf(2003)1, Part II.B.iii), amendments introduced by the Ministry of the Interior restricting access to legal assistance and pertaining to aspects of detention on remand were declared unconstitutional by the Georgian Constitutional Court on 29 January 2003, following an application lodged by the Public Defender. The Court set a deadline of 1 May 2003 for the necessary amendments to the legislation to be made. Although the authorities have to act in accordance with the Court’s decision, relevant legislative changes are still expected.

26. According to the Georgian authorities, amendments to the Criminal Code were proposed by the Ministry of Justice with a view to including new crimes in the legislation in accordance with international legal instruments relating to non-discrimination, the fight against organised crime as well as the prevention of torture. On 6 June, the Parliament adopted some amendments, notably as concerns racial discrimination and trafficking in human beings."

Document(s): Open document

24.06.2003 - Source: Council of Europe - Secretary General

Practical measures to fight against impunity ("Compliance with commitments and obligations: the situation in Georgia [SG/Inf(2003) 25]") [#14597], [ID 4797]

"28. The Secretariat delegation underlined that the fight against impunity remains a key priority to be dealt with urgently by the Georgian authorities. However, little progress has been made in this regard. The trial of defrocked priest Mkalavishvili illustrates this situation. Dozens of hearings have taken place since the beginning of the trial without any concrete results. The Secretariat delegation was told that Mkalavishvili’s followers have continued to intimidate and harass victims, witnesses and even trial observers without appropriate reaction from representatives of the judiciary, relevant police and security forces. However, the Prosecutor General underlined that his Office has made all possible efforts and requested a warrant from the courts for the arrest of the defrocked priest. It is most welcome that the Prosecutor General’s persistence resulted in a step forward a few days after the visit when the Vake-Saburtalo District Court finally decided – in camera – that former priest Mkalavishvili be placed on pre-trial detention for three months. It is of the utmost importance that the court’s decision be executed and that all measures be undertaken to protect victims and witnesses and maintain order throughout the judicial proceedings.

29. This trial is seen as a test of the ability and willingness of the authorities to fight against impunity, notably in the context of the deteriorating situation with regard to addressing acts of religious intolerance (in this connection, see para. 38).

30. The Prosecutor General’s Office initiated criminal cases against MPs and has asked the Georgian Parliament to lift their immunity. One of the suspected MPs claimed that the prosecution is connected with the pre-election campaign. However, the Prosecutor General assured the Secretariat delegation that he has not received any instruction and that these cases are clearly connected to criminal matters.

Specific concerns and proposals

An atmosphere of impunity persists, in particular as concerns acts of intolerance committed out of a misguided patriotism. In this context, the law-enforcement agencies still seem to be incapable of protecting the exercise of basic freedoms and rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association and freedom of conscience and religion."

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

US State Department: Three-tier court system established by law; court system administered by the Council of Justice ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11848], [ID 4798]

"The law establishes a three-tier court system. At the lowest level are district courts, which heard routine criminal and civil cases. At the next level are regional (city) courts of appeal, which served as appellate courts for district courts. The regional courts also tried major criminal and civil cases, reviewed cases, and either confirmed verdicts or returned cases to the lower courts for retrial. The Supreme Court acted as a higher appellate court but was the court of first instance for capital crimes and appeals from the Central Election Commission (CEC). The courts followed a judicial code of ethics; however, some observers alleged that the Supreme Court's decisions were subject to political and other undue influences. In 2001 the Supreme Court implemented a system of regional managing judges to monitor the performance of lower courts throughout the country.

A separate Constitutional Court arbitrated constitutional disputes between branches of government and rules on individual claims of human rights violations. The Court has interpreted this latter function narrowly, agreeing to rule only in cases in which the complainant alleged that the violation was sanctioned by law. The Court only considered one case at a time. The Court's rulings demonstrated judicial independence.

The Council of Justice administered the court system. The Council had 12 members, 4 selected from within each branch of government. To reduce incompetence and corruption, the law has established a three-part testing procedure for working and prospective judges administered by the Council. All judges except for three recognized legal scholars were required to take the exams, which were given twice annually. In December 36 out of 171 examinees passed the two rounds of the examination. At the district level--particularly in extremely rural or mountainous regions--it was difficult to find candidates who had passed the exam and who were willing to fill judge positions. Supreme Court judges were required to take the examination. In 2000 the President nominated and the Parliament ratified the appointment of 12 new Supreme Court Justices, 10 of whom passed the judicial exams, and 2 of whom were appointed pursuant to Article 20 of the law on the Supreme Court, which provides that distinguished legal specialists may be appointed. In July the General Directorate of the Council of Europe supported the Supreme Court in hosting a seminar on the practical use of the European Human Rights Convention in the judicial system. The seminar was for regional and district judicial staff and covered the protection of rights and limitations of human rights, the role of courts in the implementation of the Human Rights Convention, Article 8 of the Convention, and related court procedures."

Document(s): Open document

13.09.2001 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe: Training for judges ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 9191]") [#10653], [ID 4800]

"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."

Document(s): Open document

13.09.2001 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe: Main problems regarding the judicial system: corruption, lack of execution of judgments ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 9191]") [#10653], [ID 4801]

"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."

Document(s): Open document

13.09.2001 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe: Role of the prosecutor ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 9191]") [#10653], [ID 4802]

"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)."

Document(s): Open document

07.2001 - Source: Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development

CIPDD: Corruption is still a serious problem in many courts ("Georgia's Membership in the Council of Europe, Achievements and Failures") [#10549], [ID 4803]

"The judiciary reform is considered to be a relatively successful example of reforms in Georgia. It started with enacting the organic law on general courts on June 13, 1997. Major objectives of the reform were: to increase the authority and role of courts within the law-enforcement system; to increase independence and professional qualifications of judges; to ensure fair competition between defense and prosecution; to make the court system more efficient; to reduce corruption in the courts system. The new judicial system came into force on May 15, 1999. As a result of the reform, the new system of selection of judges through the Council of Justice was set up, examination of judges led to the replacement of most of them, and the court system was simplified.

Despite initial impressive results, there are grounds for disappointment. The independence of courts has increased. However, corruption is still a serious problem in many courts. Courts are overburdened (every judge has to try 5-6 cases a day) and this has a negative effect on the quality of judgement. Moreover, the rate of enforcement of court decisions is very low: 7,228 sentences were not enforced by the end of 1999, and by July 1, 2001 this number increased to 13,081. Such an open defiance of courts by other branches of power is a very troublesome residue of the Soviet system, where courts were not considered agents of independent authority. International human right conventions ratified by the Georgian parliament are still not used in the court practice.

While the level of qualification of judges has somewhat increased as a result of the reform, it is still insufficient. Members of the Council Justice and the chairman of the Supreme Court Lado Tchanturia proposed to establish the Highest School of Justice for judges, procurators and investigators. The Council of Justice plans to submit the respective draft law to Parliament in the fall."

Document(s): cipdd-geo.pdf

26.02.2001 - Source: UN Human Rights Committee

UN Human Rights Committee: Independence of judiciary not guaranteed ("Second periodic report submitted by a State party pursuant to article 40 of the Covenant; Georgia [CCPR/C/GEO/2000/2]") [#49455], [ID 4799]

"12. The Committee expresses its concern at the existence of factors which have an adverse effect on the independence of the judiciary, such as delays in the payment of salaries and the lack of adequate security of tenure for judges."

Document(s): State report
Concluding observations of 19 April 2002 [CCPR/CO/74/GEO]