02.08.2007 - Source: Civil Georgia

Court verdict against opposition politician Irakli Batiashvili is “unjustified” and made on basis of insufficient evidence, public defender says; in May, Irakli Batiashvili was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for providing "intellectual assistance" to war lord ("Ombudsman Speaks Out on Opposition Politician’s Trial") [ID 20721]

Document(s): Open document

05.2007 - Source: Transparency International

Global Corruption Report 2007 ("Global Corruption Report 2007") [ID 20422]

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Access to defense attorneys for indigent defendants was limited in practice; majority of the population could not afford legal representation; as a result, the majority of criminal defendants proceeded without benefit of counsel ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19324]

"Defendants have the right to be present at their trial and to consult with an attorney; however, access to defense attorneys for indigent defendants was limited in practice. While a new nationwide bar association convened in April, it did not offer pro bono or low cost legal services to indigent defendants. The government and NGOs funded legal clinics, although there still remained a shortage of defense attorneys. The economic situation in the country was such that the majority of the population could not afford legal representation. As a result, the majority of criminal defendants proceeded without benefit of counsel. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, by 2007, the ministry of justice is required to provide attorneys to all indigent defendants at government expense."

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

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

NGOs complained about undue influence of prosecutors and executive branch on judicial proceedings; there were instances of prosecutor controlling appointment of defence counsels for the accused ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46124], [ID 4897]

"Many NGOs complained that judicial authorities increasingly acted as a rubber stamp for prosecutors' decisions and that the executive branch exerted undue influence. NGOs expressed concerns that recent judicial appointees lacked experience and training to act independently. [...]
According to April legislation, all defendants must now confirm in court any statements given while in pretrial detention; otherwise, the statements will not be accepted as evidence. NGOs reported that the amendment had little impact, due to either a detainee's fear of reprisal if a confession was not ratified in court or to the lack of public awareness of this protection.
Detainees were physically pressured in order to force them to extract information incriminating others.
In August Irakli Sioridze, a court officer of the MOJ, was detained on charges of exceeding authority. During an hour-long interrogation, several law enforcement officers reportedly beat and kicked him severely in order to force him to give incriminating evidence against Giorgi Usupashvili. According to Sioridze, the officers wanted him to sign a statement saying that Usupashvili had misappropriated $111 thousand (200 thousand GEL). An investigation was opened into the abuse allegations. At year's end Sioridze was held in pretrial detention awaiting trial.
A July amendment to the criminal code increased the vulnerability of witnesses to improper police pressure. The amendment proscribes penalties of up to five years in prison for witnesses who change or retract their original statements to police. NGOs believed this made witnesses less likely to amend initial statements provided under police pressure to suit the police's interests. [...]
Defendants have the right to be present at their trial and to consult with an attorney, although the right to consult with an attorney was limited in practice. When a person is detained and not formally charged (a suspect), the right of attorney consultation is limited to one hour. After a person is formally charged with a crime (a defendant), the right is not limited in this manner.
The state-controlled bar association went unfunded and was defunct at year's end, effectively eliminating the provision of attorneys for detainees unable to afford counsel (the association previously assigned attorneys to indigent defendants based on the prosecutor's office recommendation). NGOs reported that in serious cases in which the law required the accused to be represented by counsel, prosecutors have pooled their personal money to pay for a defense attorney in order to move the case along. In practice the prosecutor's office not only had control over state‑appointed lawyers, but it also influenced whether to grant a defendant's request to change lawyers.
Defendants may question and confront witnesses against them and present witnesses and evidence on their own behalf at trial. Defendants and their attorneys have access to the prosecution's evidence relevant to their cases. In practice the prosecution may not provide the defense with information until the day before trial. Defendants are presumed innocent and have the right to appeal.
Under some provisions, defendants could be tried in absentia.
Many of these rights were not enforced effectively due to the lack of judicial independence and prosecutor pressure.
Defense counsel is not required to be present at pretrial hearings, and defendants and their attorneys regularly complained that they were not notified of scheduled hearings. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

01.02.2006 - Source: Transparency International

Plea bargains, allowing defendant to cooperate with investigation instead of pleading guilty, were introduced to fight corruption of officials; it is alleged that arbitrary application of plea bargains and lack of documentation might lead to new forms of corruption ("Global Corruption Report 2006") [#44269], [ID 4898]

"The government’s use of ‘plea bargains’ to confiscate illegally obtained funds from public officials was welcomed as a valuable new tool in the fight against corruption when introduced in February 2004. Georgians are now considering the ethical dimension of plea bargains and asking whether the amendment that made them possible truly upholds the rule of law. In spring 2004, the Saakashvili administration went after a number of officials known to have taken millions of dollars in some of the country’s most famous cases of public sector graft. But the idea behind the campaign – to penalise individuals protected by the so-called ‘impunity syndrome’ – is viewed by the more cynical as a means of raising additional funds for the budget. Plea-bargaining, a deliberately vague addition to the Criminal Procedures Code, allows a defendant to ‘cooperate with the investigation’ rather than plead guilty to a crime. While a guilty plea means automatic jail time, ‘cooperation’ is an informal arrangement whose outcome is decided by officials in the prosecutor’s office. […] Saakashvili’s administration argues that it has held corrupt officials accountable, but others – including the influential NGOs Georgian Young Lawyers Association and Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS) – claim that lack of information on plea bargains and the arbitrary manner in which they are being handled creates far greater concern about the protection of civil liberties. Crucial details in plea-bargaining cases, including the identity of the individuals in question, the number of cases and the sums of money restored, are only partly documented at present. Since cases are settled arbitrarily by prosecuting officials, it is evident that plea-bargaining could lead to other forms of corruption.[…] ‘There is no system of monitoring and none of the information is transparent’, said David Usupashvili, head of IRIS and chairman of the Republican Party of Georgia. ‘The procedural rules are meaningless and, as a result, human rights violations and levels of corruption will only increase.’ […]"

Document(s): Open document

11.01.2006 - Source: EurasiaNet

Use of detainee fines, an estimated 45.5 million lari, highly intransparent, NGOs criticise ("Georgian NGOs: Chash trail for detainee fines tricky to track") [#44754], [ID 4899]

Document(s): Open document

05.01.2006 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Amendments to Code of Criminal Procedure in May 2005 strengthen rights of detainees; maximum trial and pre-trial detention terms were reduced significantly; accused has right to request criminal action against person who tortured him ("Implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 10779]") [#41527], [ID 4900]

"104. In our previous report we welcomed the assurances of the Georgian authorities that a new code of criminal procedure (CCP) was being elaborated. However, in February 2005 the Council of Europe experts expressed the opinion that while most of the proposed amendments were compatible with European standards, the new draft was considered to be largely unsatisfactory. [...]
106. The amendments which entered into force on 3 May 2005 in consultation with Council of Europe experts, have as main objective to strengthen the protection of detainees' rights. The burden of proof for the necessity of pre-trial detention has been placed on the prosecutor, rather than on the defence; the testimony given by the defendant in the course of preliminary investigation can only be admitted if it is confirmed in court. The maximum trial length of a person under accusation has been reduced from 24 to 12 months. [...]. Another amendment, the reduction of the maximum pre-trial detention term from 9 to 4 months, is coming into effect on 1 January 2006.
[...] According to information provided by the office of the Prosecutor General, draft amendments to the CCP under consideration by Parliament provide that the plea agreement can only be accepted after the court has ascertained that there has been no torture, inhumane or degrading treatment. The accused has the right to request criminal proceedings against the relevant person(s) in case of such treatment."

Document(s): Open document

05.01.2006 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Anti-corruption campaign was launched in 2004-2005; authorities say young magistrates replaced some corrupt judges; Human Rights Watch alleged that due to non-transparency of campaign judges fear dismissal for decisions that displease government ("Implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 10779]") [#41527], [ID 4901]

"102. The system has been notorious for the corruption within it and the Justice Minister recognised that it still exists, although recent energetic efforts are beginning to bear fruit. Salaries of magistrates were increased significantly in 2004-2005 and a massive campaign against corruption in the judiciary was launched by the authorities. However, according to Human Rights Watch, "this campaign seems to lack a set of clear criteria for reviewing judges' performance, leading judges to fear dismissal for issuing decisions that displease the government".[...]
103. Some judges, the most corrupt ones according to the authorities, have been removed; in parallel, young magistrates are being appointed. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Center

Judges are pressured by officials to rule in a specific manner; frequently judges lack professional skills, knowledge of international human rights standards, and sentence people to pre-detention regardless the gravity of their suspected crime ("Next Stop – Belarus?; Human Rights Report 2005; Georgia") [#43007], [ID 4902]

For documentation of individual cases please refer to the original document

"IThe judiciary, which is an absolutely crucial institute in every democratic country, can only function if it is not only formally, but also factually, independent from pressure either from the government or any other interested parties. Unfortunately, in Georgia there is an absolute lack of the latter. Police, prosecutors, and the judiciary are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to speak of independence. Judges are frequently pressured by officials to go along with the demands of the prosecutor or to rule in a manner which is desirable for the government. Recently, four Supreme Court judges have been sacked by the Disciplinary Board for alleged ill-performance of duties. According to the judges themselves, they have fallen victim to a hunt initiated after they refused several times to rule in accordance with orders. In most cases, judges are quite open to corruption.
Too frequently they have poor professional skills and lack knowledge of international human rights standards and legislation. Intended, as well as unintended, mistakes are made and procedural norms violated.
Another problem, which is closely related to several others highlighted in this report, is that courts usually sentence people to pre-detention seemingly unrelated to the gravity of the suspected crime. Apart from this being a violation of human rights (detention is a strong inroad upon individual freedom that it should be applied very cautiously), this also leads to overcrowding in pre-detention facilities and opens the way for ill-treatment during custody."

Document(s): Open document

29.11.2005 - Source: Civil Georgia

Tbilisi: Court sentenced resident of Zemo Artsevi, to 23 years of imprisonment for murder, extortion and banditry; defense lawyer alleged that investigators were intimidating witnesses during trial ("Tbilisi Court Sentences Ossetian to 23-Year Imprisonment") [#41968], [ID 4903]

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 4904]

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Although legal position of suspects has improved after amendment of Criminal Procedure Code in August 2004, new law is sometimes not observed; according to lawyers, witnesses are vulnerable to pressure from police, since they can now be imprisoned for discrepancy in statements ("Torture and ill-treatment Still a concern after the "Rose Revolution"") [#39567], [ID 4905]

"Access to the outside world and legal counsel

[…] Before a legal amendment adopted in August 2004 came into force, under the CPC people who were arrested by police had no legal status for up to 12 hours until they were formally declared suspects. Only those formally declared as suspects were entitled to access to a lawyer, according to the legislation. As a result of the amendment, the CPC now specifies that people have the status of suspects from the time of their arrest. They are also entitled to access to a lawyer immediately after arrest. […] However, there were cases in recent months where access to a lawyer was denied or granted only after a delay. When lawyers want to see their clients in the preliminary detention facility they need oral permission from the investigator in the case. […]
While in the past the lawyer was only permitted to visit his/her client for a maximum of one hour per day, the time limit was abolished in August 2004. The investigator is entitled to restrict access if s/he considers the frequency and length of meetings to be unreasonable. The investigator’s decision can be appealed to the procurator or the judge by the lawyer. According to the CPC, the family of the detainee has to be notified of the arrest by the investigator or procurator within five hours and, in the case of a minor, within three hours after the arrest. Amnesty International learnt of several cases where this provision was not observed. […]

Witnesses

Article 13 of the Convention against Torture obliges states to take steps to "ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given". According to the CPC, witnesses and victims are entitled to request protection from the state in connection with the proceedings, including protection of life, health, honour and dignity. However, in practice there have been complaints that witnesses did not receive adequate protection in many cases.
Many lawyers and human rights activists were alarmed by a recent amendment to the Criminal Code as they believed it increased the vulnerability of witnesses to police pressure. The amendment that came into force in July 2005 stipulates that "deliberately impeding the administration of justice by means of deposing of substantially discrepant evidence by a witness or a victim is punishable with a fine or deprivation of liberty of up to five years". […] In many cases people have been summoned to the police as witnesses but following questioning have been arrested and charged. Amnesty International believes that witnesses are in a particularly vulnerable position and that further safeguards need to be introduced to protect their human rights."

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

There were cases when police forced detainees to relinquish their right to lawyer, according to lawyer Dzebniauri; not all suspects are properly informed of all their rights ("Torture and ill-treatment Still a concern after the "Rose Revolution"") [#39567], [ID 4906]

"Interrogation and questioning

The lawyer Girshel Dzebniauri told Amnesty International on 27 October 2005 that there were cases where police forced detainees to sign a statement relinquishing their right to a lawyer at certain times during the investigation, in particular during interrogations. […] According to the CPC, the interrogation of the suspect has to start within 24 hours after the arrest. According to an amendment to Article 303 of the CPC adopted in March 2005, "relevant audio or video recording facilities may be used during interrogation. Interrogation shall always be recorded by means of the above-mentioned technical facilities if the interrogated person solicits such recording and provides all necessary technical facilities for it." It remains unclear to Amnesty International whether detainees are informed of this right. As of October 2005 it was not included in the lists of rights of suspects and defendants that police are obliged to pass on to them. […]

Legal safeguards and implementation

[…] Amnesty International has received numerous reports alleging shortcomings in the implementation of legal safeguards. The Ombudsman’s monitoring of police stations and preliminary detention facilities revealed that out of those detainees interviewed by the Ombudsman and his staff in Tbilisi in August 2005, 31 detainees were not explained their rights as suspects; 26 were not informed of their right to legal defence; 29 were not told of their right to remain silent; and 20 were not given a copy of a leaflet outlining their rights as detainees. […]"

Document(s): Open document

15.11.2005 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Protests against amendments to criminal procedure as well as government's encouragement on police to kill armed criminals ("Georgia: Former Minister Campaigns Against Amendments To Judicial Legislation") [#39272], [ID 4907]

Document(s): Open document

11.11.2005 - Source: Prima News

Opposition opposes Parliamentary Judicial Committee's proposed amendments to Criminal Proceedings Code; publicity of trial endangered by judges' new competences regarding press and prohibition of photo and video in detention places ("Are press to be permitted to attend trials in Georgia?") [#39066], [ID 4908]

Document(s): Open document

10.2005 - Source: UK Home Office

During 2004 impunity, arbitrary arrests and detention remained problems; judiciary system still lacked true independence and there were lenghty delays in trials ("Operation Guidance Note: Georgia") [#39388], [ID 4909]

"2.11 Arbitrary arrest and detention remained problems, as did lack of accountability and police misconduct, such as the fabrication or planting of evidence, also remained problems. Impunity remained a problem, particularly in outlying regions however, during 2004, there were several cases of police officers brought to trial, dismissed, or demoted for abuses and corruption in law enforcement agencies decreased. The judiciary system continued to lack true independence, and the executive branch and prosecutors' offices continued to exert undue influence on judges. There were lengthy delays in trials, and prolonged pre-trial detention remained a problem."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Courts are influenced by pressure from the executive branch ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41311], [ID 4910]

"The judiciary is not fully independent, with courts influenced by pressure from the executive branch. The payment of bribes to judges is reported to be common. As part of the effort to reduce corruption and improve the performance of law enforcement, the government dismissed half of the police force in August. Despite recent reform efforts, the law enforcement community continues to face accusations of torture. Interior Minister Irakli Okruashvili and the general prosecutor, Zurab Adeishvili, promised to work to eradicate human rights abuses within law enforcement agencies. They announced that monitoring groups would be created under the ombudsman’s office to control the activities of the police and other law enforcement bodies."

Document(s): Open document

04.07.2005 - Source: UN Committee Against Torture

In January 2003 certain provisions regarding detention and right to a defence were ruled unconstitutional; principle that statements made under coercion are inadmissible as evidence is incorporated in Georgian law ("Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention; Third periodic reports of States parties due in 2003; Addendum; Georgia [CAT/C/73/Add.1]") [#37524], [ID 4911]

"17. On 29 January 2003, the Georgian Constitutional Court examined and allowed in part the constitutional action brought by the Ombudsman and several NGOs to have a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure declared unconstitutional. Specifically, these were the norms regulating detention and the detainee’s exercise of his or her right to a defence. [...]

19. The Court ruled unconstitutional and struck down the following grounds for detention that previously existed under procedural law:
- Need to present a person to the police;
- Having no fixed abode;
- Failure to establish a person’s identity;
- When there is “other evidence”.
20. The Court also indicated that only persons officially recognized as suspects may be detained.
21. In its decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized that, “immediately upon being detained, persons must have their rights explained to them and be given the opportunity to exercise the following rights:
–The right to remain silent;
–The right not to incriminate themselves;
–The right to be assisted by counsel."
22. With reference to the last-mentioned provision, the Court deemed it necessary to explain that “detained suspects may request the assistance of counsel not only prior to their (initial) interrogation but as soon as they are arrested, in order to safeguard their legitimate interests and provide them with competent legal assistance”. […]

24. At the same time, it should be noted that, in practice, violations of the constitutionally and statutorily defined 72-hour period of short-term detention do occur. Accordingly, the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is taking a number of practical steps, for example scheduled and unannounced checks of duty units and police lock-ups. In 2002, there were 65 checks of this kind, as a result of which disciplinary sanctions were taken against those guilty of the offences listed above; 26 officers were relieved of their duties. […] According to recent data supplied by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, during the period January-July 2003 only 12 prisoners were transferred to prisons in breach of the 72-hour period of short-term detention. [...]

Article 11 (Monitoring)
56. [...] In January 2004, a provision of this Act will enter into force, whereby a convicted person who does not know the State language (Georgian) shall have his rights, the regulations of the correctional institution and any requirements relating to him explained to him in his native language or in another language that he understands (art. 21, para. 4). […]

Article 15 (Statements made under torture)
88. Pursuant to the Committee’s recommendation that “all statements obtained by force from detained persons should be investigated and may never be used as evidence”, it should be stressed that article 42, paragraph 7, of the Georgian Constitution stipulates that evidence obtained illegally has no legal force.
89. The provisions of the general constitutional requirement cited above have also been incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, article 7 of the Code states that “evidence obtained illegally has no legal force”. Article 10 on the presumption of innocence fully reflects this universally recognized principle, the first time it has been provided for as such in Georgian procedural law. Judicial supervision has been introduced for any procedural actions undertaken by persons conducting initial inquiries, investigators or procurators which involve limitation of citizens’ constitutional rights and freedoms; suspects, accused persons and other parties to proceedings are entitled to appeal to a court if their complaint or application is dismissed by a person conducting an initial inquiry, an investigator or a procurator (art. 15).
90. The Code of Criminal Procedure further states that the confessions of accused persons, if not supported by other evidence, are insufficient to conclude that such persons actually committed the offences. No testimony may be obtained under duress. The use of physical or mental coercion to obtain testimony is prohibited, as blackmail; testimony obtained in this way shall not be admitted (arts. 19 and 119). Any evidence obtained in breach of the statutorily defined procedure, and specifically through the use of violence, threats, blackmail or harassment, is deemed inadmissible and is excluded from the criminal case. Prosecution evidence that has been ruled invalid may, however, be admitted at the application of the defence (art. 111). [...]

93. In the context of the recommendations of the Committee against Torture concerning the practice of interrogating detainees as witnesses, which denies them the right to the assistance of a lawyer, it should be noted that, according to article 305, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “at the request of the witness, his or her lawyer may be present during the interrogation”. Thus, it is unlawful to deny a witness of the assistance of a lawyer. […]"

Document(s): State report
Concluding observations of 25 July 2006 [CAT/C/GEO/CO/3]

15.06.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

President expanded his authority over judiciary, so judges now fear dismissal for decisions that displease the government ("Georgia and the European Neighbourhood Policy") [#35208], [ID 4912]

"Independence of Judges
Among the constitutional amendments hurriedly adopted in 2004 was one empowering the president to appoint and dismiss judges, thus expanding presidential authority over a judiciary that already suffered from a lack of independence. NGOs, lawyers, and independent experts told Human Rights Watch that during 2004 the president exercised this control in several ways that illustrate the vulnerability of the judiciary to further incursions on its independence. For example, an August 2004 presidential decree enacted changes to the court structure that would have substantially reduced the number of judges. According to the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, the government did not set out any criteria for deciding which judges would be retrenched, which led to fears among judges of imminent dismissal. Two further decrees have postponed this proposed court restructuring.
Corruption was widespread in the judiciary prior to the Rose Revolution, and the government’s campaign against corruption in the judiciary is a welcome and necessary step for the creation of a fair justice system. But this campaign seems to lack a set of clear criteria for reviewing judges’ performance, leading judges to fear dismissal for issuing decisions that displease the government."

Document(s): Open document

15.06.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary was reluctant to disagree with prosecution and to withstand political pressure ("Nations in Transit 2005") [#32929], [ID 4913]

For details please refer to the original document

"Judicial Framework and Independence. The Georgian Constitution provides important safeguards for the protection of human rights and the independence of the judiciary. However, in 2004 the judiciary was less likely to withstand political pressure, and courts rarely disagreed with the prosecution’s demands. Against the backdrop of a more active fight against organized crime, reports on torture in preliminary detention facilities increased. The prosecution often violated due process in politically sensitive cases related to allegations of corruption. On the positive side, there was important progress in curbing violence against religious minorities. Owing to violations of due process by the prosecutor’s office and a decrease in the independence of the judiciary, the rating drops from 4.50 to 5.00."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2005 - Source: US Department of State

In practice, judicial authorities continued to experience pressure from the executive branch and powerful outside interests; influence on impending court cases in high-profile corruption cases by president Saakashvili ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2004") [#29503], [ID 4914]

"The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice, judicial authorities continued to experience pressure from the executive branch and powerful outside interests. The judiciary did not exercise full independence, and judicial impartiality was limited. Many NGOs complained that judicial authorities often acted as a rubber stamp for prosecutors' decisions and that the executive branch exerted undue influence. Investigators often planted or fabricated evidence and extorted confessions in direct violation of the Constitution. Judges were reluctant to exclude evidence obtained illegally if the Prosecutor General objected. Courts continued to convict on the strength of confessions that may have been extracted under torture. Bribery decreased as salaries for judges increased.

President Saakashvili and other government officials often made public statements concerning the guilt of detained suspects in high-profile corruption cases before a trial had commenced, thus exerting undue influence on impending court cases, as judges felt pressured to uphold the President's "opinions.""

Document(s): Open document

13.01.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

President’s influence over judiciary increased as one of the constitutional changes now empowers the president to appoint and dismiss judges ("World report 2005") [#28220], [ID 4915]

"One change
empowered the president to appoint and dismiss judges. This change—which contravenes international
human rights norms—increases the president’s influence over a judiciary which already lacked
independence."

Document(s): Open document

12.2004 - Source: Human Rights Center

Rule of law ("One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Human Rights in Georgia after the “Rose Revolution”") [#27594], [ID 4916]

For a documentation of individual cases please refer to the original document

"The Rule of Law is still shaky. The procedural norms are violated every day by quick and
unjustified decisions of law enforcers and other authorities, which sometimes cause further
problems or end in the revocation of declarations."

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 4917]

Document(s): Open document

31.03.2003 - Source: US Department of State

US State Department: Payment of bribes to judges common ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002") [#11848], [ID 4918]

"The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice the judiciary often did not exercise full independence, and judicial impartiality was limited. While 1999 judicial reforms resulted in the appointment of some better qualified judges, observers agreed that judicial authorities continued to experience pressure from the executive branch and powerful outside interests. Several observers have questioned the sustainability of a reformed judiciary without reform of law enforcement institutions. Human rights organizations, including HRW, alleged that investigators sometimes planted or fabricated evidence and extorted confessions in direct violation of the Constitution. Judges were reluctant to exclude evidence obtained illegally if the Prosecutor General objected. Courts continued to convict on the strength of confessions that may have been extracted under torture. The state continued to prevent defendants from obtaining and presenting forensic evidence of torture to the courts through procedural restrictions and by not licensing nongovernment forensic doctors.

Other results of the judicial reform effort were inconclusive. Judicial incompetence and corruption, including the payment of bribes to judges, still were problems. Although there were reports by several trial attorneys and local NGOs in Tbilisi that some cases were being handled in a more expeditious manner since reforms, progress outside of Tbilisi was not as marked. Observers commented that although judges were better educated, they were hindered by lack of practical experience. Human rights organizations pointed to judges' limited experience in case law as a contributing factor. Due to the Government's fiscal crisis, at times judges' salaries went unpaid up to 6 months, creating an incentive for corruption. Pressure from family and political and economic interest groups was extensive, and bribery was common."

Document(s): Open document

26.11.2002 - Source: Human Rights Watch

HRW: Erosion of safeguards against torture ("“Pro-Torture” Legislation Looms in Georgia") [#9686], [ID 4919]

"The interior minister was summoned before parliament to account for rising crime after last Wednesday’s murder in central Tbilisi of Kakhi Asatiani—a businessman and former soccer star. In parliament, Narchemashvili first blamed legislators for having adopted a criminal procedure code that he said ties his ministry’s hands. He then demanded extension of the 12 hours the code currently allows the police to detain suspects incommunicado, and suggested that his ministry should take back some operational control of pre-trial detention facilities from the Ministry of Justice. In a television program that night, Narchemashvili proposed that witnesses be stripped of the right to legal representation. [...]
“What the interior minister is pushing for is a torturers’ charter,” said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central Asia division. “Both the Council of Europe and the U.N. have demanded more safeguards for detainees in Georgia, but now the Interior Ministry proposes the exact opposite.” [...]
In 1998, under Council of Europe guidance, Georgia adopted a new criminal procedure code that strengthened due process protections for detainees. But in May and July 1999—just weeks after Georgia’s accession to the Council of Europe—the Georgian parliament adopted dozens of regressive amendments to the code, stripping away these protections, including the right to file a complaint with a court about abuse or torture during pre-trial detention. Human Rights Watch’s concern over these amendments prompted the publication in October 2000 of its report, Backtracking on Reform: Amendments Undermine Access to Justice.

“The 1999 amendments were a huge step backwards. The harmful effect they had on detainees’ rights needs to be reversed—not exacerbated,” said Andersen.

One present criminal procedure code provision hands the police 12 hours effectively to do whatever they wish with detainees, before giving them access to a lawyer or doctor. The 12-hour rule is at variance with Georgia’s constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Georgia is a party. Georgia’s Ombudswoman Nana Devdariani and two nongovernmental organizations have filed a challenge to its validity with the Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, the interior minister has now complained that 12 hours of incommunicado detention is an insufficient amount of time for police officers.

The 1999 amendments also stripped witnesses of the right to legal representation, but a June 2001 amendment restored this right. On Thursday, Narchemashvili argued that it was a superfluous right, and should be removed from the code. However, in the “Backtracking on Reform” report, Human Rights Watch documented the common police tactic of purposefully classifying detained suspects as witnesses in order to deprive them of access to counsel and other rights.

In his appearance before parliament, Narchemashvili argued that criminal investigations suffered because police were no longer able to conduct “operative measures” in pre-trial detention facilities. In early 2000, the Georgian government transferred control over these facilities from the Interior Ministry to the Ministry of Justice, in compliance with its Council of Europe obligations. Since then, the facilities have become more transparent to scrutiny."

Document(s): Open document

25.07.2002 - Source: Council of Europe - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Council of Europe: Criminal suspects may be held by police up to 48 hours ("Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 6 to 18 May 2001 [CPT/Inf(2002) 14]") [#11884], [ID 4920]

"16. The detention of persons suspected of criminal offences is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), in force since May 1999 (with a number of subsequent amendments).
A criminal suspect may be held by the police on their own authority for up to 48 hours; he must be interrogated within 24 hours.1 This time is used by operational police officers (the “body of inquiry”) and investigating officers to interrogate the suspect, perform any other necessary investigative acts and decide whether or not to bring criminal charges. If it is decided to bring charges, a request for the application of a procedural preventive measure is sent to the judge who, within 24 hours, should decide whether the person concerned is to be remanded in custody, subjected to another preventive measure (e.g. house arrest, bail, etc.) or released.2 Consequently, a criminal suspect may in principle spend up to 72 hours in police custody. Persons remanded in custody are transferred to pre-trial establishments under the Ministry of Justice.
17. Reference should also be made to sections 72 (3) and 146 (2) of the CCP, which allow the police to hold persons for up to 12 hours before formally declaring them suspects and officially detaining them. This time is used by the “body of inquiry” to question persons apprehended on the scene of the crime and eye-witnesses, and to secure other evidence. If the initial suspicion is confirmed, the “body of inquiry” initiates criminal proceedings and draws up a resolution formally declaring the person concerned a suspect, as well as a protocol of detention. Copies of these documents must be immediately sent to the relevant prosecutor for information."

Document(s): Report
Report Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1] Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1]

25.07.2002 - Source: Council of Europe - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Council of Europe: Access to lawyer often denied ("Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 6 to 18 May 2001 [CPT/Inf(2002) 14]") [#11884], [ID 4922]

"39. Section 73 (1) of the CCP stipulates that a suspect has the right to consult up to three lawyers whose services are either paid for by the person concerned or free of charge. There is also an obligation on the part of police staff to immediately inform a suspect of his right to a lawyer.5
As regards the actual content of the right of access to a lawyer, it includes the right to have the lawyer present during interrogations, to meet with him in private for up to one hour a day, and to have the lawyer consult the investigation file.6 It should also be noted that under section 81 of the
CCP, the participation of a lawyer is obligatory in the case of certain categories of detained persons: minors, mentally disturbed or handicapped persons, persons unable to speak Georgian, persons who have committed offences punishable with life sentences, etc. [...] Many persons interviewed by the delegation stated that they had requested to see a lawyer, but
such access had been refused until after they had signed a statement admitting the offence of which they were suspected. Defence lawyers spoken to by the delegation indicated that they often experienced difficulties in gaining access to their clients, and that the permitted duration of each
meeting (one hour per day) tended to be substantially reduced."

Document(s): Report
Report Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1] Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1]

25.07.2002 - Source: Council of Europe - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Council of Europe: Medical care in detention facilities ("Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 6 to 18 May 2001 [CPT/Inf(2002) 14]") [#11884], [ID 4925]

"44. As already mentioned (cf. paragraph 34), the temporary detention isolators of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs and of the Main City Department of Internal Affairs in Tbilisi were making use of the
services of police doctors. However, at the former establishment, the delegation noted that the doctor
had practically no medication or equipment at his disposal. Staff at the rest of the establishments visited indicated that they would not hesitate to call a
doctor from the nearest health centre or transfer the person concerned to a hospital in case of need; they also stated that they would have no objections to calling a doctor of the detainee’s own choice, although it was apparently very rare for detainees to make such a request. However, a number of
persons interviewed by the delegation claimed that they had asked to see a doctor but their request had not been granted. The delegation also heard complaints that the taking of vital medicines had been
interrupted during police custody."

Document(s): Report
Report Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1] Government response [CPT/Inf(2004) 1]

25.04.2002 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

IHF: Serious abuse of detainees, procedural irregularities during criminal investigations, widespread corruption in the judicial system ("Judicial Systems and Human Rights in the OSCE Region in 2001") [#6676], [ID 4927]

"The high profile reform of the court system continued in 2000. However, many problems persisted. Unless otherwise noted, based on information received by the IHF and its affiliate, the Caucasian Centre for Human Rights.
The Parliament failed to restore the improvements brought about by the May 1999 Criminal Procedure Code that was in line with international human rights standards. Soon after the positive amendments, the Parliament modified almost half of the new Criminal Code provisions. As a result, many of the new provisions again severely eroded the rights of persons under investigation, narrowing access to courts of general jurisdiction during criminal investigations. These amendments particularly hampered the possibility to file complaints with a court for abuse during a criminal investigation. The
repeal of the reforms was alarming given the frequent reports of serious abuse of detainees and other procedural irregularities during criminal investigations and widespread corruption also in the judicial system. In addition, the practice of restricting access to courts left law enforcement officials wide
scope for coercing bribes from suspects while providing little or no recourse for an effective legal remedy to protest such misconduct. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in 2001 expressed “its deep concern with regard
to allegations of ill-treatment or torture of detainees in police custody and pre-trial detention, cases of arbitrary arrests and detentions, the violation of the rights of persons under police arrest or in pre-trial detention – in particular their right to consult a lawyer and to communicate with their family – complaints on violation of procedural rights, cases of intimidation, violation of the right to privacy, phone tapping, and so on”.
The criminal justice system continued to put great emphasis on isolating detainees during criminal investigations, and incommunicado detention was a serious concern. Visits by family members and other outside contact were severely limited during the pre-trial period and subject to the control of the
prosecutor. What was more, defence lawyers often found it difficult to meet with their clients, and there were persistent complaints that investigators impeded lawyers from visiting their clients, or in some cases, prevented detainees from retaining lawyers of their own choosing. The amendments to the
criminal procedure code severely weakened judicial oversight of the power of the prosecutor during the pre-trial period. The near absence of judicial oversight prior to trial was particularly troubling, as this was the time when most torture and ill-treatment occurred."

Document(s): Open document
00808osce.pdf

04.03.2002 - Source: US Department of State

US State Department: Lawyers' and families' access to detainees often limited by local authorities ("Annual report 2001") [#5795], [ID 4924]

"The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice the judiciary often does not exercise full independence, and judicial impartiality is limited. The judicial reform process, completed in 1999, resulted in the appointment of some better qualified judges; however, observers agreed that judicial authorities continued to experience pressure from the executive branch and powerful outside interests. Investigators routinely planted or fabricated evidence and extort confessions in direct violation of the Constitution. Judges were reluctant to exclude evidence obtained illegally if the Procuracy objected. [...]
According to the Constitution, a detainee is presumed innocent and has the right to a public trial. A detainee has the right to demand immediate access to a lawyer and the right to refuse to make a statement in the absence of counsel. Officers must inform detainees of their rights and notify their families of their location as soon as possible. However, these rights are not observed fully in practice. Authorities frequently do not permit detainees to notify their families of their location, which is in violation of the June amendments to the criminal procedure code that specifically provide that if a witness so requests his lawyer can attend his questioning, who may in turn notify family members. However, local police authorities limited lawyers' access to detainees. Defense attorneys and family members often have difficulty obtaining permission to visit clients. Investigators seldom inform individuals of their rights. Lengthy trial delays were common. Defense counsel is not required to be present at pretrial hearings, and defendants and their attorneys regularly complained that they were not notified of scheduled hearings. Under the Criminal Procedures Code, the police are not obliged to allow a lawyer to enter a police station unless hired by a detainee. During the year, the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and National Minorities created a card listing a citizen's rights in case of arrest."

Document(s): Open document

04.03.2002 - Source: US Department of State

US State Department: Use of torture to extract money or confessions increased in 2001 ("Annual report 2001") [#5795], [ID 4926]

"Human rights advocates reported that allegations of the use of torture, such as electric shock, to extract money or confessions significantly increased during the year. During the year, Human Rights Watch reported that mistreatment and physical abuse of detainees was a major problem. However, some observers noted that when the Ministry of State Security (as opposed to the Interior Ministry) managed an investigation, allegations of physical abuses were rare."

Document(s): Open document

13.09.2001 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Council of Europe: Rights to persons under police arrest or in pre-trial detention not guaranteed ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia [Doc. 9191]") [#10653], [ID 4928]

"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."

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 4929]

"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

26.02.2001 - Source: UN Human Rights Committee

UN Human Rights Committee: Persons can be kept up to 72 hours in police detention before being informed of charges against them ("Second periodic report submitted by a State party pursuant to article 40 of the Covenant; Georgia [CCPR/C/GEO/2000/2]") [#49455], [ID 4921]

"9. The Committee is concerned at the length of the period (up to 72 hours) that persons can be kept in police detention and before they are informed of the charges against them. It is also concerned at the fact that, until the trial takes place, the accused cannot make a complaint before a judge regarding abuse or ill-treatment during the period of detention."

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

26.02.2001 - Source: UN Human Rights Committee

UN Human Rights Committee: Difficulties in gaining access to lawyers ("Second periodic report submitted by a State party pursuant to article 40 of the Covenant; Georgia [CCPR/C/GEO/2000/2]") [#49455], [ID 4923]

"11. The Committee expresses its concern at the difficulties that detainees and persons charged with an offence have in gaining access to lawyers, particularly court-appointed lawyers. Although the law provides for the latter, budgetary problems are obstructing the enjoyment of this right."

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