23.05.2007 - Source: Amnesty International

Impunity of police officers remains; investigations of allegations of police torture or ill-treatment in dozens of cases; five officers were sentenced to prison terms; investigations allegedly not thorough or impartial in at least some cases ("Annual Report 2007") [ID 20120]

"Police officers continued to enjoy impunity in dozens of cases in which torture, ill-treatment and excessive use of force have been alleged.[…]

In a positive move in April, parliament removed any time limit on the period in which charges could be brought for the crimes of torture, threat of torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment.

Investigations were opened into allegations of police torture or ill-treatment in dozens of cases. Five officers were sentenced to prison terms of between three and seven years. Investigations were allegedly not thorough or impartial in at least some cases.

In May the UN Committee against Torture called on the authorities to introduce regular monitoring by an independent oversight body of human rights violations by police and prison personnel; to strengthen investigative capacity to ensure allegations of torture or other ill-treatment were investigated promptly and thoroughly; and to promptly inform all detainees of their rights to counsel and to be examined by a medical doctor of their own choice. The Committee also recommended legislation on reparation for victims of abuse and in the meantime practical measures to provide redress, fair and adequate compensation, and rehabilitation."

Document(s): Open document

02.2007 - Source: Human Rights Center

Long-standing problem of impunity for excessive use of force by law enforcement agents remains; according to the practice in force, it can be assumed that state killings are taking place under the cover of “special operations” ("The Velvet Downfall; Human Rights Situation in Georgia in 2006") [ID 20416]

"The government has failed to confront the long-standing problem of impunity for excessive use of force by law enforcement agents.  

The so-called special operations held by law-enforcement bodies of Georgia in most cases are characterized by excessive severity and end up with liquidation of those persons who are supposed to be detained. According to the practice in force, it can be assumed that state killings are taking place under the cover of “special operations”. […]  

A number of suspects were killed by Georgian law enforcement officers during special operations and at the time of arrest, continuing a trend begun in 2005. In 2006, 17 suspects were killed; in one instance, over 50 bullet wounds were recorded on the suspect’s body.  

Senior officials, including President Mikheil Saakashvili and the minister of the interior have made public statements condoning the use of lethal force and praising the professionalism of law enforcement agents. In late November the prosecutor general’s office reported that it was investigating the deaths of 13 people killed in the course of special operations, though at this writing it was not possible to determine the effectiveness of these investigations.  

On May 19th, the Ombudsman of Georgia presented the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee within the Parliament of Georgia with a report on the human rights situation in Georgia. Sozar Subari criticized police officers of using excessive force during special operations.  

A big part of the report concerns deaths during special operations. The Ombudsmen cannot remember any time when those responsible for violations in the course of a bloody special operation were punished. He named concrete cases where excessive force by the police was used. These are: the special operation carried out on May 2nd and during the prison riot on March 27th."

Document(s): Open document

18.05.2006 - Source: EurasiaNet

Government intending to improve performance of law-enforcement agencies; critics, however, say that police and other Interior Ministry personnel are undermining basic rights and are relying on excessive force to curb crime ("Georgia’s Crime Fighting Campaign Comes Under Scrutiny") [ID 15809]

Document(s): Open document

08.05.2006 - Source: Civil Georgia

Parliamentary Chairperson Nino Burjanadze instructs Parliamentary Committees for Legal Issues and Human Rights to study issue of the use of excessive force by police during recent operations after 2 people were shot by policemen on 2 May ("MPs to Probe into Controversial Police Operation") [ID 15372]

Document(s): Dokument

02.05.2006 - Source: Civil Georgia

Tbilisi: 2 criminal suspects shot dead by police after refusing to surrender; parliamentary committee for human rights calls on investigation over potentially unnecessary police violence ("Bloody Shootout Triggers Debates on Police Violence ") [ID 15367]

Document(s): Dokument

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Torture was combatted by shorter detention time limits, new rules on evidence admissibility and new monitoring system of police stations; several police officers were prosecuted for torture; according to NGOs, while effective in Tbilisi, the measures did not work elsewhere in the country ("World Report 2006") [#42316],  [ID 5917]

"Torture, impunity, and denial of due process remain serious problems in Georgia. By 2005, the government had begun to acknowledge these long-standing concerns and took some steps to combat them. Legislative amendments to criminal laws in 2005 made out-of-court statements inadmissible as evidenceunless confirmed in court and reduced pretrial detention time limits (to take effect from 2006). Further, the authorities prosecuted several police officers for torture or other ill-treatment and helped to set up a monitoring system for police stations under the framework of the Public Defender's Office. According to Georgian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and those involved in the monitoring program, by mid-2005 there had been a reduction in the number of complaints of torture in the capital, Tbilisi. They told Human Rights Watch, however, that there had been a corresponding increase in police violence at the time of arrest and during transportation to the police stations. They also said that the widespread problem of torture in other parts of the country remained largely unaffected by government measures, in part because resources were lacking to monitor effectively police stations in the regions."

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Center

Fight against maltreatment by police is hindered by impunity of police officers; allegedly, in 2004 more than 1000 instances of ill-treatment occurred but only 12 cases were launched against the perpetrators, and only 6 of them were sentenced ("Next Stop – Belarus?; Human Rights Report 2005; Georgia") [#43007],  [ID 5918]

For documentation of individual cases please refer to the original document

"Torture and maltreatment by the Georgian police is one of the topics most highlighted by international and non-governmental organizations, and the problem has also received quite some attention from the government. Nevertheless, a significant risk still exists for criminal suspects to be maltreated by the police during interrogation and pre-detention. The main stumbling block in the fight against maltreatment seems to be the ‘impunity syndrom’ – police officers perceive themselves to be untouchable. Policemen continue to protect one another and apparently no effective remedy to combat this has yet been invented. Although figures in this field are notoriously unreliable, it can be stated with some certainty that an infinitely smaller amount of investigations and prosecutions are started against perpetrators than the most conservative estimation of the number of torture cases. It is believed that in 2004 more than 1000 instances of ill-treatment occurred, but only twelve cases were launched and six perpetrators sentenced. In this regard, Saakashvili’s words of October 28th during a speech at Tbilisi’s business forum are rather striking: "I am proud that we are the first country in this region, where people are no longer beaten up and tortured and where the police does not commit any illegal acts." Other possible explanations for the persistence of ill-treatment are the lack of professional knowledge of interrogation techniques and a lack of means and knowledge of gathering evidence other than by coercing confessions by force. While legal safeguards against maltreatment exist, like the notification of custody, presence of a lawyer, and access to a doctor, these are hardly ever truly enforced. This again demonstrates the difficulty to break through an established practice by legislation alone."

Document(s): Open document

22.12.2005 - Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Continuing impunity of law enforcement officers blamed for torture and other police abuses ("Georgia: 'Culture Of Impunity' Blamed For Torture And Other Police Abuses") [#40940],  [ID 5919]

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Police ill-treatment: Medical doctors examine defendants and document their injuries; allegedly many cases are still covered up by police, and victims are afraid to complain; some NGO activists also fear that doctors in police stations are not impartial ("Torture and ill-treatment Still a concern after the "Rose Revolution"") [#39567],  [ID 5920]

Please refer to the original document for instances

"Bringing cases to light

In 2000 medical doctors working in the penitentiary system under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice started examining defendants and documenting any visible injuries on their bodies when they first entered an investigation-isolation prison. […]Despite improvements there are still significant obstacles to bringing all cases of torture and ill-treatment to light. There are strong indications that police continue to cover-up many cases and that detainees are often afraid to complain about torture or ill-treatment and prefer not to identify the perpetrators for fear of repercussions. […] On 1 January 2005 the Department on Human Rights and Monitoring at the Interior Ministry began to compile statistics on the number of detainees who had bodily injuries when entering the preliminary detention facilities no. 1 and no. 2 in Tbilisi on the basis of medical records provided by the heads of the detention facilities. […] According to data made available to Amnesty International by the Department on Human Rights and Monitoring at the Interior Ministry covering the period from 1 to 27 April 2005, 56 detainees out of a total number of 421 had visible bodily injuries when entering preliminary detention facilities in the regions of Georgia outside Tbilisi. However, according to the statistics, not a single detainee complained about police ill-treatment. […] However, Amnesty International has received information about several cases involving alleged torture and ill-treatment in Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti region in 2004 and 2005 that were passed on to the authorities by lawyers, the regional representative of the Ombudsman or human rights groups. Such cases demonstrate that it is likely that cases involving torture and ill-treatment allegations are still not being picked up and reported by police structures. […] The victims’ fear of repercussions indicates that the government is still a long way away from eradicating torture and ill-treatment. Unless all complaints are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially and the perpetrators are brought to justice, victims will have good reason to be afraid to come forward.

Medical examinations

An August 2004 amendment to the CPC gave the detainee and his lawyer the right to request a medical examination free of charge from the moment of arrest. […] According to information received by Amnesty International, state forensic medical examinations are sometimes not conducted promptly after the lawyer has lodged a request. […] The doctors are charged with examining all detainees who enter the detention facility and recording any visible injuries. In addition, they have the duty to ask the detainee whether he or she has any complaints about the treatment by police and include any such complaints in the medical record. If the detainee has complaints against the police the doctor is obliged to pass them on to the relevant government agencies for investigation. Several NGO activists expressed concern that the medical doctors in police stations were not impartial. […] There have also been allegations of irregularities in connection with the medical examinations carried out when defendants were transferred to the investigation-isolation prisons."

Document(s): Open document

23.11.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Although there is progress in bringing perpetrators of torture to justice, government officials admit that impunity is still of concern ("Torture and ill-treatment Still a concern after the "Rose Revolution"") [#39567],  [ID 5921]

Please refer to the original document for instances

"In some areas government measures to bring perpetrators to justice have brought noticeable results, most significantly the sentencing to prison terms of several police officers. The charges brought against them included "Exceeding official authority" (Article 333, part 3) and "Intentional damage to health with less severe consequences" (Article 118, part 2). According to information provided to Amnesty International by the Human Rights Protection Unit of the General Procuracy on 10 November 2005, 38 criminal cases were opened in relation to torture or ill-treatment allegedly committed by law enforcement officers in 2004 and 118 cases and/or preliminary investigations were opened in 2005. Charges were brought against 22 and 25 law enforcement officers in 2004 and 2005 respectively. […] There have also been noteworthy steps by the authorities to be more transparent about prosecutions of perpetrators and other work conducted to reduce torture or ill-treatment. […]
However, there is continued impunity for human rights violations. […] Government officials interviewed by Amnesty International have generally acknowledged that impunity is still an issue of concern and that further measures have to be taken to fundamentally improve the situation. Amnesty International was concerned that procurators did not open investigations into all potential torture and ill-treatment cases in a systematic manner. It appeared that often investigations were launched following complaints lodged by lawyers who were persistent, by domestic and international NGOs or media attention to the case. In addition, in dozens of cases where the procuracy has opened investigations the perpetrators have not been brought to justice."

Document(s): Open document

23.09.2005 - Source: UN Human Rights Council (formerly UN Commission on Human Rights)

According to Special Rapporteur torture by law enforcement officials still exists in Georgia, and is primarily caused by impunity; for fear of reprisals victims of torture do not complain about perpetrators; new mechanisms allowing check-ups in detention centres have a number of shortcomings ("Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; Mission to Georgia [E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.3]") [#43330],  [ID 5922]

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

"29. The vast majority of the allegations brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur bore common characteristics. They were marked by reports of excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, and violations of safeguards of arrest and detention, including lack of access to a lawyer or satisfactory medical examination upon entry to the detention facility. Torture and ill-treatment were primarily perpetrated in the first 72 hours of police custody (i.e. police stations and temporary isolators under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) to extract confessions for alleged offences. [...] Special Rapporteur concluded that torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials still exists in Georgia.

32. He also notes statistics from the Ministry of Justice which indicate that in the period December 2003 to March 2005, 558 persons with physical injuries were placed in pretrial detention facilities in Georgia while, according to the NGO, Liberty Institute, during that same period 1,067 persons with physical injuries were placed in Prison No. 1 alone. [...]
33. According to the Special Rapporteur, impunity is the principal cause of the perpetuation of torture and ill-treatment. [...]
34. Often because of fear of reprisals against them or their families, as well as exhaustion and shock, victims at the centre of torture allegations may not readily reveal their injuries, request medical treatment or examinations, or complain or identify the perpetrators, even before a judge. And despite the obligation of judges or the procuracy to make inquiries or investigate allegations ex officio, absent a complaint, no further action is taken, including ordering a forensic medical examination. Similarly, where the victim is unwilling to identify the perpetrators, no further action is taken. Moreover, there is no adequate or effective mechanism to protect these victims or witnesses, such as transferring them to another detention facility or improving their security.[...]
36. In initiating an investigation into torture by the police, the procuracy, as an arm of the executive, is faced with an inherent conflict of interest in that it must also work with the police in combating crime. Indeed, a number of allegations have implicated investigators of the procuracy in participating in torture in the course of a criminal investigation. [...]
37. The Special Rapporteur observes that there is little evidence of restitution, compensation, or rehabilitation provided to victims of torture and ill-treatment by the Government. In light of this, he acknowledges the excellent work that a number of NGOs are undertaking in the field of rehabilitation and counselling support for victims of torture.

39. The Special Rapporteur further notes that several mechanisms for visiting places of detention have been established in Georgia. Article 18 of the 1996 Law on the Public Defender of Georgia provides unimpeded access by the Public Defender to all places of detention. [...] A 21-member public monitoring council [...] was established by decree in August 2004, pursuant to article 52 of the 1999 Law on Imprisonment. The provision provides, among other things, that persons authorized by the President are entitled to enter penitentiary institutions without prior permission. In addition, the Chairperson of the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee of Parliament [...] undertakes regular visits to places of detention. The Special Rapporteur also notes information that joint visits by the National Security Council, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the General Procurator’s Office and the Public Defender are envisaged. While these mechanisms may contribute to a degree of prevention of torture and ill-treatment, as they currently function they demonstrate a number of shortcomings, primarily widely differing mandates; lack of overall coordination among them; lack of a regular and systematic programme of visits, including regular follow-up; lack of investigatory powers; lack of adequate resources; and lack of independence, particularly in the case of the council appointed by the President."

Document(s): Open document

04.07.2005 - Source: UN Committee Against Torture

During 2000-2003 a number of legislative and executive measures were taken to investigate and prevent torture conducted by officials ("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 5923]

"12. On 17 May 2002, the President of Georgia issued Decree No. 240 on measures to strengthen the protection of human rights in Georgia. […] The Ministry of Justice prepared a bill to amend the Georgian Criminal Code, which was adopted by Parliament in June 2003. In accordance with that legislation, article 335 of the Criminal Code (Coercion with a view to obtaining an explanation, evidence or a conclusion), which is contained in the chapter entitled “Official crimes”, was amended. According to the new wording of this article, “forcing persons to give an explanation or evidence, or forcing experts to give a conclusion, committed by an official or a person acting in an official capacity, with the use of threats, deceit, blackmail or any other unlawful action” is punishable by deprivation of liberty for from two to five years, and [the guilty parties] shall be prohibited from holding an official position or engaging in (certain) activities for up to five years. The same acts, committed “with the use of violence that endangers life or health, or with the threat of such violence, and also with the use of torture”, are punishable by deprivation of liberty for from 4 to 10 years, and the [guilty parties] shall be prohibited from holding an official position or engaging in (certain) activities for up to 5 years.
13. A study of the new wording of article 335 of the Criminal Code shows that, on the whole, its provisions reflect the definition of “torture” as contained in article 1 of the Convention. Article 335 also imposes rather severe sanctions. […] Article 335 in the Criminal Code criminalizes the use of torture or other unlawful treatment by an official and makes it easier to identify offences of this nature and to obtain a clearer idea of the real situation concerning these types of acts and their punishment.
[…]
33. At the same time, according to the Ministry of Justice, the human rights protection unit of the Corrections Department received no complaints of ill-treatment at the hands of prison officers from remand or convicted prisoners in 2002. It should be noted that the Deprivation of Liberty Act and the Ombudsman Act make it possible to submit such communications without impediment.
[…]
41. Plans of activities to implement the President’s initiative to make Georgia a “torture-free zone” have been developed and are being implemented. […]
42. The Presidential Decree on measures to strengthen the protection of human rights in Georgia requests the Office of the Procurator of Georgia:
“(b) To institute criminal proceedings and conduct appropriate investigations when bodily injury is found to have been inflicted on a person whose liberty has been restricted;
“(c) To institute special monitoring at places of detention and deprivation of liberty with a view to identifying and eradicating cases of torture or degrading treatment or punishment, and prosecute persons found to have committed such acts.”
[…]
76. In the preparation of the present report, the Office of the Procurator and the Ministry of Internal Affairs provided abundant factual materials concerning the identification and investigation of unlawful treatment on the part of law enforcement officers during the period 2000-2003. Generally, the victims of ill-treatment are adult males; with very rare exceptions, there have been no reports of the ill-treatment of women and minors. Data provided by the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs indicate only one case, which took place in February 2002, where B.G., a minor, complained of having been physically mishandled by police officers. Although the materials of the case were referred to the Georgian Procurator’s Office, the allegations could not be confirmed. With regard to the ethnic origin of the victims, the materials in question do not give any reason to believe that there were any racially motivated cases of unlawful treatment during the reporting period. Ethnic Georgians accounted for the overwhelming majority of the victims of arbitrary treatment by the police.
77. In the context of article 12, it should be noted that criminal proceedings in all instances of the possible use of torture or other forms of unlawful treatment are instituted and investigated by procuratorial bodies on the basis of the materials submitted by the relevant internal affairs agencies.
[…]
86. […] Victims of torture and other forms of unlawful treatment have the right to obtain redress and receive fair and adequate compensation. At the same time, it should be noted that, according to available information, there were no recorded instances of the application of these legal provisions in practice over the reporting period."

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