HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REPORT OF GEORGIA

26 March 1997

Press Release
HR/CT/482

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REPORT OF GEORGIA

19970326 Questions Raised by Experts on Justice System, Torture, Press Freedom, Prison Conditions, Religious Freedom

Questions about the administration of justice, use of torture and freedom of the press in Georgia were raised this afternoon by the expert members of the Human Rights Committee, as they continued examination of that country's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Among the other issues of concern to the experts, who serve on the Committee in their personal capacity, were: prison conditions; freedom of religion; the right to privacy; freedom to form trade unions and strike; problems of minorities; the criteria for detentions; the right to legal representation; the authority of the parliamentary committee on human rights; and the lack of clarity in Georgia's report.

Responding to the questions, the Chief Legal Adviser to the President of Georgia, Levan Alexidze, said that freedom of religion had always existed in Georgia, and the coexistence of religions was in the blood of Georgia's people. A law was now being drafted to ensure that the orthodox religion did not have any legal advantages. There was also now unprecedented freedom of expression in Georgia, with 300 newspapers being published in a wide variety of languages, he said. In addition, A law on trade unions was being drafted, although the leaders of those unions had to work to overcome the mistrust of unions that had developed during the Soviet era, when they were "mere puppets".

The Deputy General Prosecutor of Georgia, Anzor Baluashuili, responding to some of the questions raised about Georgia's legal system, said that beginning on 1 January new laws and procedural measures had been enacted, guaranteeing that a person was entitled to have a lawyer present from the moment of his arrest. A system of judicial control had been introduced to ensure that detention and arrests were carried out in accordance with the law. Owing to current conditions, some new reforms had not yet been implemented, he said.

Questions on Georgia's report were raised by the experts from the United States, Germany, Egypt, United Kingdom, Japan and Canada.

The Human Rights Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 27 March, to continue its consideration of the initial periodic report of Georgia.

Committee Work Programme

The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to resume its consideration of the initial report of Georgia on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The delegation of Georgia was expected to respond to comments and questions raised this morning by the expert members of the Committee.

Response of Georgia

LEVAN ALEXIDZE, Chief Legal Adviser to the President of Georgia, noted that almost all members of the Committee had referred to the legal consequences and impact of the declaration of Georgia's independence in 1991. On the basis of a referendum, the first step taken was the recognition of the primacy of international law. However, the Government could not follow the provisions of the Covenant in the midst of the civil war that followed. The Government respected international law and was willing to implement the Covenant provisions. It was prepared to cooperate with the Committee with regard to any communications brought before it by Georgians under the Optional Protocol.

He said laws were being prepared to ban torture, but none were yet in effect. Every month, the President of Georgia gave an account on television of the state of human rights in the country. Efforts were being made to root out corruption and a special commission had been established by parliament for that purpose. Addressing the concerns expressed by the experts about the conditions of prisoners, he said that the Government was trying to improve their situation but the country's economic situation made that difficult. Relatives of prisoners could send them food and gift packages. Improving the condition of prisoners was being given greater attention by the Government thanks to the efforts of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Committee.

Replying to comments about inconsistencies in the report, he said that he himself had seen a number of contradictions. Those in the Government responsible for preparation of the report intended to take advantage of the assistance offered by the Centre for Human Rights. On issues raised about Georgia's judiciary, he said the Government hoped to reform the institution and to restore its previous good name. He assured the Committee that efforts were being made to establish the office of an ombudsman to deal with complaints about violations of rights.

Continuing, he said that on 16 May 1996 a law was adopted on a national procurator, who was to monitor the activity of State bodies and law- enforcement agencies. He could also consider complaints made by foreigners in Georgia who felt their rights had been violated. He could visit without

Human Rights Committee - 3 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

hindrance any institutions or organizations and their headquarters, including military installations and any places where people were detained. He could demand from State and local bodies and enterprises all the necessary documents and obtain clarification from individuals. He could also look at civil and administrative matters.

On the basis of all that, the Procurator could made recommendations, he said. If he saw signs of crime, he could provide information on that to the relevant bodies, so the crimes might be prosecuted. He might also make recommendations for punitive action. That individual, who was going to be appointed, would be in office for five years and could not be dismissed. With respect to the death penalty, he said that all current death sentences lacked legitimacy.

ANZOR BALUASHVILI, Deputy General Prosecutor of Georgia, said his country's jurists were in disagreement on the legality of the death penalty under the 1921 Constitution. On 27 February 1992, the Military Council declared that the 1921 Constitution was being restored. That Constitution did not recognize the death penalty. On that same day, however, a constitutional law was enacted that provided the existing system of criminal penalties would continue to apply.

Under Georgian law, every sentence could be appealed by either side, he said. The case was then reviewed by a body of the Supreme Court to ascertain the legality of the sentence. After that decision was taken, the question was brought before a plenary meeting of Georgia's Supreme Court. Its entire membership would then participate, along with the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the autonomous republics, to take a final decision. The option of mercy also existed, through which seven people had their death sentences repealed.

With respect to torture, he said that during 1992 and 1993 the Prosecutor's office had discovered that impermissible methods had been used during imprisonment, interrogation and preliminary detention. Representatives of Amnesty International now present could confirm that all complaints were carefully considered by a special commission of the Supreme Court, with the cooperation of the Prosecutor's Office.

Beginning on 1 January, new laws and procedural measures had been enacted, guaranteeing that a person was entitled to have a lawyer present from the moment of his arrest. Under the penal code, no one could prevent the exercise of that right. The accused was also clearly informed of his rights. A system of judicial control had been introduced to ensure that detention and arrests were carried out in accordance with the law.

Human Rights Committee - 4 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

Owing to current conditions, some new reforms had not yet been implemented, he said. For example, in Georgia, there were areas of the country with only one judge. However, a single judge could not judge on the legality of detention and then sit on that case, as well. Efforts were, therefore, under way to ensure there were at least two judges in every region.

Until 25 November, permission to detain a person would continue to be given by a prosecutor, with judicial control, he said. The law limited detention pending trial to two months. During that period, 85 to 90 per cent of investigations were concluded. In the remaining cases, it was often necessary to extend the period of pre-trial detention. Under the new law, to take effect on 25 November, judges would rule on such extensions.

The law allowed the death penalty for the premeditated murder of a superior officer in the military during the performance of his duty, he said. As for crimes committed by minors, they were considered responsible from the age of 16 years. Between 14 and 16 years, certain actions were regarded as criminal, including premeditated murder and rape with aggravating circumstances. They were, however, detained separately from adult prisoners. After sentencing, they served in a correctional labour colony for minors. There was only one such camp in Georgia, which was operated in accordance with international standards.

Mr. ALEXIDZE, Chief Legal Adviser to the Georgian President, said the rights of civilians had been violated by both sides in the conflict in the country. The intention of the separatists was to eliminate all Georgians through ethnic cleansing. Georgians in separatist areas were being deprived of their social rights.

Questions by Experts

DAVID KRETZMER, expert from Israel, asked whether conditions in juvenile detention centres met all standards.

PRAFULLCHANDRA N. BHAGWATI, expert from India, asked whether there were differences in the functions of the office of the General Prosecutor and that of the proposed ombudsman. He also sought information on the composition and the system for appointments of judges to the higher courts and asked if the General Prosecutor had the power to extend the period of detention of offenders.

CECILIA MEDINA QUIROGA, expert from Chile, asked what criteria was applied for detention.

Human Rights Committee - 5 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

Response by Georgia

Mr. BALUASHVILLE, Deputy General Prosecutor, said there was one detention centre for minors, which had social amenities. He said the General Prosecutor acted in accordance with the Constitution. He supervised investigations, criminal proceedings and detentions. His authority and functions should not be confused with that of the ombudsman, who would only verify the actions of the prosecutor. Cases involving application of the death penalty were heard by a three-judge panel, while another three-judge panel composed of different judges heard appeals. A presidium of seven members of the Supreme Court disposed of the case. There were special conditions governing the detention of minors, and the courts could verify them.

Responding to questions raised by the experts in the second part of the prepared list of issues, Mr. ALEXIDZE, Chief Legal Adviser of the President of Georgia, said a machinery was being developed to deal with issues arising from the application of the Optional Protocol. The Government would work with the Committee on that machinery. Georgia had become an open society. He cited a case where a Georgian diplomat's immunity had been waived by the Government, so that he could face criminal charges in a foreign country. Recommendations of the Committee on the implementation of the Optional Protocol would be looked at seriously, he said.

Regarding national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights, he said there was a parliamentary human rights committee and a constitutional court. There was an election law and the right to education was protected. An assistant to the President on ethnic relations, a senior position, had also been appointed. His own functions in coordinating national institutions and international organs in the area of human rights were important. Judges served for 10 years. Members of the Supreme Court were appointed by Parliament. There were criteria for relieving judges of their duties, including misconduct or ill-health. He noted that the Prosecutor's Office used to be a "monster," but it now operated like those in other democratic countries.

With respect to freedom of movement, he said the institution of registration had been removed, making it possible to live or own property anywhere in the country. The internally displaced could enjoy free social services, including health care. Medical services and medicines were also provided. There were signs that this year would see the beginnings of a massive return of refugees to their homes.

On the right to privacy, he said telephone conversations could not be tapped without approval by a court. A law on the security services would enshrine the right of the police to use technical means for monitoring

Human Rights Committee - 6 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

conversations. Parliament had demanded that the Ministry of Security provide it with a list of agents recruited by the Soviet Union and who worked on behalf of that country and for the Georgian Security Services. During that era, there were persons who watched people and reported on them, sometimes to be shot.

Freedom of religion had always existed in Georgia, he said. The coexistence of religions was in the blood of the Georgian people. A law was now being drafted to ensure that the orthodox religion should not have any legal advantages. Some 90 per cent of Georgians were Orthodox Christians. There were also Muslims. With respect to the other sects, legal provisions must be drafted for their protection.

There was unprecedented freedom of expression in Georgia, with 300 newspapers being published in a wide variety of languages, he said. All but two of them were independent. However, with democracy, some individuals were being libelled and slandered. Serious criticisms had been directed at Parliament and the President.

A law on trade unions was being drafted, he said. However, such unions were not trusted in society because, under the Soviet regime, they were mere puppets and did not represent the interests of the people. The leaders of the trade unions were now trying to overcome that mistrust. Political parties in Georgia must publish their programmes and must be registered. To date, no parties had been prohibited from registering. In accordance with law, all the parties were given a small amount of financial assistance by the Government.

The Georgian Constitution provided safeguards to all national minorities, he said. The allocation of posts in Parliament to Abkhazians, Georgians and others had been described in the report. In Abkhazia, the people had their own press, but had used it in an attempt to inculcate the population with hatred for the Georgians. How could one talk of discrimination against Abkhazians when they were granted all civil and political rights? The Abkhazians had not even been considered a minority, as were the Armenians, Kurds, Azerbaijanis and Greeks, for example, which had communities abroad.

Comments and Questions

ECKART KLEIN, expert from Germany, said he shared the concerns of his colleagues with respect to torture and prison conditions. The Committee had information that torture cases had continued at least up until last year. On the status of the Covenant, it had been stated its provisions could be invoked before the courts in Georgia. What would actually happen if an individual did so? Would the court enforce it over a domestic law?

Human Rights Committee - 7 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

The right to freedom of association enshrined the right to strike, he said. Yet, it appeared, under Georgia's Constitution, that the right to strike required additional legislation. What restrictions to political participation applied to appointed or elected judges? The Georgian Constitution placed some limitations on press freedom, as when information was considered confidential. Paper shortages were also seen as an impediment to press freedom.

Did the Government intend to make public the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee? he asked. Were there special programmes in Georgia's universities to increase knowledge about the Covenant and of human rights in general? Referring to Mr. Alexidze's comments on minorities, he said the Covenant did not speak explicitly of "national" minorities.

OMRAN EL-SHAFEI, expert from Egypt, said that the purpose of the Committee's examination of country reports was to ensure that the Covenant was fully respected. It was also to find out how the State party could best be assisted to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. He would like to know what administrative and legal changes had led to significant improvement in the human rights situation, taking into account the allegations of violations received by the Committee. What was the authority of the parliamentary committee on human rights and ethnic relations with regard to remedies for human rights violations?

He noted that the judiciary was not properly aware of the supremacy of international law, as indicated in the Georgia report. He added that the Committee had been receiving much information about significant abuses of human rights, denial of access to counsel and confessions extracted under pressure by investigators. Did the Government of Georgia intend to implement reform laws to address those deficiencies?

Turning to the functions of the judiciary, he said that there was a difference between judiciary review and the right of appeal. He had doubts as to whether the right of appeal, recognized in the Covenant, was properly applied. He had concerns about the freedom of movement. He asked whether the delegation could explain where lingering prejudices -- referred to in the report -- occurred and the action taken, if any, by the parliamentary committee on human rights to deal with that problem.

Lord JOHN MARK ALEXANDER COLVILLE, expert from the United Kingdom, said that if people were arrested and were not immediately entitled to legal representation, that was when torture and other improper things happened. What were the rules with respect to the provision of defence lawyers? Addressing the problem of "trial by the press", he said it was not unique to Georgia. What remedies were available? Could the editor be taken to court for contempt? When parliamentary committees made recommendations, who did

Human Rights Committee - 8 - Press Release HR/CT/482 1565th Meeting (PM) 26 March 1997

anything about them? If someone had conscientious or religious objections to military service, how was that handled?

NISUKE ANDO, expert from Japan, said there was some lack of clarity as to what actions had already been taken and what actions were planned for the future. When Georgia issued its next report, it would be helpful if it had numbered paragraphs. Citing the case of a television station whose license had been removed, it was gratifying to know it had been restored by the Supreme Court.

It had been indicated that television stations and newspapers could be suspended if they disclosed State secrets, he said. How was that concept applied? What was the remedy for those affected by its use? Noting the situation with respect to trade unions, he asked whether it was only civil law that protected the rights of workers. Were there any laws governing collective bargaining, union formation or strikes?

MAXWELL YALDEN, expert from Canada, said there was some lack of clarity in Georgia's report. For example, he had asked what happened when the parliamentary committee made a recommendation. Four of five hours later, Lord Colville had raised the same question. A clear written statement of the responsibilities of those various bodies, including their names, would be helpful. Earlier, the English interpretation -- at least -- had described the ombudsman as the national procurator, which had led to confusion.

He said that even in the 1950s in the Soviet Union, when he had served there, the "Procuratura" was defined as "a defender of rights". Some clarity in terms and definitions was needed. It was also important that information about the Covenant be disseminated within Georgia at all levels. Unfortunately, that matter had been passed over lightly by the delegation.

* *** *