Tazo Kupreishvili, netgazeti.ge
“Georgian courts agree with the investigation conclusions and sentence suspects to imprisonment without considering any alternative punishments. They do not pay attention to the personality of the accused, gravity of the imprisonment and other circumstances,” said lawyer Besarion Bokhashvili at the presentation in the Hotel Radisson yesterday.
The initiative group of Besarion Bokhashvili, Nino Khaidrava and Tinatin Khidasheli presented “Analyze of Human Rights Law Related with Pretrial Detention”. The survey was funded by the Foundation “Open Society – Georgia.”
The authors of the survey said that the European Court of Human Rights passed several verdicts against Georgia in relation with the breached pretrial detention regulations. “Pretrial detention shall be imposed on concrete people if it is urgent necessity; if the judge concludes that any other alternative measure cannot bring the person to the court,” said Bokhashvili.
He added that general statistics does not cause concern at all. The courts chose imprisonment from pretrial preventive measures only in 46% of the cases.
The situation is different when prosecutor’s office requests pretrial detention. The judges satisfy the requests of the prosecutors in most cases without any grounds.
In 2009, prosecutor’s office requested pretrial detention for 8 713 suspects and the court satisfied 8 198 of them – that made 94 % of total cases. Extension of the imprisonment was requested in 199 cases and the court satisfied all of them.
In 2008, the prosecutor’s office requested pretrial detention in 8 197 cases and the court satisfied 95% of it. In the same year, the pretrial detention was extended in 190 cases out of 191 requested ones.
The authors of the survey think that similar intolerant attitude of the court towards suspects is violation of the European standards.
Despite their responsibilities, the courts do not consider the individual circumstances of concrete cases – why the prosecutor doubts that the accused will hide from the court; or why they think that the suspect might interfere in the execution of the justice, or how she/he can influence the witnesses. The court does not provide the evidence why the freedom of the suspect before the trial can violate public order, etc.
According to the survey, the courts use previously worked out template when imposing the pretrial detention. Only personal data and dates are changed in the document. The rest – substantiation of the court decision, motivation, etc are equal in any case.
If crime is committed by a group, the court does not discuss the case individually that is also violation of the European standards. Besides, if the prosecutor’s office requests pretrial detention for the detainee, judges do not discuss alternative punishment, like bail, as an alternative punishment.
Besarion Bokhashvili said that European Court of Human Rights criticized Georgian courts several times because of unconditional pretrial detention. He recalled the case “Giorgi Nikolaishvili VS Georgia” which was sent to Strasbourg.
The Strasbourg Court stated that the national court should have looked for a valid argument to justify pretrial detention. Instead, the court justified its decision by abstract phrases written in the preliminarily prepared template.
“The abovementioned practice directly indicates to the lack of “corresponding commitment” of the national agencies that contradicts the Article 5, Part III of the European Convention,” conclusion of the European Court.
Besarion Bokhashvili said that the court should impose and extend pretrial detention only in the case if there is a grounded suspicious that the suspect might not appear before the court, might interfere in the activities of the court, prevent him/her from committing further crimes and violation of the public order.
The lawyer added that the pretrial detention might be imposed on a person for many years but the court decision shall be grounded in accordance to the European standards. For example, the Strasbourg Court justified the decision of the Swiss Court when they kept a, suspect in drug-trafficking in pretrial detention for five years. The detainee requested freedom in exchange of 5 million USD. The judges of the Strasbourg Court think that the Swiss Government acted correctly because if they had released the suspect in the drug-trafficking, he could have hidden from court; besides that the origin of the 5 million USD was also suspicious. The Swiss prosecutor’s office requested to extend pretrial detention 12 times and their request was grounded enough each time.
The authors of the survey stated that requests of the Georgian prosecutors to prolong pretrial detention are mostly ungrounded. The court obeys their mostly requests blindly.
News
December 13, 2023
Ethnic minorities outside the peace dialogue
November 6, 2023
‘Peace’ agenda of political parties
Popular
Articles
February 13, 2024
Why are Ossetians affected by the conflict unable to regain Georgian citizenship and their property?
