Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Changes to Georgian Law on Police Appealed to Constitutional Court

May 10, 2011

Gela Mtivlishvili, Kakheti

Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) appeals against the changes made in the Georgian Law on Police to the Constitutional Court. According to the head of GYLA, Tamar Chugoshvili, the complaint to the Constitutional Court is filed on behalf of the citizen Davit Shubladze.

According to GYLA, Davit Shubladze was detained by the law-enforcement officials on April 4 of 2011 at about 11:00 pm. His wallet and other items were examined. He was released afterwards.

“The fact of Davit Shubladze’s detainment and subsequent inspection was not documented. In violation of the existing norms, the police did not present themselves to the detained individual. The individual could not appeal against the police action as it was not known which law-enforcement representative to appeal against. Also, it was impossible to assert the fact of detainment and surface examination in the court,” – states Chugoshvili.

GYLA requests to declare article 91 (detainment and surface examination) of Georgian Law on Police null due to the contradiction with the article 18 (liberty and security) and article 20 (inviolability of private life) of the Constitution.

Georgian Parliament added article 91 to the Georgian Law on Police on August 24th of 2010. This norm grants the police official right to stop the individual on the basis of reasonable doubt on the commitment of offence. The police official has right to conduct surface examination in case of reasonable doubt regarding the police security.

Tamar Chugoshvhvili explains that GYLA submitted remarks on Georgian Law on Police to the Parliament. GYLA noted back then that according to the introduced changes the surface examination was not the inevitable consequence of the detainment.

“In this case, the law was so vague that it did not give the opportunity to anticipate why the policeman stops the individual. Besides, the law does not show what the reasonable doubt means and how it differs from the well-grounded assumption which gives rise to the detainment of individual according to the Criminal Code. Policeman is not obligated to explain to the individual due to which offence he/she is stopped. The law does not clarify how exactly the surface examination is conducted and how it differs from the search. And most importantly, the detainment and the surface examination are not documented that makes it impossible to assert the illegal and ill-founded actions of the police,” – states Tamar Chugoshvili.

News