Photos of Dishonest Customers in Goodwill Supermarket – Does It Breach Their Rights?

Salome Chkheidze

“According to my information, photos of the people, who had stolen products from supermarkets at different times, are hanging in several supermarkets in Tbilisi. I think it is incorrect of them… I wonder what your opinion, as a human rights organization, is about this fact,” a citizen sent this letter to the email of Human Rights Center several days ago.

Humanrights.ge started to study this case by checking the facts. We really discovered a board with the photos of citizens and subtitle “Dishonest Customers” on it in Digomi and Vake branches of the hypermarket Goodwill.

Administration members of the hypermarket clarified that those people on the photos had stolen different products from the hypermarket; we can clearly see faces of the people on the photos and they can be easily identified.

Why did the administration decide to publicly exhibit those photos? Director General of the Goodwill Irina Kosashvili said the photos were exhibited for the prevention purposes: “Those people were caught at the moment of stealing and their cases were assigned to the police. They might have already been punished for the offence, but we do not know anything about it. In doing so, we want to prevent similar facts in future; furthermore, we also assist our security officers to easily recognize those people,” said the director general.

She added that nobody had complained about the board, it is their right to make those photos public and are not going to remove them in future.

Goodwill’s lawyer Davit Glunchadze believes hanging up of the photos does not breach human rights. “Those people are dishonest customers for the Goodwill. We do not call them thieves or criminals. With those photos and subtitle we just demonstrate our approach to their behavior.”

Goodwill’s customers have different opinions about this fact.

Nino, 26: “I think, at some point, it is not correct because despite the crime they committed, I think their rights are breached.”

Guram, 44: “They must not be hung up. These people might have already been punished for the thievery and it is not correct to exhibit their photos here permanently.”

Nineli, 57: “Of course, their photos shall be hung up! They deserve even more. If they had not stolen products, their photos would not be placed here.”

Lawyers also have different opinion about this fact. Eka Kobesashvili, lawyer of Human Rights Center, said that hanging up of citizens’ photos does not breach the law because they are not referred as thieves or criminals on the board.

“Those photos were developed from the recordings of secret video-camera. In this case, the Company did not breach the law because they have not granted any legal status to the citizens; simply they clarify that those people are dishonest customers. When a customer is informed that cameras are installed in the market, she/he should realize that any illegal action will be recorded by camera and administration might use it against them. However, those photos shall not permanently stay on the board particularly if they have already been punished for this crime,” Eka Kobesashvili said.

Eka Khutsishvili, lawyer of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, believes the people from photos can sue Goodwill at the court for having degrading their honor and dignity. “It is very easy to identify citizens based on those photos. Those people can appeal to the court and sue the Goodwill for having degraded their honor and dignity. Moreover, if they were already punished for the crime. Law does not envisage punishment for the violation by hanging up photos on the board. So, the company breaches the rights of private person. Unless the court passes guilty verdict on the Goodwill, the citizen can argue for the breached inviolability of his/her personal life.”

If there were precedent of court process on similar case in Georgia and if the court judgment was also executed, this case would have been precedential and would have clear up the argument between lawyers. However, at this stage Human Rights Center does not have information whether court has ever discussed similar cases before.