Subari Forced Government to Recall November 7 – “A Day Government Wants to Erase from Georgian History”
July 19, 2008
“November 7 Events Reveals the Real Face of the Government”
Eka Kevanishvili, Tbilisi
Sozar Subari, the Public Defender of Georgia did not say anything new to the Georgian MPs on July 15th. However, the representatives of parliamentary majority revolted as if the November 7, 2007 events were mere fantasy of Sozar Subari or that Subari had somehow invented the TV-Imedi raid, a reign of terror towards the Georgian media, rigged elections and numerous instances of human rights violation. That is but the tip of the iceberg is defining the assortment of above-mentioned violations as laid out in the Public Defender’s report covering the second part of 2007.
“Every possible method was applied in intimidating politically active people: the use of threats, spying, raiding offices of oppositional parties, assaults, abductions, applying pressures on relatives, detention of the representatives of the oppositional parties. The grounds given were both administrative and criminal charges. The report makes it clear that there is more than just a tendency of persecuting people on political grounds. Even members of oppositional parties have recalled their stories having problems freely moving about in Georgia. In terms of immediate threats, strangers have rung them up at all houses and made verbal threats and told them that they would be assaulted. In some instances threats have proved to be reality. Moreover, in spite of all recriminations on all sides, the government has been consistent and concerted in how it responds to United Opposition’s every political activity. These are faced down with will-crafted PUR campaigns that are buttressed with concerted actions that are carefully targeted to discrediting the United Opposition.
Members of oppositional parties have been serenely intimidated and politically disarmed at every turn with various means and methods. This allegation is proved by numerous claims the Public Defender’s Office received. Kakha Kukava, Koba Davitashvili and Bezhan Gunava, members of the oppositional parties have numerously stated that they were persecuted and closely watched. However, law enforcers did not give appropriate attention to these allegations. It is understandable as why they failed to open even one legal case in light of the alleged instances of open violations,” as it is mentioned in the subparagraph “Political Persecution” in the Public Defender’s report. The remaining 39 chapters are written in the same spirit and tone. The Public Defender did not discuss all problems in the fullest details. However, the issues that he highlighted were enough to irritate the government, as it was a report that it did not want to hear.
The representatives of the ruling party accused Sozar Subari that he has proffered a politically unbalanced report, calling his report superficial at best. However, in spite of the attempted spin and distancing from the hard hitting report, his words not only agitated the government but demonstrated their incompetence in trying to turn the tides against Subari’s report. Members of the ruling party also said that the report had discredited the institution of Public Defender.
“After the November 7, 2007 events there were many problems regarding the exercise of freedom of assembly and public gatherings. The law enforcers used all means possible in denying Georgians their Constitutional rights, and these “special means” for the first time in the history of Georgia. Georgians going up against Georgians in dispersing demonstration (water ripple, rubber bullets, equipment that would psychological impair protestors). This can be considered as disproportional show of force and is also considered as illegal in some instances.
The Public Defender and his representatives followed the developments on the protest demonstrations which clearly demonstrated the excessive use of force, negligence of democratic values and rule of law, facts of indiscriminate persecution in streets and in buildings, as well as blatant violation of law in terms of using materials unperceived by law such as rubber bullets and wooden sticks were observed and documented. According to forensic analysis the law enforcers used real bullets in some instances and 3 participants of the demonstration in the Rike were injured. The November 7 events demonstrated the massive violation of human rights. Moreover, this day raised suspects over the effectiveness of Georgian democratic institution; Georgia’s international image was severely damaged….
The witnesses and the victims of assaults that occurred on November 7 state that the abusers covered their faces with masks. We know that the representatives of the law enforcing bodies (especially special units) wear masks when they are on a special mission. Consequently, we can assert that the representatives of the Georgian government took part in the assaults,” an extract from the subparagraph on Freedom of Assembly and Manifestation.
All subparagraphs are followed by facts and recommendations as usual.
Sozar Subari evaluated strictly evaluated the facts.
“No one was punished for inhuman treatment towards the TV-company Imedi journalists and TV company itself”, stated Subari.
Subari also spoke on TV-company Kavkasia and Hereti, Kakheti regional radio. He said that both Kavkasia and Hereti face problems as the businesspersons are forced to stop commissioning their ads in these media outlets.
He also condemned the decision of the Georgian National Communications Commission not to grant Studio Maestro a license on issuing political programs. Subari also stated that the GNCC has procrastinated drag out the court proceedings in this case.
Subari also stressed that the right to freedom of assembly was violated.
“The November events showed the government has zero tolerance towards demonstrations.” He recalled the many acts the government conveniently wishes to forget.
Davit Darchiashvili, member of majority criticizes Subari for the following reason: “I don’t want to have any suspects regarding the sincerity of the Public Defender and the love towards his work but expertise and professionalism are different. There are hundreds of stories in the report. The Public Defender has no right to investigate the cases and therefore we can only suspect that allegations are real or not. The second, more vivid problem is that some statements of Public Defender have a political hue. I think this fact does not make the Public Defender a strong institution. I don’t think this will solve the particular problems of particular people.”
Nika Laliashvili, member of the Christian-Democratic Party and the representative of the parliamentary opposition is not surprised with the reaction of the ruling party members: “This was expected. The Public Defender spoke of the most painful problems for them – the issue of human rights in Georgia. Subari recalled the most critical day for the government- November 7. The government is trying its best to wipe off this day from pages of Georgian history. Every time someone reminds them of this day they become irritated. This day reveals the “real face” of the government and it is only natural that November 7 is a tabooed topic for them.
Subari went on to highlight the full range of issues that government was unhappy to hear. I and other representatives of my faction do not see any political motives in the report. We expected this kind of statement. However, we stated that it is unwise to speak about the protection of other people’s rights when the Public Defender himself was beaten on November 7 and this fact has not been investigated up to now even thought everyone knows who were responsible.”
P.S. the Public Defender spoke of many other important issues in his report. However, the November 7 was the main theme from among all of them.www.humanrights.ge will be returning to these issues in the nearest future.
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?
