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

Representatives of Public Defender React on Torture of a Prisoner If the Prisoner Reports to Them About It

February 15, 2010

Tako Khutsishvili

The Human Rights Center spread information about the physical assault of Daniel Denisevich, inmate of the Gldani Prison N 8 on January 27, 2010. http://www.humanrights.ge/index.php?a=news&id=7448&lang=en We wrote that lawyer Eka Kobesashvili visited the prisoner on January 25 and appealed to the Public Defender’s Office to react on the physical assault of her client.

Daniel Denisevich confirmed in his conversation with the lawyer that prison observers had beaten him. “He had bruises on the forehead and eyes. The observers had no concrete reason to beat him. Simply, he was insulted and when he inquired why they were insulting him, the observers started to beat him. The prisoner did not want to spread information about the incident but when I explained to him we had to react on this accident, he agreed,” said the attorney of the prisoner.

The lawyer for the Human Rights Center was replied from the Public Defender’s Office that representatives of the Department for Prevention and Monitoring within the PDO – Bendianishvili and Gigineishvili visited Daniel Denisevich on January 28, 2010. However, the prisoner explained his bruises on the forehead and eyes quite differently. “The convicted denied the information you have written in your appeal to our office. He said he had fallen of the bed in the cell and got injured. Consequently, we would like to inform you that we cannot react on the fact.”

The letter from the Department for the Prevention and Monitoring at the PDO is signed by Natia Imnadze, the head of the department.

Humanrights.ge cannot believe that prisoner was injured as a result of falling off the bed. Although Daniel Denisevich confirmed the fact by his signature on the protocol drawn up by the representatives of the Public Defender, it is well-known fact that prisoners are often threatened in detention settings not to speak up about oppression; thus, representatives of the PDO should have made conclusions based on visual examination. We wanted to interview the head of the Department for Prevention and Monitoring but finally the spokesperson of the PDO replied to our questions.

- Is not representative of the Public Defender entitled to study the case thoroughly if s/he is reported about violation only by the attorney?

-  How can we react on the fact when the prisoner claims he had fallen off the bed and received those injuries after that. He said he did not need our assistance. What shall we do?

- The person has bruises on his eyes and his testimony opposes the reality which was observed by Bendianashvili and Gigineishvili. In this case, shall the representative of the Public Defender react on the violation?

- Nobody knows who and how a person will fell off the bed and what s/he can injure as a result of it. The person states he has no complaints and does need our assistance. We have written it in the protocol clearly.

Yes you have written it but we wonder why your representatives did not doubt about his statement. They could request medical expertise of the prisoner which could estimate whether he had fallen of the bed or was beaten. Maybe he had changed his testimony because he was intimidated by the prison administration?

- We have recorded the information the convicted had told us. If he had any complaints, he should have told us otherwise. How can we request expertise or investigation based on this information?

Former public defender Sozar Subari cannot believe that the prisoner was injured after having fallen off the bed. Subari said prisoners were often assaulted when he was in office; however, the prisoners often confirmed these facts with the representatives of the PDO. “In this case, it is difficult to believe whether the convicted fell off the bed or as a rule, he is oppressed by the prison administration which has enough resources for it. Prisoners used to tell our representatives about any physical assaults or torture facts; based on our appeals investigators used to launch investigations and the investigator used to get quite different testimony from the prisoners – they used to tell them that they had crashed into the door, or had fallen down, or fallen off the bed, etc.”

In general, if the prisoner denies telling what had happened with him, representative of the PDO will not manage to react on these facts. Office of the new public defender protects the prisoners well, but it is fact that new minister of the penitentiary and probation shall have to study the situation in detention settings.”

Maybe, representatives of the PDO are not entitled to carry out investigation in similar cases in accordance to the law. In this case, the legislation shall be changed in order to make prisoners feel more protected and not to give different testimonies to different institutions. In similar cases, the truth is always written on their faces.

News