Strictest and Largest Report of the US State Department About Georgia After the Rose Revolution

Ana Sheshaberidze

US State Department published its report about the human rights situation in Georgia early in March of 2010. The document is very critical and it highlights many facts of human rights violation throughout Georgia in 2009. The information provided by the Georgian and foreign non-governmental organizations and by the report of the public defender of Georgia is used in the report. US State Department in fact admitted that there are political prisoners in Georgia.

The report pays attention to the problems such as: kidnapping and attacks on political grounds, disappearance, unfair judgments of the court, disrespect of the freedom of media, existence of political prisoners, etc. Alongside the criticism, the report positively evaluates those changes which were implemented in Georgia recently; such as decision to elect Tbilisi City Mayor based on direct principle and adoption of new Criminal Procedural Code.

Commenting on the report of the US State Department the MP from the majority Goka Gabashvili said in his interview with the TV-Company Imedi that the purpose of the report is to be critical. He added that governmental officials do not agree with every point highlighted in the report. “Of course, the report criticizes us. The report is designed to highlight mistakes and provide critical remarks about every country. They are critical about much more developed and successful states than ours and it is the purpose of this report. It does not mean that we agree with them in everything but we are studying the document very carefully and we do respect the opinion of our main friend and partner.”

Like Gabashvili, representatives of the opposition parties do not agree with several issues highlighted in the report. Leader of the Conservative Party Kakha Kukava thinks the State Department is not very strict and they could have been even more critical like they were in regard with other states where there are political prisoners.

Kakha Kukava: “The report is more or less impartial and covers main issues. Of course, they are less critical than in regard with other states which have political prisoners; however, they have not closed eyes at real facts. For example, they are more critical about Uzbekistan and other states than about Georgia.

This report, in fact, acknowledged existence of political prisoners in Georgia; though it is not written directly. It would have been better if they had demanded the Georgian government to release political prisoners as they have done in regard with the government of Uzbekistan. At some point, they preserve delicate tone. More precisely, they point out that the claiming and conclusion about political prisoners belongs to various sources and not to the US department itself.”

Former public defender of Georgia Sozar Subari and member of the Republic Party of Georgia Tina Khidasheli see better result in the US Report of 2009 in comparison to previous years. Sozar Subari speaks about the important innovation of the report; more precisely, about the topic about political prisoners in it.

Sozar Subari: “We can say that the current report is the strictest and largest among the previous 6 annual reports; I mean the reports which were published since Rose Revolution. Previous reports were complete enough, I mean the facts were not omitted, but the State Department avoided evaluating those facts. They used to say: “public defender reports,” “NGOs report,” and then they wrote – “the government replies”… the position of the US State Department was less exposed. The final report of 2009 demonstrates the position of the US State Department very clearly and it is very critical and strict about the human rights violations by the government of Georgia. In addition to that, we should focus on one more innovation – the report has new topic about political prisoners. In fact, the US Department admitted existence of political prisoners in Georgia and I think it is right; however, in parallel to it, it shall be very negative signal for the government of Georgia.”

Tina Khidasheli does not evaluate the report completely positively and thinks that the part of the document about elections should have been stricter. However, she added the report turned up much stricter than they expected.

Tina Khidasheli: “Unlike the reports of the previous years, the report of2009 about human rights is more adequate and close to the real situation in our country. In the report we felt that the US State Department has been liberated from the illusion they had about the current government of Georgia. In this direction, of course, we appreciate the report. If I had been writing the report, it would have had different form; but if we compare it with the reports of 2006-2007, of course, it is much more adequate and close to reality. I think, for example, the topic about elections should have been stricter and there are all grounds for it.”

One of these days, the US embassy published official Georgian version of the report 2009.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136032.htm 

You can read the PDF version of Georgian translation on humanrights.ge on the following link: http://humanrights.ge/admin/editor/uploads/pdf/12%20Human%20Rights%20Report%202009%201.pdf