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

Human Rights Center Believes It Is Inadmissible to Close the Court Hearings into Deacon Giorgi Mamaladze’s case

May 5, 2017
 
Human Rights Center evokes the decision of the Tbilisi City Court to carry out the hearing into the so-called cyanide case of Deacon Giorgi Mamaladze in the closed regime. Judge Badri Shonia at the Tbilisi City Court took the solicitation and arguments of the prosecutor into account and closed the hearing. Apart to that, the judge relied on the argument of the prosecutor which claimed that the famous people participate in the video and audio evidence to be presented at the hearing. 

Human Rights Center believes the restricted publicity of the ongoing trials directly violate the right to fair trial. Transparency of the judiciary system ensures high trust of the people towards the state authority and guarantees the respect of the principle of fair trial. The state is authorized to respect transparency of justice and judiciary. The society has right to get information about the processed high profile cases. 

In addition to that, Human Rights Center believes today’s decision of the judge does not serve the legal purpose of the court hearing and is not well-reasoned decision why the hearing was closed based on the Article 182 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Georgia, as the society is informed about special security measures applied for the defense of the accused person and witnesses. At the same time, closing the trial based on the argument as if it serves defense of personal data of people, cannot be considered as superior over the principle of transparent judiciary. The trials shall be public. 

The court hearings may be closed for public only in particular cases, when witnesses or other parties face real physical or other threat, which  may be evaluated as more important than transparency of the judicial process.

Human Rights Center 

News