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

Lawyers from Kutaisi Condemn the Prohibition of Photo-Video-Recording In The Court

July 13, 2007

videos.gifTwo days ago, Georgian Parliament passed amendments to the Law on “Common Court” on the third discussion of the topic. The amendments were voted for by 117 voices against 18. The new law envisages the prohibition of photo-film-video recording of trials in the court building and court rooms.

Only audio and stenographic recording is allowed at court hearings. However, judge can prohibit it based on solid motivations.

The initiative caused public concern. Lawyers from Kutaisi joined the disagreement. They consider that those amendments will prevent journalists from their activities as well as the lawyers. Generally the initiative will be a great obstacle for the society on its way to the development of the independent judicial system in the country.

Representatives of the Human Rights Center’s Kutaisi Office have their opinions regarding the situation. Independent lawyers from the Imereti Region and lawyers from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association also made statements regarding the amendments.

Independent lawyer, Pavle Kakabadze considers that “the amendments are definitely negative. Law envisaged the Right to Publicity to make the trial more transparent and society should witness the events developing at the process. Those amendments will support unjust court hearings.

Irina Bandzeladze, an independent lawyer: “First of all, the principle of publicity should be preserved. Those amendments restrict abovementioned principle. I think journalist does not prevent the impartial and transparent court hearing by making photo-video-audio recording. Just the opposite, it assisted the society to estimate the truth in some particular cases.”

Rezo Tofuria, lawyer for the Georgian Young Lawyers Association’s Kutaisi Branch, considers that the amendments restrict the principle of publicity envisaged by the Georgian Criminal Procedure Code, Article 14. He said that “Every court hearing should be open and public. Although there are cases which should be discussed in private, the final verdicts should be announced publicly. If any particular circumstances take place during the trial which will have some influence on the verdict, for example lead to discharging the accused, the court hearing might become inaccessible for concerned people. Thus human rights will be violated. This article shall exclude implementation of abovementioned procedures and in doing so it will restrict the right to publicity. The process can be transparent if concerned party mediates on photo-video-audio recording and it is then allowed. Otherwise, the society will always suspect that video records, presented by the court itself, might be fraudulent. I do not exclude the possibility of appealing to the Constitutional Court. There we will demand to declare the amendment unconstitutional because it violates one of the most important principles of Publicity from the Criminal Procedure Code.”

Another lawyer for the Georgian Young Lawyers Association’s Kutaisi Office, Giorgi Chikaberidze also condemns the amendments. “The judicial system of the country does not follow the demands of the democratic society. There were a lot of cases when we learned the real situation at trials from journalists. Unless the media revealed the process, we would not have learned about many violations. Similar formulation of the law causes some doubts. Although they define that it will encourage the independence of the court and prevent the involvement in the process, I think the video-photo recording would not have hindered it anyway. The amendments contradict with the Georgian Constitution because the principle of transparency is restricted.”
Parliamentary opposition considers the initiative of the Legal Committee is “Suppression of the Freedom of Expression and Information”.

As for the representatives of the Legal Committee they claim that the government wants to eradicate harmful attempts of prevention and exasperation of the process in the court.

Shorena Kakabadze, Kutaisi

News