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

How Georgian Beacon of Democracy Was Put Out

November 22, 2007

Rough violation of human rights became an unresolved problem for Georgia. Public Defender stated the events developed in November finally destroyed the myth about Georgian democracy among the international community. The Human Rights Centre represents the interview with the Public Defender Sozar Subari.

Journalist: Few years ago you were working on human rights related issues as a journalist. But in recent years you are protecting others rights as a Public Defender. It is interesting t what the differences between pre and post revolutionary situation in Georgia; what has changed?

Sozar Subari: I would like to underline only principal differences. During the Shevardnadze governance governmental institutions could not or did not control the situation in their own structures. Anarchy and chaos were the basic grounds for breaching the human rights. In that period of time the government failed to arrest Eliava, one of rebel colonels for three years. He was threatening to topple down the government. And the government stated that they could not arrest him because he was hidden in the forest. However, Eliava’s HQ was situated in the centre of Senaki, near the police station and city municipal building. Journalists managed to meet him and took interviews directly in restaurants. But police was unable to arrest Eliava. In fact the rule of law did not exist. So in similar situation human rights are frequently violated. Today everything is contrary. We have strong institutions like police and Prosecutor’s Office which can control even personal lives of people that should not be controlled. They bug (to hear someone’s private talks without permission) everyone. Prosecutor’s office observed the budget of all local government. Now we have encountered with different problems. We have moved into complete centralization from early chaos that also means anarchy because decisions are made only by few people. In particular we have achieved progress in the freedom of religion and belief. Nowadays the rights of religious minorities are protected and in this regard situation has improved with the comparison of pre-revolutionary period. People are rarely beaten in police departments. Less corruption exists in court system although it is noteworthy that the court still depends on Prosecutor’s Office and political authorities. Besides that if some public official commits a crime he/she is not punished for it. We have succeeded in the resolution of trafficking problems, but nothing is done to punish the policemen who were charged for torture. It is nice that detainees are not beaten but it is bad that Irakli Kodua, the head of KUD (Department of Constitutional Security) is not punished: He arrested innocent person for having called her girl-friend. Then he forced the person to take drugs and created fraudulent charges about him. Now Kodua is trying to qualify the crime of that person under the article which envisages 25 years of imprisonment. Of course charges were falsified in earlier times too but they included at least some evidences against the accused. Today people may be punished without any evidences and the plea bargain may be used against them as a tool of pressure. At this very moment we are studying a case: A person was arrested and he was accused for murdering the person who is in mountain as a shepherd. Defendant was forced to make choice between plea bargain and imprisonment. It is an attempt to bury the judiciary.

Journalist: What is your view on prohibiting TV and audio recordings at the trail?

Sozar Subari: Similar restrictions are completely unacceptable in Georgia. In many countries video or audio recordings are not allowed during the trial but in their case the reason of prohibition is clear: It is required from the interests of defendant. In Georgia the interests of defendant demands to make video and audio recordings during the trial. The defendants consider that this is the only chance to inform society how unfair was the court to them if they fail to reach fair justice. Our arguments were different in particular some people try to use the trial for their own interests and make public announcements. In this case the judge commands whole power to make person to leave the hall or fine or just sentence him or her to the administrative imprisonment. The example of unfair court was trial on Girgvliani’s case when the judge did not pay attention to the fact that the prosecutor gave phone to the defendants during the trial and they were getting some information over the phone. And when Tinatin Khidasheli the member of Republican Party indicated to the fact the judge fined her instead of preventing the illicit situation. It is obvious that judge feels more comfortable if such matters are not covered by TV cameras. It was the reason for above mentioned prohibition. The court camera is not frequently used during trials. But when they work they do not shoot the facts which will be utilized against them in future.

Journalist: It is interesting, what do international organizations think about the situation in our country?

Sozar Subari: November 7 destroyed the image of democratic country and showed to the international community the real face of Georgian democracy. We have the same democracy like our eastern neighbors. On the one hand it is good that the international communities have seen the reality existing in our country but on the other hand it is not good for us because the image which we had before gave us opportunities to integrate in Euro-Atlantic structures but unfortunately after the events of November 7 our chances have decreased. We have gone backwards. Influential International Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were always realistic and adequate in regard with our democracy but somehow bigger international organizations were refraining from real estimations. However it should be pointed out that early statement of the US State Department revealed those problems that are observed in Georgia regarding human rights. I can mention one example how our government replies to similar statements: One of recommendations from international organizations stated that so-called over-phone arrangements of the cases between the judge and the parties were still in force in Georgia. Our government immediately enacted a law which prohibited similar over-phone connections. But what happened then? Did it change anything? You can deceive only foreigners by similar changes. But we do know that the court still depends on the government. The main point is to relieve the court from current pressure and until it is achieved, we will not succeed. Each republic had right to leave the Soviet Union but none of them ever dared it.

J: You have written many recommendations in your reports. It is interesting whether corresponding bodies take your recommendations into consideration?

S.S: Our recommendations are partially considered and the situation is also changing according to it. For example if we discuss the future elections; a plenty of our remarks were taken into consideration; like distributing firewood and canceling the order about having receipt machines in shops; pardoning the prisoners and changing the policy about private property. If we had not criticized their activities, similar changes would have been introduced into the laws. If we had not expressed our protest about the depriving people from their properties nothing would have ever changed. Our reports are available not only for Georgian people but for international society too and the government is forced to consider at least minimum of our recommendations. For example, when Girgvliani was killed, his friends were arrested for illegal possession of guns and resisting the policemen. Then I made my first statement where I stated that innocent people should be released. Finally they satisfied our demands.

J: I want to ask you about one concrete problem –it is eviction. Recently, several political parties and media stations were evicted from their offices. What do you think about it?

S.S: As for the eviction of political parties and media stations I cannot claim that they were evicted from their office on political grounds because we cannot be so sure about it unless we investigate the situation thoroughly. Many similar cases are still under consideration but we have already studied some of them. For example, people, whose property registration documents were abolished, applied to our office for help. We studied their cases and we have final conclusions on seven cases-the City Hall breached the law. But in several cases we can admit that the City Hall had right to seize the registration documents but sometimes having right does not mean that it is reasonable to act so. For example when a person is a respectful celebrity in our country they cannot abolish his/her documents on the flat.

J: How do you think, does Georgia have political prisoners today?    

S.S: It is difficult to answer that question. I cannot claim that the supporters of Igor Giorgadze (Security Minister during Shevardnadze’s government) committed crime or not. We have conclusion of the court but we have not investigated it either. Consequently I cannot state that these people were persecuted on political grounds. I watched the operative materials how the weapon was withdrawn from somebody’s cellar. But I do not know whether those weapons really were discovered in the cellar or police had planted it. We are investigating that case and cannot give concrete answers about it yet. As for Irakli Batiashvili, we have investigated his case and we have concluded that he was arbitrarily detained. The proofs introduced to the court were fraudulent. We will be able to claim that Batiashvili really committed a crime when real proofs are given to the court. There were only two evidences at the trial: audio record of over-phone conversation and its definition that are totally different form each other. The investigator could not explain us the situation because as we finally found out he had not listened to it himself. Thus, how can we say that Batiashvili is a guilty? The judge should have thrown away those so-called evidences and demand real ones instead of them, but if the accuser could not show any reliable proofs against the accused, Batiashvili should have been released. Thus I say that Irakli Batiashvili is not guilty and his right on fair court was breached.

J: Let’s discuss the harassment on journalists. Generally, the journalists started to complain about their problems loudly because they have no access to public information.

S.S: We have mentioned several facts in our reports where journalists complain about the inaccessibility to public information. It is unpleasant reality. During Shevardnadze’s governance the relationship with journalists was not appropriate one. It was very strange that journalists and politicians were having parties together in restaurants like old friends. Now the situation has changed; we have overcome that ugly situation but we have faced another problem now. Today we have media which is controlled by government and they exactly know that to tell the society and what not. There is one media station which is discriminated. The situation about TV Companies “Imedi”, “Kavkasia” and “Channel 25” was contradicting with democracy and freedom of expression. We have one very liberal law about the freedom of expression. According to it journalists must not be punished. But alongside similar law a riot police broke into the TV Imedi and destroyed everything there; journalists were forced down on the floor and then shot them with rubber bullets and used tear gas. According to the Chairwoman of the Georgian Parliament, the broadcasting of the TV Company can be resumed only after it becomes impartial. However, the European Court and the Law on Freedom of Expression state that the TV station might be biased but the society should decide to accept or to reject their information. You can fine the TV Company for its biasness but it is illegal to shut them down. I cannot say that the “Imedi” was not tendentious but despite that it managed to play leading role in the establishment of the freedom of expression in the country. For example, there was no other TV station in Georgia which could start investigation on Girgvliani’s assassination.

J: How does Public Defender’s Office react on the events that happened on November 7?

S. S: Our office has received a lot of appeals regarding the November 7 dispersal. We have sent our information to international organizations. Our cases dealt with beating and fining, kidnapping, detaining and terrorizing people. People are summoned to the police station where they are ordered whom to vote for during the presidential elections; they are warned that secret cameras will be installed in all voting booths and it will be known whom they vote for. We have already discussed nearly one hundred cases but real number of their appeals is much more. To tell the truth I do not expect to have any positive results. The government will not punish itself. The authority has encouraged the people who took part in the dispersal of demonstrators on October 28 in Zugdidi. The court fined those people for minimal sum. Thus, it has become clear that government challenges similar violence.

J: Several days ago a person, who was accused for beating a riot policeman, was sentenced to imprisonment. What do you think about it?

S.S: A violator must be punished but when the video-recording of beating the riot-policeman is shown on TV every half an hour they should also show us what European and American TV stations broadcast during those days-they showed how policemen were beating people lying on the ground. The demonstrators beat the riot policeman in reply to the violence the government used against them.

J: How do you think was it reasonable to use such a large amount of weapon to disperse the demonstration?

S.S: It is natural that there was no necessity to use any kind of weapon at all. It was not necessary to disperse the demonstration either. Of course it was excessive use of force. There was cloud over the Rustaveli Avenue all day long; there was so much gas on the clothes of patients in hospital that doctor got infected from them too. It was not attempt to restore the order. It was politically motivated dispersal of demonstrators and harassment of political rivals. Journalist for the TV Company “Imedi” was beaten in front of me; they were shouting at him-“you are “Badris’s pet” (Badri Patarkatsishvili is the founder of the TV Company). As for me, they called me a traitor and beat me severely.

Nino Tarkhnishvili, Tbilisi 

News