Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE BEGINS REVIEW OF REPORT OF GEORGIA
03 May 2006
Share
3 May 2006
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the third periodic report of Georgia on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Valery Chechelashvili, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, introducing the report, said that the prevalent practice of torture was one of the priority areas for reform for the Georgian Government following the Rose Revolution, and eliminating impunity for torturers was one of the priorities from the very beginning. Neither torture nor violent beatings were tolerated by the Government. There had been unprecedented prosecutions of police and law enforcement officers. Statutory definitions of torture in Georgia had been aligned with international human rights treaties standards. Georgia acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 9 August 2005, and also accepted the competence of the Committee to treat individual and State complaints under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Andreas Mavrommatis, the Committee Expert Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he welcomed Georgia's accession to the Optional Protocol and the acceptance of complaints under both articles 21 and 22. Georgia had almost completed the circle of legislative provisions to eliminate torture in the country. But everyone agreed -- the Government, as well as non-governmental organizations and the Special Rapporteur on torture -- that Georgia continued to have a very large number of incidents of cruel treatment and torture. He credited the Government of Georgia with the political will to eradicate torture, but what then were the root causes of the continuing cases of torture?
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he too welcomed the numerous steps taken by the State party, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol, to prevent torture. He noted that despite the many measures taken there were still quite a few cases of torture. From 2000 to 2003 there was an annual growth, by a big margin, of allegations and complaints. There was a big contradiction there. He knew it would take time for measures to take effect, but the point was that he felt the situation seemed to be deteriorating in certain areas.
Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions regarding violence against religious minorities; efforts undertaken by Georgia to break up criminal gangs; and Georgia's plans to allow victims of torture to seek and receive reparations.
Also representing the delegation of Georgia were Givi Mikanadze, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice, Ekaterine Tkheshelashvili, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tamar Tomashvili, Head of the Human Rights Department of the General Prosecutor's Office, and Alexander Nalbandov, Head of the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 4 May, to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.
Georgia is among the 141 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hear the answers of Peru to the questions on its report which were posed by the Experts on Tuesday, 2 May.
Report of Georgia
Since the submission of its second periodic report, Georgia has adopted a number of regulatory acts to prevent torture and other forms of unlawful treatment and ensure that persons who engage in such practices are punished. The third periodic report of Georgia (CAT/C/73/Add.1) notes that the most recent such legislation is the Plan of Action against Torture for the period 2003-2005. Among others, the Plan of Action identifies priority goals for institutions where efforts to eliminate torture and other impermissible and unlawful treatment are most urgently needed. In February 2002, the President of Georgia signed a decree to implement his initiative to make Georgia a “torture-free zone”. In 2003, the Georgian Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional and struck down several grounds for detention that previously existed under procedural law and emphasized that immediately upon being detained persons must have their rights explained to them and must be given the opportunity to exercise the right to remain silent, to not incriminate themselves and to be assisted by counsel. Both in the capital and in the regions, the Georgian Prosecutor's Office has instituted hotlines whereby anyone may telephone a procurator at any time to report a violation of his or her rights.
In 2002 a total of 287 case files involving internal investigations of unauthorized actions and human rights violations by police officers were sent to the Procurator's Office. Ninety-two police officers were dismissed from the force; 74 officers were relieved of their duties; and 382 officers were disciplined – all those figures significantly higher than the corresponding figures for 2001. From January to December 2002, criminal proceedings were brought against eight prison officers. Over the same period, disciplinary measures were taken against another 390 officers, with 160 relieved of their duties for conduct unbecoming and 84 summarily dismissed. Also in 2002, the Medical Department of the Ministry of Justice took a number of steps to improve the standard medical treatment provided at penitentiaries.
Presentation of Report
VALERY CHECHELASHVILI, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said that the Committee was an important tool to improve the path of reforms that Georgia was desperately trying to develop, especially since the Rose Revolution in 2003. Since the Rose Revolution, the Georgian Government was trying to push forward reforms in each and every sphere. During the three years from 2003 to 2006, the Government had increased budget revenues five times, and according to assessments of important international economic financial institutions like the World Bank, Georgia was at the forefront of economic reforms in the world. That was important because it gave Georgia a greater capacity to introduce reforms in other areas, particularly with regard to the implementation of the Convention against Torture.
The prevalent practice of torture was one of the priority areas for reform for the Georgian Government following the Rose Revolution and eliminating impunity for torturers was one of the priorities from the very beginning. In furtherance of that policy, Mr. Chechelashvili said, neither torture nor violent beatings were tolerated by the Government. There had been unprecedented prosecutions of police and law enforcement officers. There had also been institutional reform in three main sectors, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.
In the legislative sphere, by virtue of 2005 amendments, the statutory definitions of torture had been aligned with international human rights treaties standards. Georgia had also acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 9 August 2005. Mr. Chechelashvili added that Georgia had also accepted the competence of the Committee to treat individual and State complaints under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Special emphasis was placed as well on the prompt investigation of complaints of torture or ill treatment, Mr. Chechelashvili stressed. The State now required law enforcement agencies to immediately investigate any cases of human rights violations.
Additional safeguards in the 2005 amendments to the statutory law included that police had to immediately draw up a report on the detention of a person, including the person's medical state and any signs of injury. Testimony given in the course of pre-trial investigation would not be allowed in court unless the defendant reconfirmed that testimony before the court. To safeguard the prisoner against medical or physical pressure during interrogation, Mr. Chechelashvili said, the detainee had the right to have the interrogation audiovisually recorded. Prisoners could also request immediate medical examinations upon being detained.
Regarding institutional reforms, all human rights investigations were undertaken and had to be approved by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia. The Prosecutor General also had to update the human rights protection unit within 3 days in cases of torture. Members of the Prosecutor's Office were also required to wear external identification when visiting areas of incarceration to interrogate detainees.
The improvement of working conditions and the increase in salaries of police and law enforcement officials was another guarantee against torture. The average salary of those in the Prosecutor General's office had been increased 10 times. Noticeable changes were also made in the administrative procedures of the Prosecutor's Office.
In the Ministry of Internal Affairs, similar steps were undertaken, which had had a direct positive effect on the reduction of torture in Georgia. All personnel implicated in practices such as torture or ill or degrading treatment were laid off. Training in the field of human rights, including specifically on torture and ill or abusive treatment, had been undertaken. Most acts of torture occurred during the period of detention and interrogation, Mr. Chechelashvili noted. For that reason, the focus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had been on detainees, including ensuring that they received timely medical examination and that their right to notification and access to a lawyer was respected.
On the issue of the penitentiary system, during the Soviet period there were only a small number of penitentiary institutions on the territory and they were generally used as a temporary measure. The system had had to be totally reformed, and in 2002 an action plan on reforms in the penitentiary system was drafted and adopted by the President. Unfortunately, nothing had been done about the action plan until the Rose Revolution, Mr. Chechelashvili said. The country simply did not have the financial funds to implement it. Within two years, a series of activities had been carried out, including the construction of several new penitentiary institutions in accordance with international standards. A new draft penitentiary code, focusing on the rehabilitation of prisoners, was to be presented to Parliament for its adoption in 2006.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia were among the most important problems Georgia was facing at the moment, and the Georgian Government was committed to finding full-scale solutions to those conflicts. Human rights were being violated in both conflict zones. Ceasefires were in effect, but gross violations of human rights unfortunately still frequently occurred. At the moment the Georgian Government had no opportunity to influence the process and it called on the international community to help it to find full-fledged political solutions to those conflict zones.
In Abkhazia, Mr. Chechelashvili said, criminal bands acted without resistance. Thus, both the actions and omissions of Russian forces in the conflict zone had greatly contributed to the violation of human rights in the region. Almost all the human rights violations committed by the agents of the de facto Abkhaz authorities were based on ethnic grounds. Public declarations of Abkhaz authorities of all ranks against ethnic Georgians, along with the lack of willingness to investigate violations of human rights, convinced Georgia of the racist policy of the Abkhaz Government. There did not appear to be any accountability, and in a lot of cases no investigations were being started at all.
Response by Delegation
Mr. Chechelashvili read out the delegation's response to a series of written questions prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand. Previously the crime of torture was criminalized under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. But as it did not meet the requirements set in international human rights instruments, on 23 June 2005, the Parliament of Georgia passed amendments to the Criminal Code that made the statutory elements of torture consistent with the internationally recognized standards. Moreover, the definition was wider than that contained in the Convention, since it covered not only the acts committed by public officials but also those committed by private persons. Notably, the act of torture committed by a public official or through abuse of power was regarded as an aggravated form of the crime, along with that committed through discrimination, among others.
The right of medical examination was guaranteed under the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in 2004, the delegation said. Immediately after arrest, a suspect was entitled to demand free medical examination and findings of the medical examination in written form, as well as the assignment of medical expertise in order to examine his/her state of health and that request had to be immediately fulfilled.
Medical staff implemented 24-hour duty in pre-trial detention facilities. The main functions of that staff were to examine and observe the suspects at their admittance into pre-trial detention facilities, as well as at the time they were taken out of them.
Significant steps had been taken by Georgian authorities, with a view to making Georgia a torture-free zone, particularly within the framework of the Action Plan against Torture (2003-2005). The action plan determined several priorities: adoption of legislative amendments with a view to ensuring full compliance with international standards; coordinated action between State authorities for revealing such facts and giving an adequate response; and prevention and suppression of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment through prompt investigation of the facts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the penitentiary system, taking special measures for the protection of women and minors.
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in comparison with previous years, important progress was evident in measures taken to communicate to law enforcement officials the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding of the right of detainees to counsel. At the same time, monitoring of police officers' activities had been tangibly strengthened.
Georgia would not extradite a person to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subject to torture, nor would it extradite a person to a requesting state for an offence that was punishable by death under the law of that State, unless it received assurances that it considered sufficient that the death penalty would not be carried out.
In response to the Committee's request for updated statistics on the number of offences committed by officials in the period since the submission of their report (2003-2005), Mr. Chechelashvili said that according to the Prosecutor-General's Office, in 2004, in connection with the facts of torture and ill-treatment, 38 criminal cases were initiated; charges were filed against 22 persons in 11 criminal cases; 5 criminal cases against 8 persons were submitted to the court; and sentences were passed in 3 criminal cases against 6 persons. In 2005, 182 criminal cases were initiated; charges were filed against 36 persons in 25 criminal cases; 22 criminal cases against 32 persons were submitted to the court; and sentences were passed in 12 criminal cases against 21 persons, of which 15 persons were sentenced to 3 to 7 years' imprisonment. In the current year, 30 criminal cases have already been initiated; charges were filed against 6 persons in 5 criminal cases; and 4 criminal cases against 4 persons had been submitted to the court. For the time being, no court sentence had been passed on the last-mentioned cases so far.
Questions by Experts
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he found the report to be important and good and the Committee appreciated the information provided. He also welcomed Georgia's accession to the Optional Protocol and the acceptance of complaints with regards to both articles 21 and 22.
There were many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the country and the Committee appreciated the information from local, national, as well as international NGOs. Georgia had almost completed the circle of legislative provisions to eliminate torture in the country. But, Mr. Mavrommatis noted, everyone agreed -- the Government, as well as NGOs and the Special Rapporteur on torture -- that Georgia continued to have a very large number of incidents of cruel treatment and torture. Georgia had everything in their armoury to combat torture, and yet they still had this number of incidents.
One report that the delegation should give attention to was the report from the World Organization against Torture, to which national Georgian NGOs had contributed. In another NGO report there were 201 cases of torture alleged, giving names and places. Why, despite all the measures taken, was this still going on and what did Georgia intend to do about it? He credited the Government of Georgia with the political will to eradicate torture. But, Mr. Mavrommatis asked, what then were the root causes of the continuing cases of torture? Was it the non-independence of the judiciary? Was civil society too weak to demand and obtain redress in those cases? In that connection, he did take note of the increase in salaries of the law enforcement personnel. It was true that poverty might be responsible for the situation.
Mr. Mavrommatis said that he was also concerned that in the Georgian Constitution there existed a provision for derogation from the laws against torture in the case of a state of emergency.
Regarding extradition, there were two cases of Chechens who were returned to Russia. There were diplomatic assurances received from Russia. He felt if diplomatic assurances were required, then there must have been a doubt, and if a doubt existed, they should not have been returned. Given the turbulent situation in that area, Mr. Mavrommatis said that he was surprised that people were not seeking article 3 protection (which protected a person against expulsion, extradition or return to a State where there were substantial grounds to believe he would be at risk of torture) more.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he too welcomed the numerous steps taken by the State party, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol, to prevent torture. He noted that despite the many measures taken there were still quite a few cases of torture. From 2000 to 2003 there was an annual growth, by a big margin, of allegations and complaints. There was a big contradiction there. He knew it would take time for measures to take effect, but the point was that he felt the situation seemed to be deteriorating in certain areas.
Special investigations had been undertaken in the prisons following the riots there and then the Government said that it had prevented a nationwide prison riot. How could there be a nationwide prison riot if the situation had improved, Mr. Wang wondered. There seemed to be a gap there between theory and practice.
With regard to the prison riots that had occurred last March, in which 17 persons were killed and many were injured, could the delegation provide any further information, particularly in the light of allegations of excessive use of force, Mr. Wang asked.
Mr. Wang said he was also concerned to see that there was a high rate of death, in particular owing to tuberculosis, in the prisons.
He recognized the quite extensive training activities that had been organized by Georgia. But he had one question: did they have a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of that training? What was civil society's view of the effectiveness of that training on the ground?
How many victims of torture had been compensated during the reporting period, and what was the delegation's comment that no right to reparations for torture existed in Georgian legislation, Mr. Wang asked.
Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert commented that he believed that the Committee had posed a question about violence in the prisons to the delegation, but that he felt the response was quite brief. Other issues raised included violence against religious minorities; efforts undertaken by Georgia to break up criminal gangs; and Georgia's plans to allow victims of torture to seek and receive reparations.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the third periodic report of Georgia on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Valery Chechelashvili, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, introducing the report, said that the prevalent practice of torture was one of the priority areas for reform for the Georgian Government following the Rose Revolution, and eliminating impunity for torturers was one of the priorities from the very beginning. Neither torture nor violent beatings were tolerated by the Government. There had been unprecedented prosecutions of police and law enforcement officers. Statutory definitions of torture in Georgia had been aligned with international human rights treaties standards. Georgia acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 9 August 2005, and also accepted the competence of the Committee to treat individual and State complaints under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Andreas Mavrommatis, the Committee Expert Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he welcomed Georgia's accession to the Optional Protocol and the acceptance of complaints under both articles 21 and 22. Georgia had almost completed the circle of legislative provisions to eliminate torture in the country. But everyone agreed -- the Government, as well as non-governmental organizations and the Special Rapporteur on torture -- that Georgia continued to have a very large number of incidents of cruel treatment and torture. He credited the Government of Georgia with the political will to eradicate torture, but what then were the root causes of the continuing cases of torture?
Xuexian Wang, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he too welcomed the numerous steps taken by the State party, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol, to prevent torture. He noted that despite the many measures taken there were still quite a few cases of torture. From 2000 to 2003 there was an annual growth, by a big margin, of allegations and complaints. There was a big contradiction there. He knew it would take time for measures to take effect, but the point was that he felt the situation seemed to be deteriorating in certain areas.
Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions regarding violence against religious minorities; efforts undertaken by Georgia to break up criminal gangs; and Georgia's plans to allow victims of torture to seek and receive reparations.
Also representing the delegation of Georgia were Givi Mikanadze, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Justice, Ekaterine Tkheshelashvili, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tamar Tomashvili, Head of the Human Rights Department of the General Prosecutor's Office, and Alexander Nalbandov, Head of the Political Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 4 May, to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.
Georgia is among the 141 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hear the answers of Peru to the questions on its report which were posed by the Experts on Tuesday, 2 May.
Report of Georgia
Since the submission of its second periodic report, Georgia has adopted a number of regulatory acts to prevent torture and other forms of unlawful treatment and ensure that persons who engage in such practices are punished. The third periodic report of Georgia (CAT/C/73/Add.1) notes that the most recent such legislation is the Plan of Action against Torture for the period 2003-2005. Among others, the Plan of Action identifies priority goals for institutions where efforts to eliminate torture and other impermissible and unlawful treatment are most urgently needed. In February 2002, the President of Georgia signed a decree to implement his initiative to make Georgia a “torture-free zone”. In 2003, the Georgian Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional and struck down several grounds for detention that previously existed under procedural law and emphasized that immediately upon being detained persons must have their rights explained to them and must be given the opportunity to exercise the right to remain silent, to not incriminate themselves and to be assisted by counsel. Both in the capital and in the regions, the Georgian Prosecutor's Office has instituted hotlines whereby anyone may telephone a procurator at any time to report a violation of his or her rights.
In 2002 a total of 287 case files involving internal investigations of unauthorized actions and human rights violations by police officers were sent to the Procurator's Office. Ninety-two police officers were dismissed from the force; 74 officers were relieved of their duties; and 382 officers were disciplined – all those figures significantly higher than the corresponding figures for 2001. From January to December 2002, criminal proceedings were brought against eight prison officers. Over the same period, disciplinary measures were taken against another 390 officers, with 160 relieved of their duties for conduct unbecoming and 84 summarily dismissed. Also in 2002, the Medical Department of the Ministry of Justice took a number of steps to improve the standard medical treatment provided at penitentiaries.
Presentation of Report
VALERY CHECHELASHVILI, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said that the Committee was an important tool to improve the path of reforms that Georgia was desperately trying to develop, especially since the Rose Revolution in 2003. Since the Rose Revolution, the Georgian Government was trying to push forward reforms in each and every sphere. During the three years from 2003 to 2006, the Government had increased budget revenues five times, and according to assessments of important international economic financial institutions like the World Bank, Georgia was at the forefront of economic reforms in the world. That was important because it gave Georgia a greater capacity to introduce reforms in other areas, particularly with regard to the implementation of the Convention against Torture.
The prevalent practice of torture was one of the priority areas for reform for the Georgian Government following the Rose Revolution and eliminating impunity for torturers was one of the priorities from the very beginning. In furtherance of that policy, Mr. Chechelashvili said, neither torture nor violent beatings were tolerated by the Government. There had been unprecedented prosecutions of police and law enforcement officers. There had also been institutional reform in three main sectors, the Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.
In the legislative sphere, by virtue of 2005 amendments, the statutory definitions of torture had been aligned with international human rights treaties standards. Georgia had also acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 9 August 2005. Mr. Chechelashvili added that Georgia had also accepted the competence of the Committee to treat individual and State complaints under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention.
Special emphasis was placed as well on the prompt investigation of complaints of torture or ill treatment, Mr. Chechelashvili stressed. The State now required law enforcement agencies to immediately investigate any cases of human rights violations.
Additional safeguards in the 2005 amendments to the statutory law included that police had to immediately draw up a report on the detention of a person, including the person's medical state and any signs of injury. Testimony given in the course of pre-trial investigation would not be allowed in court unless the defendant reconfirmed that testimony before the court. To safeguard the prisoner against medical or physical pressure during interrogation, Mr. Chechelashvili said, the detainee had the right to have the interrogation audiovisually recorded. Prisoners could also request immediate medical examinations upon being detained.
Regarding institutional reforms, all human rights investigations were undertaken and had to be approved by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia. The Prosecutor General also had to update the human rights protection unit within 3 days in cases of torture. Members of the Prosecutor's Office were also required to wear external identification when visiting areas of incarceration to interrogate detainees.
The improvement of working conditions and the increase in salaries of police and law enforcement officials was another guarantee against torture. The average salary of those in the Prosecutor General's office had been increased 10 times. Noticeable changes were also made in the administrative procedures of the Prosecutor's Office.
In the Ministry of Internal Affairs, similar steps were undertaken, which had had a direct positive effect on the reduction of torture in Georgia. All personnel implicated in practices such as torture or ill or degrading treatment were laid off. Training in the field of human rights, including specifically on torture and ill or abusive treatment, had been undertaken. Most acts of torture occurred during the period of detention and interrogation, Mr. Chechelashvili noted. For that reason, the focus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had been on detainees, including ensuring that they received timely medical examination and that their right to notification and access to a lawyer was respected.
On the issue of the penitentiary system, during the Soviet period there were only a small number of penitentiary institutions on the territory and they were generally used as a temporary measure. The system had had to be totally reformed, and in 2002 an action plan on reforms in the penitentiary system was drafted and adopted by the President. Unfortunately, nothing had been done about the action plan until the Rose Revolution, Mr. Chechelashvili said. The country simply did not have the financial funds to implement it. Within two years, a series of activities had been carried out, including the construction of several new penitentiary institutions in accordance with international standards. A new draft penitentiary code, focusing on the rehabilitation of prisoners, was to be presented to Parliament for its adoption in 2006.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia were among the most important problems Georgia was facing at the moment, and the Georgian Government was committed to finding full-scale solutions to those conflicts. Human rights were being violated in both conflict zones. Ceasefires were in effect, but gross violations of human rights unfortunately still frequently occurred. At the moment the Georgian Government had no opportunity to influence the process and it called on the international community to help it to find full-fledged political solutions to those conflict zones.
In Abkhazia, Mr. Chechelashvili said, criminal bands acted without resistance. Thus, both the actions and omissions of Russian forces in the conflict zone had greatly contributed to the violation of human rights in the region. Almost all the human rights violations committed by the agents of the de facto Abkhaz authorities were based on ethnic grounds. Public declarations of Abkhaz authorities of all ranks against ethnic Georgians, along with the lack of willingness to investigate violations of human rights, convinced Georgia of the racist policy of the Abkhaz Government. There did not appear to be any accountability, and in a lot of cases no investigations were being started at all.
Response by Delegation
Mr. Chechelashvili read out the delegation's response to a series of written questions prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand. Previously the crime of torture was criminalized under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. But as it did not meet the requirements set in international human rights instruments, on 23 June 2005, the Parliament of Georgia passed amendments to the Criminal Code that made the statutory elements of torture consistent with the internationally recognized standards. Moreover, the definition was wider than that contained in the Convention, since it covered not only the acts committed by public officials but also those committed by private persons. Notably, the act of torture committed by a public official or through abuse of power was regarded as an aggravated form of the crime, along with that committed through discrimination, among others.
The right of medical examination was guaranteed under the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in 2004, the delegation said. Immediately after arrest, a suspect was entitled to demand free medical examination and findings of the medical examination in written form, as well as the assignment of medical expertise in order to examine his/her state of health and that request had to be immediately fulfilled.
Medical staff implemented 24-hour duty in pre-trial detention facilities. The main functions of that staff were to examine and observe the suspects at their admittance into pre-trial detention facilities, as well as at the time they were taken out of them.
Significant steps had been taken by Georgian authorities, with a view to making Georgia a torture-free zone, particularly within the framework of the Action Plan against Torture (2003-2005). The action plan determined several priorities: adoption of legislative amendments with a view to ensuring full compliance with international standards; coordinated action between State authorities for revealing such facts and giving an adequate response; and prevention and suppression of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment through prompt investigation of the facts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the penitentiary system, taking special measures for the protection of women and minors.
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in comparison with previous years, important progress was evident in measures taken to communicate to law enforcement officials the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding of the right of detainees to counsel. At the same time, monitoring of police officers' activities had been tangibly strengthened.
Georgia would not extradite a person to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subject to torture, nor would it extradite a person to a requesting state for an offence that was punishable by death under the law of that State, unless it received assurances that it considered sufficient that the death penalty would not be carried out.
In response to the Committee's request for updated statistics on the number of offences committed by officials in the period since the submission of their report (2003-2005), Mr. Chechelashvili said that according to the Prosecutor-General's Office, in 2004, in connection with the facts of torture and ill-treatment, 38 criminal cases were initiated; charges were filed against 22 persons in 11 criminal cases; 5 criminal cases against 8 persons were submitted to the court; and sentences were passed in 3 criminal cases against 6 persons. In 2005, 182 criminal cases were initiated; charges were filed against 36 persons in 25 criminal cases; 22 criminal cases against 32 persons were submitted to the court; and sentences were passed in 12 criminal cases against 21 persons, of which 15 persons were sentenced to 3 to 7 years' imprisonment. In the current year, 30 criminal cases have already been initiated; charges were filed against 6 persons in 5 criminal cases; and 4 criminal cases against 4 persons had been submitted to the court. For the time being, no court sentence had been passed on the last-mentioned cases so far.
Questions by Experts
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he found the report to be important and good and the Committee appreciated the information provided. He also welcomed Georgia's accession to the Optional Protocol and the acceptance of complaints with regards to both articles 21 and 22.
There were many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the country and the Committee appreciated the information from local, national, as well as international NGOs. Georgia had almost completed the circle of legislative provisions to eliminate torture in the country. But, Mr. Mavrommatis noted, everyone agreed -- the Government, as well as NGOs and the Special Rapporteur on torture -- that Georgia continued to have a very large number of incidents of cruel treatment and torture. Georgia had everything in their armoury to combat torture, and yet they still had this number of incidents.
One report that the delegation should give attention to was the report from the World Organization against Torture, to which national Georgian NGOs had contributed. In another NGO report there were 201 cases of torture alleged, giving names and places. Why, despite all the measures taken, was this still going on and what did Georgia intend to do about it? He credited the Government of Georgia with the political will to eradicate torture. But, Mr. Mavrommatis asked, what then were the root causes of the continuing cases of torture? Was it the non-independence of the judiciary? Was civil society too weak to demand and obtain redress in those cases? In that connection, he did take note of the increase in salaries of the law enforcement personnel. It was true that poverty might be responsible for the situation.
Mr. Mavrommatis said that he was also concerned that in the Georgian Constitution there existed a provision for derogation from the laws against torture in the case of a state of emergency.
Regarding extradition, there were two cases of Chechens who were returned to Russia. There were diplomatic assurances received from Russia. He felt if diplomatic assurances were required, then there must have been a doubt, and if a doubt existed, they should not have been returned. Given the turbulent situation in that area, Mr. Mavrommatis said that he was surprised that people were not seeking article 3 protection (which protected a person against expulsion, extradition or return to a State where there were substantial grounds to believe he would be at risk of torture) more.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he too welcomed the numerous steps taken by the State party, including the ratification of the Optional Protocol, to prevent torture. He noted that despite the many measures taken there were still quite a few cases of torture. From 2000 to 2003 there was an annual growth, by a big margin, of allegations and complaints. There was a big contradiction there. He knew it would take time for measures to take effect, but the point was that he felt the situation seemed to be deteriorating in certain areas.
Special investigations had been undertaken in the prisons following the riots there and then the Government said that it had prevented a nationwide prison riot. How could there be a nationwide prison riot if the situation had improved, Mr. Wang wondered. There seemed to be a gap there between theory and practice.
With regard to the prison riots that had occurred last March, in which 17 persons were killed and many were injured, could the delegation provide any further information, particularly in the light of allegations of excessive use of force, Mr. Wang asked.
Mr. Wang said he was also concerned to see that there was a high rate of death, in particular owing to tuberculosis, in the prisons.
He recognized the quite extensive training activities that had been organized by Georgia. But he had one question: did they have a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of that training? What was civil society's view of the effectiveness of that training on the ground?
How many victims of torture had been compensated during the reporting period, and what was the delegation's comment that no right to reparations for torture existed in Georgian legislation, Mr. Wang asked.
Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert commented that he believed that the Committee had posed a question about violence in the prisons to the delegation, but that he felt the response was quite brief. Other issues raised included violence against religious minorities; efforts undertaken by Georgia to break up criminal gangs; and Georgia's plans to allow victims of torture to seek and receive reparations.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record