Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF GEORGIA
04 May 2006
Share
Committee against Torture
4 May 2006
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Georgia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the third periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Wednesday, 3 May, the delegation, which was led by Valery Chechelashvili, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said that, regarding the Committee's concern about the continuing existence of ill-treatment in Georgia and the gap between legislation and practice, the delegation was grateful for the acknowledgement that both legislation and mechanisms for confronting ill-treatment were in place in Georgia. The increase in complaints was a vivid demonstration of the fact that the State institutions were effectively executing their obligations under that legislation. That included clear and simple registration procedures. On the other hand, some detainees saw that registration practice as an opportunity to file false claims and thus delay proceedings, as authorities treated all cases seriously.
Disciplinary review was conducted by the disciplinary chamber of the Judicial High Council of Justice, comprising six members, of whom three were judges and the rest were selected members of the Council. According to recent changes in the law on the disciplinary responsibility of judges and disciplinary proceedings thereto, dated 25 November 2005, decisions of the disciplinary chamber of the Council could be appealed in the Supreme Court, where the case would be reviewed by the disciplinary chamber of that court. Decisions of the Council could be appealed on the grounds of procedural violations, factual circumstances, as well as the adequacy of the punishment imposed.
The delegation also explained the origins and unfolding of the events on 27 March 2006 in Georgian prisons, in which several riots occurred and which had led to the deaths of 7 prisoners and the wounding of 22. In addition, the delegation acknowledged the problem of overpopulation in the Georgian penitentiary system and outlined steps that were being taken to address that situation.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Georgia towards the end of the session on Friday, 12 May 2006.
As one of the 141 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Georgia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 5 May, it is scheduled to take up the second periodic report of the United States (CAT/C/48/Add.3).
Response of Georgia
VALERY CHECHELASHVILI, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Wednesday, 3 May, said that regarding the Committee's concern about the continuing existence of ill-treatment in Georgia and the gap between legislation and practice, the delegation was grateful for the acknowledgement that both legislation and mechanisms for confronting ill-treatment were in place in Georgia. In the delegation's view, the increase in complaints was a vivid demonstration of the fact that the State institutions were effectively executing their obligations under that legislation. That included clear and simple registration procedures. On the other hand, some detainees saw that registration practice as an opportunity to file false claims and thus delay proceedings, as authorities treated all cases seriously.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were protected in Georgia both in law and in practice. If an NGO needed specific information from a relevant governmental agency, the Administrative Code of Georgia provided for a special mechanism, the right to request public information that was an official document, including diagrams, photos, plans, electronic and audiovisual information, Mr. Chechelashvili said.
The new Government when beginning reform of the justice system had taken a systemic approach, Mr. Chechelashvili noted. Changes were under way in each segment of the system that would ensure the sustainable and long-lasting effect of the reforms. The main emphasis had been put on the eradication of corruption in the judiciary, its institutional reorganization, the specialization of judges, an increase in salaries, a clear and transparent system of selection and appointment of judges, merit-based career promotion, the development of training curricula, and computerization of all courts, among others.
Disciplinary review was conducted by the disciplinary chamber of the Judicial High Council of Justice, comprising six members, of whom three were judges and the rest were selected members of the Council. According to recent changes in the law on the disciplinary responsibility of judges and disciplinary proceedings thereto, dated 25 November 2005, decisions of the disciplinary chamber of the Council could be appealed in the Supreme Court, where the case would be reviewed by the disciplinary chamber of that court. Decisions of the Council could be appealed on the grounds of procedural violations, factual circumstances, as well as the adequacy of the punishment imposed, Mr. Chechelashvili said.
In relation to the particular cases mentioned by the Committee, the allegations against two judges of the Supreme Court, Mr. Merab Turava and Mrs. Nino Gvenetadze, were related to the grave violations of procedural norms, and under a decision of the disciplinary chamber they had been released from their duties. In the case of Mr. Sulaqvelidze, in whose case the violations were not of a grave character, the decision of the Chamber was to impose a reproof. It was important to mention that the judges had the full capacity to participate in the proceedings and to be assisted by lawyers of their choice, as well as to appeal the decision of the chamber on procedural grounds.
Regarding the right to reparation and rehabilitation, Georgian legislation had explicit provisions regarding the right to compensation as a form of reparation. According to the Georgian Constitution any persons having unlawfully sustained damage inflicted by State agencies, self-government bodies or their representatives were guaranteed full compensation at the expense of the State and as determined through court proceedings. The Criminal Code also stipulated that a person suffering from property, physical or moral damage resulting from unlawful acts, including arbitrary detention, was entitled to compensation. Nevertheless, no claims for compensation had so far been filed, even though victims of crime had the legal opportunity to enjoy the legal advice and to address the court, the delegation concluded.
The effectiveness of training undertaken in the public prosecutors office and other government agencies was raised by the Committee. The best and most effective assessment of that training would be the performance of the officials concerned, the delegation observed.
Regarding a question as to what the delegation meant by laying off police who were found guilty of violations, the delegation responded that that meant they were permanently dismissed.
In response to Committee concerns about the penitentiary system in Georgia, and specifically the alleged use of excessive force in putting down riots in the prisons, the delegation said that as a former part of the penitentiary system of the Soviet Union, it had inherited a tradition of criminal authorities, a so-called "thieves in law". Those were criminal leaders who had established their own code of rules to govern the situation inside penitentiary establishments. Moreover, those criminals were in most cases the organizers of various crimes that were committed outside the penitentiary establishments. Traditionally a so-called "common tax" had to be collected monthly from the rest of the prisoners for the criminal authorities.
The President and Government of Georgia had identified managing the situation in the penitentiary system and bringing it within the legislative framework as a key priority. To improve the situation it had been decided to build new penitentiary facilities and to refurbish and renovate old ones, as well as to isolate the criminal authorities from the rest of the prison population to avoid their negative influence on them, the delegation said.
Isolation of the criminal authorities from the rest of the population started as soon as the first new prison for 1,500 inmates was opened in Kutaisi in December 2005. It was decided that that type of criminals would be relocated to Tbilisi No. 7 Prison. After transferring criminal authorities from different penitentiary establishments to Tbilisi No. 7 prison, they were deprived of all privileges that they had had in past. Because of that action, the criminal authorities tried to organize a mass hunger strike of prisoners in most penitentiary institutions. There was also operative information that a mass disobedience of prisoners was planned. The Head of the Penitentiary Department announced a special regime, which restricted the entrance of people, including lawyers, to the prisons. In a few days the hunger strike had stopped and the criminal authorities continued other activities to get back their privileges and influence over the management of the penitentiary establishments. The Penitentiary Department set up video surveillance in prisoners' cells to avoid any self-injuries and provocations by the criminal authorities.
On 27 March 2006 the operation started in which the criminal authorities called on other prisoners to start mass disturbances. The most serious situation occurred in Prison No. 5, the delegation said, where cell doors and bars were broken and a fire was set. In order to save the lives of employees the management had been forced to take controllers out of the building. The threat of the mass escape of 3,500 prisoners became a reality and the administration asked for support from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. After several Special Task Force officers entered the building and called for prisoners to calm down, the inmates began moving towards the administrators. Therefore the special task force used the guns with rubber bullets. The prisoners responded with firearms. After bilateral fire 7 prisoners died and 22 inmates received injuries of a different gravity.
At the same time, a riot took place in Tbilisi No. 1 prison, in which the walls and doors of the prison were destroyed and the roof was set on fire, the delegation said.
The sites of the riots in Prisons No. 5 and No. 1 were examined by the Penitentiary Department, and the 96 staff were interrogated. On 13 April 2006 prisoners were accused, brought to account and charged. A preliminary investigation of the case was currently being conducted, the delegation noted.
There were currently 11,500 detainees in the penitentiary system, approximately 65 per cent of whom were in pre-trial detention, and Georgia was facing overcrowding in their pre-trial detention facilities. To solve the problem, several steps had been taken in March and April 2006, which the delegation said it hoped would have an effect on the situation in the nearest future. Those included the decrease from 9 months to 4 months for pre-trial detention, the appointment of 10 new judges, an increase in the the number of bails, and, at the same time, a series of activities had been carried out to build and refurbish penitentiary facilities.
Regarding the possibility of using masks, or hiding personal identification by law enforcement personnel when carrying out their official duties, the delegation said that the police were not entitled to use masks in any of their activities or investigations. Only SWAT teams had the right to use masks, in particular in cases of arresting criminals involved in the drug trade. The masks were used for the personal security of the police involved, so they would not be subject to reprisals by those criminal gangs. In future, those wearing masks would wear numerical identification, thus protecting their identity, but allowing for it to be revealed if there was a later need to do so.
The delegation noted that Georgia had ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2003.
Regarding the Meshkets, the delegation said that the Georgian authorities were currently working on legislation for their repatriation and for reparations to be made to them. In addition, when they entered the country, Meshkets immediately were granted Georgian citizenship.
Comments by Experts
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he was quite satisfied with the answers made by the delegation. He noted with particular pleasure that the judges who had been disciplined were given due process.
He felt that the delegation was aware of the factors necessary to improve the judicial system, what was perhaps needed was to give it priority. Some old habits died hard, if at all, he commented.
One final remark, when a State asked for diplomatic assurances that meant that they had doubts about the situation, and they should think twice about handing someone over in that case.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said he concurred with the Rapporteur and that he appreciated the frank and concise replies of the delegation.
He had no more questions, but he had one comment. He would call the use of force in the prison riot disproportionate, in the sense that both sides used firearms, but he still had questions about that event and whether the use of force had been excessive. Nevertheless, as the investigation into that incident was still ongoing he would await the findings.
In concluding comments, Mr. Mavrommatis said he thought that Georgia was on the right track and that they should continue with their efforts and their cooperation with non-governmental organizations in implementing the provisions of the Convention.
One Expert said she was not sure she had correctly understood the situation of the Meshkets minority. Had she correctly understood that the Meshkets would automatically be granted Georgian nationality upon entering the country, without needing to make any claim for refugee status?
Responding briefly, the delegation said that, regarding asylum seekers and refugees, the Geneva Conventions were in full force in the State of Georgia. Anyone covered by those Conventions had the right to demand asylum or to ask to obtain refugee status.
With regard to the proportionality of the use of force, the delegation said that the authorities were currently reviewing guidelines related to the use of force with a view to producing a clear and easy to use guide for police officers on the subject.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
4 May 2006
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Georgia to questions raised by Committee Experts on the third periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Wednesday, 3 May, the delegation, which was led by Valery Chechelashvili, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said that, regarding the Committee's concern about the continuing existence of ill-treatment in Georgia and the gap between legislation and practice, the delegation was grateful for the acknowledgement that both legislation and mechanisms for confronting ill-treatment were in place in Georgia. The increase in complaints was a vivid demonstration of the fact that the State institutions were effectively executing their obligations under that legislation. That included clear and simple registration procedures. On the other hand, some detainees saw that registration practice as an opportunity to file false claims and thus delay proceedings, as authorities treated all cases seriously.
Disciplinary review was conducted by the disciplinary chamber of the Judicial High Council of Justice, comprising six members, of whom three were judges and the rest were selected members of the Council. According to recent changes in the law on the disciplinary responsibility of judges and disciplinary proceedings thereto, dated 25 November 2005, decisions of the disciplinary chamber of the Council could be appealed in the Supreme Court, where the case would be reviewed by the disciplinary chamber of that court. Decisions of the Council could be appealed on the grounds of procedural violations, factual circumstances, as well as the adequacy of the punishment imposed.
The delegation also explained the origins and unfolding of the events on 27 March 2006 in Georgian prisons, in which several riots occurred and which had led to the deaths of 7 prisoners and the wounding of 22. In addition, the delegation acknowledged the problem of overpopulation in the Georgian penitentiary system and outlined steps that were being taken to address that situation.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Georgia towards the end of the session on Friday, 12 May 2006.
As one of the 141 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Georgia is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 5 May, it is scheduled to take up the second periodic report of the United States (CAT/C/48/Add.3).
Response of Georgia
VALERY CHECHELASHVILI, First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on Wednesday, 3 May, said that regarding the Committee's concern about the continuing existence of ill-treatment in Georgia and the gap between legislation and practice, the delegation was grateful for the acknowledgement that both legislation and mechanisms for confronting ill-treatment were in place in Georgia. In the delegation's view, the increase in complaints was a vivid demonstration of the fact that the State institutions were effectively executing their obligations under that legislation. That included clear and simple registration procedures. On the other hand, some detainees saw that registration practice as an opportunity to file false claims and thus delay proceedings, as authorities treated all cases seriously.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were protected in Georgia both in law and in practice. If an NGO needed specific information from a relevant governmental agency, the Administrative Code of Georgia provided for a special mechanism, the right to request public information that was an official document, including diagrams, photos, plans, electronic and audiovisual information, Mr. Chechelashvili said.
The new Government when beginning reform of the justice system had taken a systemic approach, Mr. Chechelashvili noted. Changes were under way in each segment of the system that would ensure the sustainable and long-lasting effect of the reforms. The main emphasis had been put on the eradication of corruption in the judiciary, its institutional reorganization, the specialization of judges, an increase in salaries, a clear and transparent system of selection and appointment of judges, merit-based career promotion, the development of training curricula, and computerization of all courts, among others.
Disciplinary review was conducted by the disciplinary chamber of the Judicial High Council of Justice, comprising six members, of whom three were judges and the rest were selected members of the Council. According to recent changes in the law on the disciplinary responsibility of judges and disciplinary proceedings thereto, dated 25 November 2005, decisions of the disciplinary chamber of the Council could be appealed in the Supreme Court, where the case would be reviewed by the disciplinary chamber of that court. Decisions of the Council could be appealed on the grounds of procedural violations, factual circumstances, as well as the adequacy of the punishment imposed, Mr. Chechelashvili said.
In relation to the particular cases mentioned by the Committee, the allegations against two judges of the Supreme Court, Mr. Merab Turava and Mrs. Nino Gvenetadze, were related to the grave violations of procedural norms, and under a decision of the disciplinary chamber they had been released from their duties. In the case of Mr. Sulaqvelidze, in whose case the violations were not of a grave character, the decision of the Chamber was to impose a reproof. It was important to mention that the judges had the full capacity to participate in the proceedings and to be assisted by lawyers of their choice, as well as to appeal the decision of the chamber on procedural grounds.
Regarding the right to reparation and rehabilitation, Georgian legislation had explicit provisions regarding the right to compensation as a form of reparation. According to the Georgian Constitution any persons having unlawfully sustained damage inflicted by State agencies, self-government bodies or their representatives were guaranteed full compensation at the expense of the State and as determined through court proceedings. The Criminal Code also stipulated that a person suffering from property, physical or moral damage resulting from unlawful acts, including arbitrary detention, was entitled to compensation. Nevertheless, no claims for compensation had so far been filed, even though victims of crime had the legal opportunity to enjoy the legal advice and to address the court, the delegation concluded.
The effectiveness of training undertaken in the public prosecutors office and other government agencies was raised by the Committee. The best and most effective assessment of that training would be the performance of the officials concerned, the delegation observed.
Regarding a question as to what the delegation meant by laying off police who were found guilty of violations, the delegation responded that that meant they were permanently dismissed.
In response to Committee concerns about the penitentiary system in Georgia, and specifically the alleged use of excessive force in putting down riots in the prisons, the delegation said that as a former part of the penitentiary system of the Soviet Union, it had inherited a tradition of criminal authorities, a so-called "thieves in law". Those were criminal leaders who had established their own code of rules to govern the situation inside penitentiary establishments. Moreover, those criminals were in most cases the organizers of various crimes that were committed outside the penitentiary establishments. Traditionally a so-called "common tax" had to be collected monthly from the rest of the prisoners for the criminal authorities.
The President and Government of Georgia had identified managing the situation in the penitentiary system and bringing it within the legislative framework as a key priority. To improve the situation it had been decided to build new penitentiary facilities and to refurbish and renovate old ones, as well as to isolate the criminal authorities from the rest of the prison population to avoid their negative influence on them, the delegation said.
Isolation of the criminal authorities from the rest of the population started as soon as the first new prison for 1,500 inmates was opened in Kutaisi in December 2005. It was decided that that type of criminals would be relocated to Tbilisi No. 7 Prison. After transferring criminal authorities from different penitentiary establishments to Tbilisi No. 7 prison, they were deprived of all privileges that they had had in past. Because of that action, the criminal authorities tried to organize a mass hunger strike of prisoners in most penitentiary institutions. There was also operative information that a mass disobedience of prisoners was planned. The Head of the Penitentiary Department announced a special regime, which restricted the entrance of people, including lawyers, to the prisons. In a few days the hunger strike had stopped and the criminal authorities continued other activities to get back their privileges and influence over the management of the penitentiary establishments. The Penitentiary Department set up video surveillance in prisoners' cells to avoid any self-injuries and provocations by the criminal authorities.
On 27 March 2006 the operation started in which the criminal authorities called on other prisoners to start mass disturbances. The most serious situation occurred in Prison No. 5, the delegation said, where cell doors and bars were broken and a fire was set. In order to save the lives of employees the management had been forced to take controllers out of the building. The threat of the mass escape of 3,500 prisoners became a reality and the administration asked for support from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. After several Special Task Force officers entered the building and called for prisoners to calm down, the inmates began moving towards the administrators. Therefore the special task force used the guns with rubber bullets. The prisoners responded with firearms. After bilateral fire 7 prisoners died and 22 inmates received injuries of a different gravity.
At the same time, a riot took place in Tbilisi No. 1 prison, in which the walls and doors of the prison were destroyed and the roof was set on fire, the delegation said.
The sites of the riots in Prisons No. 5 and No. 1 were examined by the Penitentiary Department, and the 96 staff were interrogated. On 13 April 2006 prisoners were accused, brought to account and charged. A preliminary investigation of the case was currently being conducted, the delegation noted.
There were currently 11,500 detainees in the penitentiary system, approximately 65 per cent of whom were in pre-trial detention, and Georgia was facing overcrowding in their pre-trial detention facilities. To solve the problem, several steps had been taken in March and April 2006, which the delegation said it hoped would have an effect on the situation in the nearest future. Those included the decrease from 9 months to 4 months for pre-trial detention, the appointment of 10 new judges, an increase in the the number of bails, and, at the same time, a series of activities had been carried out to build and refurbish penitentiary facilities.
Regarding the possibility of using masks, or hiding personal identification by law enforcement personnel when carrying out their official duties, the delegation said that the police were not entitled to use masks in any of their activities or investigations. Only SWAT teams had the right to use masks, in particular in cases of arresting criminals involved in the drug trade. The masks were used for the personal security of the police involved, so they would not be subject to reprisals by those criminal gangs. In future, those wearing masks would wear numerical identification, thus protecting their identity, but allowing for it to be revealed if there was a later need to do so.
The delegation noted that Georgia had ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2003.
Regarding the Meshkets, the delegation said that the Georgian authorities were currently working on legislation for their repatriation and for reparations to be made to them. In addition, when they entered the country, Meshkets immediately were granted Georgian citizenship.
Comments by Experts
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said that he was quite satisfied with the answers made by the delegation. He noted with particular pleasure that the judges who had been disciplined were given due process.
He felt that the delegation was aware of the factors necessary to improve the judicial system, what was perhaps needed was to give it priority. Some old habits died hard, if at all, he commented.
One final remark, when a State asked for diplomatic assurances that meant that they had doubts about the situation, and they should think twice about handing someone over in that case.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Georgia, said he concurred with the Rapporteur and that he appreciated the frank and concise replies of the delegation.
He had no more questions, but he had one comment. He would call the use of force in the prison riot disproportionate, in the sense that both sides used firearms, but he still had questions about that event and whether the use of force had been excessive. Nevertheless, as the investigation into that incident was still ongoing he would await the findings.
In concluding comments, Mr. Mavrommatis said he thought that Georgia was on the right track and that they should continue with their efforts and their cooperation with non-governmental organizations in implementing the provisions of the Convention.
One Expert said she was not sure she had correctly understood the situation of the Meshkets minority. Had she correctly understood that the Meshkets would automatically be granted Georgian nationality upon entering the country, without needing to make any claim for refugee status?
Responding briefly, the delegation said that, regarding asylum seekers and refugees, the Geneva Conventions were in full force in the State of Georgia. Anyone covered by those Conventions had the right to demand asylum or to ask to obtain refugee status.
With regard to the proportionality of the use of force, the delegation said that the authorities were currently reviewing guidelines related to the use of force with a view to producing a clear and easy to use guide for police officers on the subject.
* *** *
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: