COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF GEORGIA TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY MEMBERS YESTERDAY

CAT
26th session
2 May 2001
Afternoon





The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Georgia to the questions its Experts raised yesterday in connection with the second periodic report of that country on how it was giving effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The delegation said, among other things, that the violated territorial integrity of Abkhazia remained a most difficult and painful issue for Georgia. The Georgian authorities were not able to implement the Convention in that region and they could not monitor the human rights situation there.

Further, the delegation said that at all stages of the conflict, the international community had supported and would continue to support the principle of the territorial integrity of Georgia and its sovereignty; that support had also been reflected in all resolutions of the Security Council since 1993.

The Georgian delegation said that it agreed with the view of one of the Committee's Experts who said that international terrorism should be considered as torture since terrorism intimidated the whole population. Asked if Georgia was ready to recognize universal jurisprudence, the delegation said the Government was ready to support the combat against international crimes with all its means.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Georgia at 3 p.m. on Monday, 7 May in the presence of Georgia's representatives. Georgia is among the 123 States parties to the Convention against Torture and as such it must submit periodic summaries of its performance to implement the provisions of the treaty.

Before adjourning its afternoon meeting, the Committee went into private session to consider information it received and which appeared to contain well-founded indications that torture was being systematically practised in the territory of a State party. It was also scheduled to examine communications under article 21 of the Convention, which says that a State party to the Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 3 May, it will take up the initial report of Bolivia (document CAT/C/52/Add.1).


Response of Georgia

The delegation of Georgia said the new Georgian criminal procedural code granted to detainees the right to be examined by an independent forensic expert. A detainee was entitled to undergo a prompt, impartial, and independent medical examination in order to prove that a person had been physically ill-treated in prison or to disprove false allegations. Although persons in possession of a licence had the right to conduct an examination, there were no clear precedential definitions on how to implement and exercise that right. Access to the places of pre-trial detention had been provided for independent experts without obstacles.

Asked about the mechanisms through which a prisoner could lodge complaints, the delegation said that the complaints of a prisoner could be addressed through his or her legal representative.

Asked how facts of torture were revealed and if there were enough experts with access to persons, the delegation said that revelation of facts of torture was the duty of court and medical experts. On the ground of expert conclusions, the court could decide if torture had taken place. In every case of alleged torture, an investigation had been conducted.

Any practice of investigative action connected with the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms was carried out by the courts, the delegation said. The detained person had the right to file complaints to the procurator on the actions of the inquiry body or investigator at any stage of the investigation.

A question was put if the results of investigations were valid without the presence of a lawyer, to which the delegation said that the suspect or the accused had the right to enjoy the assistance of a lawyer. A suspect could refuse the assistance of a lawyer except in the event that the individual was a minor or without a good command of the language of the justice. The presence of a lawyer was necessary in cases which might lead to sentences of life imprisonment.

The delegation said that it agreed with the view of one of the Committee's Expert who said that international terrorism should be considered as torture since terrorism intimidated the whole population. Asked if Georgia was ready to recognize universal jurisprudence, the delegation said the Government was ready to support the combat against international crimes with all its means.


Asked about the status of Abkhazia and Georgia's responsibility to protect human rights there, the delegation said that the violated territorial integrity remained a most difficult and painful issue for Georgia. The problem originated from a series of negative results reflected in political, economic, social and other spheres. Authorities of Abkhazia and Ossetia had claimed the right to self-determination, however, at all stages of the conflict, the international community had supported and would continue to support the principle of the territorial integrity of Georgia and its sovereignty. Regarding Abkhazia, the support had been reflected in all resolutions of the Security Council since 1993.

Georgia was not in a position to implement and monitor the human rights situation in Abkhazia, including the Convention against Torture, the delegation said. On the initiative of Georgia, a joint mission of the United Nations and the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was established in Sukhumi to monitor the human rights situation. There had been an agreement that a similar mission would be established in Gali region, where 40,000 Georgian returned on their own risk. In fact those people were uprooted.

All persons held in a pre-trial detention had to appear before a court within 24 hours. If a court did not decide within the limited period, the individual was freed. The maximum period that an individual could remain in detention with the advice of a court was 72 hours. A person detained illegally could claim compensation for the damage done to his personality. Once a person was brought to a police station or any centre for interrogation, the confession should be signed by the interrogator and the suspect. The person had to be informed about the reason for his detention in the first place. After interrogation, the individual could see a doctor to determine his or her health condition. If the suspicions against the detained person were not justified, the individual was fully compensated by the State. Any measure which restricted the constitutional right of an individual should be addressed to the judicial authorities. If the individual was detained on the basis of State security, the Supreme Court dealt with the matter.

Judges were independent and any interference to influence their performance was illegal, the delegation said. The removal of a judge could only be decided on particular cases which might involve severe cases of misuse of judicial power. There was a provision on the responsibilities of judges. In addition, the office of the procurator was the organ which brought charges on behalf of the State. In 1997, a law was adopted to regulate the power of the procurator. It made the office of the prosecutor independent from any institutional attachments.

Evidence could not be taken from a witness without the presence of a legal assistance, the delegation said. There was a danger, however, that the witness might ignore his or her right and those who were doing the interrogation, out of their experience, might prepare the evidence without the proper legal requirements.

The United Nations observer mission was not able to provide security support to the monitoring office of human rights in Abkhazia. Ethic Georgian living in that region were not able to demand assistance due to fear of reprisal by the Abkhazians. The mission should also monitor the acts of genocide and violation of human rights of ethnic Georgians in the region, the delegation said.


Responding to a question on the ability of a police person to be a member of the office of the "national defender of human rights", the delegation said that there was no reason that a former policeman could not be elected as a member. He could be elected as a member as long as that person had a good reputation and had not committed any corrupt acts while he was in the police service.

Committee members said they were satisfied with the opening of the Georgian society to non-governmental organizations and that the legislative reform had been a good start to democratize the whole society.




* *** *