Ministers' Deputies / Rapporteur Groups
GR-EDS
Rapporteur Group for Democratic Stability
GR-EDS(2004)32 (restricted) 10 December 2004
————————————————
Honouring of commitments by Georgia:
Report by the GR‑EDS delegation on its visit
from 16 to 18 November 2004
Item to be considered by the GR-EDS at its meeting on 16 December 2004
————————————————
I. Introduction
1. In accordance with the decisions by the Ministers’ Deputies (826th meeting, 5 February 2003) concerning the procedure for monitoring Georgia’s honouring of its obligations and commitments, a GR‑EDS delegation visited Georgia from 16 to 18 November 2004. The visit – which was the second of its kind – followed on from the Secretariat’s fourth six-monthly report (see document SG/Inf(2004)19) and the Deputies’ decision to instruct the GR‑EDS to continue regular monitoring of Georgia’s honouring of its commitments, in particular with regard to the functioning of democratic institutions, including those related to regionalisation, the functioning of the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies and the fight against corruption and organised crime. The report by the GR‑EDS is set out below.
2. The GR‑EDS delegation comprised Ambassador Jean-Claude JOSEPH (Switzerland, Chair of the GR‑EDS), Ambassador Roland WEGENER (Germany), Ambassador Johannes C. LANDMAN (Netherlands), Ambassador Per SJÖGREN (Sweden) and Ambassador Daryal BATIBAY (Turkey). The programme of the visit is appended.
3. The delegation met the President of Georgia, Mr Mikheïl SAAKASHVILI, the Prime Minister, Mr Zurab JVANIA, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms Salome ZOURABICHVILI, the Speaker of Parliament, Ms Nino BURJANADZE, parliamentarians from the ruling coalition and the opposition, the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe and representatives of NGOs and diplomatic missions in Georgia. It also held talks with Mr H Talvitie, EU representative for the South Caucasus, who was in Georgia for discussions about the situation in South Ossetia.
4. The delegation wishes to thank the Georgian authorities for their hospitality and co-operation. All discussion partners underlined the importance they attached to co-operation with the Council of Europe as a key partner for the integration of Georgia in European structures.
5. The delegation also wishes to thank the Swiss ambassador in Georgia, Mr Stefan Speck, for arranging a meeting with the diplomatic missions in the country.
II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6. The visit came a few days before the first anniversary of the Rose Revolution, which continues to have a profound impact on politics and the pace of reforms in Georgia. Politicians and civil society strongly support the process of European integration and democratisation and the expectations of success are very high. Differences emerge when it comes to assessing the pace and shape of the action taken.
7. The authorities, from President Saakashvili downwards, believe that the time they have for implementing the necessary reforms is limited and that there is only a brief window of opportunity. They therefore tend not always to ensure the necessary guarantees in terms of thoroughness, verification and consultation, which can detract from the quality of the reforms. It is also sometimes the case that the excessive zeal, if not brutality, of the government’s action undermines human rights. This is causing unease among the NGOs, which were the original base of many of the figures now in power and which are clearly distancing themselves from these excesses, while continuing to support the reform process. There is therefore an impression of transition and of things being on hold, with people waiting to see what happens and refraining from over criticising.
8. The revolution and the triumphal presidential and parliamentary elections that followed for the President and his party mean that there is virtually no opposition. Critical voices tend, instead, to come from NGOs, which hold regular meetings with the President. Such a meeting had been held on the eve of the visit and had involved discussion of the NGOs’ complaints. The delegation was once again struck by the vitality and maturity of civil society in Georgia, which stands out clearly from that in the two other countries of the southern Caucasus.
9. Most NGOs were delighted that a large number of necessary reforms – some of which were drastic – had been adopted over the past year. Nevertheless, it was now necessary to make sure that they were properly implemented and that the relevant institutions were consolidated. This was because the state was being built more on the basis of a few strong personalities than of stable institutions. Modernisation should not be pushed through with haste and with disregard for the rule of law and human rights. Some NGOs believed that, apart from appearances and a more modern image, nothing much had changed. In their view, the main problems, namely the clan system, influence peddling and corruption, had not been resolved. There were also many instances of religious intolerance, which appeared to be a taboo subject. All of the organisations referred to the poor functioning of the courts, the disproportionate use of violence in the fight against corruption and inhuman treatment or even torture in detention facilities. Reference was also made to some degree of self-censorship in the media, which was possibly the result either of political closeness to the new authorities or to intimidating measures.
10. In spite of these obvious sources of concern, the delegation nevertheless had the impression that Georgia was on the right track, mainly thanks to its human capital. All discussion partners – from the authorities to the NGOs – stood out through their quality, competence and motivation. They are mostly very young individuals who are totally committed to building their future and that of their country on a democratic and European basis. They all want to break with the old system and establish Georgia’s position firmly in democracy, the modern world and Europe.
11. In all its discussions, the delegation underlined the Council of Europe’s readiness to assist the Georgian authorities in the ongoing reform process and in the honouring of commitments. It stressed that democratic progress would have a significant impact on the unity and cohesion of the country by offering certain guarantees to the regions with a tendency towards separatism.
III. THE FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO REGIONALISATION
12. In the course of the various discussions with the delegation, the authorities highlighted the work they had done since the revolution and their achievements in terms of honouring commitments. They asked for understanding for a young country which had only come into being in 1990. Ms Zourabichvili underlined that the last 14 years had been devoted to consolidating independence and that democratic reforms proper had only begun a year ago (“we cannot do everything at once”).
13. The President and the Prime Minister explained that efforts had mainly focused on building a strong state with institutions capable of functioning properly. They mentioned far-reaching reforms such as the reform of the road police, which had involved replacing a large and ineffective force with fewer police officers recruited according to criteria of competence and integrity. The number of civil servants had been reduced, which meant that those remaining could be better paid and helped combat corrupt practices. The army had been reformed and professionalised. The fight against corruption had been conducted energetically and on a very extensive scale. This had made it possible to better control the energy supplies, seize large sums of misappropriated funds and start collecting taxes. The national budget will be increased threefold in 2005.
14. Order had been restored and security had returned to all of Georgian territory under Tbilisi’s control. An end had been put to racketeering, kidnappings and assassinations. By way of example, the lorries which used to avoid Georgia for fear of having to pay ransoms every 100 km and preferred to make 1 000-km detours had started crossing the country again. Authority had been restored over Ajaria, which had returned to the rule of law like the rest of Georgia. Unfortunately, the same could not be said of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
15. While welcoming the efforts made, the delegation referred to the concerns expressed by NGOs and international observers about an element of undue haste in the reforms, which could lead to laws being passed that were not entirely in line with European standards. The hasty adoption of the constitutional reform in February, without account being taken of the Venice Commission’s recommendations was mentioned in this connection. All of the Georgian discussion partners – both government representatives and parliamentarians - stressed that the amendments had been urgently needed and were essential. They said that they were very satisfied with the measures taken, in particular the creation of the post of Prime Minister, and explained that, contrary to the fears - including those of the Venice Commission - about the concentration of powers, the system was working in a balanced and effective manner.
16. Parliament does not feel weakened by the reform, which gives it the power to impeach the government. It is determined to play its role in making laws and scrutinising the executive to the full. The parliamentarians the delegation met seemed responsible and dynamic and had a clear and determined idea of their task. They are currently considering a reform of parliament’s working methods, for which they requested the Council of Europe’s assistance.
17. Again in the field of constitutional reform, the delegation raised the question of local and regional self‑government, which is of crucial importance and must be carried forward. The issue of the status of the secessionist regions obviously arises in this connection. The President announced that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had written to the Venice Commission at his request the previous day asking it to prepare a draft document on the status of South Ossetia for the Georgian authorities. With regard to Abkhazia, where there was an upsurge in tension during the visit, the President and the Prime Minister took a cautious line, emphasising that it was a specific issue which smelled unpleasantly of ethnic cleansing in Georgia’s view. The delegation underlined that the degree of internal democratisation in Georgia offered the separatist regions both a guarantee and an incentive to reintegrate a Georgia respectful of the rule of law. The President said that he was flexible and willing to consider any type of self-government which could generate trust and a desire to share a common destiny.
18. Lastly, with regard to the proposed constitutional amendments submitted to the Venice Commission by the Minister of Justice, it seemed that, apart from the authors of the proposals, the Liberty Institute, no one else was aware of the commission being consulted.
19. The delegation also raised the question of the reform of the Electoral Code. The Georgian discussion partners underlined the importance they attached to fair and transparent elections. The Prime Minister pointed out that the events of November 2003, which had been triggered by the massive fraud during the parliamentary elections, remained firmly in people’s minds and would continue to serve as a lesson for the country’s current leaders and their successors.
20. With regard to the composition of the Central Electoral Commission, consultations on the basis of the Venice Commission’s opinion are continuing. The authorities are particularly concerned to depoliticise and professionalise the electoral commissions at all levels to the maximum degree. As far as the threshold for obtaining seats in parliament was concerned, however, all parliamentarians and government representatives said that they did not intend altering the threshold of 7 % as it allows to prevent the fragmentation of political forces in Georgia.
IV. THE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
21. In general terms, the delegation called for the Council of Europe to be consulted about all draft legislation before it was passed and stressed that it would be wise to slow down the passing of legislation so as to enable bills to be properly prepared. The bills on the police, the prosecutor general and the Judicial Service Commission were mentioned in this connection. Particular attention should be paid to human rights awareness and training for police officers. The Code of Criminal Procedure is currently the subject of heated debate. The delegation pointed out that the European model offered, compared to the American model, a number of advantages, in particular with a view to Georgia’s integration into European legal systems. The Georgian side said that they were very interested in plea bargaining and jury systems.
22. In general, the authorities said that they were in favour of increasing the independence and professionalism of judges and referred to the efforts they had made to improve the financial situation and employment status of judges.
23. The delegation also met the Head and some members of the European Union’s team of the mission on the rule of law. They are currently reviewing the operation of the courts and intend drawing up an overall judicial reform strategy for spring 2005. The delegation underlined that the Council of Europe had already done much work in this area and that the EU Just-Themis mission could draw on this and co-operate closely with the Council. The delegation urged the Georgian authorities to take up the EU Just-Themis mission’s recommendations, in relation with the programmes of the Council of Europe.
24. With regard to the allegations of the disproportionate use of force and instances of torture by certain officials, the President said he was aware of certain breaches of ethics in this area. He was determined to put an end to these practices inherited from the past, which were mainly found in rural areas. However, he underlined that the increased awareness of abuses of this kind since the revolution was a sign of greater transparency rather than an increase in the volume of such practices.
V. THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND ORGANISED CRIME
25. The delegation stressed that it was essential for the fight against corruption, which had made clear progress, to comply with the standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They warned against excessively spectacular measures, which were not really compatible with the rule of law. The President said that, while he was aware of the problem, the people who complained loudest about the violation of human rights were those who had the most to hide and the most resources for defending themselves. He was more concerned about the problems faced by ordinary people without large amounts of money or connections than about wealthy figures who could afford the best lawyers. Most incidents could be put down to bitterness and over-zealousness on the part of officials who believed they could take revenge for the past.
26. In this connection, the delegation called for all of GRECO’s recommendations, and not just two of them, to be implemented as quickly as possible. The authorities undertook to do this.
VI. OTHER ISSUES
27. With all of its discussion partners, the delegation raised the issue of the media, the freedom and diversity of which had been one of Georgia’s strengths. Since the revolution, the media seemed to have succumbed to self-censorship and passivity. There had been reference to intimidating measures and telephone calls which had led to criticism being toned down. Moreover, the wide range of private stations governed by imperatives of commercial success and a desire not to displease the authorities seem to be holding back the Georgian audiovisual sector.
28. With regard to the alleged pressure on the media, the President voiced doubts about the use of practices of that kind, which he said NGOs had reported to him. He distanced himself totally from such practices and said he was willing to order inquiries into any specific cases that were drawn to his attention in this respect.
29. The delegation was reassured about the funding of the public broadcasting corporation, whose statute is currently before parliament. It received assurances that the bill about to be passed provided for funding the public broadcasting corporation through taxation and advertising revenues.
30. The delegation also raised the question of the conventions which Georgia had undertaken to ratify where ratification was still pending. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that the Framework Convention on Minorities should be ratified shortly. However, they acknowledged that they were having greater difficulties with the Charter on Regional or Minority Languages.
31. With regard to the question of the repatriation of the Meskhetians, the President and the Prime Minister said that they wished to tackle the problem. The President set up a committee on the matter. He promised that a solution would be found, even though repatriation would not be possible in the region previously inhabited by the Meskhetians, but in another part of the country.
VII. CONCLUSION
32. The delegation believes that the three specific fields for which it was assigned more particular responsibility by the Deputies and the GR‑EDS, namely the functioning of democratic institutions, including those related to regionalisation, the functioning of the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies and the fight against corruption and organised crime are the key factors in the development of democracy in Georgia. While substantial progress has been achieved, efforts still need to be made in these three areas, namely in terms of adoption of relevant laws and of their implementation. The delegation therefore believes that the monitoring assigned to the GR‑EDS in these three areas in particular should be continued.
33. In particular, the delegation recommends that the Georgian authorities:
· continue their efforts in the fields of the functioning of democratic institutions, including those related to regionalisation, the functioning of the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies and the fight against corruption and organised crime;
· should not sacrifice the quality of legislation for the sake of urgency and, in this connection, should not pass new legislation without first consulting the Council of Europe and taking account of its opinion;
· co-operate as much as possible with the Council of Europe and the EU Just-Themis mission with a view to developing a coherent strategy for judicial reform;
· implement new legislation carefully;
· make sure that they respect the rule of law and human rights when carrying out reforms.
APPENDIX
PROGRAMME
FOR THE VISIT OF
THE DELEGATION OF THE GR-EDS
TO GEORGIA
16-18 November 2004
Tuesday 16 November 2004
13.00- Arrive Tblisii Marriott Hotel
15.30 Meeting with the Head of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe, Mr Guiorgui BOKERIA
16.30 Meeting with the President of the Parliament of Georgia, Ms Nino BURJANADZE
20.00 Meeting with the President of Georgia, Mr Mikheïl SAAKASHVILI
Wednesday 17 November 2004
11.00 Meeting with NGOs and international NGOs (organised by Inkeri Aarnio-Lwoff and Tamara Katsitadze Tel: +995 32 98 54 40 or +995 32 98 89 77 or +995 32 98 95 60 - Fax: +995 32 98 96 57 in the Marriot-Courtyard Hotel)
13.00 Lunch hosted by Swiss Ambassador
17.00 Meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, Ms Salome ZOURABICHVILI
Thursday 18 November 2004
12.00 Meeting with the Prime Minister of Georgia, Mr Zurab JVANIA
15.40 Leave Tbilisi for Baku Flight no. J2 224 (Azerbaijan Airlines)