1 Annex - Response to the Recommendations accepted by Georgia during the 1

(1)

1

Scope of

international obligation

Obligation

1. Consider accession to the remaining core international human rights instruments

Brazil 105.1

Status: Implemented

At present, Georgia is a State Party to the various core international human rights instruments. Since 2011 Georgia has become a State Party to: Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (in force for Georgia since 22 March, 2012); Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (ratified by Georgia on 2 April, 2014); UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (in force for Georgia since 12 April, 2014); Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (in force for Georgia since January 1, 2015); Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-‐

operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (in force for Georgia since March 1, 2015).

Furthermore, on 19 June 2014 Georgia has signed the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). Currently, the process of harmonization of Georgian legislation with the provisions of the Istanbul Convention is underway in order to complete the ratification process of the Convention.

At the same time, Georgian authorities have already initiated relevant internal legal procedures with an aim to consider the accession to those international and regional human rights instruments that Georgia is not yet a party to: the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure; International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced disappearance; Optional Protocol of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

(2)

obligation

2. Consider the

possibility of

becoming a party to

the following

international instruments:

a) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant

Workers and

Members of Their Families;

b) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

c) International Convention for the Protection of All

Persons from

Enforced Disappearance

Argentin a 105.2

On 26 of December 2013, the Parliament of Georgia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). (in force for Georgia since 12 April, 2014). On 20^th of January, 2014 the Georgian Government adopted the Government Action Plan 2014-‐2016 in order to ensure equal opportunities of persons with disabilities which is elaborated according to the convention principles and considers to implement complex measures to realize also the rights of the persons with disabilities (PWD) in recent years:

1. Establishment of National mechanisms for monitoring and implementation of the Convention;

2. In 2016, to submit the Initial report to the UN Committee;

3. Harmonization of domestic legislation;

4. Preparation of conclusions by the state agencies about the feasibility of the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

The Coordination Council on the issues of Persons with Disabilities was established by the Government of Georgia and is chaired by the Prime Minister of Georgia. The Council is a national organ for implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Georgian authorities have already initiated relevant internal legal procedures with an aim to consider the accession International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced disappearance.

(3)

3 obligation

3. Consider ratifying of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant

Workers and

Members of Their

Families, in

accordance with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Algeria

105.3 Status: Implemented

See response to recommendation 105.1 and 105.2.

(4)

obligation

4. Consider ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Mexico

On December 26, 2013, the Parliament of Georgia ratified the Convention on the Right of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which entered into force for Georgia on April 12, 2014.

See also response to recommendation 105.2.

(5)

5 obligation

5. Consider ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

India

On December 26, 2013, the Parliament of Georgia ratified the Convention on the Right of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which entered into force for Georgia on April 12, 2014. See also response to recommendation 105.2.

Georgia acceded to the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict on 3 September, 2010 (Ratified by the Parliament of Georgia in 2002, entered into force from 3 September, 2010).

(6)

obligation

6. Respectfully the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular its article 14, as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms,

particularly its article 6, as well as adopt appropriate measures to guarantee the impartiality of its judicial system

France

With an aim to further strengthen the impartiality of judiciary, several set of reforms have been undertaken within the country. The first stage of reforms of the judiciary started in 2012 and was primarily aimed at de-‐

politicizing and strengthening the independence of the High Council of Justice and a number of other institutions of the judicial self-‐government.

The enacted amendments ensure participation of judges in the formation of the High Council of Justice and a decision-‐making process on the judicial system in general. The right to nominate the candidates for the membership and the position of the secretary of the High Council of Justice is no longer exclusively vested with the chairman of the Supreme Court and is now granted to any judge. The first wave amendments also increased the transparency of the court and disciplinary proceedings. The provisions regulating the recording and broadcasting of the court proceedings and publication of the decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber and Disciplinary Board were revised. The powers of initiating and deciding on disciplinary proceedings against judges – previously vested with the same body – were split and allocated to the two different ones.

The members of the disciplinary board and chamber can no longer be the members of the High Council of Justice which now ensures impartiality in the activities of the disciplinary chamber and board.

At the next stage of reforms in line with the Constitution, the Organic Law

“on Common Courts has determined the provision on probationary appointment of judges for three -‐ year period. In particular, in accordance with Article 36(4¹) of the Organic Law of Georgia “on Common Courts”, the judge of a district (city) court and court of appeals shall be appointed to office for a term of three years and shall be assessed during these three years by the members of the High Council of Justice of Georgia (`the evaluators`). To this end, a transparent mechanism for assessing the judicial performance during this period was also elaborated and entered

(7)

7 obligation

into force. The key criteria set by the mechanism are integrity and competence. Integrity in turn is divided into several subcategories and impartiality is one of these subcategories. Therefore, when assessing a judge based on impartiality account shall be taken of his/her adherence to principles, ability independently make a decision, and resistance to influence, personal steadfastness and firmness, political or other type of impartiality, fairness, etc.

In addition, a transparent mechanism for assessing judicial candidates has also been introduced in the “Rule of Selection of Judicial Candidates”

approved by the Decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia. In accordance with Article 8 (2b) of the Rule, impartiality is one of the criteria for evaluation of judicial candidates, meaning that the members of High Council of Justice, while evaluating the candidates for judicial office, are obliged to assess whether they meet the requirement of impartiality or not.

The third stage of reform was launched in spring 2014. It is focused on the guarantees for independence of an individual judge and his/her involvement in the activities of the court. The draft legislative amendments of this stage are aimed at the following changes:

-‐ Filling of the judicial vacancies through competition as opposed to direct appointment;

-‐ Clear articulation of the guarantees for non-‐interference in the activities of a judge;

-‐ Election of chief justices of all district and higher instance courts by the judges themselves;

-‐ Transferring to the High Council of Justice the authority of the chief justices of courts to institute disciplinary proceedings;

-‐ Introduction of the principle of automatic allocation of cases;

-‐ Strict regulation of transfer of judges to another court; the transfer shall be strictly consensual, in exceptional circumstances and to

(8)

obligation

closely located court only;

-‐ Refinement of the procedure of disciplinary proceedings.

Furthermore, the High School of Justice regularly provides training for judges on the issue of the Right to Fair Trial, which in turn also covers the issue of impartiality. For instance in 2013-‐2014 two trainings were conducted on the aforementioned topic and 25 judges participated in it.

(9)

9 obligation

7. Ratify the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the

Reduction of

Statelessness

Slovakia

106.11. Partially:

Government is undertaking the review of national legal framework for the reason of subsequent ratification of 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless

Persons.

However, Georgia is not intending to become a part of

the 1961

Convention on the

Reduction of Statelessness.

Georgia acceded to 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons on December 23, 2011.

After the accession of Georgia to the above Convention, the State Commission on Migration, notably its group for the reduction of statelessness, had prepared the legislative amendments, lately adopted by the Parliament of Georgia and entered into force in June 2012. In particular, aiming harmonization of Georgian legislation with the 1954 Convention, respective changes were introduced in 12 laws. As a result, a definition of stateless person, procedure for status establishment and authority of status seeker was defined on a legislative level. Furthermore, the standards established by 1954 Convention towards persons possessing stateless person’s status in the fields of social security and healthcare, education, documenting, etc. was taken into consideration on the legislative level.

In order to carry out monitoring of the harmonization of Georgian legislation with the UN 1954 Convention, the Georgian legislation is being at present analyzed and in case of need the legislative proposals will be prepared aimed at defining or enforcing the rights of stateless persons in separate branches of legislation.

On April 2, 2014 the Georgian Parliament ratified the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of Statelessness. In order to support the harmonization of the Georgian legislation with the above mentioned convention, the Organic law on Citizenship of Georgia was drafted, which is almost entirely based on the principles of the convention and sets up a number of mechanisms to prevent and reduce the number of Statelessness in Georgia. In particular, in case of granting citizenship of Georgia to the citizen of other country under regular procedure or by the

(10)

obligation

way of restoration, as well as in case of withdrawal from citizenship of Georgia, the presidential decree enters into force only after the person submits the documents proving the granting/withdrawal from the citizinship of other country. Simplified mechanism of the neutralization of minors is set up, as well as the possibility of loosing Georgian citizenship due to the lack of consular registration while living in another country is abolished.

(11)

11 obligation

8. Ratify the Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons and the

Convention on the

Reduction of

Statelessness;

Bolivia

106.12. Partially:

Government is undertaking the review of national legal framework for the reason of subsequent ratification of 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless

Persons.

However, Georgia is not intending to become a part of

the 1961

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Georgia acceded to 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons on December 23, 2011. On April 2, 2014 the Georgian Parliament ratified the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of Statelessness.

See further the response to recommendation 106.11.

(12)

obligation

Constitutional and legislative

framework

(13)

13 obligation

9. Fully implement the Venice Commission

and OSCE/ODIHR

electoral reform recommendations, in consultation with opposition parties and civil society groups, well in advance of the 2012 and 2013 elections

USA

106.16. Partially: Georgia supports the premise of this recommendation and works closely with both the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR to ensure that their recommendation s are taken into account in the final package of electoral

amendments to the maximum extent possible.

The reform process is a multi-‐party and multi-‐sectoral effort, with 15 political parties and civil society experts being directly engaged in the work of the Election Code Working Group.

Final consensus will require an

The implementation of the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR electoral reform recommendations were completed in 2013.

Administrative bodies have jurisdiction over complaints filed with them should immediately forward them to the competent authority.

Stakeholders can file complaints to the competent bodies in order to ensure effective, impartial and timely adjudication.

To ensure that the legislation is consistent, loans received by political parties for the purpose of election campaigning is already subject to the same restrictions and reporting requirements as donations.

The legislative amendment have passed at the Election Code, which states that political parties should protect gender quotas for the submission list in the parliamentary elections. After election at least 25% representation of women in parliament will be provided.

On reform of the electoral legislation, GE informed that the provisions declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court and the electoral system in general were being widely discussed. Replacing the current so called Parallel (Majoritarian-‐Proportional) system with the proportional system is under consideration. Discussions involve the parliamentary and non-‐parliamentary parties, different governmental agencies, institutions, experts, etc. GE also informed on ongoing work on the new constitutional amendments within the Constitutional Commission aiming at: preparing the draft of the Constitutional Law; improving separation of the government on horizontal and vertical level, the system of checks and balances; improving the status and functions of the independent constitutional institutions, which were left beyond the constitutional regulations.

(14)

obligation

intensive consultation process, in which OSCE/ODIHR recommendation s will serve as important guide posts. However, the extent of the implementation of Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommendation s will be subject to broad political consensus.

(15)

15 obligation

10. Complete and enact the draft media law reform, such that it includes measures to

increase media

ownership

transparency and financial transparency

USA

106.14. Accepts: On 8 April 2011, the Parliament of Georgia passed amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting to enhance media ownership and financial

transparency.

Measures included a prohibition for companies registered in offshore

locations to own shares in a broadcasting license.

The major changes in Georgia’s legislation, mainly in the Georgian law on Broadcasting, related to transparency of the media ownership as well as financial transparency were made by the parliament of Georgia in 2011.

The amendments aimed to tackle two problems: 1. Broadcasters registered in offshore zones providing no access to owners’ identification data and 2. hidden interests of local owners.

The new regulations determined who shall not hold the license/authorization in the broadcasting sector and this prohibition applied to:

§ Public (administrative) authority;

§ officials or other employees of public (administrative) authority;

§ Legal entity interdependent with public (administrative) authority;

§ Political party or its officials;

§ Legal entity registered in offshore zone;

§ Legal entity with a share or stocks in it directly or indirectly owned by a legal entity registered in offshore zone.

According to 2011 year amendments of Georgian Law on Broadcasting, Georgian National Communications Commission (The regulator state body) affirmed form of Declaration of Compliance, which should be enclosed to an application by the seeker of license/authorization. The declaration of compliance consists of the following information:

§ identification data of a seeker of license/authorization;

§ data on superior officers and bodies of a seeker of license/authorization;

(16)

obligation

§ a confirmation that a seeker of license/authorization or its beneficial owner are not the persons to whom it is prohibited to own the license/authorization in the broadcasting sector

§ Identification data of beneficial owners of a seeker of license/authorization and information about the shares owned by them.

Georgian Law on broadcasting also defines who the beneficial owner of the broadcaster is.

Beneficial owner is determined as a person who on the basic of law or a deal, receives or may receive monetary or other benefit from broadcaster’s activity and has no obligation to transfer it to another person. If a beneficial owner is a legal entity created to further ideal goals, or if a legal entity owner does not have a person who owns a substantial share, beneficial owner is a member of its governing body.

Broadcaster’s transparency obligation consists of several activities:

1. Obligation to provide the regulator with the declaration of compliance in case of a change in:

• owners of a broadcaster;

• stockholders of a broadcaster's share;

• members of governing bodies and officials of a broadcaster;

In this case, the broadcaster is obliged to inform the regulator within 10 days of the occurrence of such change and also the broadcaster is obliged to publish the declaration of compliance on broadcaster’s web-‐site;

2. Annually, no later than February 1 the broadcaster is obliged to provide

(17)

17 obligation

the regulator as well as society by the following information:

• declaration of compliance (despite changes within a year);

• on holding other licenses in broadcasting sphere or authorization of broadcasting;

• on holding a share or stocks in any other broadcaster;

• on possessing a periodical printed publication;

• on holding a share or stocks in a periodical printed publication;

• on possessing a news agency;

• on holding a share or stocks in a news agency;

• on holding a share or at least 5% of stocks in any other company.

Note: If the holder of a share or stocks in its capital, a founder, other member, director, donor or their family member concurrently holds share or stocks in other license holders or a person having broadcasting authorization, a share or stocks in a periodical printed publication, a share or stocks in a news agency, a broadcaster shall also disclose and furnish regulator with the above mentioned information.

Due to the digital switch over, in June 2015 the Parliament of Georgia has amended the Georgian law on Broadcasting. Consequently, common procedure for broadcast authorization was amended.

The new paragraph 3c, 3d, 3e and 3f of article 45¹defines which documentation and information shall be enclosed with authorization application. In accordance with the amended law a person seeking to carry out broadcasting shall provide information about sources of Financing, asset declarations of this person and his family members.

The paragraphs 60 and 61 of the law on broadcasting strictly define broadcaster concentration on the market.

(18)

obligation

(19)

19 obligation

11. Amend legislation, public policies and

programmes to

comply with its international

commitments against all forms of discrimination, as stipulated in the International

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of

Discrimination against Women

Bolivia

106.19. Georgia accepts the essence of the

recommendation.

However, Georgia cannot accept the portion of the recommendation asking

specifically to

“amend

legislation”, as it considers that existing national law, policy and programs comply

with ts

international obligations under the named conventions.

Georgia cooperates closely with the United

Nations Treaty Monitoring Bodies, will continue to do so in the future and will take

In relation to CERD:

On May 2, 2014 the Law of Georgia on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination was adopted by the Parliament. The adoption of the Law was accompanied with a set of amendments to other legislative acts, including Law on Gender Equality, Criminal Code of Georgia, etc. to harmonize provisions of all relevant statutory acts that serve to elimination of discrimination and ensuring equality.

Purpose of the law shall be elimination of all forms of discrimination and ensure for every person equal enjoyment of rights prescribed by law irrespective of race, skin colour, language, sex, age, citizenship, origin, place of birth or residence, property or social status, religion or belief, national, ethnic or social origin, profession, marital status, health, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, political or other opinions, or other characteristics (Article 1 of the Law) See Appendix I.

The Law also distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination.

The former is defined as “the kind of treatment or creating the conditions when one person is treated less favorably than another person in a comparable situation on any grounds specified in Article 1 of this Law or when persons in inherently unequal conditions are treated equally in the enjoyment of the rights provided for by the legislation of Georgia, unless such treatment or creating such conditions serves the statutory purpose of maintaining public order and morals, has an objective and reasonable justification, and is necessary in a democratic society, and the means of achieving that purpose are appropriate” whereas the latter is defined as “a situation where a provision, criterion or practice, neutral in form but discriminatory in substance, puts persons having any of the

(20)

obligation

measures as necessary to ensure continued compatibility

with its

international commitments

characteristics specified in Article 1 of this Law at a disadvantage compared with another person in a comparable situation, or equally treats persons who are in inherently unequal conditions, unless such situation serves the statutory purpose of maintaining public order and morals, has an objective and reasonable justification, and is necessary in a democratic society, and the means of achieving that purpose are appropriate.”

The novelty of the law is the introduction of the concept of multiple discrimination previously unknown to the Georgian legal system. The law defines the multiple discrimination as discrimination based on combination of two or more characteristics and provides that any form of discrimination, being it direct, indirect or multiple, shall be prohibited in Georgia. Simultaneously, it stipulates that special and provisional measures aimed at encouraging equality, particularly in gender issues, shall not be considered as discrimination.

Discrimination according to the Law shall be prohibited in all spheres, both public and private. Elimination of discrimination and ensuring of equality shall be monitored and controlled by an independent body – Public Defender of Georgia. To exercise this power the Public Defender shall:

a) discuss the applications and complaints of natural and legal persons or groups of persons, who consider themselves to be victims of discrimination;

b) examine acts of discrimination based on applications or complaints, as well as on his/her own initiative and make appropriate recommendations;

c) prepare and forward general proposals to relevant institutions or persons on the issue of preventing and combating discrimination;

d) for the purposes of this Law, prepare opinions regarding necessary legislative changes and submit them to the Parliament of Georgia as legislative proposals;

(21)

21 obligation

e) invite a victim of discrimination and an alleged discriminating person, and try to settle the case by mutual agreement of the parties;

f) submit recommendations to relevant institutions or persons to restore the rights of victims of discrimination if the parties fail to reach an agreement and if there is sufficient evidence of discrimination;

g) be authorised to apply to a court, as an interested person, according to the Administrative Procedure Code of Georgia, and request the issue of an administrative legal act or the performance of an action, unless an administrative body responds to or shares a recommendation and there is sufficient evidence of discrimination;

h) record and analyse statistical data on discrimination cases;

i) organise events to raise public awareness of discrimination;

j) cooperate with various international governmental and non-‐

governmental organisations, local non-‐governmental organisations and the representatives of local civil society on discrimination issues.

The Public Defender also prepares and publishes a special annual report on combating and preventing discrimination, as well as on equality situation in the country.

It is important to mention that in March, 2012, Article 53 of Criminal Code of Georgia was amended. The newly inserted paragraph of the mentioned Article envisages that any crime committed under the discriminatory bases is considered as aggravated circumstance.

In relation to the CRC:

During recent years Georgian legislative framework has advanced significantly. The Government of Georgia has reviewed and amended the

(22)

obligation

national legislation in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Child (1989) (hereinafter – CRC)¹ together with its additional protocol (2000),² Geneva declaration on the rights of the child (1924),³ UN declaration on the rights of the child (1959),⁴ the Beijing Rules (1985),⁵ Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime (2005),⁶ United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules) (1990),⁷ United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (1990),⁸ Council of Europe Convention on Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Lanzarote Convention) (2007),⁹ Guidelines of the

1 Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

2 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography adopted by General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May, 2000, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPSCCRC.aspx.

3 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by League of Nations on 26 September, 1924, available at: http://www.un-‐

documents.net/gdrc1924.htm.

4 Declaration of The Rights of the Child adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 1386 (XIV) of 10 December 1959, available at:

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp.

5 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules") adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r033.htm.

6 Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime adopted by the Economic and Social Council resolution 2005/20 of 22 July, 2005, available at: http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/2005/resolution%202005-‐20.pdf.

7 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990, available at: http://www.unrol.org/files/TH007.PDF.

8 United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1990 (A/RES/45/112) , available at:

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r112.htm.

9 Council of Europe Convention on Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, 2007, available at:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/children/Lanzarote%20Convention_EN.pdf.

(23)

23 obligation

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-‐friendly justice (2010),¹⁰ the European Rules (2008),¹¹ two model laws of the UNODC (Model Law on Justice in Matters Involving Children in Conflict with the Law (and related Commentary); Model Law on Justice in matters involving child victims and witnesses of crime (and related Commentary)), statutes of various international organizations as well as other important documents and best practices of different countries.

Legislative reform includes, inter alia, adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code¹² and Code on Imprisonment¹³, which establish effective guarantees for the protection of the rights of juvenile offenders.

Prevention of juvenile crime is one of the key priorities of the Government within the Juvenile Justice (hereinafter – JJ) component of the overall Criminal Justice Reform (hereinafter– CJR). The emphasis is put on the developing various programs aimed at primary, as well as secondary and tertiary prevention of youth delinquency.

The Juvenile Crime Prevention Strategy of Georgia was elaborated by the JJ Working Group (hereinafter -‐ JJ WG) in September and adopted by the Criminal Justice Reform Inter-‐Agency Coordination Council (hereinafter – ICC) on December 16, 2011. The Strategy was approved in March 2012. The strategy aims to develop unified national policy for juvenile delinquency prevention, provide the basis for development of effective crime preventions measures and interventions, as well as

10 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-‐friendly justice, 2010, available at:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Guidelines%20on%20child-‐

friendly%20justice%20and%20their%20explanatory%20memorandum%20_4_.pdf.

11 Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measure, available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1367113&Site=CM.

12 The Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, 2009

13 The Code of Imprisonment of Georgia, 2010.

(24)

obligation

indicate responsible state institutions. The strategy is divided in five parts and combines – Introduction, Main Principles of Strategy, Interagency Coordination and Responsible Institutions, Primary Prevention, Secondary Prevention, Tertiary Prevention. The Strategy reflects the main principles and regulations of CRC and is based on the international standards and best practice of states. The Strategy and its Action Plan reduce juvenile offending, as well as rehabilitate and reintegrate into society juveniles in conflict with law. In the framework of ICC the revision process of the Strategy and its Action Plan has been lunched in 2014 and the first draft has been elaborated. Draft strategic documents are being discussed within the Sub-‐Working Group on Juvenile Crime Prevention operating under JJ WG.

For ensuring better realization of children’s rights in all areas of the legal system including criminal justice, the concept of Justice for Children in Georgia was proposed by the UNICEF. The concept gained a wide support from the GoG and it was decided to start the new phase of the reform which would reflect the policy of the Justice for Children in order to protect the best interests and consider the needs of all juveniles involved in criminal, administrative or civil proceedings. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice Strategy elaborated in 2009 and subject to annual revision was expanded in March 2014 to cover the justice for children as recommended by UNICEF in their concept paper endorsed by the relevant ministries. The ICC at its 11^th Session agreed on the following English translation: Justice for Children Strategy.

The new policy of GoG reflects the standards of the CRC Committee which considers that State’s approach to juvenile crime must involve the prevention of delinquency and must stress the importance of diverting children from the criminal justice system;¹⁴ and that individual approach

14 Justice for Children Strategy, p. 8.

(25)

25 obligation

to a child in contact with the justice system shall be ensured at any stage of proceedings.¹⁵

In addition to the diversion, which was successfully incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code in 2010 the JJ WG worked to expand the legislative options of alternative sanctions for juveniles and bring criminal liability of juveniles in line with common European standards. In 2014 the application of diversion was expanded as alternative to traditional justice system for juveniles. In this process, Ministry of Justice (hereinafter -‐ MOJ) cooperates with UNICEF, which provided detailed analysis of the problematic issues of Criminal Code of Georgia with respect to the criminal liability of juveniles. The recommendations of UNICEF with respect to legislative amendments were researched thoroughly by MOJ. The recommendations and findings of research were also reviewed at the meeting of JJ WG, held in January, 2013. Relevant chapters of the Criminal Code were analyzed in detail on the retreat held on March 15-‐17, 2013, where Georgian and foreign experts were strongly advocating idea of adoption of separate code regulating all aspects of juvenile justice. The Minister of Justice endorsed elaboration of a special Juvenile Justice Code and decided to create working group with this mandate. This decision was widely welcomed by the JJ WG as it is considered to constitute the best practice throughout the globe.

In March 2015 Ministry of Justice in cooperation with UNICEF completed working on the first ever stand-‐alone Juvenile Justice Code based on the UNODC Model Law on Juvenile Justice and Related Commentary, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international standards. The aim of the Juvenile Justice Code is to fully incorporate into the legislation the best interest of child and other principles of juvenile justice enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and

15 Ibid, p. 11.

(26)

obligation

relevant international standards, to expand the alternatives to criminal prosecution, such as diversion and mediation, and to diversify the sanctions available to the judge to ensure that the detention and imprisonment are used only as measures of last resort against juveniles.

The draft Code has been presented to the ICC in January 20, 2015, approved by GoG in March 12, 2015 and subsequently sent to the Parliament of Georgia. The draft Code passed first reading of the Plenary Session of the Parliament.

The key findings of the Draft Code are as follows:

• In the juvenile justice procedure, first of all the best interests of a juvenile shall be considered

• Any measures taken against a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be proportionate to the committed act, as well as personality of a juvenile and corresponding to his or her educational, social and other needs.¹⁶

• Juvenile justice procedure shall be administered only by the authorities specialized in juvenile justice. Judge, prosecutor, investigator, defence attorney, mediator, social worker, probation officer, who works with a juvenile in conflict with the law as well as with juvenile witness or victim shall have undertaken special training in the methodology of communication with a juvenile victim or witness and other related areas.¹⁷

• The participation of a juvenile at any stage of legal proceedings will be guaranteed and juvenile justice procedure will be conducted without any unjustified delay.¹⁸

• The rights and guarantees for Juveniles in custody will be

16 Ibid, Article 6.

17 Ibid, Article 15.

18 Ibid, Articles 11 and 12.

(27)

27 obligation

significantly higher comparing to adults.¹⁹

1. Diversion and crime prevention

Diversion and Mediation mechanisms were implemented on November 15, 2010 in accordance with the amendments of Criminal Code of Georgia. Pursuant to these amendments discretionary prosecution was introduced. The main purpose of this mechanism is to expand the use of alternatives to prosecution in dealing with juvenile offenders, divert juvenile offender from the criminal prosecution and propose alternative to the criminal responsibility. This mechanism aims to decrease the negative impact of criminal justice system, avoid stigma of juveniles and reduce re-‐offending in society. Firstly, Juvenile Diversion and Mediation Program was introduced in four cities of Georgia on November 15, 2010. After this, program was expanding step by step and since July 2013, program is spread to the whole territory of Georgia.

On November 2014 some important amendments were introduced into Juvenile Diversion and Mediation Program, several gaps were covered. By now juvenile may be involved in the diversion and mediation program for committing not only less grave crime, but also for grave crime. After these amendments, the role of the mediator has been increased in the program.

The program is based on the concept of restorative justice and takes the interests of offenders and victims into consideration. It is designed to prevent crime and encourages the healthy functioning of the community as a whole.

By the end of 2014, 743 juveniles were diverted and only 60 (8%) of them committed a repeated crime. All professionals involved in

19 Ibid, Chapter XIII.