NGO “Young Barristers” publishes report of investigation regarding the Gelati world heritage site. Organization studied decisions made in connection to the site, prepared the legal analyses and developed recommendations regarding measures and necessities to be undertaken against the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs of Georgia, Nation Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia, Georgian Parlianemt, Public Defender of Georgia, Machinery of Law and other privet law bodies participating in the process.

Events related to the Gelati Church are of high public interest but often information provided to the society is shallow, there are no open discussions on the causes and decisions made, says Archil Kaikatsishvili, the head of the “Young Barristers”. Therefore the investigation reflects all the details of the decisions made by the relevant governmental bodies in regards to the rehabilitation and construction works on the Gelati heritage site. What is the policy and legitimacy of state’s decisions, what is the responsibility and scope of authority of privet entities participating in the processes, how reasoned and impartial were the decisions made after revealing the defects by both National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia and the Court, which made the preliminary finding regarding the Gelati case.

According to the materials studied by the “Young Barristers”, it is established that all projects related to the restoration-conservation and temporary works of Gelati were developed and prepared by the NNLP “Georgian Heritage” (i/n 204545652). They were initially agreed with the Georgian Patriarchate, then approved by the Georgian National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation. Among them is the project designed for the continuation of the rehabilitation of roofing on the lower tiers (chapels) of the Gelati Church of the Nativity of the Virgin. It is established that the approved projects were implemented by “Ikorta 2007” Ltd (i/n 205216327), which, together with the “Georgian Heritage”, has had experience of performing engineering works on various structures at Gelati monastery since 2008. As for the participation of the Georgian Arts and Culture Center (i/n 204426451) in this process and the scope of its responsibilities, the organization will pay attention to the circumstances revealed during the investigation, according to which the named non-profit (non-commercial) legal entity was responsible for the fundraising through international donors and submission of written reports on the implemented works to the National Agency of Cultural Heritage of Georgia.

As part of the study, the “Young Barristers” concludes that the Georgian National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation paid inadequate and insufficient attention to the inspection of the works carried at the Gelati church, project designs were approved on the ground without proper analyses and consideration. It can be seen from the case materials that the temporary roofing works on the site were carried out according to the project design developed and repeatedly corrected by the "Georgian Heritage” and approved by the Agency, each change was also agreed with the Agency. At the same time, the works for the arrangement of temporary roofing of Gelati church is currently being carried out by the company "Bagineti +" (i/n 205284495) with a new project, which confirms that the project according to which the work was performed did not meet the standards. Moreover, no tender was announced for the performance of the work, no costs were allocated, in fact the work was performed at the request of the agency, and the issuance of a permit was a formal issue. The repetitive changes to the project itself indicate that the agency was making a hasty decisions.

As a result of the study, the “Young Barristers” notes that the practice of project approval after the proper implementation of the works by the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia was unfairly applied to the partner organizations participating in the process. Instead of immediate inspection of the works and making a complaint, the agency did not check the condition of the site for almost two months. It was only after complaints made by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Culture Committee following the site visit on January 18, 2021, when the condition of the monument was checked, implemented works considered inconsistent with the approved project design and the decision to fine “Ikorta 2007” Ltd and “Georgian Arts and Culture Center” made. The organization has studied in detail the legal side of the Agency actions and clearly indicates that the decision made was only a defensive measure. The Agency, despite shifting the burden of responsibility to partner organizations, still remains the responsible entity that acts as the supervisor of the works carried out during the disputed period. According to the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, it has not suspended the activities or authority of any partner organization on the site; has not revoked the permit; has not established a relevant commission, which would assess the works implemented on cultural heritage site as a threat.

The “Young Barristers” got acquainted with the decision (resolution) of the Magistrate Court of Tkibuli Municipality of the Kutaisi City Court from April 16, 2021 regarding the so-called Gelati case, which considered legality of the administrative act on fine issued by the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia. The organization shares the position that the administrative act was drafted in violation of the law and in a hurry, which was preceded by a well-founded criticism of the Agency by the Chairman of the Culture Committee of the Parliament of Georgia.

Even more legal casuistry occurs since the publication of the offense report. In particular, the protocol is drawn up for two independent legal entities that have no legal connection with each other and do not share any joint responsibilities. In particular, a permit was illegally issued to “Ikorta 2007” Ltd as the company had not applied to the agency and consequently, it could not become a violator of the permit conditions. As it is established from the case materials, the temporary roofing works were carried out according to the project designed and repeatedly corrected by "Georgian Heritage" and approved by the National Agency for Cultural Heritage. Each change was agreed with the National Agency for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage. Hence, when the Agency considers the Georgian Arts and Culture Center, together with “Ikorta 2007”, as a responsible entity, the issue of such responsibility in relation to this organization does not arise, since Georgian Arts and Culture Center did not directly participate neither in development and approval of the project nor in construction works. The construction works were carried out only by “Ikorta 2007” Ltd. inline to the project design prepared and repetitively corrected by “Georgian Heritage”.

The “Young Barristers” notes that the Court of First Instance made an extremely unreasonable decision, which terminates administrative proceedings against “Ikorta 2007” but not for the Georgian Arts and Culture Center, instead of repealing the administrative act issued by the law violation. Whether such a controversial court decision is the result of an informal dialogue between “Ikorta 2007” and the Agency will be an unreasonable debate from the organization’s side, but the facts and legal assessments indicate possibility of selective justice, which is not in the public interest and the principles of the rule of law. Pursuant to Article 10 of Article 47 of the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, the permits specified in the Article shall not be issued if there is a court decision regarding the works implemented. Thus, if there was a case of violation against “Ikorta 2007”, the company would not be able to continue its activities in any subsequent tender announced by the state. The organization considers possible, that exemption of “Ikorta 2007” from liability for an offense is not a result of unbiased assessment, but of deliberate interest serving to the retention of collusions and protection of future business. The study showed that strong ties, cooperation and mutual will have been established between the company and the Georgian National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation over the years.

 The “Young Barristers” consider necessary:

1. Study and evaluation of all the projects carried out at Gelati cultural heritage site, determination of the compliance of the methodology used and revealing the real reasons of water infiltration, which  caused  fresco damages;
2. Impartial evaluation of the decisions of the public and private entities on all stages of works at Gelati cultural heritage site envisaged by the project and make decisions in accordance to their responsibility;
3. Ensure open access to the new decisions regarding the Gelati cultural heritage site, their proactive publication, organization and facilitation of public discussions, invitation of international specialists to Georgia in a short time to ensure preservation of the monument and presentation of a new conclusions.
4. Repeal the administrative offence protocol #000095 adopted by the Agency as an illegal and discriminatory administrative-legal act;
5. Initiation of a new administrative proceedings by the Agency, issue of an individual administrative-legal act should base on all circumstances relevant to the case, the proceedings shall be complete and comprehensive;
6. The Parliament shall ensure that relevant committee hearings regarding the Gelati cultural heritage monument are held, with participation of interested and involved parties; It should oversee implementation of elaborated recommendations and conduct congressional oversight on the process.
7. The Institute of the Public Defender of Georgia should be involved in the process of reviewing the case of administrative offence in the Chamber of Administrative Cases of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal as a "court friend" and present relevant conclusions on the legality and equality of the act;
8. The Public Defender of Georgia should assess the issue of legality and legitimacy of the decisions made by the state.
9. The Chamber of Administrative Cases of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal should not consider the so-called Gelati case without oral hearings and should substantially assess the legality of the adopted administrative act, the scope of legal justification of the court of first instance;
10. Accelerate the ongoing investigation conducted by the Imereti and Racha-Lechkhumi divisions of the Investigation Department of the Investigation Service of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and make the results known to the public, as well as make the course and stages of investigative actions transparent and public due to high public interest.
11. NNLP “Georgian Heritage”, “Ikorta 2007” Ltd, NNLP “Georgian Arts and Culture Center” and “Bagineti +” Ltd, due to high public interest, should ensure accessibility of their decisions made in frames of their responsibilities and publish the bill of quantities of the project.

The organization emphasizes that the public, among other cases, well remembers the works carried out on the Bagrati Cathedral, as a result of which, it lost the status of a World Heritage Site. The public debate regarding the decisions made at the Gelati Church / Site and their legal assessment is distinguished from all past cases and is the first occasion of such acute public reaction. Therefore, it is important to make made decisions more transparent to avoid distortion of facts, imposition of responsibility on inappropriate entities and loyal attitudes towards selective bodies, violation of the principles of justice and the rule of law.

"Young Barristers" will continue its participation in the public discussion regarding the Gelati site. The published study was prepared within the framework of an independent initiative of the organization.