Non-governmental organization the “Young Barristers” address the head of Supreme Court of Georgia – Konstantine Kublashvili with 10 public questions on issues and conditions that have been emerged nowadays. According to the co-founder of the organization – Archil Kaikatsishvili, the head of Supreme Court of Georgia remains silent on problematic issues, no a clear path of solving current problems exists and there is an assumption that the issue of inner belief of the judge still depends on political processes. This was announced by the head and co-founder of the organization – Archil Kaikatsishvili in the press-club of “Reporter” on February 12th 2014.
The “Young Barristers” thoroughly studied gaps of justice and addressed the head of Supreme Court of Georgia – Konstantine Kublashili to take part in the frames of project:”Institutional Dialogue with the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Authorities”, which was declined by the court. The organization publishes 10 public questions on the issues, which must have been discussed at the meeting.
10 public questions to Konstantine Kublashvili
1. Your position concerning seeking justice is unclear. Do you agree or disagree with current description of seeking justice or do you believe that the process of seeking justice is a political term only and was offered to the society for drawing in the electors? What is a responsibility of the judicial system in the process of seeking justice if “seeking justice” is followed by abolishing rights to “fair court trial”? What are the guarantees offered, that the judicial system will continue the process of seeking justice in obedience to the principals of fair court.
2. Your position on gained independence quality of the Georgian Court in October 1st 2012 and October 27th 2013 Parliamentary and Presidential elections are unclear. If the independence of court is related to political will, what is the political will towards the court nowadays and what did it look like in 2003-2012 years? How would you answer the questions of society, when telephone instructions were given to concrete judges by the prosecutor’s office and the fate of these concrete cases was this way decided? What is the difference between the prosecutor’s offices of Zurab Adeishvili and Giorgi Badashvili when it comes to independence of court?
3. Your position concerning activities of former public officials of current government in court instances in unclear. In precise, does the verdict of not guilty on serious crimes represent a result of not enough proofs of the accuser or does the political opposition continue influencing the court on the cases of former public officials? You represent the first person of Georgian Court, whose political neutrality has been discussed by the public for several years already. You are a brother of one of the leaders of “United National Movement” – Pavle Kublashvili. Do you not mind, that the fact of being the head of Supreme Court of Georgia, according to the Eurpean standards, directly humiliates the opportunity of court autonomy and political independence.
4. Your position concerning usage of the institute of court reserve is unclear. Why announce a vacancy on judge position, when a reserve of judges exists? In case of a vacancy, judges from the reserve must be employed. Why not increase the number of judges, when 32 judges are employed in the Tbilisi City Court and each have to work on 30 different cases? Do you believe or not, that the judicial system does not follow the path of strengthening and developing the individual role of a judge nowadays?
5. Your position on existence of “privileged” and “ordinal” judges is unclear, which means that neither the head of the Supreme Court nor his deputies or the heads of the appellate court, nor the head of chamber and the board do not address realization of court authority. According to law, all of them have a status of judge, which must be expressed in realization of judicial activities. However, besides a few occasions, there is no practice of reviewing a case by any of them. It is an issue of morality and collegiality, when high rank judges gain salaries for not fulfilling duties and lawsuits are left without discussion for a long period of time.
6. Your position is unclear on what social guarantees are needed to strengthen and release the independence of judges from influence. Your realistic view on amendments concerning permanent appointment of judges is interesting as well, since you named this opportunity as your will in 2010, but evaluated this initiative as an act against court independence in 2012.
7. Your position is unclear on what facts will the Supreme Court of Georgia be based on, when it recently invalidated 2011 judicial act of Georgia’s ex-president Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili concerning termination of Georgian citizenship for former prime-minister Bidzina Ivanishvili.
8. Your position is unclear on subordinating “commission of determining problems of justice” in case it is established under the Constitutional Court of Georgia. Do you believe the necessity of creating this sort of commission is a result of groundless past decisions of court or do you exclude the necessity of creating the commission?
9. Your position is unclear on results of establishing the institute of jurors. It has been 4 years since establishing the institute, however, only a few cases have been heard by the jurors. Please, evaluate the effectiveness of this institute and its influence on judicial system; is it justified and what potential exists for the development of the system in the future?
10. Your position is unclear on amendments of process of criminal code, according to which a rule of questioning the witness at the court trial has been adjourned to December 31st 2015. What changes will occur according to your point of view for justice and your attitude – did the parliament make a judicial or a political decision?
The “Young Barristers” will send the published questions to the head of Supreme Court of Georgia in an official way as well. The questions prepared by the legal group will be acquainted and reviewed by the diplomatic corps in Georgia and organizations and researchers interested in judicial reforms.
