The Democracy Research Institute echoes another cycle of repressive legislation introduced by the illegitimate legislative body, which is being considered in an accelerated manner. The planned legislative amendments, on the one hand, unjustifiably restrict freedom of information, the principle of publicity, and on the other hand, completely ignore the right to speech and expression. The amendments will have a chilling effect on other rights provided for by the Constitution. In addition, the proposed amendments make the already biased judicial system, where the standard of proof is extremely low, even more closed.

Illegal restriction of freedom of information/principle of publicity /freedom of expression

According to the current edition of the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts, in accordance with legislation, the public broadcaster may, without restriction, and the common broadcaster may, upon submitting a written application to the judge hearing the case before the start of the court session (if the broadcaster does not exercise this right), take photos, as well as make video, film and audio recordings in the court.

However, according to the proposed amendments, filming is restricted not only in the courtroom, during the session, but also in the corridor and yard. All media outlets, including the public broadcaster will be deprived of the right to film the hearing in the court. The authority to implement the above will be granted to the court or a person authorized by it. ,,Video and audio recording of the court session will be allowed only on the basis of a substantiated motion, "by a motivated decision made by the judge."

The proposed amendment, which is being considered in an expedited manner, restricts the principle of publicity without any legitimate grounds. In the current situation, it is especially important to cover processes of high public interest. After covering the trials of a number of persons illegally detained during the ongoing protests, the vicious side of the court, its partiality, bias, low standard of proof, illegal restrictions on the right of defense, false witness-police officers’ testimonies and decision-making based on partisan interests, once again became obvious. The Democracy Research Institute belivies that the proposed amendments aim to put society in an information vacuum.  

International human rights standards emphasize the importance of publicity of court processes as a public right and a fundamental component of democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its relevant protocols stipulate that trials should be public, unless this undermines the rule of law. Restricting the coverage of trials directly affects freedom of information, which is critically important in cases of state mismanagement and politically motivated prosecutions.

In contrast to European standards, the ban/restriction of coverage of trials is typical of authoritarian countries. For example, in Russia, the ban on coverage applies to trials where cases of political content are heard.

Along with a number of other changes, the amendments to the Organic Law expand the scope of the definition of contempt of court, namely: “The expression of disrespect towards a judge by the parties, other persons participating in the case, as well as any person in any form (verbally, by indecent actions, etc.) and in any situation (at a court session, in public space), which is related to the status of a judge, shall entail liability as provided for by law.” The aforementioned amendment grants the judge broad discretion to unjustifiably apply a sanction against a person whose verbal expression is unacceptable to him.

Disregard for the right to freedom of speech and expression

Another legislative initiative, with which Georgian Dream is trying to suppress the multi-day protests in the country, is related to the amendments to the law on freedom of assembly and expression, which substantially changes the standard of protection of freedom of speech in the country.

• The legislative initiative introduces a new definition of defamation, which removes the necessity of the existence of harm and brings more ambiguity in the content of the norm. Accordingly, according to the amendment, defamation is “a statement containing a substantially false fact and straining a person’s reputation.” Such vague entries increase the possibility of state interference in the space of expression. When considering a specific case, the court will consider whether a particular statement is “defamatory” for a person and, despite the absence of harm, may consider it defamatory.
• The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights emphasize that a value-based attitude – even in a crude and offensive form – is protected by freedom of speech, if there is no tangible, specific evidence of the existing harm. The above-mentioned definition not only introduces additional ambiguity into the clarity of the definition of defamation, but also creates conditions for the persecution of individuals due to political and ideological criticism.
• The shift of the burden of proof to the defendant is particularly alarming. Under the proposed version, the defendant (journalist, activist, politician, etc.) is obliged to prove his truth. While, under the old edition, this obligation was on the plaintiff. According to the standard of the European Court of Human Rights, restrictions on freedom of expression can be legitimate only when the State substantiates its necessity in a democratic society. In addition, the initiative, according to which any suspicion that cannot be proven in accordance with the procedure established by law should be resolved against the restriction of freedom of speech, is particularly alarming.
• The proposed version tightens the scope of regulation and no longer considers only face-to-face insults as a ground for restricting freedom of expression. Instead, opinions expressed in public, including on social media, may serve as such grounds. It is noteworthy that recently, Georgian Dream members have sued a number of citizens (including politicians, journalists, and civil activists) for opinions expressed on social networks, on the basis of which the court declared them violators of the law. According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, expressing critical opinions against government officials and public officials is particularly protected.

The legislative initiatives discussed above completely ignore the freedom of speech and expression, freedom of information and the principle of publicity. In addition, they create a climate of self-censorship - when, due to repressive laws and methods of their enforcement, individuals refrain from expressing their opinions on issues of public importance.

Along with the strengthening of partisan interests in the judicial system and the complete disregard for constitutional rights, salaries are often doubled for judges sanctioned by the West (for pursuing partisan interests in the court).