Full text of "Human rights and democratization in the Republic of Georgia : hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, March 28, 1995"

See other formats

^ ' HUMAN RIGHTS

AND DEMOCRATIZATION

IN THE REPUBLIC OF

GEORGIA

Y 4. SE 2: 104-1-3 ^^^^^^^^^

Hunan Rights and Denocratization in...

HEARING

BEFORE TIIE

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 28, 1995

Printed for the use of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

[CSCE 104-1-3]

SEP a m-j

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-005 CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 2(M02
ISBN 0-16-047325-X

., > > HUMAN RIGHTS

^^ AND DEMOCRATIZATION
IN THE REPUBLIC OF
GEORGIA

Y 4. SE 2: 104-1-3

Hunan Rights and Denocratlzation in...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

MARCH 28, 1995

Printed for the use of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

[CSCE 104-1-3]

lilN»ClS^|\)>(

SEP 6 1930

U.S. GOVERNMKNT PRINTING OFFICE
90-005 CC WASHINGTON : 1995

For sale by the U.S. Go\emment Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-047325-X

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION
IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995

Commission on Secututy and Cooperation in Europe,

Washington, DC.
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Chris-
topher Smith, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

Hon. Christopher Smith, Chairman; Hon. Alfonse D'Amato, Co-
chairman; and Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Commissioner.

Witnesses: Hon. Tedo Japaridze, Dr. Eduard Gudava, Ms. Erika
Dailey, and Dr. Stephen F. Jones.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH

Chairman Smith. I want to thank all of you for coming to this
hearing, which to my knowledge is the first hearing in the history
of the U.S. Congress focused exclusively on Georgia. This is the lat-
est in a series of Helsinki Commission hearings that examine the
state of democratization and human rights in individual countries
and regions of the former Soviet Union.

In the late 1980's, Georgians began to organize politically to undo
communism and to gain independence. They lived through a very
exciting period, although a key element in the chronicle of the lib-
eration movement was tragic, the April 1989 killings of peaceful
protesters in Tbilisi by Soviet forces.

Since then, however, Georgia has endured very difficult times. It
has been one of the most strife-torn New Independent States, a vic-
tim of internal political and ethnic divisiveness, and external prov-
ocation and aggression.

Georgia was the first former Soviet Republic whose elected presi-
dent, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was ousted in an armed uprising. The
shock waves from that political earthquake have continued to rock
the country ever since.

In March 1992, Eduard Shevardnadze, who had been Georgia's
Communist Party leader before becoming Soviet Foreign Minister,
returned to his deeply troubled homeland. Though his role in end-
ing the cold war and removing Soviet troops from Eastern Europe
is well known and appreciated in the West, Georgian supporters of
the ousted president saw Shevardnadze's return as a betrayal.

(1)

A period of intense civil conflict ensued, with Georgia society po-
larized, and open military confrontations took place. At the same
time, Abkhazia and South Ossetia launched movements that
sought to alter their relationship with Tbilisi, threatening the terri-
torial integrity of Georgia. Russian forces were involved in these ef-
forts by the Abkhazians and Ossetians, and Moscow's pressure on
Tbilisi has been constant throughout this period.

Obviously these are not the best circumstances for democracy to
flourish, but since his return, Mr. Shevardnadze has called for the
establishment of a rule of law state in Georgia, where observance
of human rights is a priority, and institutions have been put in
place to ensure the implementation of human rights commitments.

The purpose of this hearing is to see how well he has done to
date, by examining the general state of democratization and human
rights in Georgia. The direct impetus for this hearing, however,
were reports about violations of due process in the recently con-
cluded trial of 19 individuals for various crimes, including an al-
leged assassination attempt.

Given the confrontational background of Georgian politics and
society, this trial has taken on an unavoidable political coloring. In
examining this case, therefore, I want to make clear that the Hel-
sinki Commission is in no way supporting terrorism, and takes no
position on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Our purpose sim-
ply is to ask whether the trial of these defendants has taken place
according to international legal norms.

At the same time, I hope this hearing will also examine other
key problems besetting Georgia: to what extent this trial reflects
the general level of democratization and human rights, how to ad-
dress the problems of rampant organized crime in Georgia, Russia's
goals in Geor^a, and Moscow's methods for achieving them.

Finally, I would like to say that we have some very fine wit-
nesses, and I would like to begin by saying that we are very
pleased to have Ambassador Japaridze, the Ambassador of the Re-
public of Georgia to the United States, who will present his per-
spective on these issues. The Ambassador has long served in Geor-
gia's Foreign Ministry, where he has been Vice Chairman of the
Council for UNESCO Affairs, head of the Political Department,
Deputy Foreign Minister, and First Deputy Foreign Minister. In
1992, he was named National Security Advisor to the Head of
State, Eduard Shevardnadze.

I just want to let you know, ladies and gentlemen, that I have
been in touch on behalf of the Commission with Eduard
Shevardnadze about the case that I mentioned earlier and about
the general situation of human rights in Geor^a. Just yesterday
the Helsinki Commission received a letter from him in which he
mentioned, among other things, that over 350 former policemen in
Georgia are now in prison for various crimes, including human
rights abuses.

I was sorry to learn that Georgian policemen have been enga^ng
in these activities, but it is a welcome sign that the authorities are
taking at least some measures to address the problem.

Mr. Shevardnadze also said that the case of the recently sen-
tenced 19 defendants would be carefully reviewed, and that Geor-
gia would welcome the involvement of Western human rights orga-

nizations in that process. This, too, is a very welcome announce-
ment.

At this point I would like to, before inviting the Ambassador to
address the Commission, ask my good friend and Co-chairman of
the Commission, Mr. D'Amato, if he would like to make any open-
ing comments.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CO-CIIAIRMAN D'AMATO

Co-chairman D'Amato. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of time I am going to ask that my full statement
be included in the record as if read in its entirety.

I have a vote coming up any minute in another conflicting hear-
ing, but I want to assure the participants and the Ambassador, in
particular, that that does not diminish my interest in this very se-
rious and vexing problem.

I am going to take just a few seconds to indicate that we recog-
nize the desperate situation in Georgia, a condition that some have
described as, I quote, "a stable crisis." We restate, I believe, the
Commission view, that Georgia must make a serious attempt to
meet its international obligations, especially those concerning
human rights.

Building a law-based society out of the ruins of the old Soviet
structure will help ensure respect for human rights, and it will
serve as a foundation for economic revival, political stability, and
general progress for Georgia.

So I certainly hope that we can at least move in that direction.
I recognize that that may be an oversimplification, and I commend
the Chairman for holding this hearing at this important time.

Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
without objection your full statement will be made a part of the
record.

Co-chairman D'Amato. I thank the chair.

Chairman Smith. I would like to invite to the witness table the
distinguished Ambassador from Georgia, Ambassador Japaridze.

Mr. Ambassador.

TESTIMONY OF HON. TEDO JAPARmZE, AMBASSADOR OF TIIE

REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA

Ambassador Japaridze. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members

Chairman Smith. Could you bring the mike a little bit closer,
please? Thank you.

Ambassador Japaridze. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak
to your Commission on behalf of my country, the Republic of Geor-
gia.

I have been asked to address the issue of human rights abuses
in Georgia, and I intend to do so presently. Allow me to reflect for
a moment on the irony of Georgia's position with respect to this
Commission.

Only a few years ago no Georgian could have dreamed that he
or she would have an opportunity to address any institution of the
U.S. Congress. At that time, we had no right to present our nation

abroad or even a right to any kind of independent statehood. Geor-
gia, like many of what you call the new states, was part of an em-
pire whose very purpose was to usurp our identity, deny our aspi-
rations as an historic people and distinct culture, and prevent our
freedom. To every Georgian America was the place where abuse of
these kinds could never take place.

We watched with special pride and wonderment as the Congress
and the American people championed the emergence of free coun-
tries from the beast of colonialism. I believe it was President
Reagan who characterized the United States as a shining city on
a hill. For those of us locked in colonial bondage, President Rea-
gan's words rang with clarity.

It is no exaggeration to say that Georgians have always felt a
special kinship with Americans, not the least because of our admi-
ration for your support of human rights as an elemental building
block in a civil society. We applauded when you sat and enforced
strict human rights standards in the conduct of foreign policy. How
could we do otherwise? We know first hand what it is to be on the
receiving end of an empire that places no value on human rights
or the individual.

It is, therefore, ironic that one of my first official acts as the
Georgian ambassador to Washington is to explain and defend our
record in a single human rights event that is neither representa-
tive of our society as a whole, nor a fair description of the distance
we have traveled in our efforts to build not just an acceptable
human rights record, but, given the circumstances under which we
live, a rather good one.

Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the alleged abuse are
themselves far from clear, and there is substantial evidence to sug-
gest that the reports of human rights abuse, particularly the Brit-
ish Helsinki Commission report, suffer from serious exaggerations
and errors.

I mean no disrespect or sarcasm when I observe that the Geor-
gian people, who are trying to develop a modern civilized state in
the midst of economic devastation, civil strife and political instabil-
ity, will wonder why Georgia's visible relationship with America
should begin on this note and at this time. Without diminishing the
importance of human rights, many will wonder about how prior-
ities are set.

Cases like this one tend to distract attention from the significant
gains Georgia has made in establishing a viable democracy and ex-
tending human rights guarantees throughout Georgian society in
the face of unimaginable odds. Our country is still plagued by in-
ternal disorder, a huge refugee problem, industrial breakdown, eco-
nomic stagnation, and political instability. We have not overcome
the legacy of 70 years of communist rule which has left deep psy-
chological scars on our vibrant nation, and which is at the root of
many of the human rights violations that occur.

A society like Georgia that only recently threw off a system that
minimized the right of individuals relative to the state cannot leap
automatically to a full embrace of human rights, regardless of the
best intentions to do so.

At the same time, I must mention that the biggest problem we
face currently is terrorism, not terrorism of the kind that blows air-

planes from the sky, although this is certainly possible. I mean the
terror inflicted on the entire population of Georgia by those who
are interested in de-stabilizing our politics and undermining our
economy, and which resulted in emigration of up to 20 percent of
Georgians from their homeland.

During the last 5 years, we suffered one civil war, two wars to
defend our territorial integrity. The last two resulted in the docu-
mented ethnic cleansing of Georgians.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind one more time this Com-
mission of more than 200,000 Georgian refugees in their own coun-
try who are victims of ethnic cleansing, massive abuse of human
rights. The most recent abuses were noted on March llth-14th,
1994, by the United States.

We asked countless times for the assistance of U.N. peacekeeping
forces to calm the hostilities. We asked for peacekeeping help from
the Western states. We asked for human rights groups to monitor
the atrocities. Ultimately we accepted the Russian peacekeeping
forces in the region.

I would be bending the truth if I claimed that the introduction
of Russian peacekeeping forces was a popular step. Meanwhile the
population of Georgia witnessed first hand the paralysis of peace-
keeping and human rights organizations to offer them the most
basic protection or mediation.

Every family in the country has been touched in some way by
this terror. Not surprisingly, many of them have developed a
healthy skepticism about the West's willingness or ability to defend
their human rights in the face of fiagrant abuse.

Against these formidable odds, Mr. Shevardnadze has led an ag-
gressive effort to create the conditions that will make human rights
less dependent to the altering adverse social, political, and eco-
nomic factors that are at the root of many of man's baser instincts.
Our goal is threefold.

First, we seek to reform society, which means to overcome our
communist past. This will require changes in psychology of our
population. Such changes cannot be imposed solely from within or
exclusively from outside. They are the human outgrowth of changes
elsewhere, particularly in the extension of economic opportunity
and the normalization of our political life.

Second, we seek to build a modern state that possesses the kind
of democratic institutions that are responsive to society and which
can support a free and honest political process. Our efforts are
mainly placed in three basic areas: (a) ensure the viability of multi-
party parliament; (b) create an active civic society; and (c) establish
an independent judiciary system.

We welcome any assistance from various international organiza-
tions and NGO's, including fact finding missions and international
observers from the United Nations, OSCE, Amnesty International,
International Alert, et cetera.

Third, the most important, we seek to reform the economy. It is
self-evident that economic growth and recovery is the foundation
upon which almost everything else must be built. We have sought
and continue to seek Western, particularly American, aid to help
us put this cornerstone in place.

I am not saying that without U.S. aid we will return to barba-
rism, but let us be frank and honest. American generosity is an im-
portant key to our recovery. Without it, creating the conditions that
make human rights a central priority in our society will become in-
finitely more difTicult.

Since our liberation from communist tyranny, we have made
enormous, though certainly not complete, progress toward building
a state that incorporates a respect for human rights and democracy
at its very core. While Georgians wish we could be compared favor-
ably to the stricter human rights standards that guide a number
of Western nations, we know we are not yet ready for that compari-
son.

I do not mean to imply that we should not be held accountable
to the higher standard. Of course, we should, but our zeal for per-
fection should not obscure the significant progress that has already
taken place in Georgia. When compared to where we were just two
or three years ago, Georgia's human rights record is vastly im-
proved. This improvement by itself should be seen as firm evidence
of our commitment to achieve much more and as an implicit prom-
ise that we shall, indeed, do so.

What does our progress look like? Here are some examples.

First, nongovernmental human rights groups report significantly
fewer abuses by Georgian security services during 1994. We have
moved aggressively to curb the potential for human rights abuses
in this area. For example, as Chairman Smith admitted, currently
we detain under arrest more than 350 former policemen who are
charged with a variety of crimes, including human rights abuses.

In addition, we have formally requested via the American Em-
bassy in Tbilisi specialized help from the United States to train our
police and other security forces in basic human rights policies and
practices, as well as we expect assistance from the IPMT, Inter-
national Police and Military Training, in this area.

Second, freedom of the press in 1994 was almost universal in
Georgia, with active and important opposition media.

Third, multi-party elections that are free and fair are the norm
throughout Georgia, and there are many, many other evidences.

I do not ask you to take my word for any of these achievements.
These are the conclusions of the U.S. State Department in its most
recent reports on human rights in Georgia. The reports also noted
correctly that we have a long way to go.

Indeed, we do, but Georgians are extremely proud of these ac-
complishments, which I am sure you understand could not have
happened without a great deal of pain and sacrifice and social dis-
ruption. These are not the accomplishments of a nation whose tra-
ditions and spirit are indifferent to human rights.

While these accomplishments set our course in the right direc-
tion, and even outdistance those of many states facing fewer obsta-
cles and less perverse recent histories, they do not make us a per-
fect society. Far from it, individual passions still run high on many
issues, and individuals in Georgia acting on their passions can and
do violate human rights and the norms of common decency. Geor-
gia is not unique in this regard.

At the same time, I can never agree that the heinous acts of a
few individuals or group of individuals can be ascribed collectively
to the Georgian people.

The State Department reports made another important and rel-
evant observation. The Georgian government does not prevent non-
governmental organizations from investigating human rights viola-
tions. Quite the contrary, in fact, we have systematically removed
impediments so that those who wish to investigate our human
rights practices may do so.

The State Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, which
Mr. Shevardnadze created in 1992, is no rubber stamp government
department, as even our human rights detractors know. It is an ac-
tive and energetic critic.

We have welcomed many human rights groups to Georgia. We in-
tend to invite experts from the Victims of Torture, and we shall
continue to do so.

At the same time, it is not the case that outside human rights
groups are ipso facto correct in their analysis of what they believe
to be human rights violations simply because they are outside
groups. For example, we do not accept the British Helsinki Com-
mission's conclusions on the case at hand. The evidence they col-
lected of abuse is one sided and tendentious. They, and not only
they, did not even speak to the official organs they accuse of abus-
ing the criminals. I have in mind the concrete investigators, con-
crete prosecutor, concrete prison employee or attendant.

Georgians rightly ask: how is it possible that these groups accept
the word of criminals and terrorists over that of our ofTicials? They
dismiss out of hand the observation of American Embassy political
secretary that the trial was fair and the behavior of the defendants
was reprehensible. They have not considered other explanations for
the apparent abuse, which are logical, supportable, and docu-
mented.

Their reports leave the impression that we are hiding something
or, worse, that we are lying. Yet they fail to explain why we would
throw open the doors to them and others to conduct their investiga-
tions if our intention is to deceive. Where is the logic?

Mr. Chairman, our government has undertaken to strengthen
these areas of basic human rights not because we fear the scrutiny
of committees and commissions, but because it is due and proper
responsibility of Mr. Shevardnadze's government. We wish to be
open and honest about our efTorts.

I doubt that I am the first Ambassador to note the irony of this
position, that our openness and willingness to be scrutinized by
outsiders has resulted in the criticism that brings me before this
Commission, but I can assure you that this is a risk we are pre-
pared to accept.

With respect to this case of the convicted terrorists, Mr.
Shevardnadze, as you, Mr. Chairman, admitted, has made it clear
that due process will be followed and the defendants' rights and
that international standards will be applied. The Appeals Commis-
sion must review the sentences, and if appropriate, Mr.
Shevardnadze as Head of State will become involved after that re-
view.

He has indicated his willingness to listen to all sides, including
relevant human rights organizations who will have the right to ex-
amine all documentation, and he particularly requested yesterday
OSCE to monitor the appeals process.

I would be remiss if I failed to note how difficult Mr.
Shevardnadze's position is in this regard. No one disputes the de-
fendants' guilt, and Mr. Shevardnadze is under great pressure from
many Georgians for not doing enough to control terrorism and
crime. Being tough on crime has a much different meaning in our
context than in the United States of America, you can well imag-
ine. It is, indeed, a delicate balancing act to be tough on crime, on
one hand, v^hile attempting to observe human rights when the
methods of training required for these areas have not been yet fully
implemented.

How carefully Mr. Shevardnadze walks this fine line will have a
strong influence on Georgian public opinion on human rights is-
sues, and it will set the tone for our ongoing efforts to improve
human rights observance in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, Georgians are no different from anyone else in
our dislike of criticism, but we are very different from many states
in our willingness to encourage healthy and honest criticism of our
own national growth. We shall continue to ask the U.S. Govern-
ment for assistance in supporting our efforts to make human rights
protection an integral part of our civic culture, and we shall con-
tinue to seek the advice of this Commission.

Thank you for your time and for your attention.

Chairman Smith. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very, very much
for your testimony, and we do welcome the overture by Eduard
Shevardnadze to welcome the OSCE to monitor the appeals proc-
ess. I think that is a very positive step, and I would hope that you
would be able to stay on while the other panelists make their pres-
entations, at which time I and other members who I think will be
joining us by then will pose some questions to our distinguished
witnesses.

We do have three other witnesses to appear today, and I want
to ask them to come to the witness table as I introduce them.

Erika Dailey is a researcher for Human Rights Watch/Helsinki,
and was the Director of their Moscow office for the past year. She
completed her tour of duty last week.

Ms. Dailey has written many reports on human rights, democra-
tization, and nationality conflicts in the former Soviet Union. She
is the author of three reports documenting abuses and violations of
due process in the trial that I had mentioned earlier.

Welcome, Ms. Dailey.

Dr. Eduard Gudava, President of the U.S. -Georgia Foundation,
was a dissident in Georgia during the Soviet period and left the
USSR in 1987. I well remember his testimony before the Helsinki
Commission at that time when he appeared before us.

He has been closely affiliated with a leading opposition force in
Georgia, the National Democratic Party. The U.S. -Georgia Founda-
tion, which he heads, promotes the transformation of Georgia into
a democratic, free market society.

And finally, Dr. Stephen Jones, Associate Professor of Russian
and Eurasian Studies, Mount Holyoke College, is a specialist on

Georgia, where he spent 5 months doing research in 1994. He is
the author of over 35 articles on past and current pohtics in Geor-
gia and the Transcaucasus.

I welcome all of our witnesses and would ask, Erika, if you would
begin, and then Dr. Gudava and Dr. Jones, if you would.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MS. ERIKA DAILEY, RESEARCHER, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI

Ms. Dailey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of Human Rights Watch, which is an independent,
nonpartisan, human rights organization, I would like to thank you
very much for the opportunity to address you today. We welcome
the work of the Helsinki Commission. It has conducted extremely
consistent and careful attention to the Georgian human rights situ-
ation.

From a human rights persyjective, the Republic of Georgia holds
a special place in the constellation of former Soviet republics. On
the one hand, it practices and condones serious abuses, including
state sponsored torture, and presides over a justice system that is
often corrupt and fails to protect basic human rights and due proc-
ess. On the other hand, much progress has been made, mostly no-
tably in the area of free speech. Georgia does not interfere with for-
eign monitoring, and indeed, in many ways cooperates with it. It
protects enough free speech to allow violations to come to light and
be discussed in a positive way, and the government and society as
a whole generally respond positively to external pressure for
change. It is also a country with which the United States enjoys
good and active relations. Therefore, the United States can and
should use its authority to push for change in abusive practices.

Human Rights Watch has conducted investigations on a broad
spectrum of violations in Georgia several times a year since 1991,
documenting violations of international law under both former
President Zviad Gamsakhurdia and current Head of State Eduard
Shevardnadze.

In my capacity as a researcher, I personally have been there four
times since June 1994 alone and was in Abkhazia just 2 weeks ago.

Our representatives meet regularly with government officials and
representatives of international organizations, take testimony from
refugees, the wounded, combatants, and prisoners, and attend
trials in which there are reported due process violations. We have
issued reports on laws of war violations in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and numerous reports and letters of concern about abuse
of civil and political rights, and maintain an open dialog with the
Georgian government.

Human rights abuse in Georgia spans the full scope of rights. Po-
lice arrest arbitrarily and harass individuals, sometimes because of
their opposition to the current administration, and disrupt peaceful
public demonstrations. Prison conditions are appalling, with prison
doctors often presiding over the beatings and torture of inmates.
The law enforcement bodies, judiciary and penal branches of gov-
ernment, are often corrupt and abusive. Today, however, I would
like to focus on some of the most pressing violations, specifically
the laws of war violations in Abkhazia, denial of the right to due

process, and torture, by which we understand cruel and inhuman
treatment.

Thanks to the ongoing U.N. -sponsored peace process in
Abkhazia, the guns have largely fallen silent there between the
Abkhazian rebels and Georgian government forces in the 16-month
conflict spanning 1992 to 1994. This development has curbed per-
haps the single greatest source of human rights in Georgia in re-
cent years.

However, based on recent field work. Human Rights Watch be-
lieves there remains a great risk that human rights violations will
persist on a large scale in Abkhazia. Individuals who have commit-
ted atrocities during the war on both sides have not been punished,
and courts on the Georgian and Abkhazian sides are not equipped
to arrest and try fairly their own combatants or those of the
enemy.

Until those criminals are apprehended, there is little chance for
reintegration of the warring sides in Abkhazia. A political deadlock
and the unwillingness of the Abkhazian authorities to facilitate the
safe return of displaced persons have led homeless some 200,000
individuals, overwhelmingly ethnic Georgians, denying them their
right to return home.

Moreover, since Russia's attack on Chechnya in December 1994,
Moscow has imposed strict controls on its border with Abkhazia.
Ostensibly the controls were instituted to prevent arms and com-
batants from fiowing into Chechnya and escalating the violence
there. However, in effect, it has blocked food and medicine from
reaching the civilian population in Abkhazia, exacerbating the hu-
manitarian crisis. Russia has also failed to identify and punish
members of its armed forces who provided arms to combatants dur-
ing the war in Abkhazia, which were used against the civilian pop-
ulation causing widespread atrocities. If the mandates for the U.N.
military observers and Russian peacekeepers are not renewed in
May, as they are scheduled to be, the fragile peace in Abkhazia is
seriously jeopardized.

The brutality and lawlessness that characterized military behav-
ior on both sides of the conflict in Abkhazia is an extension of the
brutality practiced by Georgian law enforcement throughout the re-
public and, indeed, in many parts of the former Soviet Union. We
have interviewed scores of individuals in Georgia who have been
brutally beaten and in some cases burned with cigarettes, hot iron
rods, and scalding water in order to extract confessions. Among
these victims were old men and a blind woman.

By the accounting of the Georgian government's own Committee
on Human Rights and Interethnic Relations, 50 detainees died in
1993 in a single facility in the capital due to mistreatment and ne-
glect. Indeed, Human Rights Watch has found that brutality is so
common during arrest and interrogation that many victims we
spoke to did not even see it as torture, merely as routine.

To maintain the human face on victims of abuse in Georgia,
Human Rights Watch has focused particular attention on a single
criminal case recently prosecuted in the Georgian capital. Criminal
Case No. 7493810, which you mentioned earlier, as did the Ambas-
sador. I would like to read the testimony given to me by one of the
suspects in that case who was arrested in 1992. The other 18 co-

defendants in the case have complained of similar physical and
psychological abuse at the hands of police and other prisoners at
the behest of the prison officials.
I am citing now:

The same nighl I was arrested, the security forcx>s started beating and torturing
me. They didn't say what they wanted from me. They hit me with their fists, with
clubs, kicked me, held me upside down, beat the soles of my feet, my head. It lasted
all night. You hang there. People come in and out. I lost consciousness several
times, but they would burn me or throw water on me to wake me up. I was covered
in blood. I kept going in and out of consciousness.

The next day I was all blue from head to toe. My left leg and arm were broken,
and I had cuts all over. They tried too hard. I couldn't stay txinscious. The doctor
said, "If you don't take him to the hospital heTl die." They took me to the hospital.
I couldn't move. I could only sit or lie flat.

The interrogations continued, different people doing the interrogations. They
would dictate my testimony. They began pouring boiling water on the right side of
my neck and my back. They made me put on a shirt when they took me to the offi-
cial. They made me wear a heavy jacket, which you can imagine on burned
skin. . . .

I said, "Tell me what you want and I'll sign." I had said this before. First they
said I should write that I was involved in the terrorist act against Jaba loseliani.
They brought in electric shock cords. I was already dreaming of dying. I wanted
them to apply the shock cords. It is easy to say now, but then I was hoping that
they would kill me, but the chief officer said I was already ready to sign. I was held
in solitary confinement for a month after that so that no one would see the results
of the torture.

As in many cases in Georgia, such illegally obtained testimony
is then submitted as evidence in court, although the fact of abuse
by law enforcement agents is not. Indeed, as international protest
against the prosecution of Case No. 7493810 grew in 1994, the
judge expelled 12 of the 19 defendants from the courtroom for the
final several months of the trial. The man whose testimony I just
read was expelled for allegedly smirking. That was the quotation
from the legal document under which he was expelled from the
courtroom. All but one of those expelled potentially faced capital
punishment, and most were unrepresented by a lawyer.

All were convicted to prison sentences. Two are in legal limbo.
Two await execution today.

This type of unbridled abuse has closely touched on U.S. inter-
ests as well. The man convicted of the 1993 murder of CIA Agent
Fred Woodruff claims to have been tortured into confessing. These
serious charges are not known to have been investigated, and
Anzor Sharmaidze is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence in
Georgia.

Our organization takes no position on the guilt or innocence of
any of these individuals. Human Rights Watch draws attention to
these cases for two reasons. First, because such appalling treat-
ment demands redress. Second, we see Criminal Case No. 7493810
as a microcosm of abuse which is pervasive in Georgia. We hope
that by focusing a spotlight of international attention on a specific
case we cannot only help avert a gross miscarriage of justice, but
in the long term break the pattern of abuse. We seek to set a prece-
dent of government candor and responsibility for the actions of its
law enforcement and judicial bodies and for establishing proper
legal protections in the future.

We welcome the opportunity to speak before you today, in par-
ticular, because we are concerned that the U.S. Government is not

known to have raised concern about Georgia's dismal human rights
record recently, except for the letter that you recently mentioned.

The United States has provided critically needed humanitarian
aid and administers extremely valuable educational programs in
Georgia. The immediate intercession of the embassy has prevented
abuse. In the past a single phone call from the Human Rights Offi-
cer has stopped prisoners from being beaten in detention.

However, the U.S. Government appears to have limited its pro-
tests almost exclusively to the work of its embassy and to the pages
of its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The gov-
ernment's own findings are not known to have translated into the
U.S. bilateral agenda. That must change.

We call on the U.S. Government to speak out publicly and vigor-
ously against the broad spectrum of abuse practiced or tolerated by
the Georgian government and to send a clear message that perpet-
uation of these practices will harm full cooperative relations with
the United States. We also call on the U.S. Government to urge the
Russian Government to lift the blockade of foodstuffs and medi-
cines it has imposed along the Abkhazian border. We urge the Clin-
ton administration to support the expanded work of the American
Embassy, U.S. Aid Programs, and the OSCE in upholding and
teaching about the rule of law, and to help furnish an OSCE mis-
sion with a human rights mandate in Abkhazia, and to help fi-
nance the U.N. peacekeeping and CIS de-mining program in
Abkhazia. We respectfully request that President Clinton take ad-
vantage of Mr. Shevardnadze's scheduled visit later this year to
communicate these concerns and to make respect for human rights
the centerpiece for all future bilateral relations with the Republic
of Georgia.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Ms. Dailey, I want to thank you for your very
fine testimony, and in a few moments I will pose some questions
to you, but at this point I would like to ask Dr. Gudava if he would
make some comments.

Dr. Gudava. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Smith. And just let me note that your full statement,
if you care to summarize, will be made a part of the record, but
proceed as you wish.

Dr. Gudava. I am going to make just a partial statement, and
I hope the full statement will be put in the record.

Chairman Smith. Without objection, it will be.

TESTIMONY OF DR. EDUARD GUDAVA, PRESIDENT, U.S.-
GEORGIA FOUNDATION

Dr. Gudava. Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me here. Unfortunately Georgia is
plunged in darkness by all meanings of the word. Water, gas, and
electricity are frequently unavailable, even in the capital Tbilisi.
The economy is in shambles. Industry is functioning at less than
a fifth of its capacity, and inflation is doubling each month. The
standard of living has dropped far beyond poverty.

As for human rights, it is no wonder that in the background of
such a disastrous general situation in Georgia, the abuses of inter-
nationally recognized human rights continues routinely.

I am familiar with all reports on that subject, both governmental
and nongovernment. I entirely agree with these assessments. The
only point that I believe really needs to be made here is that most
of human rights abuses in Georgia were inherited from the past.
They are nothing new. Generally speaking, the entire Georgian ju-
diciary system consisting of the old Soviet appointees is corrupt. It
often receives its orders from powerful personalities, both from
within and from outside the government.

Also, there is nothing new in torture being used in criminal in-
vestigations or injustice found in penitentiaries. These are rem-
nants of the old Soviet system. Anyone who was lucky enough to
enjoy a relationship with the Soviet penitentiary system, and I
was, can testify to the fact that prison officials use certain inmates
to oppress other target prisoners.

Soviet investigators did not bother to waste their resources con-
ducting costly investigations or trials, such as we do here, for ex-
ample, O.J. Simpson. The Soviet judicial system tended to speed up
the judicial process by simply forcing the criminal suspect to con-
fess, regardless of the suspect's guilt.

These practices have been inherited by many of the USSR suc-
cessor states, including Georgia.

However, there is something that is absolutely new and abso-
lutely dangerous and menacing in many of the newly independent
states, especially in Georgia: the explosion of killings, organized
crime, and political assassinations in Georgia is coupled with an-
other new phenomenon: the utter impotence of the authorities in
dealing with these matters. These are the urgent human rights is-
sues in Georgia and are of paramount importance.

I would like to switch the attention from the just mentioned 19
sentenced people in the recent trial which took place in Tbilisi to
the same number, 19, political assassinations which we currently
have in Georgia, investigations of which have gone nowhere.

It is true there have been contract killings in many other regions
of the former USSR. The well-publicized recent assassination of
Russian TV Network Director Vlad Listyev drew worldwide atten-
tion to the problem. Yet I would like to stress the evidence dif-
ference between such murders in Georgia and other regions.

In Georgia, political assassinations are committed in broad day-
light. Killers do not bother to cover their faces or hurry up during
and after their crimes. The criminals openly demonstrate their
fearlessness of the law.

The flourishing of such a terrible criminal environment has been
harmful for political and social life. As a result, efforts to transform
Georgia into a democratic and civilized nation based on respect for
the rule of law have been stymied.

Along with the corruption that plagues the current administra-
tion, Georgia, as well as many new republics and Russia, is sinking
into an abyss of contract killings, drug trafficking, money launder-
ing, and bank fraud.

Organized crime discredits the market system and undermines
democratic institutions. The government must drastically reorga-
nize their law enforcement and legal systems. It should involve the
creation of entirely new criminal investigation agencies, the arrests
and prosecutions of suspected prominent criminals, the rewriting of

90-005 0-95-2

,he criminal code to better define organized crime, and the recruit-
ng and training of a new judiciary.

These are just a few first steps that should be taken.

Governments must apply economic policies that foster the free
narket, not mafia development. The West should cooperate with
ocal law enforcement authorities as much as possible to share com-
juterized data on criminal activity to identify trustworthy and reli-
ible law enforcement personnel in Georgia, to provide help in writ-
ng criminal codes, and to create witness relocation programs, et
;etera.

The topics of expanding crime in the former Soviet Bloc countries
ind appropriate Western reactions are in-depth topics, the details
)f which are beyond the bounds of the discussion today.

Nevertheless, this troublesome rise in crime should be the focus
.oday because without dealing with this fundamental obstacle to
:he normalization and decriminalization of Georgia and other coun-
ties in the region, it is impossible to speak meaningfully about
luman rights and democratization.

Talking about democratization, what the United States could and
should do, severe problems are on both ends of this process, both
^or the aid supplying country and recipient, Georgia. On the one
land, Georgia has met all of the qualifications to be excluded from
U.S. assistance programs, such as Food for Progress, Public Law
480, and others because it does not meet the requirements for such
assistance.

However, the United States-Georgia Foundation which I rep-
resent here does not recommend severing aid right now and consid-
ers it necessary to continue U.S. governmental assistance to the
Republic of Georgia for a number of reasons.

If U.S. aid is eliminated entirely, it would worsen matters for the
population because Georgia entirely depends on humanitarian
2^ain shipments from abroad. Chaos and crime would intensify, re-
sulting in advancement of organized crime structures.

Terminating U.S. aid to Georgia would leave her alone with the
Russian modern expansionism that is worsening the situation in
Caucasus. A slide into an irreversible and complete criminal anar-
chy that would endanger the stability of not only Georgia and the
Transcaucasus region, but eventually this would affect the Western
world through the expansion of organized crime. Hence, a cut in
aid would actually be detrimental to U.S. national interests.

The United States-Georgia Foundation's democratic friends in-
side Georgia tell us that aid is still an important syrnbol of U.S.
commitment to them in their standoff against the Russian drive to
reestablish an empire. Aid visibly demonstrates the Western sup-
port to the cause of democracy in Georgia, and we at USGF strong-
ly believe that the United States aid to the Republic of Georgia
should be intensified despite the current disastrous situation indi-
cates that the country is not currently moving substantially for-
ward on its path toward democratization.

Stating that U.S. aid to the Republic of Georgia is greatly needed
does not mean, however, that the current programs utilizing this
aid denote the right solution. I would like to note that the effective-
ness of the assistance to a foreign country in general, especially
channeled through such a rigid, sophisticated, bureaucratic appara-

tus as the Agency for International Development, is highly ques-
tionable.

The countries which have been heavily subsidized by AID remain
very poor because aid and technical assistance to them did not en-
courage the full scale transition to a free market. Instead, heavy
dependence on foreign aid slowed down the development of the eco-
nomic freedom infrastructures, and promoted statist economic poli-
cies.

Georgia does not need to be listed on AID's eternal list of sub-
sidized countries. What Georgia desperately needs is the United
States' tangible help setting up democratic institutions, the rule of
law, and free market infrastructures. Precisely for this purpose,
our foundation was created here in Washington, D.C., at the re-
quest of Georgia's political leaders and free market reformers.

Unfortunately, this type of potentially invaluable aid has not
been provided to the republic yet. In spite of the fact that we pre-
pared a number of pilot projects in many spheres of the democra-
tization process, it has been impossible so far to move things from
the ground because of the current bureaucratic incapability of the
U.S. foreign aid complex.

Based on my first-hand experience in dealing with the system,
we thoroughly support the current initiative of the leaders of the
104th Congress to modernize the U.S. foreign aid complex in order
to make it more effective.

The success of supplying Georgia with United States aid rests on
the following primary principles.

The first, control of the distribution of aid should decrease the
possibility of this aid somehow serving to enrich the criminal ele-
ments in Georgia.

Second, the U.S. legislature should support innovative ways to
improve the program design, efficiency, and delivery of aid to the
Republic of Georgia.

Third, the best personnel, expertise, and technical resources
available in both the United States and Georgia must be involved
in the assistance process in order to make such aid effective and
insure against worsening the Georgian situation.

Fourth, active U.S. intervention to assist Georgia in the transi-
tion to a free market economy and a healthy democratic state
based on internationally recognized respect for the rule of law and
human rights can be undertaken only with the consent and willing-
ness of the powers that exercise control over Georgia.

Fifth, the Russian factor must be considered in all attempts of
active engagement with Georgia. The Russian Federation must be
aware and at least minimally supportive of Western assistance in
Georgia in order to ensure stability and friendliness in the region,
while protecting the practical feasibility of aid projects.

Sixth, it is naive to expect that Western aid will heal Georgian
wounds overnight. However, so long as the United States remains
engaged, there is a chance that Georgia will eventually join the
community of civilized nations. If the United States and the West
isolate themselves from Georgia, that possibility disappears.

To achieve American foreign policy goals. United States aid to
the Republic of Georgia must be delivered quickly and efficiently.

This cannot be accomplished if the old approach and reliance on
AID experts remain.

In conclusion, I would like to list the steps to be made by the
U.S. in order to achieve the needed results in providing aid to the
Republic of (Georgia.

First, continue conditioned assistance. A strong statement should
be made in order to make clear for the Georgian people that such
assistance is given not as a gesture of supporting the developments
in Georgia, which have been quite bad, but this aid serves vital
U.S. national security goals. Strong caution should be expressed.
The Georgian government must understand that political support
for the supply of aid cannot be maintained in the United States if
the Georgian government continues its scornful attitude toward
human rights and the rule of law.

Second, strict control of any assistance distribution. In order to
stretch the value of U.S. taxpayer dollars and be sure that they are
used for promoting and strengthening young democratic and free
market structures, a control mechanism must be available. Other-
wise the United States aid will disappear like water in the sand.

Moreover, if this aid ends up going to corrupt institutions, the
final result is quite opposite. It strengthens the criminal structures.
Therefore, control as to how the U.S. aid is distributed and used
is crucial for the advancement of positive changes. The U.S. Em-
bassy must have unlimited access to restrain any transactions in-
volving U.S. aid funds.

Third, increase the volume of U.S. -Georgian nongovernmental
program. We believe that private U.S. NGO programs are the most
effective for supplying aid to Georgia. Since Georgia is a compact
country, the scale of its aid programs does not require a huge ad-
ministrative force and very successfully migh' be managed exclud-
ing big bureaucracies, such as AID, USIA, and others.

According to existing U.S. code, these types of programs must be
conducted through a special bank account that must be under the
total control of the U.S. Embassy. NGO delivered aid could be very
valuable in Georgia since substantial amounts of aid funds could
be saved in low overhead, administrative costs. Small private orga-
nizations are more dynamic and creative. Their financial activity in
the recipient country is under the control of the U.S. Embassy. The
funds to broaden assistance programs through private NGO's
might be obtained from the shrinking of the government-to-govern-
ment type of aid.

Fourth, provide support to independent NGO's in Georgia, spe-
cialized human rights monitoring groups, and independent media
in Georgia. It is axiomatic that the best antidote for all kinds of
shadowy activities is the existence of free and independent mass
media. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to strengthen ex-
isting private media entities and to encourage the creation of new
ones.

Fifth, intensify the U.S. foreign broadcast services. It is hard to
understand that such a well developed and sufficient mechanism of
civic education, such as Voice of America and Radio Liberty, which
has been so effective during the communist era, now when there
is a great need to transfer Western knowledge and expertise to the

states of the former Soviet Union are losing its identity and becom-
ing less effective.

We consider the Radio Liberty and Voice of America must utilize
the Western expertise on the subjects and intensify their broad-
casts to deliver to Georgian listeners the quality educational pro-
grams on human rights, the rule of law, and free markets.

And the last one, the United States should pursue innovative
ways to improve the program design, efficiency, and delivery of aid
to Georgia. In order to be effective, the aid must take advantage
of the best experts, personnel, and technical resources available in
both the United States and Georgia.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Thank you very much. Dr. Gudava.

And last, but not least, it is my privilege to welcome Dr. Jones
to testify before our Commission, and again, proceed however you
would like, Doctor, if you would like to summarize or if you would
like to go with your entire statement.

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN JONES, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN STUDIES, MOUNT HOLYOKE
COLLEGE

Dr. Jones. I will give a shortened version of the testimony.

Chairman Smith. Without objection, your full statement will be
a part of the record.

Dr. Jones. Right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission for
inviting me here and giving me the chance to talk to you about
Georgia.

When Mr. Ochs invited me to be a witness at this hearing, he
asked me to give a broad context to the current situation in Geor-
gia, and that's what I'll be doing.

When Eduard Shevardnadze came to power in Georgia in March
1992, of the multiple and interrelated tasks that he faced, the most
pressing were an end to the wars in South Ossetia and West Geor-
gia, accommodation with Georgia's ethnic minorities, reestablish-
ment of civilian control over the paramilitaries, and the restoration
of some normality in economic life.

Shevardnadze's period in office has brought mixed results in all
of these areas, and many of these problems remain unresolved. He
has been dogged by powerful paramilitaries unwilling to cede their
power, Russian military intervention in Abkhazia and to a lesser
extent in South Ossetia, devastation of the economic and political
infrastructures, and a population severely handicapped by its So-
viet mentality.

Despite these obstacles, Shevardnadze's realism and his willing-
ness to compromise brought the conflict in South Ossetia to an end
within 3 months of his arrival. Within 7 months in October 1992,
he had established a newly elected parliament and a temporary
power structure with himself popularly elected as both Chairman
of parliament and Head of State.

The appeasement of former President Gamsakhurdia's followers
and the National minorities proved less easy. A civil war with ex-
President Gamsakhurdia's supporters bested in the West Georgian
region of Mingrella lasted until the fall of 1993, and a more violent

war with Abkhazian separatists which broke out in August 1992
and ended in Georgia's defeat in September 1993 with the loss of
the Abkhazian autonomous republic and between five to 10,000
lives.

All of these things undermined Shevardnadze's attempt to re-
build Georgian institutions and "civilianize" the Georgia
paramilitaries. The permanent military crisis increased the power
of the paramilitaries particularly in the absence of a regular army,
worsened the crime rate as armed soldiers returned home to job-
lessness, and undermined the legal power structures set up by the
temporary law on power in November 1992.

The parliament, due to a bad electoral law designed to prevent
a repeat of the single party monopoly under Gamsakhurdia, pro-
duced 26 parties. The inexperience of the new politicians, the lim-
ited power given to the speaker and parliamentary authorities to
control the conduct of debates, the newness of procedure, and a tra-
ditional Georgian skepticism toward authority were not unsur-
mountable barriers to an effective legislature.

But fluctuations in the fortunes of war and mistakes in its con-
duct, and condemnation of Shevardnadze's policy of "capitulation"
to the Russians who eventually forced Georgia back into the CIS,
led to a hysterical legislature and highly charged partisanship
which prevented compromise, sabotaged the parliament's legisla-
tive program, and undermined public confidence in parliamentary
politics.

Bitter distrust between the parliamentary opposition and
Shevardnadze grew as the latter, ignoring parliament's sensibilities
but needing to take action, gained and used emergency powers to
tackle Georgia's military, financial, and political crises. The weak
and disorganized parliament has undermined a central pillar of the
new constitutional structure in Georgia and has done great damage
to the long-term health of Georgian democracy.

The war not only undermined Georgian democracy, but also un-
dermined the Georgian economy. All resources were devoted to the
war effort. Economic reform was indefinitely postponed, and follow-
ing Georgia's defeat in Abkhazia, the state was burdened with al-
most a quarter of a million refugees.

Shevardnadze cannot be blamed alone for the 1994 levels of in-
dustrial and agricultural output and labor productivity which have
fallen to below the level of the 1960's. He inherited many of these
problems and was forced to fight a war without adequate resources.

But until September 1994, when under pressure from the World
Bank and the IMF the first steps were taken to implement real
economic reform, there has been no effective privatization of large
scale industry, total confusion in land redistribution, continued
massive price and employment subsidies, an absence of revenue
collection, and an uncontrolled budget deficit.

This led to a massive decline in living standards and unprece-
dented levels of poverty as the salaries paid by the government in
official coupons became totally worthless.

The Shevardnadze administration has made some progress in re-
ducing crime, and since the appointment of Vardik'o Nadibaidze as
Defense Minister in April 1994, he has begun to restore a regular
military subject to civilian control. He has ended Georgia's inter-

national isolation and brought relations with the strategic neigh-
bors of Russia, Armenia and the North Caucasus onto a more even
keel.

Although his commitment to peaceful resolution of conflicts with
the Abkhazians and the Ossetians backed by the Russians has
brought only limited success, both Abkhazia and Ossetia remain
outside Greorgian control, and despite a signed agreement with the
Abkhazian separatists in May 1994 for the return of refugees, very
few have been permitted by the Abkhazians to return 10 months
later.

In order to bring peace to Georgia, Shevardnadze has effectively
sacrificed a great deal of Greorgian sovereignty. Russia exercises the
greatest influence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and in return for
its arbitration of the separatist conflicts it had militarily supported,
it has been granted four military bases, joint use of all Georgia's
ports and airfields, and supervision of Georgia's borders.

Shevardnadze's administration, despite the war in Abkhazia, has
improved relations with Georgia's national minorities. He has pre-
served basic civil liberties, despite pressures from a state under
siege to introduce more authoritarian measures. His record in the
field compares favorably with President Ter Petrosian of Armenia,
who recently banned the largest official opposition party and closed
down 12 newspapers and news agencies in Armenia. Shevardnadze
also has an incomparably better record than Gaidar Aliev in neigh-
boring Azerbaijan.

Regarding human rights, the charges against Shevardnadze's
government are very serious indeed. Anybody who has read the
British Helsinki Human Rights Group report on the torture of pris-
oners in Georgia must be greatly alarmed, but although it pains me
to say this, I do agree with the Ambassador after reading the re-
port that there were serious inaccuracies in this report, underlined
in my view by a certain one-sidedness.

I will only say the following without any attempt to downgrade
the abuses highlighted by the Helsinki Watch Commission.

First, in the political chaos of Georgia, the disregard of rules and
responsibility continue to affect all institutions from the parliament
and ministries to the police and the judiciary.

Second, the wiring of the old Soviet state is still in place, by
which I mean a corrupt judiciary and police force. Everyone is
aware of that, including Eduard Shevardnadze, and there is as yet
very little opportunity to replace them with new and untainted per-
sonnel.

This requires time and more attention to the problem than West-
ern countries have been willing to give so far.

Third, Georgia shares with other former Soviet republics absent
legacies, such as the rule of law, accountable bureaucracies, and re-
lationship of trust with the government.

Fourth, traditional Georgian political culture emphasizes patron-
client relationships rather than institutional ones. Loyalty, even
when it's misguided, and the use of gifts and bribes to secure influ-
ence have all contributed to Shevardnadze's inability to institu-
tionalize Georgian democracy or to make it more than surface deep.

As head of state, Shevardnadze has a large apparatus which par-
allels the government, but despite full use of his prerogatives to

issue decrees and states of emergency, his power to change old hab-
its is limited. He can punish, which he should do more ener-
getically than he is doing currently, but I don't think it is useful
to spotlight Shevardnadze's role when discussing the abuse of pris-
oners, just as I would not single out the Clinton administration for
racism in the Los Angeles police force.

The problem of human rights abuse in Georgia cannot be solved
by fiat. Rather, it is a reflection of a brutal legacy, the current
state of society, and the absence of effective institutional control
from above and civic control from below.

But it must be said that the concentration of power in
Shevardnadze's hands, his seeming indifference to the self-destruc-
tion of the Georgian parliament, and the retention of conservative
"apparatchiks" in policymaking positions is undermining popular
faith in the institutions of democracy and the market.

Shevardnadze managed to save the Georgian ship of state when
it was perilously close to sinking, but he has given it little direction
since, partly because of the permanent political ancl military crisis
in the country. In attempting to reassert political authority and
end the feudalization of Georgian politics characterized by the rise
of unaccountable economic and political barons who run their
spheres through informal networks, mutual favors, and obligations,
Shevardnadze faces a dilemma.

Should he continue to keep power in his own hands, promote
trusted but conservative friends, ignore the ineffective legislature,
and stall major economic change which can only temporarily at
least worsen the population's economic well-being? This is a course
designed to muddle through.

Or should he take a risk and remove economic subsidies, reform
the welfare system, replace experienced "apparatchiks" with inex-
perienced reformers, push harder for a reconstructed and perhaps
more challenging parliament, and remove corrupt leadership fig-
ures like Jaba loseliani who out of government may de-stabilize
Georgian society at a time of intensified economic pain?

The second course in the short term is more politically unstable
and certainly more painful, but unless Shevardnadze's administra-
tion is encouraged to take it with substantial economic support
from the West, Georgians may find themselves led by a politician
who lacks the scruples and the experience of Eduard
Shevardnadze.

Western Europe and the United States can help Shevardnadze's
government accomplish the second course. This is not a time to re-
duce aid, nor after the experience in Chechnya which was partly
a result of the West's passivity and indifference to similar Russian
behavior in Abkhazia is it a time to further isolate Georgia.

All human rights abuses must be condemned. The most egre-
gious, of course, are happening today in the Russian controlled
area of Abkhazia, but engagement, education, and economic carrots
are the way to deal with it, not economic penalties, which will only
further de-stabilize Georgia and make further human rights viola-
tions more rather than less likely.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Thank you very much. Dr. Jones.

I would like to acknowledge that Congressman Wolf, Commis-
sioner Wolf, is with us today, and he has been a longstanding
member of this Commission, very concerned about human rights
everywhere in the world, especially in the newly independent
states, and himself was briefly in Tbilisi last September.

Before beginning some of the questioning, I noticed as each of
you was speaking that some were nodding in agreement or dis-
agreement. If there might be some comments, Mr. Ambassador, you
might want to make in response to some of the comments made by
our witnesses, not to turn this into a free-for-all, but I think it
would be helpful to hear some of the interplay between our panel-
ists, and then I intend on posing some questions.

Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Japaridze. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank you very much, you personally
and the Commission members, for this opportunity to participate
in these extremely interesting, positive hearings concerning my
country, the Republic of Georgia, and I would like to thank very
much the participants, the panel, and participants of this discus-
sion for their constructive criticism, their ideas, their suggestions.

Though with some of them I cannot agree and some of them, as
panel participants have just admitted, some of these arguments are
just one-sided. I would like to come back to Mr. Jones' phrase about
Georgians' traditional skepticism toward government and toward
law. Maybe it is true, but at the same time we should take into
account where Georgia used to be just a couple of years ago.

We may put it another way, you know. Unfortunately, Georgians
traditionally had antipathy toward Soviet law, and it should take
a certain amount of time before Georgians, I speak about Georgian
society, Georgian citizens, understand that they should be obedient
to law, and it is not already Soviet, but it takes time. I agree with
Mr. Jones' remarks in general.

Speaking about Ms. Dailey's remarks, there is no doubt we can-
not agree with what is going on in Georgia speaking about the law
enforcement officers, but this at the same time, you know, is the
concrete case. It is not the microcosm of what is going on in Geor-
gia in general.

I would like also to say Ms. Dailey, how you look at Georgia —
the bottle is half empty or the bottle is half full. For me it is half
full, and it's a process. It's a very positive process, though I also
am very open to your criticism and will take your remarks in gen-
eral into consideration. At the same time I want to mention the
terrible story you have just told. You did not mention the name of
this poor man or lady. I have different arguments and as an am-
bassador I should not accept your arguments. I received a letter
from the First Deputy Prosecutor of Georgia who says the oppo-
site— maybe he is wrong. I don't know, and maybe you are wrong,
but I would have appreciated your argument about this torture in-
cident or this story about this man or lady if after visiting the pris-
on you would have gone to the place where these 350 policemen are
detained now and you would have asked the question to one of
them who might have participated in torturing these people be-
cause I'm sure that these policemen, you know, if you had asked
this question, might have told you another story.

But at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the
panelists and first of all Ms. Dailey, who was especially critical, for
this constructive criticism, and we'll take all of this information
back home and inform my government.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Ms. Dailey, did you want to respond?

Ms. Dailey. Yes. We certainly welcome the Ambassador's state-
ments and look forward to future dialogue on these issues, which
I know are of mutual interest and importance.

Concerning the issues of torture, I respectfully disagree. We have
followed the issues of police brutality for several years now, and as
I said, we believe that these are not isolated instances. This is com-
mon practice.

As Mr. Gudava mentioned, this has certainly been going on since
the Soviet period. What we're looking forward to in Georgia is,
through the assistance of the international community and the co-
operation of the Georgian authorities, to recognize this as the prob-
lem that it is, which is widespread, and to curb it immediately.

As you know, under international law there is never any jus-
tification for torture under any circumstances. There have been
statements by the authorities that, for example, as part of the fight
against terrorism many things happened. Certainly our respected
guests will appreciate that there is no justification and that cer-
tainly the fight against terrorism is not furthered by the practice
of torture.

These are issues that we have engaged in dialogue with the
Georgian authorities about and look forward to cooperating on.

Ambassador Japaridze. Just a short remark, Mr. Chairman.

I thank Ms. Dailey for her counter-remark. At the same time, I
would like one more time to admit that I would like Georgia to be,
as well as I understand you want, to be a shining city, but we are
not a shining city. We were formally independent; we were formally
sovereign; we are members of different international organizations,
but the most important thing is that we are in a transitional pe-
riod, and we are within this process, which is a long, painful, and
as I told Ms. Dailey and other participants and the members of this
Commission, that we are open to any kind of constructive criticism
and will be ready to accept it. Just in the morning I get a call from
Mr. Shevardnadze, and he asked me to deliver his gratitude and
his appreciation for this Commission's efforts.

He told me, you know, that he expects, you know, this construc-
tive criticism and is ready to answer any question and work with
any human rights organization or the delegation from your or other
Commission.

Chairman Smith. Let me say that that kind of transparency and
openness is certainly appreciated.

You know, the U.S. State Department Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices notes that police routinely beat, and I am
quoting here, routinely beat and otherwise mistreated detainees
during pre-trial detention. I was wondering of the 350 policemen
who are incarcerated for, quote, various crimes how many, if any,
are there because of brutality infiicted upon detainees or prisoners.

Ambassador Japaridze. Sure, sure.

Chairman Smith. And are these recent cases, the 350, because
that is all we have.

Ambassador Japahidzh. I have been informed by Mr.
Shevardnadze and Mr. Kavsadze, whom Ms. Dailey maybe knows —
he is the Chairman of this Committee on Ethnic Minorities and
Human Rights, and this is an absolutely correct figure, and I hope
that representatives of human rights organizations, as well as
other international organizations will visit these people and inves-
tigate why they are in this, why they are detained.

Chairman Smith. It would be helpful for the Commission if we
got that information, and also as this dialog gets deeper, the kind
of training. I mean we have in this country and every country has
problems with police who misuse the privilege that they have been
given, entrusted, if you will, by the people, and there is always due
process and rights afforded the accused that help to guard against
that kind of abuse. The more Georgia matriculates to a rule of law
and those rights are put firmly in place, that the accused have cer-
tain rights that cannot be abridged by an errant police officer, the
less often these kinds of abuses will happen.

If anybody would like to comment on that, because I think that
is part of the key issue, that accused people have access to com-
petent attorneys to defend them, that they are not taken off to
some detention area where God knows what happens to them.

Ambassador Jaj'ARIDZP:. Mr. Chairman, you should excuse me be-
cause I am taking time of the panel participants.

Chairman Smith. That is why we are here.

Ambassador Japaridze. Yes, that is why I am here, and when
you mention policemen and police people, just to be more exact, one
incident or one let's call it a story came into my mind. When we
speak about the standards and the goals the Georgian police and
Georgia itself, you know, should pursue. Just a couple of days ago
I walked to the embassy office. We have no embassy residences,
small two rooms in a building, which is nearby the White House.
I was walking nearby the White House and there was a demonstra-
tion of janitors, and they blocked the streets, you know, near the
White House, and the police appeared.

As far as I was preparing myself for these hearings, it was inter-
esting for me — it was a very open lesson for a Georgian Ambas-
sador— to watch, how they interact with each other. I should tell
you they arrested these demonstrators, but putting this in general
terms, though there was some pushings and other things, but I can
qualify these pushings as friendly hugging.

I understand it is an ideal thing to have this kind of police in
Georgia, but another idea came to mind. We will never have this
kind of police until the society is not the same. So what is Georgian
police? It is a reflection of Georgian society, of the conditions in
which the Georgian society is now.

The panelist mentioned two civil wars, town war, economic stag-
nation.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Mr. Ambassador, for the record, because we
have gotten confiicting reports, just so it is very clear and unambig-
uous, what is the official view of the Georgian Government? Was
any of the 19 defendants in this case, who have been accused of

terrorism, subjected to torture or physical mistreatment? What is
the ofTicial government position on that?

Ambassador Japaridze. I myself have not been involved in this
case, and I can use just official information. I received, as I told
you, a couple of days ago. This information admits that during the
process of investigation, this paper says that there was no torture
used. That's the information I received, you know, from official
structures.

Chairman Smith. Again, that's

Ambassador Japaridzk. But, you know, what Mr. Shevardnadze
told is that he will take under his control this case and get infor-
mation, additional information, wherever torture has been used
during investigation or not.

Chairman SMITH. This is where the problem with credibility
comes in because, again, Mr. Shevardnadze himself confirmed the
use of torture at a press conference in October 1992, and the dele-
gation to the CSCE meeting in Budapest in October 1994 also ac-
knowledged that one of the defendants was tortured. I would hope
we could get a clear-cut clarification from the government on that
so we can make it a part of the record.

Ambassador Japaridze. Yes. I will inform my government, and
as soon as I get the more detailed information, I will transmit this
information to your Commission.

Chairman Smith. Mr. Wolf.

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Ambassador, just one question, and I appreciate
your coming and the entire panel.

Will there be a retrial? Will the 19 have an opportunity for

Ambassador Japaridze. Sure, sure. I concluded my statement be-
fore you came, and I just mentioned that retrial might take place.

Mr. WoiJ-^ It will take place?

Ambassador Japaridze. Reconsideration might take place, these
people can appeal to the parliamentarian commission, and the case
might come to Shevardnadze's attention. So there are certain
phases.

Mr. Wolf. So there is an opportunity that there will be a retrial?

Ambassador Japaridze. Oh, yes.

Mr. Wolf. What should the Commission do then? Should Mr.
Smith and the members of the Commission do a letter to our Am-
bassador in Tbilisi asking that he go in to see Mr. Shevardnadze
urging that there be a retrial? What would be

Ambassador Japaridze. Mr. Smith already delivered the letter to
Mr. Shevardnadze, and Shevardnadze just transmitted his re-
sponse, and you can read the letter, which explains the process
concerning the case of these sentenced people.

Mr. Wolf. Our embassy has been working with your govern-
ment.

Ambassador Japaridze. I hope.

Mr. Wolf. Yes. It depends sometimes, but I just wanted to know
before leaving. That was why I came, because of the 19. Is there
a commitment, and maybe I am missing some and I apologize for
coming in late? When will the retrial take place?

Ambassador Japaridze. As I understand there is a certain legal
procedure after sentencing these people. There is a legal base for

this reconsideration or retrial. So in a certain period of time, you
know, this retrial, reconsideration process will start.

Mr. WoiJ<\ Yes. The letter that Mr. Smith got back does not say
yes or no. It says, "Should the appeals process reach the point
where it is appropriate where I believe the state to become in-
volved, I will pay strict attention to not only the documentation of
the case thus far, but to those concerns voiced by the human rights
organizations. I will endeavor to ensure that the myriad consider-
ations of this case be addressed in as fair and transparent a way
as possible."

I would urge you, and maybe Mr. Smith and I will do another
letter again asking that there be a retrial, and if we could get noti-
fication, what we will do is we will cable our embassy, ask them
to formally go in and ask officially for a retrial, and if you could
get back to Mr. Smith and he could let me know when that will
take place.

I know you have a difficult situation there. I was there in Sep-
tember for a brief period of time. We were picked up at the Arme-
nian border and drove through there, and I know you have got a
pretty rough situation there, but I think if you really want to move
into a more democratic way, the best thing you can obviously do
is to have a retrial of the 19 people, have it fair. We would then
ask that a representative of our embassy attend the trials, and
then at that time I think perhaps there could be some reconcili-
ation, and then I think it would be very, very positive.

Ambassador Japaridzp:. Congressman, we will inform my govern-
ment.

Mr. WoiJ<\ No, you go ahead.

Ambassador Japaridze. It is in a legal code of Georgia. After sen-
tencing, these people should appeal, you know, to the court of ap-
peals, and then after the decision of the court of appeals, the recon-
sideration process starts. Mr. Shevardnadze just met yesterday
OSCE representative in Georgia, and he asked this organization to
monitor the appeals process.

So this process will be open, and if your embassy will participate,
we will appreciate and welcome it.

Mr. WoiJ<\ Yes, we will do a letter to the Ambassador asking,
one, that we get a firm date; two, that they participate.

Ambassador Japaiudze. And, Congressman Wolf, I can mention
for the record, you know, the lady who works in the U.S. Embassy
in Georgia, who is already involved in this process, Mrs. Jessica
LeCroy, and you can appeal directly to her or to the Ambassador.
We will appreciate it. That is what I can tell you.

Mr. Wolf. How is the relationship between our embassy and
your government? Does the American ambassador have a good re-
lationship with Shevardnadze?

Ambassador Japaridze. As far as I used to work as
Shevardnadze's National Security Advisor, I personally had very
open, very constructive, very frequent communications with Am-
bassador Kent Brown, who has frequent communications with
Shevardnadze, who is also open to your Embassy. Any time the
U.S. Ambassador wants to come to Mr. Shevardnadze, just to ask
a question, to inform back — he is welcome.

Mr. Wolf. Would it also help if former Secretary Baker made a
request to Mr. Shevardnadze on this issue?

Ambassador Japaridze. Please.

Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.

I thank the panel.

Chairman Smith. Thank you, Commissioner.

Again, before we go on to another question, the question of
whether or not this appeal actually occurs is of great interest, espe-
cially in your own testimony, Mr. Ambassador, when you said no
one disputes the defendants' guilt.

As I said in my opening statements, we are not saying pro or
con. We do not know if they are guilty or not, but the means of
extracting confessions would not hold up in any court that I know
of, and if^ indeed, torture was employed against at least one and
perhaps several of these individuals, that taints any outcome, call-
ing for a mistrial and hopefully a retrial under open and fair cir-
cumstances.

Dr. Jones, would you like to comment on some of this?

Dr. Jones. I would just like to add that I agree with the Ambas-
sador that Georgia is going through a tremendous transition at the
moment, and that most of the judiciary is Soviet trained judiciary.
Most of the police force is an ex-Soviet police force. In both of these
institutions there is corruption, and in the police force a tradition
of brutality.

I don't expect that to change any time soon, and that must be
taken into account when we discuss these questions of police bru-
tality in Greorgia.

Chairman Smith. In addition to humanitarian aid, then, would
it be wise if some of the international aid was focused on human
rights training?

Dr. Jones. Absolutely. I think that it really has not been signifi-
cant so far.

Chairman Smith. On the issue of humanitarian aid, if I could.
Dr. Gudava, you made a very strong appeal for that aid not to dis-
sipate. You say if it was stopped, things could worsen for the popu-
lation. It could lead to anarchy and other very, very bad outcomes,
and yet you provided several suggestions as to how that aid might
be better focused and delivered.

I wonder if our other witnesses, especially my comment on
whether or not U.S. aid sent today is being diverted to bandits and
gangsters and thieves, whether or not it is getting to its intended
population and what we might do to better funnel that aid to its
intended recipients.

Ms. Dailey.

Ms. Dailey. I can only agree heartily that humanitarian aid is
desperately needed, and we would certainly welcome all efforts on
the part of the U.S. Government and the international community
generally to further those efforts. It is desperately needed.

Chairman Smith. Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Japahidze. Mr. Chairman, I also support what Dr.
Gudava said and Ms. Dailey commented about, U.S. aid to Georgia,
as well as to other republics, because this is one of the central po-
litical issues for Georgia, and for your information, we work very
closely and constructively with the State Department, especially

with Ambassador Simons' ofTice, and what we can recommend is
the U.S. Congress to redirect U.S. aid from the humanitarian to
technical and investment oriented. We talked about this when we
met, if you remember.

Chairman Smith. Let me just ask a couple of additional ques-
tions.

Ms. Dailey, as you probably know, the State Department Coun-
try Reports on Human Rights Practices suggests that there are no
political prisoners in Georgia. Do you agree with that?

Ms. Dailey. It is a very difficult question, and the one thing that
I would point out in terms of the U.S.' position on this is that in
the 1993 Country Report, it was stated that there were more than
100 political prisoners in Georgia. In this year's report, however, it
states that there are none without any explanation. For example,
if there had been an amnesty which had released them, that would
explain it. So I would actually appreciate a clarification on the part
of those who prepare these reports about why that is, where these
100-plus people have gone to. Clearly, it would not be because of
a change in the definition, but at the same time it leaves a linger-
ing question mark.

We have not taken a position on this issue to date. There is
strong evidence to believe that there are people who have been cer-
tainly persecuted because of their political positions, but we have
not been able to confirm this.

Chairman Smith. Mr. Ambassador, please.

Ambassador Japaridze. Yes, just a very brief comment, Mr.
Chairman, because as Ms. Dailey just admitted, there used to be
just about 100 political prisoners less than a year ago, and now the
document issued by the State Department about human rights con-
ditions in the world, including Georgia, as well as other documents,
indicate that there is no Georgian political — we have no political
prisoners in Georgia.

These kind of contradictions, and I agree with Ms. Dailey, just
disorient not only Georgians, but as I understand also Americans.
We will appreciate if we get objective information what kind of con-
ditions we have with human rights, straightforward from the State
Department, as well as from the U.S. Congress.

Thank you.

Chairman Smith. Elections are supposed to take place in October
1995. Considering the extent of corruption at high levels and the
influence of organized crime, in your view — and I would ask all of
you if you would like to touch on this — can free and fair elections
be held in Georgia, and what do you make of the Communist Par-
ties that have been re-registered and united into one unified orga-
nization? Do they have a good prospect of winning in Georgia?

Would anyone like to start? Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones. Well, my suspicion is the answer to that is no. An-
other question was whether there could be free and fair elections?

Chairman Smith. Free and fair elections.

Dr. Jonp:s. What the Georgians are working on currently is a
new electoral law. I commented in my statement that one of the
problems with the last election was a poorly designed electoral law
which led to a fractious and incohesive parliament.

Corruption is widespread throughout Georgia, and there are cer-
tainly recorded electoral abuses, but not to the extent that the last
elections were considered unfair. I think that given a good electoral
law, there is no reason why there should not oe free and fair elec-
tions in Georgia.

Chairman Smith. Dr. Gudava?

Dr. Gudava. I think that the question here is in a definition,
what do we consider a free and fair election. I don't think that fu-
ture elections this year, the upcoming elections, might be less fair
than the previous one, if we agree that the previous elections are
free and fair.

Chairman Smith. Nobody else would like to comment on that
one.

Let me just conclude by asking what you think the Russian goals
are currently, especially with the peacekeeping mandate in
Abkhazia. What is the expiration date on that?

Ms. Dailp:y. May.

Chairman Smith. May. What do you think will happen post-
May? What do you think the Russians will do, as well as the Geor-
gian government?

Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Japaridze. May I start?

Chairman Smith. That would be fine.

Ambassador Japaridze. Nobody knows. It's a very good question,
but this question is also very, very complicated because nobody
knows, you know, what Russia can do. There are problems, you
know.

At the same time I would have appreciated it if this Commission,
the Helsinki Commission, and other U.S. Congress committees and
commissions would have been more active before 1994. Let's say if
they had been more active in 1990 and 1992, as Mr. Jones abso-
lutely correctly admitted, that certain forces from Russia manipu-
lated the problems inside Georgia.

And just as a follow-up, when Ms. Dailey speaks about human
rights, you know, violations, she speaks about the Republic of Geor-
gia, and when she speaks about, you know, other issues, she uses
Abkhazia and Georgia, which might confuse the distinguished
panel and you, Mr. Chairman, because as I understand it, Russia
and the United States, they confirm that Abkhazia is a territorial,
historical part of Georgia. We mentioned the behavior of certain
Russian forces of Russia from 1992, you know.

There is no doubt that they manipulated with our problems, and
we have the negative result. We have more than 200,000 refugees
still out of their homes, and this might be the answer to your ques-
tion, what Russian peacekeepers are doing, but at the same time
I'd like to admit that there is slight, you know, progress in the re-
gion.

And we will appreciate if alongside with Russian peacekeepers,
and as I understand the Russian side is also ready for this, other
international organizations wiH be more active.

But what Russia might undertake in the future I cannot tell you.

Chairman Smith. Would anyone like to? Yes, Ms. Dailey.

Ms. Dailey. Mr. Chairman, if I might make an important clari-
fication, our organization takes no position on the status of

Abkhazia. We merely make those distinctions because the war took
place on Abkhazian territory, and between the residents of
Abkhazia and government forces in Georgia.

Our position in terms of the blockade has been that we object to
any attempt to impede the transmission of foodstuffs and medicine,
which is effectively what has happened. We have not heard of that
problem existing in larger Georgia. We have only heard of that ex-
isting in Abkhazia proper.

If there is a correction to be made, I would appreciate that.

Ambassador Japaridze. But we talked about this, Russia closed
the border not with Abkhazia, but the border with Georgia?

Ms. Dailey. Yes, that is correct. We don't make that distinction.

Ambassador Japaridze. Okay.

Ms. Dailey. It is our understanding from a recent field visit that
foodstuffs and medicine are being prevented from entering
Abkhazia. That is a de facto blockade.

Ambassador Japaridze. But this blockade is used not to transfer
and smuggle weapons.

Ms. Dailey. Again, whatever happens across that border, our
only concern is that foodstuffs and medicines reach the civilian
population.

Chairman Smith. I only have two final questions, but just let me
preface the first. Some years back Mr. Wolf and I visited one of the
gulags in Russia, then the Soviet Union, Perm Camp 35. As a pre-
condition to our going, we got an explicit statement from the Procu-
rator General that there would be no repercussions to those with
whom we spoke, and we met with a number of political and reli-
gious dissidents and prisoners who were in Perm 35, and we met
with them for several hours, tape recorded their comments, and
videotaped them, and then brought them out and widely dissemi-
nated them.

To the best of our knowledge, people were not injured as a result
of that visit. We worried about it. We sweated over that, and I was
wondering, Ms. Dailey, in your contacts with people behind bars if
you've gotten those assurances and, most importantly, if anyone
has been adversely affected for talking to you.

Ms. Dailey. It's a terribly important question. I'm glad that you
raised it.

Our work is predicated on that guarantee. We, like the ICRC, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, will not meet with pris-
oners unless we have obtained that guarantee ahead of time and
also unless we are able to meet with detainees one on one in full
confidentiality.

I have met with individuals under those circumstances, again,
with those guarantees. I would like to point out, though, that in
one instance my meeting with someone in the prison hospital re-
sulted in that person being put under strict isolation by the judge
in the case. He was removed punitively after our meeting the fol-
lowing day, in fact, removed from the prison hospital back to the
prison where conditions are even worse, frankly, than in the hos-
pital, and it took us a month of lobbying and asking for that person
to be returned to have him actually returned to the hospital where
he could get proper medical care.

90-005 0-95

This is not the first time that this has happened. In fact, I'm told
by representatives of the American Embassy that the same thing
had happened with them, that when they met, again, with this
same individual, he was forcibly removed from the hospital against
the wishes of his doctor, and again, it took them about a month of
phone calling and requests to have that person returned to the hos-
pital.

Chairman Smith. Ms. Dailey, if you could ensure that this Com-
mission knows the names and the specifics of each of these cases.

And, Mr. Ambassador, I would just ask that you would use your
good offices to try to ensure that, again, no one has any adverse
effects for simply speaking to a human rights activist or to their
own counsel.

Again, one of the rules of law is that you can convey information
to your defense counsel without fear of the prosecutor using bully
tactics against you, that is to say, torture.

One final question, and this would be to Dr. Gudava. The Geor-
gian opposition strongly criticizes Mr. Shevardnadze. Can you sug-
gest that any other politician, given the fact that there's a tremen-
dous amount of Russian pressure, widespread corruption: could
somebody else do a better job in your view?

Dr. Gudava. Oh, Mr. Chairman, well, it's a difficult question, but
in short, I think that there is not an alternative candidate to this
position nowadays in Georgia. The problem with Mr. Shevardnadze-
is not that he is a bad politician or a bad person, but the environ-
ment in which he started, after his return in Georgia, is such that
the qualities which made him famous worldwide are useless in the
criminal environment of today's Georgia. So he has come up with
the matters and problems with which I doubt he ever dealt before.
I am talking about organized crime. I am talking about political as-
sassinations. I am talking about explosion of all of these criminal
activities and taking over almost the entire sphere of life in the Re-
public of Georgia, as well as many other places of the former Soviet
Union.

Therefore, the answer is that I think that Shevardnadze's pres-
ence in Georgia was and is a very positive one, but because of the
reasons which are beyond his maybe ability, the situation is wors-
ening. So I don't see any other candidate who could do a better job
than Shevardnadze, taking into account the circumstances which
are in Georgia today.

Chairman Smith. Dr. Jones, did you want to comment?

Dr. Jones. Generally I would agree with Mr. Gudava about that,
but I do think there are alternatives to Eduard Shevardnadze.
There must be alternatives to Eduard Shevardnadze because he
cannot go on forever.

I think one of his problems is that because of the complete col-
lapse of power in Georgia, many of the things that he wants to get
done are not done. He has really limited control over many of the
things that are happening in Georgia, particularly in the regions.

One of the criticisms that could be leveled at Mr. Shevardnadze
is that he is that he is too cautious, and displays a lack of energy
in tackling particular some major economic problems in Georgia,
although this last fall that has been remedied to a certain extent.
There are also serious problems in his personnel policy. He ap-

points people that he trusts, that he knows, and that he feels can
cope better with the situation in Georgia rather than looking for re-
formers. But it IS the latter where his emphasis should go. He
should be encouraged at this stage to change his government and
employ as many reformers as possible and take a much more ener-
getic line in terms of the economic transformation of Georgia.

Chairman Smith. I thank you, and I want to thank our very dis-
tinguished panel for your testimony. I think it will be very helpful
to the Commission, and we will endeavor to make this information
that you've imparted to us available to every member of both the
House and Senate, especially as we proceed to marking up the for-
eign aid bill which is just around the comer.

One of the other hats that I wear is as Chairman of the Inter-
national Operations and Human Rights Committee. We'll be mark-
ing up our legislation some time right after the recess, and then
we go to the full foreign assistance bill immediately after that.

So this information will be very, very useful, and I can assure
you we will make it available to members who will be in strategic
decisionmaking positions in the very, very near future.

So I thank you for your testimony. It is most enlightening, and
without further ado, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

33
APPENDIX

Co-Chairman Alfonse D' Amato
Opening Statement
CSCE Hearing on the Situation in Georgia
Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for calling this hearing on the situation in Georgia This small na'ion's progress from
Soviet province to independence and democracy has been shattered by civil war, thinly veiled external
intervention, and organized criminal activities The Commission hopes, by reviewmg developments in
Georgia, to advance the cause of human rights and democracy in Georgia

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Chairman, my fellow Commissioners, our
distinguished witnesses, the public, and the media to the first Commission hearing of the 104th Congress
to take place on the Senate side of the Capitol. I look forward to having more hearings on this side as the
schedule permits.

I want to note for the friends of the Commission that I will soon be joined by the other Senate
Commissioners I expect formal appointment of the rest of the Senate Commissioner s reasonably soon.

I want to thank His Excellency Tedo Japaridze, the Ambassador of Georgia, and our other
distinguished witnesses for appearing before the Commission today I look forward to hearing their
views as we work together to achieve a future of democracy, free enterprise, peace, and respect for
human rights for all Georgians

Anyone who is familiar with conditions in Georgia today realizes the serious problems facing the
government The country has been dismembered, with Abkhazia having seceded. South Ossetia
effectively under Russian control, and Adjara and other ethnically Armenian or Azeri areas along the
southern border under the rule of local strongmen Armed paramilitary formations led by persons with
reportedly strong underworld ties remain strong forces within Georgia, while the state itself is virtually
bankrupt, has not replaced corrupt former Soviet officials or structures, and is hamstrung by competing
political factions Its economy has collapsed, with a worthless currency and the majority of the
population living in poverty

In the face of this desperate situation — a condition some have described as a "stable crisis" --
we restate our expectations that Georgia make a serious attempt to meet its international obligations,
especially those concerning human rights Building a law-based society out of the ruins of the old Soviet
structure will not only help ensure respect for human rights, but it will serve as a sound foundation for
economic revival, political stability, and general progress for Georgia

I regret that I will not be able to stay for the entire hearing today I have a conflicting obligation
in the Banking Committee, another hearing that I must attend But I want to assure the Ambassador that
my early departure reflects no lack of interest on my part in Georgia's situation and progress

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

STATEME^4T OF REP. STENfY H. HOYER

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

HEARING ON GEORGIA

MARCH 28, 1995

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I COMMEND YOU ON HOLDING THIS
HEARING. AS YOU KNOW, SENATOR DeCONCINI AND I LED A HELSINKI
COMMISSION DELEGATION TO GEORGIA IN SEPTEMBER 1991. ZVLAD
GAMSAKHURDIA WAS STILL PRESIDENT THEN, AND WE MET WITH HIM. WE
ALSO MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OPPOSITION, WHO FREELY
EXPLAINED THEIR GRIEVANCES AND POSITIONS. I AND THE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THAT CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION WILL NEVER FORGET
THAT TRIP. IT TOOK PLACE AT A MOMENT OF EXTREME TENSION IN TBILISI,
IN AN ATMOSPHERE THAT COULD BE CALLED HIGHLY UNUSUAL, EVEN
ELECTRIC. EVER SINCE, I HAVE RETAINED AN AVID INTEREST IN GEORGL\,
AND TRY TO KEEP UP WITH DEVELOPMENTS THERE.

IT IS THEREFORE ESPECIALLY SAD FOR ME TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT
HAS HAPPENED TO THAT BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN
DESTROYED, ELECTRICITY IS RATIONED, THE COUNTRY IS OFTEN IN
DARKNESS, AND LIVING STANDARDS FOR THE POPULATION HAVE FALLEN
DRASTICALLY. MANY LIVE IN FEAR, WITH LAWLESSNESS A CHRONIC AND
EXTREMELY ALARMING PROBLEM. MOREOVER, THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN
DE FACTO DISMEMBERED, AND GEORGIA HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN FORCED
INTO THE ARMS OF RUSSIA

RUSSIAN FORCES, IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HELPED A GREAT DEAL TO
DESTABILIZE AND WEAKEN GEORGIA MOSCOW'S BEHAVIOR IN GEORGL\
SHOULD BE AN OBJECT LESSON TO US WHEN CONSIDERING RUSSL\'S
POSSIBLE ROLE AS A PEACEKEEPER IN CONFLICTS ON THE TERRITORY OF
THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

SOME PEOPLE ARGUE THAT RUSSL\ WAS ESPECIALLY VINDICTIVE
TOWARDS GEORGIA BECAUSE THE RUSSIAN ARMY RESENTS EDUARD
SHEVARDNADZE'S ROLE IN REMOVING SOVIET TROOPS FROM EASTERN
EUROPE. WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TRUE, EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE'S
CAREER AND REPUTATION ARE RELEVANT FOR OTHER REASONS. THERE
IS A KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE AND OTHER
FORMER COMMUNIST PARTY LEADERS WHO NOW ARE HEADS OF STATE.
UNLIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, CENTRAL ASL\N LEADERS, WHO HAVE MADE NO
BONES ABOUT SUBORDINATING HUMAN RIGHTS TO NATIONAL INTERESTS,
EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE HAS ASSOCIATED HIMSELF WITH
DEMOCRATIZATION, AND STAKED HIS REPUATION AND LEGACY, ON THAT
ASSOCL\TION. FOR THAT REASON, WE EXPECT MORE OF HIM. I LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING OUR WITNESSES DISCUSS THE STATE OF
DEMOCRATIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN GEORGIA TODAY.

Prepared Statement of Dr. Eduard Gudava

PRESIDEI^, the U5.-GEORGIA FOUNDATION

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION
IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA

US Aid To Georgia. What To Do.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the commission, the staff. Thanl< you for
inviting me here. As I stand before you today, I cannot help recalling my first
appearance before you in 1987. When the Soviet Union still existed, my English
was even worse than it is right now, and I found it difficult to insert some humor
into my public remarks about Georgia: difficult, but possible. One would imagine
that today, four years since Georgia declared independence from the Soviet
Union, and after the collapse of the evil empire, it would be easier than before to
begin my remarks with some kind of joke about the Caucasus. Unfortunately,
recent developments in my fatherland are anything but funny.

Perhaps none of the republics of the former Soviet Union has had a more difficult
and wrenching passage to freedom than Georgia. As you all perfectly now, after
the former president Zviad Gamsakhurdia was ousted in January of 1992 and
replaced by temporary State Council headed by Eduard Shevardnadze,
democratic elections were held the same year and a legitimate government was
formed.

The presence of Eduard Shevardnadze has been a positive one. He has
joined a coalition of pro democratic forces, and has pledged to help build real
western oriented democratic institutions. Despite Shevardnadze's history as a
communist boss, these democratic political forces were willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt.

"It is better to have a repudiated communist like Shevardnadze, than the
former dissident Gamsakhurdia, who became a dictator" That was probably the
mood of Georgian people. In any event, people sincerely believed that
Shevardnadze would lead Georgia from political turmoil and economical disaster.
They believed that he would:

• Secure Georgian territorial integrity

• Achieve national reconciliation among all factions

• Create a sound program of political and economic reforms

• Guarantee Western support in implementing a transitional program.

In one word, Georgia embraced Shevardnadze as a panacea for all its
misfortunes. The West also welcomed Shevardnadze's return, confident that he
would catalyze the stabilization of the region.

His three years in power, unfortunately, have yielded opposite results:

• Dismemberment of the Georgian state. Abkhazia is lost, and
tensions in South Ossetia and other ethnic regions remain
dangerously high.

• The attempted consolidation of different factions in the Georgia
nation has been in vain. Shevardnadze's government has been
unable to replace Zviad nationalism with another ideological
docthne.

• No comprehensive plan of reforms was ever created or introduced
in Georgia.

• The current government is unable to stop the country from sliding
into anarchy, corruption, crime, and terrohsm.

Georgia is currently plunged in darkness, by all meanings of the word.
Water, gas, and electncity are frequently unavailable, even in the capital, Tbilisi.
The economy is in shambles, industry is functioning at less than a fifth of its
capacity, and inflation is doubling each month. The standard of living has
dropped far beyond poverty.

Human Rights

As for human rights, it is no wonder that in the background of such a disastrous
general situation in Georgia, the abuse of internationally recognized human
rights continues routinely. Among the witnesses today we have a representative
of a specialized human right organization who will describe a variety of violations
of human rights in Georgia. I am familiar with these reports, both governmental
and non governmental. I entirely agree with these assessments. The only point
that I believe really needs to made here is that most of human rights abuses in
Georgia were inherited from the past; they are nothing new.

Frankly speaking, the entire Georgian judicial system, consisted of the old Soviet
appointees, is corrupt; it often receives its orders from powerful personalities
both from within and from outside the government. Also, there is nothing new in
torture being used in criminal investigations or in injustice found in penitentiaries;
these are remnants of the old Soviet system. Anyone who was lucky enough to
enjoy a relationship with the Soviet penitentiary system, and I was, can testify to
the fact that prison officials use certain inmates to oppress other target prisoners.
Soviet investigators did not bother to waste their resources conducting costly
investigations or trials, such as we do here, for example, OJ Simpson. The
Soviet judicial system tended to speed up judicial process by simply forcing the
criminal suspect to confess, regardless of the suspect's guilt. These practices
have been inherited buy many of the USSR's successor states, including
Georgia.

However, there is something that is absolutely new, and absolutely dangerous
and menacing in many of the NIS's, especially in Georgia. The explosion of
killings, organized crime, and political assassinations in Georgia is coupled with
another new phenomenon, the utter impotence of the authorities in dealing with
these matters. These are the urgent human rights issues in Georgia, and are of
paramount importance.

In Georgia there are currently 19 political assassinations whose investigations
have gone nowhere. It is true there have been killings in many other regions of
the former USSR. The-well publicized recent assassination of Russian TV
Network Director Vlad Listyev drew worldwide attention to the problem. Yet, I
would like to stress the evident difference between such murders in Georgia and
other regions.

In Georgia political assassinations are committed in broad daylight. Killers do
not bother to cover their faces or hurry up during and after their crimes. The
criminals openly demonstrate their fearlessness of the law.

I would like to draw your attention to the killing last December of the chairman of
the Georgian National Democratic Party, Georgi Chanturia. USGF issued a
Press Release concerning this savage political assassination and I would like to
ask that it be put on the record.

On December 3, 1994, Georgy Chanturia and his wife Irina Sarishvili were
gunned down outside their home in Tbilisi, as they were leaving for the National
Democratic Party headquarters for the final day of the party's congress, where
Mr. Chanturia was to make the closing speech.

Gunmen at least five persons in two cars assassinated Georgi Chanturia.
Perpetrators unloaded more than thirty rounds into his body, and Sarishvili took
six bullets. Mr. Chanturia died at the scene, and one other member of the party
died in the hospital. Sahshvili, however, survived, but is still carrying one bullet
in her chest.

Georgi Chanturia and Irina Sarishvili were the most prominent democratic
politicians in Georgia. They were veteran democratic activists, dissidents, and
former political prisoners. They fought for the freedom and independence of
Georgia long before perestroyka began and the Soviet Union collapsed.

National Democratic Party of Georgia is the only political organization that openly
declared the fight against organized crime and corruption as its main goal. The
NDPG is involved in extensive international activities. The party was accepted
as a full member of Christian Democratic International, and Georgy Chsanturia
was appointed to be a General Secretary of this international organization.

The party had become very popular in Georgia, and Chanturia was seen a
potential presidential candidate. Irina Sarishvili was the Deputy Prime Minister
until resigning in protest of Shevardnadze's rapprochement with Russia and
bringing Georgia into the Russian dominated Commonwealth of independent
States. Shortly before the assassination, the NDPG party members discovered
planted listening devices, or bugs, in their headquarters. Chanturia condemned
several Georgian officials, including the Chief of Georgian Security Service, Mr.
Igor Georgadze. Chanturia demanded their resignations.

The sad irony of the event is that Chanturia planned to unmask certain
governmental officials during his closing speech at the party's congress.
However, he was slain. Shortly after, Mr. Georgadze received promotion in rank.
In addition, people in Georgia are sure that Irina Sarishvili will be finished off;
they are merely guessing how and when the killing will take place.

The flourishing of such a terrible criminal environment has been harmful for
political and social life. As a result, efforts to transform Georgia into a
democratic and civilized nation, based on respect for the rule of law, have been
stymied.

Along with the corruption that plagues the current administration, Georgia as well
as many new republics and Russia, is sinking into an abyss of contract killing,
drug trafficking, money laundering, and bank fraud.

Organized crime discredits the market system and undermines democratic
institutions. The government must drastically reorganize their law enforcement
and legal systems. It should involve the creation of entirely new criminal
investigation agencies, the arrests and prosecutions of suspected prominent
chminals, the rewriting of the chminal code to better define organized crime, and
the recruiting and training of a new judiciary. These are just a few first steps that
should be taken.

Governments must apply economic policies that foster the free market, not mafia
development. The West should cooperate with local law enforcement authorities
as much as possible to share computerized data on criminal activity, to identify
trustworthy and reliable law enforcement personnel in Georgia, to provide help in
writing criminal codes, and to create witness relocation programs, etc. The
topics of expanding crime in the former Soviet Bloc countries and appropriate
Western reactions are in-depth topics, the details of which are beyond the
bounds of the discussion today.

Nevertheless, this troublesome rise in crime should be the focus today, because
without dealing with this fundamental obstacle to the normalization and
decriminalization of Georgia and other countries in the region, it is impossible to
speak meaningfully about human hghts and democratization.

39
Democratization: What The US Could and Should Do

Severe problems are on both ends of this process, both for the aid-supplying
country and recipient - Georgia.

On the one hand, Georgia has met all the qualifications to be excluded from US
assistance programs such as Food for Progress, PL 480, and others because it
does not meet the requirements for such assistance. The best circumstance for
choosing to discontinue aid would be a determination by the 104th Congress that
Republic of Georgia no longer deserves US aid or that the aid is not effectively
assisting the transition to democracy or economic freedom.

In this case, the US would save $155 million of US taxpayers' money for fiscal
1996. In addition, it may seem that the removal of the wrongly targeted, poorly
distributed, and inefficiently managed US aid cannot have a negative effect by
further worsening the political and economic tangle of Georgia's problems. One
might also argue that the US should not deal with the mafia.

However, USGF does not recommend severing aid right now and
considers it necessary to continue US Governmental assistance to the Republic
of Georgia for a number of reasons;

•

If US aid is eliminated entirely it would worsen matters for the population
because Georgia entirely depends on humanitarian grain shipments from
abroad. Chaos and crime would intensify resulting in advancement of
organized crime structures.

Terminating US aid to Georgia would leave her alone with the Russian
modern expansionism, thus worsening the situation in the Caucasus. A slide
into an irreversible and complete criminal anarchy that would endanger the
stability of not only Georgia and the Transcaucasus region, but eventually this
would affect the Western world through the expansion of organized crime.
Hence, a cut in aid would actually be detrimental to US national interests.

USGF's democratic friends inside Georgia tell us that aid is still an important
symbol of US commitment to them in their standoff against the Russian drive
to reestablish an empire. Aid visibly demonstrates the Western support to the
cause of democracy in Georgia.

We at USGF strongly believe that US aid to the Republic of Georgia should

be intensified despite that the current disastrous situation indicates that
the country is not currently moving substantially forward on its path
toward the democratization.

Stating that US aid to the Republic of Georgia is greatly needed does not mean,
however, that the current programs utilizing this aid denote the right solution, I
would like to note that the effectiveness of the assistance to a foreign country in
general, especially channeled through such a rigid sophisticated bureaucratic
apparatus as the Agency for International Development, is highly questionable.
The countries which have been heavily subsidized by AID remain very poor
because aid and technical assistance to them did not encourage the full-scale
transition to a free-market. Instead, heavy dependence on foreign aid slowed
down the development of the economic freedom infrastructures and promoted
statist economic policies.

Georgia does not need to be listed on AID's eternal list of subsidized
countries. What Georgia desperately needs is the United States' tangible help
setting up democratic institutions, the rule of law, and free-market infrastructures.
Precisely for this purpose, our foundation was created here in Washington DC at
the request of Georgia's political leaders and free-market reformers.

Unfortunately, this type of potentially invaluable aid has not been provided
to the republic yet. In spite of the fact that we prepared a number of pilot
projects in many spheres of the democratization process, it has been impossible
so far to move things from the ground because of the current bureaucratic
incapability of the US foreign aid complex. Based on my first hand experience in
dealing with this system, we thoroughly support the current initiative of the
leaders of the 104th Congress to modernize the US foreign aid complex in order
to make it more effective.

The success of supplying Georgia with US aid rests on following primary
principles:

O Control of the distribution of aid should decrease the possibility of this
aid somehow serving to enrich the criminal elements in Georgia.

© The US legislature should support innovative ways to improve the
program design, efficiency, and delivery of aid to the Republic of
Georgia.

© The best personnel, expertise, and technical resources available in
both the US and Georgia must be involved in the assistance process
in order to make such aid effective and ensure against worsening the
Georgian situation.

O Active US intervention to assist Georgia in the transition to a free-
market economy and a healthy democratic state, based on
internationally recognized respect for the Rule of Law and Human
Rights, can be undertaken ONLY with the consent and willingness of
the powers that exercise control over Georgia.

© The Russian factor must be considered in all attempts of active
engagement with Georgia. The Russian Federation must be aware
and at least minimally supportive of Western assistance in Georgia, in
order to insure stability and friendliness in the region, while protecting
the practical feasibility of aid projects.

© It is naive to expect that Western aid will heal Georgian wounds
overnight. However, so long as the US remains engaged, there is a
chance that Georgia will eventually join the community of civilized
nations. If the US and the West isolate themselves from Georgia, that
possibility disappears.

To achieve American foreign policy goals, U.S. aid to the Republic of Georgia
must be delivered quickly and efficiently. This can not be accomplished if the old
approach and reliance on AID experts remain.

In conclusion, I would like to list the steps to be made by the US in order to
achieve the needed results in providing aid to the Republic of Georgia:

1. Continue conditioned assistance

A strong statement should be made in order to make clear for the Georgian
people that such assistance is given not as a gesture of supporting the
developments in Georgia, which have been quite bad, but this aid serves vital
US national security goals. Strong caution should be expressed: the Georgian
government must understand that political support for the supply of aid cannot
be maintained in the United States if the Georgian government continues its
scornful attitude toward human rights and the rule of law.

2. Strict control of any assistance distribution

In order to stretch the value of US taxpayer dollars and be sure that they are
used for promoting and strengthening young democratic and free market
structures, a control mechanism must be available. Othenwise, the US aid will
disappear like water in the sand. Moreover, if this aid ends up going to corrupt
institutions, the final result is quite opposite - it strengthens the criminal
structures. Therefore control as how the US aid is distributed and used is crucial
for the advancement of positive changes. The US embassy must have unlimited
access restrain any transactions involving US aid funds.

3. Increase the volume of the US ~ Georgian non-governmental program

We believe that private US NGO -- Georgian NGO programs are the most
effective for supplying the aid to Georgia. Since Georgia is a compact country,
the scale of its aid programs does not require a huge administrative force, and
very successfully might be managed excluding big bureaucracies such as AID,
USIA and others. According to existing US Code these types of programs must
be conducted through a special bank account that must be under the total
control of US Embassy. NGO delivered aid could be very valuable in Georgia:

- substantial amount of aid funds could be saved in low overhead
administrative costs

- small private organizations are more dynamic and creative

- their financial activity in a recipient country is under the control of the
US Embassy.

The funds to broaden assistance programs through private NGO's might be
obtained from the shrinking of the Government - to - Government type of aid.

4. Provide support to independent NGO's in Georgia, specialized human
rights monitoring groups, and independent media in Georgia

It is axiomatic that the best antidote for all kinds of shadowy activities is the
existence of free and independent mass media. Therefore it is of paramount
importance to strengthen existing private media entities and to encourage the
creation of new ones.

5. Intensify the US Foreign Broadcast Services

It is hard to understand that such a well developed and sufficient mechanism of
civic education such as VOA and Radio Liberty, which has been so effective
during the Communist era, now, when there is great need to transfer Western
knowledge and expertise to the states of former Soviet Union, is loosing its
identity and becoming less effective. We consider that RL and VOA must utilize
the Western expertise on the subjects and intensify their broadcasts to deliver to
Georgian listeners the quality educational programs on human rights, the rule
law, and free markets

6. The US should pursue innovative ways to improve the program design,
efficiency, and delivery of aid to Georgia.

In order to be effective, the aid must take advantage of the best experts,
personnel, and technical resources available in both the US and Georgia.

March 27, 1995
Washington, DC

Prepared Statement of Human Rights Watch/Helsinki
Torture and Gross Violations of Due Process in Georgia

introduction

Between May and October 1992, nineteen men were arrested in Georgia on a vanet>' of criminal charges, by
September, their cases were united mto one — Case No 7493810 — along with the case agamst former President of
Georgia Z\iad Gamsakhurdia for abuse of power and related political cranes ' Today , ahnost two years later. President
Gamsakhurdia is dead, but the legacy of the political resentment against h)m lives on at the tnal m the form of massive
violations of due process, mcluding the torture of the defendants Prosecuted under the government of Eduard
Shevardnadze, who came to power several months after Gamsakhurdia's ouster on January 6, 1992, the defendants face
charges ranging from illegal arms possession to murder, and sentences from three years of impnsonment to, m the case
of sixteen of the defendants, death

On the basis of extensive mterviews in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in June, including with several of the
defendants. Human Rights Watch/Helsmki believes that the trial has been nddled with gross violations of due process
from the moment of these arrests, mcludmg torture to extract confessions We are also concerned that at least some of
the charges ha\e been brought to punish and silence opposition to Head of State and Chauman of the Presidium Eduard
Shevardnadze, m violation of the nght to free speech.

Human Rights Watch is a non-govemmental, non-partisan organization — the largest based m the United States
and an observer at the United Nations It is beyond our competence to evaluate the guilt or innocence of any defendant,
and the organization takes no posiuon on this issue Our only interest is m msurmg that the legal standards by which they
are tried conform with internationally accepted standards of due process Human Rights Watch/Helsmki also opposes
the death penalty m all cases as cruel and inhuman We draw attention to this case m particular not only because of the
scope and seriousness of violaUons of due process already wimessed m this case, but as a microcosm of abuses we believe
to be practiced in law enforcement and prosecutonal circles in Georgia as a whole We will be issmng a comprehensive
report on these \ lolations in the near future

In this case, m particular, we are concerned that the cntical legal principle of the presumed innocence of
defendants in all trials has been severely compromised because of the public pressure to convict ' There are several
reasons for this The first is the widespread public abhorrence of the terrorist act with which several of the defendants
are charged on June 13, 1992, a car bomb detonated on a street m Tbilisi, reportedly moments after the automobile
belongmg to pubbc figure Jaba losehani had passed by, leaving five by-passers dead, mcludmg a child The second source
of pressure to convict comes from the frequent public statements by such high-level government officials as Eduard

' Case No 7493810 consists of charges brought in connection with seven different incidents:

1) Case No 7492801 was brought in January 1992 against Zviad Gamsakhurdia for, among other things, abuse of power and
plundering state property

2) Case No 265 was brought in connection with a car bomb explosion on June 15,1 992, on Chikovani Street in Tbilisi (the so-called
"Chikovani Su-eel Bombing Case"), and brings charges against Irakli Dokvadze, Gedevan Gelbakhiani and Petre Gelbakhiani

3) Case No. 7792809 — the so-called "Khvareli" case in which individuals were arrested in the town and forest surrounding Kh\areli,
allegedly for attempting to launch violent acts against the Georgian government Some 1 9 individuals also imphcated in this case have
already been convicted and are currently serving theu' sentences in or near Tbilisi

4) Case No 792815 was brought in connection with the seizure of the television and radio stations in Tbilisi on June 24, 1992, against
Sergo Khakhiashvili, Gocha Makhviladze, and Gela Mchedlishvili

5) The case, brought m connection with an alleged attempt to hamper the elections of October 1 1 , 1992, bnngs charges agamst
Kalmakhelidze, Kapanadze and Kochlamazashvili

6) The case of alleged theft of French perfume from the "Agregat" factory was brought against Ramazi Charigogdishvili, Ivane
Lashkarashvili and Gela Mchedlishvili

7) A case was brought m connecUon with a reported attempt on the life of Actmg Procurator General Razmadze against Zurab
BardzimashviM, Zurab Gogichashvih, Teunuraz Kapanadze and Tamaz Tsiklaun

' Article 1 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Ri^its states that "everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 2 August 1 994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

Shevardnadze, who have alrcad> labeled the defendants in this case "lerronsts," Mr Shevardnadze has also publicly called
for a death sentence to be earned out m the case, although the trial is still under wa>' '

On August 3, 1 992, an aninest>' was passed releasing from crmunal habilit\' "representaUves of the previous
[Gamsakhurdia] administration accused of committing senous crimes" and "mdividuals who participated m the
adventurous attempt at go\emmenl overthrow of June 24, 1994, regardless of the senous cnmes committed by them
before the countn and the people.'" Several of the defendants in this case seem to fall under the terms of this amnesty,
but ha\e not been released

The tnal began on October 5, 1993, at least one year after the initial arrests It has been recessed on numerous
occasions, m part because of natural delays caused by ilhiess or prior commitments of lawyers, and m part because the
court suspended hearings in response lo the defendants' protests these included standmg with theu- backs to the courtroom
and holdmg hunger strikes

A pattern of abuse emerged from interviews with several of the men on tnal m this case Their accounts of their
treatment almost mvanably repeat the same sequence The accused was arrested m his home by armed men in civilian
clothing who did not present an arrest warrant He was beaten on the spot, on the way to the mihtia station, and upon
amval Dunng questiomng, he was beaten and threatened, questioned about his views on and relationship with former
President Gamsakhurdia, and then mtunidated and tortured into signing a deposition Contact with family members and
lawyers came tvpicalK onl\ after a mmimum of several days after the arrest, m some cases onl> after several months.

In the testimorues compiled here defendants descnbe having been hung upside down, burned, doused with boiling
water, and subjected to sjslematic beatmgs that broke bones and cut and bruised most of their bodies Lastmg physical
injuries reported included broken teeth, broken noses, impaired heanng and damaged vision Threats to torture or murder
members of their families left other scars on the defendants, one defendant tells how his children were brought to the
detention center where he had been tortured and he was threatened that the children would be killed if he did not confess.

Doctors attached to the intenogation centers were described as having been accomphces to torture, assessing
suspects' fitness to continue being questioned under torture One detamee said he was hospitalized when a police doctor
told mterrogators the alternative was that he would die, but interrogation under torture soon continued m the hospital,
another defendant descnbed havmg been tortured in his hospital bed after a failed suicide attempt and an emergency
operation

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki draws attention to this case in particular not only because of the scope and
senousness of violations of due process already observed, but as a microcosm of abuses we beheve to be practiced m law
enforcement and prosccutonal circles in Georgia as a whole We will be issuing a comprehensive report on these
violations m the near future

Human Ri^ts Watch/Helsinki (formerly Helsinki Watch) has monitored and urged comphance with the human
rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords in signatory countries since the organization was created in 1978. The
Republic of Georgia, as a member of the commonwealth of Independent States, is obliged to uphold these provisions.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki calls on the government of the Republic of Georgia and all those acting in an
official capacity for it to take all steps necessary to prevent acts of torture and gross mistreatment of individuals in custody
on Georgian territory. We call on the government to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into allegations of
torture and mistreatment made by the defendants in this case, to ensure that those who are found guilty of such acts are
punished, and that the victims are guaranteed an adequate remedy for their suffering In particular. Human Rights

' See, for example, Saksrtvclos RespublikA, November 30, 1993.
♦ Gushagi, No. 28. 1992, p. 61.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 3 August 1 994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

Watch/Helsinki calls on the judge in this case to exclude from the record of the trial any statement by the defendant that
is to be used agamsl him and that is shown to have been obtamed through torture or other coercive means

VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS

Torture During Arrest and Investigation

Article 14 (3) (g) of the International Gsvenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter ICCPR) guarantees that
a defendant not be "compelled to testily' against himself or to confess guilt " Article 7 of the ICCPR states thai "no one
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or pumshment."

Documented cases of torture and gross mistreatment during detention are unquestionably the most shociong and
hemous of the violations witnessed m this case to date, and represent the biggest impediment to the defendants rcxeiving
a fair tnal All of the defendants m the case claim to have been beaten during the period of arrest and interrogation, in
violation of the categorical prohibition against torture in international law Many of the defendants also report ihat they
wCTe tortured to force them to confess to crimes they now deny having committed These allegations of torture have been
raised by the defendants' lawyers during the course of the tnal However, except for the case of Zaza Tsiklaun, whom
authonties generally acknowledge to have been tortured, no mvestigations are known to be underway into these
allegations, and despite substantial evidence of torture, the statements of the defendants continue to be used as evidence
m the case.

Tamara Bardzimashvih, the daughter of defendant Zurab Bardzimashvili, reportedly has visited him in the pre-
tnal detention center five or six times smce his arrest, and told HRW/Helsuiki representatives:

When they came to arrest him, the> surrounded the house and he tried to kill himself by stabbing himself
in the chest They took him to the hospital and operated on him immediately On the third day after the
arrest, they came to him at the hospital and began mtertogating him [He said] Inspector Baluashvili
personally kicked him in the chest, where his wound was. . . . They have tortured him during the
investigation they put needles in his leg, kicked him m his stomach, put him in a death row cell It is
indescnbable. There are scars on the left side of his neck, and round scars like bracelets mid-calf on both
legs. Now they don't let me in to see him anymore.'

Viktor Domukhovskii

Viktor Domukhovskii, one of the men facing the death penalty, recounted to a HRW/Helsinki representative who
visited him in the pre-trial detention center where he was being held;

Petre Gelbakhiani [another defendant] and 1 were kidnapped from a friend's house in Baky [the capital
of neighboring Azerbaijan] on April 6, 1992. About thirty men in civihan clothing handcufied us, bound
our eyes and put us in a car. They beat us in the car, and in the airplane which took us to Tbihsi. In the
car 1 was sitting in the middle, and was hit from both sides with fists and automatic weapons. Petre got
it worse because he w as lying on the floor of the van and they hit and kicked him. They broke my nose,
broke my teeth, and I had bruises all over.

They took us to the KGB building in Tbilisi. They taped us and made us speak on television. . . . They
told us that we had apparently blown something up on the orders of Gamsakhurdia. We didn't admit to
anything. Petre and 1 were the only ones who said "no." Then they took us to the police lock-up and
began working us over psychologically.'

' HRW/Helsinki inlerview, Tbilisi, June 1994.
' HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

Human Rights Vi^atch/Helsinki 4 August 1 994, Vol. (., No. 1 1

Petre G«lbakhiani

Petre Gelbakhiani, a doctor in his thirties, painted a similar picture of abuse and coercion:

About twenty or thirty men came to arrest us in civihan clothes We were handcuffed emd our eyes were
bound They did not show any arrest warrant They beat us without stopping It continued in the
airplane I had bruises and a bloody face I still have scars on my face '

They demanded that I confess that I was involved in a car bomb against loseliani and that I had done it
on Gamsakhurdia's orders They made us speak on television Kviraia [the cmrent Mmister of Internal
Affairs] was present dunng ail of this '

Iraki] Dokvadze

IraJdi Dok\'ad2c, a young man with piercing black eyes, a former member of the Commumst Party and an
Afghanistan veteran, told a HRW/Helsinki representative:

[When I was arrested on September 4, 1992,] they started taking physical measures and threatened my
children Two guys came mto the police lock-up where I was They started threatening me They hit
me with rubber clubs Another method is that you sit on the floor with your knees up, they put handcuffs
on your hands under your legs, and they hit you on the soles of your feet I lost consciousness They^
broke m> nose Then they came to make a video film of me to air on television They actually put make-
up on my face to cover the broken nose

They would come to interrogate me regularly at two or three in the morning They came many times,
about ten or fifteen times over the course of about a month and twenty days or two months They beat
me so many tmies I can't count At one point, they kept me for two weeks in one room They put on
funeral music. It was indescribable. There was fecal matter on the floor so you couldn't walk It stank.

They brought in my children Baluashvili, the head of the Division for the Fight against Terrorism and
Sabotage, said "If you want them to live, sign " They said, "You live on the fu'st floor We will throw
in a grenade and then well say it was done by one of the people who had lost someone [in the car bomb
attack on Chikovani Street that killed several people ] They threatened that the father of the seven-year-
old kid who died m the blast would kill me I don't understand how people could be so low that they
would mampulate the father of a dead child My mother was already arrested at that point ' 1 already
knew that if I didn't admit guilt they would annihilate ray whole family.'"

Zaza Tsiklauri

Zaza Tsiklaun is a tall man, bearded and thin when a HRW/Helsinki representative met with him in the Hospital
for Inmates wtoch adjoins the pre-trial detention cell At the time of the mterview, he had been recuperatmg fi^om the ill
effects of the hunger strike he and his co-defendants had embarked on in January and February 1994 He had previously
been treated in the prison hospital for tuberculosis he may have contracted during confinement, and the effects of torture.

I was relaxing with my family in the village, and came back to Tbilisi for food, on family business.
When I got back, by coincidence I went to my mother's house, where she lives with my brother, a deputy.
Some moi came in miUtaiy uniform and said they wanted to clarify one or two things. They took me to

' A Human Rights WatchHelsinki rcpresenlative confirmed the existence of these scar^.

' HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

' Sce'Ancsl and Harassment of Reladvcs*

'" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi. June 1994.

Human Rights Watch/Helsmki 5 August 1 994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

the KGB building, and began asking about my attitude toward the president, toward my brother, when
was the last time I was m Groznyi " There were very high-ranking officials present

That same night they started beating and torturing me They didn't say what they wanted from me They
hit me with their fists, with clubs, kicked me, held me upside down, beat the soles of my feet, my head
It lasted all night You hang there, people come m and out I lost consciousness several times, but they
would bum me or throw water on me to wake me up I was covered m blood. I kept going m and out
of consciousness They kept moving me around . The next day I was all blue, from head to toe My
left leg and left arm were broken, and I had cuts all over My right leg was cut, and my right arm '^

The>' tried too hard — 1 couldn't stay conscious. The doctor said, "If you don't take him to the hospital,
he'll die" They took me to the hospital ... I couldn't move, I could only sit or he flat The
interrogations contmued, different people doing the interrogations. They would dictate my testmiony
The charges against me changed, after all." They began pouring boihng water on the nght side of my
neck, my back '" They made me put on a shut when they took me to the official They made me wear
a heavy jacket, which you can imagme on burned skin ... I said, "Tell me what you want and I'U sign"
1 had said this before First they said I should write that I was involved in a terrorist act against [Jaba]
loseliam The>' brought m electric shock cords I was already dreammg of dying I wanted them to
apply the shock cords It's easy to say now, but then 1 was hoping they would kill me. But the chief
officer said I was aheady read>' to sign and they did not need [the cords]

I was held in solitary confmement for a month after that so that no one would see the results of the
torture."

The allegations of the torture of Zaza Tsiklauri have been officially confirmed, and were the basis for a criminal
investigation (case no 7492832), according to his wife, Nino She reported that the case was later dropped because Mr.
Tsiklaun refiised to give testunony, fearing for the safety of his family if he disclosed details." Indeed, the charges of
torture caused the chairman of the hiformational Intelligence bureau of Georgia (the successor of the KGB) Batiashvib
to announce his resignation on August 17, 1992, ten days after Mr Tsiklauri's arrest, Mr Batiashvili did not, however,
resign Procurator General Razmadze ordered one charge against Mr. Tsiklauri remanded to the review of the Procuracy,
citing the "fascist methods used against defendant Z Tsiklauri, as a result of which he received numerous physical
injuries "

In June 1994, a HRW/Helsinki representative received permission from pre-trial detention and hospital authorities
to visit Zaza Tsiklauri, who, according to the defendant and to hospital records, was at the time recuperating from the

" When he was ousted, Zviad Gamsakhunlia, pariiamenlahans and a group of his supporters fled to Groznyi, in the southern
Russian republic of Chechnia, which borders Georpa, and headquartered there until Gamsakhurdia returned to Georgia in the fall
of 1993.

" A doctor with the British Helsinki Group who visited Mr. TsiWauri soon after this incident confirmed the existence of
physical traumas consistent with what Mr. Tsiklauri describes.

" Mr. Tsiklauri reports that he was originally charged with violations of part 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Code Cillegal
possession of firearms or explosive devices'), carrying a maximum sentence ofthrre years of imprisonment). Later three, more
serious charges were brought: violations of Parts 2, 3 and 4 of that same Article CiOegal transmission, transportation, making or
selling of firearms or explosive devices* or all of the above violations, respectively, carrying a maximum sentence of ten years of
imprisonment with confiscation of property).

" A Human Rights WalcVHelsinki representative confirmed the existence of these scais.

" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

" HRW/Helsinki telephone interview, August 1994.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 6 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

compounded cfiecls of torture, tuberculosis, which he had contracted in detention, and weakening and severe
malnounshmcnt caused b> a length> hunger stnke According to relatives, the following day, an angry call from the judge
ordered that Mr Tsiklaun be put under "stnct isolation," the following day he was forcibly removed from the hospital
and put back m the pre-tnal detention cell, where conditions are even worse than m the hospital, and where he does not
have constant access to medical care The order was clearly pumtive, and displayed gross neglect of the defendant's
physical condition, as well as disregard for human rights momtonng

Gedevan G«lbakhiani

When a HRW/Helsinki representative met with Gedevan Gelbakhiam, a doctor and medical professor m his
sixties currentK facing the death penalty, he had been held for four months m the small hospital attached to the Tbilisi
pre-tnal detention facility He told HRW/Helsmki the following

The first beating took place when I was arrested I was taken to the mimicipal police precmct without
an> arrest warrant I was taken to Ivanov, the Deputy Muuster of Internal Affairs, and several
"Mkhednom," who were wildly on drugs " They were absolutely weavmg They started beatmg me
nght awa> , hitting me with something hard from behind 1 lost two front teeth on the left side Then they
took me downstairs, where I spent a month."

Between October [1992] and February [1993] 1 would be woken in the middle of the night, taken out and
beaten It was like that for six months I would lie on the floor, and end up m one homble room after
another I said, "I will change my testimony everj time you beat me " "

He continued m a written statement, whose contents he confirmed m person having written

When they finished to beat me (sic), they made me to wnle a statement (sic), then if my memory serves
me right I was dragged to isolation cell . There I spent two days under continuous loud sounds of run
(sic) water and \entilation sjstem which is the continuation of torture to be used after beatmg The noise
produced by strong flow of water combmed with loud noise produced by the ventilation amplifies the
volume of the noise This is one of the methods of torture since it exerts unfavorable and contmuous
(sic) impact on the nervous system . . FmaUy I was able to stick my hanky into the pipe and that
stemmed it a bit Otherwise I thought I would have gone crazy.^°

The second beating look place the fourth, fiflh or sixth of February. I haven't seen anything hke it even
in the mo\ ies The> beat mc terribly About seven men, "plants" beat my right side I was sitting down
and the\' held me from both sides so 1 couldn't move One kicked me nght in the face . . The beatmg
went on for two or three hours Then they threw me mto a damp cell, then mto a cold room The right
side of my face was completely black on the second day Nekros had set in — which is a sign of death
— not bruises 1 was afraid I'd lost my eye Now I see poorly with my right eye. I have lost almost all
of the hearing in my right ear TTiey wanted to finish with the investigation.

Recently things have been calmer But every day there is something horrible The hospital is as bad as
the cell, maybe worse. If you saw the toilet you'd lose your mind.

" The "Mkhcdrioni" (in En^sh, "ihc Horsemen") is a paramilitary group wWch currenlly serves in a dr Acto capacity as part of
the law enforcemenl structure, often working together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Their leader is Jaba loseliani, who is
generally believed to have been the target of the bomb explosion for which some of the defendanls in this case are chared.

" The maximum length of such detention allowed under Georgian law is ten days.

" HRW/Helsinki irUerview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

'° Statement, no date, Tbilisi jail.'

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 7 August 1994, Vol. 6. No. 1 1

The doctors here [in the pre-trial detention facility] are security agents They give permission for
interrogations even when I am clearly not in any condition. I am a doctor, so I know what I'm talking
about The doctors assist in investigations.^'

Mamuka Aptsiauri

Mr Aptsiauri has written in sworn testimony that "From the first day of arrest, the supporters of Shevardnadze,
the "Mkhednom", and the "Guards" used violent methods of investigation, beat [me] until 1 lost consciousness and
demanded that I give false testimony against our group and President Zviad Gamsakhurdia. . During the mvestigation,
the investigatory team used forbidden methods against me. During the physical pressure [nazhimy], they broke my nose."^

Zurab Gogichashvili

In a signed statement, Mr Gogichashvili has reported "In the process of preliminary investigation I was subjected
to physical and psychological processmg which resulted m aggravation of my health My repeated demands for medical
examination were not satisfied My health is progressively worsenmg (sic) I developed decreased hearing, and have
problems with my lungs.""

In a statement prepared durmg the HRW/Helsmki visit to Tbilisi in June 1994, he reported that "On September
24, 1992, 1 was detamed by the militia of the Gldan region of Tbilisi and, after nine days of torture I was brought up on
charges of apparent illegal possession of firearms and a hand grenade I denied these charges, after which I was

subjected to torture and beatmgs 1 have gone on hunger strike three times "^^

Givi Kalmakhelidze

In a signed statement, Mr Kalmakhehdze wrote that "After [my anest, I\ was taken to the municipal poUce station
of the Mmistrj' of Internal Affairs of the City of Tbilisi, where they began mistreatment [izdevatel'stvo], moral degradation
and beating as a supporter of the lawful president Zviad Gamsakhurdia I spent twenty days in the municipal police
station, then the>' took me to hivestigation Cell No. 1 of the City of Tbihsi, where they again began mistreatment, moral
humiliation and beatings, where I remam to this day [June 18, 1994] ""

Teimuraz Kapanadze

In a statement written during HRW/Helsinki's stay in Tbilisi, Mr Kapanadze reported: "During my arrest, in &ont
of the senior head of the law enforcement body, 1 was savagely beaten. After I lost consciousness they threw me into the
lock-up of the municipal militia. [From October 5] until October 16 [1992] they took their revenge every day with
physical force, and beat me cruelly After the>' created their charges (October 16) they removed me to the investigation
cell, where my tortiire continues to this day.""

Omari Kochlamazashvili

In a statement presented to HRW/Helsinki representatives, Mr. Kochlamazashvili wrote: "Despite my frequent
demands, the investigation was conducted without a lawyer, and under unbearable physical and psychological pressire.""

" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

" Written stalemenl submitted to HRW/Helsinki. No date.

" Stalemcnt, no date.

"Stalemenl, dated June 19, 1994.

" Stalemenl, dated June 1994.

" Statement, dated June 16, 1994.

^ Statement, no date.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki

August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

Tamaz Tsiklauri

Tamaz Tsiklaun's wife, Men Zurabishvili, told HRW/Helsinki representatives her impressions after she saw her
husband, four months after his arrest

His right hand was missing fingernails He had broken teeth He was covered in bruises - there were no
white spots left on him?"

Gross Mistreatment During Trial

Not onl>- was torture used during the investigation process to extract confessions, but serious mistreatment of the
defendants has contmucd during the pre-tnal and trial period

Zurab Bardzimashvili

Defendant Zurab Bardzimashvib is an elderly invalid who before his arrest wore braces on his nght arm and leg
and suffered from epileps>', and had been tortured and hospitalized dunng arrest and mvestigation Accordmg to his
daughter Tamara, he had attempted suicide on several occasions beginmng the day of his arrest when he realized he was
surrounded He reportedly suffered a serious relapse m health dunng a trial recess on July 7, 1994 Despite his poor
phy sical condition, it was reported that he was forcibly brought into the courtroom again when the tnal reconvened on July
29 He reportedly did not withstand the stress, and had to be removed to the prison hospital

Gela Mchedlishvili

In a statement handed to a HRW/Helsinld representative in prison in July 1994, Gela Mchedlishvili reported that
"They torture and beat me and use all forms of violence, which are impossible to even imagine This continues to this
day"^'

Illegal Arrests

Article 9 (2) of the ICCPR states that "anyone who is arrested shall be mformed, at the tune of arrest, of the
reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly mformed of any charges against him " Subsection (3) goes on to state that:
"An>one arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authonzed
by law to exercise judicial power "

Gedevan Gelbakhiani, Zaza Tsiklauri, Tamaz Tsiklauri and Ramazi Changogdishvih all claim that they were
arrested without having been presented with an arrest warrant, this is believed to have been the case with others charged
in case. Men Zurabishvili, Tamaz Tsiklauri's wife, was present during her husband's arrest:

It was evemng Armed men started shooting through our door, and another three came through the
balcony They took m> husband barefoot from the shower They stole money, rings, gold They took
me too, and held me overnight '°

Failure to Inform of Charges in a Timely Manner

Most of the detainees were not informed of the charges against them at the time of their arrest. Gedevan
Gelbakhiani, for example, reports that "I was informed of the charges on the third or fourth day [after my arrest]. . . . The
first time I saw a lawyer was on the seventh or eig^ day. They interrogated me several times without my lawyer present.
He never protested the second beating.""

" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.
" Slalemenl, dated June 27, 1994.
" HRW/Hclsinki inlerview, Tbilisi, June 1994.
" HRW/Helsinki inlerview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki

August 1994, Vol. 6, No. II

His son, Petre Gelbakhiani, also reported being informed of charges against him only four or five days after his
arrest, and after he had been beaten, intmudated, and forced to make a statement on television.

Denial of the Right to Timely Access to Legal Counsel of One's Choosing

Article 14 (3) (b) of the ICCPR guarantees a defendant the right to "adequate time and faciUties for the
preparation of his defense and to commumcate with counsel of his own choosmg."

Defendant Zaza Tsiklauri bemoaned the lack of legal guarantees in the case in a conversation with a
HRW/Helsinki representative: "How can the lawyers work when they themselves are imder threat?" To a question about
whether legal counsel had been present during questioning, he said, "There could be no discussion of such a luxury as a
lawyer " This sentiment was echoed m conversations with almost everyone HRW/Helsinki representatives mtemewed
dunng their two-week stay in Tbilisi, including many who were associated with cases unconnected with the one in
question.

For several months, defendant Zurab Bardzimashvili was not represented at all during the proceedings, although
reportedly he had submitted an appeal to the court m January 1994 In April, Ms Bekauri was assigned to him against
his wishes Zurab Bardzimashvili's request for a change in defense counsel was also denied at that time, leaving him
effectively without defense of his choosing, as is his right

Defendant Viktor Domukhovskii told a HRW/Helsinki representative that the first trnie he saw a lawyer was not
until April 12, 1993, six days after his arrest He stated that he was interrogated some five times without the presence
of a lawyer In addition, he stated that the court had derued hun access to his lawyer on five occasions, the first time in
October 1993, when the tnal began Petre Gelbakhiani reported that he did not see a lawyer until one week after his arrest.

Oman Kochlamazashvih and Gocha Makhviladze have stated independently that the mvestigation of their cases
was conducted without the assistance of counsel, although they already had lawyers who had assumed their defense.

Denial of the Right to Familiarize Oneself with Information Pertinent to the Case

In this transitional period when the Georgian legislature is overhauling entire bodies of law, and when amnesties
are passed m an unpredictable but often sweeping manner, la\\yers and lawmakers themselves were often hard pressed
to tell HRW/Helsinki representatives which laws applied m certain cases. In addition, current Georgian jurisprudence
suffers from chronic and systemically poor and spotty access to legal texts. This impedes the worit of judges and lawyers,
and causes anxiety among defendants As defendant Zaza Tsiklauri lamented to HRW/Helsinki, "I am being tried
according to laws I don't know."

Exacerbating this already unsatisfactory situation is the judge's illegal reftisal to give defendants, and in at least
one case, defense counsel, fiill access to the materials connected with their cases, as is their right under Article 14 (3) (b)
of the ICCPR and Articles 202 and 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Georgian Republic. In at least one case,
the judge denied the repeated requests of defense attorneys for Zaza Tsiklauri and Gedevan Gelbakhiani to allow their
clients fiiU access to the documents in the case. The entire set of pertinent documents reportedly consists officially of
thirty-six volumes.

The court proceedings and the vast majority of documents pertaining to the case are in the Georgian language.
According to his wife, defendant Viktor Domukhovskii speaks Georgian as a second language and requested that the 560-
page written evidence against him be ti'anslated into his native language, Russian. According to his lawyer, this request
was denied. The denial violates Article IS of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Georgia.

Gevedan Gelbakhiani, a defendant who has reportedly lost significant hearing as a result of beatings dtiring
interrogation, requested that an amplifier be provided so that he could better follow the proceedings. This request was
also denied, without explanation.

Zurab Gogichashvih reportedly informed the court on at least two occasions that because of hearing loss suffered
during beatings and torture during investigation, he was unable to adequately hear the proceedings, and requested an

Human Righu Watch/Helsinki 10 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

amplifier As he was making his statement to this effect at the January 10, 1993, court session, the judge reportedly
ordered him removed from the courtroom for continuing to speak when the judge spoke An individual close to the case
maintair.s that Mr Gogichashvili continued to speak because, bcmg hard of hearing, he was unaware that the judge was
speaking

Kete\'an Bekauri, the defense lawya ultimately' assigned to Zurab Bardzimashvili, requested at least fourteen days
to farrubanze herself with the pertment matenals The court allowed her only five days and reportedly gave only partial
access to documents

OTHER VIOLATIONS

Harassment and Arbitrary Arrests of Relatives and Denial of Family Visits

Gedevan Celbakhiani

Gedevan Gelbakhiani, now facing the death sentence, told a HRW/Helsinki representative "1 was not an active
[pohdcal] figure 1 was arrested simpl>' because of m>' son [Petre, also a defendant in the case] It was to get back at him,
to put pressure on him When the>' beat me the second time, they shouted this out The>' have kind of achieved their
goal"'-

Tamara Bardzimashvili and Mari Gugeshashvili

Tamara, a young teacher and the daughter of Zurab Bardzunashvili, told HRW/Helsinki representatives the
following

On October 7, 1992, two days after the arrest of my father, they arrested me, too Without any warrant,
four armed men took me fi'om my home They stated that they were officers of the Information-
Intelligence Directorate and showed some kmd of identification. 1 don't remember what kind because
1 w as so frightened - 1 had been home alone They demanded that I appear on television and condemn
Gamsakhurdia and his supporters, mcludmg my father When 1 refused, the>' started to beat me "

Tliey hit me three times in the chest and stomach 1 started bleeding I was put in solitary confmement
until the next morning 1 have had gastritis for the last eight months, since they beat me "

The next morning, beaten and bloody, they let me go and warned me not to speak about this fact to
anyone or [there would be] physical retribution."

The day the tnal started [October 5, 1993]. ., the>' arrested my mother, Mari Gugeshashvih, a teacher
and member of the Helsinki Union of Georgia since 1989 Militia officers fi-om the GIdan region of
Tbilisi arrested her at home with no reason or display of the pertinent warrant They held her for two
days, and also forced her to publicly condemn Z Gamsakhurdia and the whole national movement.
After she was released, representatives of the kommendatura and press secretary L. Chkhenkeli
personally appeared at School 174, where my mother works to this day, and openly demanded that the

" HRW/Helsinki intemew, June 1994, Tbilisi.

" Slalement, dated June 20, 1994.

" HRW/Helsinki inlciview. TbUisi, June 1994.

" Slalement by Tamaia Bardzimashvili, dated June 20, 1994. ContenU confirmed in person, HRW/Helsiiiki interview, June
1994, Tbilisi.

Human Rights Watch/Helsmki 1 1 August 1 994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

director fire her fi-om work since she is a "Zviadist " But the teachers group, directorate and the students
defended their teacher ''

Leila and Nodari Dokvadze

The mother of defendant Irakli Dokvadze told HRW/Helsinki representatives:

"I was arrested and held for one month after Irakli was arrested. When the>' fuially released me, they said
that, officially, 1 had been detained for violation of the curfew in Tbilisi. They still have my passport to
this day, and I can't get it back.'"^

Her husband, Nodari, reported that on June 24, 1992, "We were sitting at home, the house that we shared with
Irakh, his wife and children, when the militia came There was no search warrant, but they took things The>' basically
just robbed us On October 8 of that year, right before the elections, I was brought in to the militia station fi'om my
place of work The lock-up cell was overflowing with "Zviadists "" The>' kept me for four da>s and let me go without
charges ""

Giorgi Kikaleishvili

Mr. Kikaleishvili is the brother of the wife of defendant Viktor Domukhovskii. He reports having been detained
and his house searched by armed men seven times since February 1992, when his sister and the Domukhovskii children
came to li\'e with him after the arrest They reportedly found nothing on any of these occasions, nor did they bnng charges
against him He told a HRW/Helsuiki representative about the pattern of harassment of the family, wUch he claims to
be gratuitous He reported that armed men repeatedly come to his house and search it, without showing a search warrant,
and he is taken to the police precinct for questioning, detained for one or two hours and released without charges The
men, he reports, claim they are looking for illegal weapons

■ Mr Kikaleishvili reports that on one occasion, on May 24, 1993, the men "threw everything on the floor " On
another occasion, he reported, they detained his wife and young children. He told HRW/Helsinki, "They never find
anything But the>' take m\' fingerprints and make me feel like a criminal .1 don't know the reason for it, but of course
it's connected with politics" When he was again taken in on July 1, 1994, Mr Kikaleishvih reported that one of the men
conducting the search told him 'We have been making the rounds since 4.00 a.m., according to a list.'"*"

Mamuka Aptsiauri has stated that "Not only I but my family experienced the pressure of investigation KGB
agents, without any warrant and on the pretext of a search, have broken into my house several times and searched the
apartment They frightened my parents: 'If you or your son don't say where the arms are kept, we will shoot your son,"
and used other psychological and moral methods of pressure.'^'

Zaza Tsiklauri and Viktor Domukhovskii also reported to HRW/Helsinki that their family members had been
denied visiting nghts Mr Domukhovskii stated that he was not allowed to see a family member for two and a half months
after his arrest.

" Statement by Tamara Bardiiinajhvili, dated June 20, 1994. Contents confinned in penon, HRW/Helsinki interview, June
1994, Tbilisi.

" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994, .

" A perjoi3tivc tenn for supporters of fonner President Zviad Gamsakfaurdia.

" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.

* HRW/Helsinki interview, July 1994, Tbilisi.

*' Statement, dated June 1994.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 12 August 1994, VoL 6, No. 1 1

As one person close to the case staled, "Pemussion depends entirel>' on the judge's mood. If he is in a good mood,
he will grant it, otherwise he won't "

Gede\an Gelbakhiani, the doctor now facing the death pcnalt>, also told HRW/Helsinki "I didn't see Petre[ his
son, facing identical charges] for two and a half years I was getting used to the idea of not seeing him again It was very
difficult"--

Harassment and Discriminatory Dismissals of Defense Attorneys

For reasons that are not immediately apparent, the judge or the Supreme Court or the Bar Association or a
combmation of these authorities have ordered that defense lawyers must assume or continue to provide a defense even
against the wishes of the defendant dunng the course of this tnal The right for a defendant to commumcate with legal
counsel of his own choosing IS enshnned m Article 43-1 of theCnmmal Procedure Code of the Repubhc of Georgia and
Article 14 (3) (b) of the ICCPR- At the same tmie, at least one mdependent lawyer appears to have been arbitrarily
stnpped of his credentials, losmg the nght to represent defendants before the courts There is concern that these measures
are intended to permit the accused in political trials to be defended only by court appointed lawyers they can not dismiss

In the first case, independent lawyer Tengiz Nijaradze, defense lawyer for Zaza Tsiklauri and Viktor
Domukhovskii, was released from his contract by Zaza Tsiklaun and therefore could not legally contmue his defense The
court initially rejected this change, m violation of Article 45 of the Cnmmal Procedure Code and Article 10 of the
Ordmance of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Apnl 29, 1992, which allows a defendant to change defense counsel
at any point Indeed, chairman of the Collegium Vladimir Baralashvili reportedly called and visited Mr Nijaradze with
a personal appeal that he resume the defense Soon afler, however, the Collegium of Lawyers, the equivalent of the Bar
Association or Lawyers Union m other countnes, expelled him from the Collegium, effectively strippmg him of his n^t
to work as a lawyer m Georgia According to Chairman BaratashvUi, Mr Nijaradze had been expelled because he had
arrived late for tnal on several occasions, and on cme occasion had failed to appear altogether Mr Nijaradze demes these
allegations, asserting that it was instead a veiled effort to replace his outspoken defense with the defense of a govenunent
appomted lawyer who would be more compliant to the wishes of the judge As a result of this decision, Mr Nijaradze
is now unemployed, and his two clients are bemg represented against their will by court-appomted attorneys.

In the second such mstance, the court has demed Mr Tsiklauri's request that his wife assume his defense, as is
permitted under Georgian law The judge reportedly issued the rejection on the grounds that Mr Tsiklauri was artificially
trying to drag out the proceedmgs His wife told HRW/Helsinki representatives that this could not have been the case,
however, smce her appomtment would not have required any delays, because she was already intimately famibar with the
case.

In the third instance, Ketevan Bekauri, a young, court-appointed lawyer who was already defending Zurab
Bardzimashvili, was ordered on June 15, 1994 to assume the defense of Zaza Tsiklauri as well Although she is state-
appointed, she told a HRW/Helsinki representative that, "[the authonties know) I won't be silent," and sees this move as
a way to legitimize removing her from the trial process She could not, however, assume the defense of someone who had
rejected her services She reports already havmg been threatened with exclusion from the Collegium, as Mr Nijaradze
had been, if she refijsed the order." Her exclusion would leave another two defendants in the case without independent
defense attorneys It was reportedly announced on August 5 that Ms. Bekauri was relieved of the duty, yet another state
lavvyer, Givi Kapanadze, was appointed in her stead, again against the explicit wishes of Mr Tsiklauri.**

In a signed statement to our organization, defendant Zurab Gogichashvib writes, "The situation of terror and
violence forces me to declme the services of [my] lawyer, Konstantin Gogichaishvili, who is my close relative, since he
[illegible] is threatened with danger. . . . Since I am concerned for the life of my lawyer and the fax:t that he could be

♦* HRW/Helsinlu interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.
" HRW/Helsinki interview, Tbilisi, June 1994.
** HRW/Helsinki telephone interview with Nino Taklaiih, August 5, 1994.

Human Rights Walch/Hebinki 13 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 11

dq)rived of means of subsistence (expel him as well from the Collegium of Lawyers ,i.e. dismiss him from work) I decline
the services of a lawyer and will defend myself personally.'"*

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the responsibility of the government of the Republic of Georgia and of those acting in an oCncial capacity
for the government to lake all steps necessary to prevent acts of torture and mistreatment on its temtory and to provide
redress to those who have suffered such treatment The defendants in this case require such redress Furthermore, the
government and its agents must ensure that defendants are given a fair and impartial forum m which to have the evidence
against them evaluated HRW/Helsinki makes the following recommendations:

To Judge Mirza Dolidze:

• Exclude from the record of the trial any statement by a defendant that is intended to be used agamst him and that
is shown to have been obtained through torture or other coercive means Such statements are admissible only
to prove the allegation of torture or coercion Similarly, exclude from the evidence for the prosecution any
physical or documentary evidence that was obtained as a result of torture or coercion;

• If, dunng the course of the proceedmgs, evidence reveals that the defendants were not mformed of the charges
agamst them in a tunely manner, prosecute those responsible and provide defendants with damages,

• Guarantee defendants access to the legal counsel of their choosing and ensure that defendants are given sufficient
tune to consult with their defense counsel to prepare their defense,

• Guarantee to defendants and their defense counsel equal access to all relevant evidence in the case, sufficient time
to familiarize themsehes with such evidence, as well as the chance to present their own evidence and to petition
for the production of evidence for the defense,

• Guarantee to those defendants who do not speak or understand Georgian the free assistance of an interpreter;

• Allow defendants access to proper medical evaluations and release into the care of medical professionals those
defendants who arc determined to be in poor health.

To the General Procuracy of the Republic of Georgia

• Initiate prompt and unpartial investigations into allegations of torture and mistreatment of individuals under
investigation and, where such allegations are substantiated, ensure that the victims are able to obtain an adequate
remedy as provided for in international law;

• Ensure that any statements that are shown to have been the result of torture or coercion, as well as any other
evidence so obtained, are not offered as evidence in any proceeding against the defendants;

• Initiate prompt and impartial investigations into the alleged torture of detainees by police officers in this case,
and if there is evidence of torture, bring criminal charges against all who committed acts of torture, as well as
against any pubUc officials who consented to or acquiesced in the torture;

• Review the legahty of the defendants' detention and prosecute anyone responsible for an illegal arrest Any
evidence for the prosecution obtained through the illegal arrest of the defendant should be excluded from his case.

" Stalement, dated June 26, 1994.

Human Righu Watch/Helsinki 14 August 1 994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

If the arrcsi is deemed illegal and the decision to prosecute is not otherwise based on legally obtained evidence,
then the defendant should be released

To the Government of the Republic of Georgia

• Review inteirogation rules and procedures for the custody and treamient of those in custody in an effort to prevent
future acts of torture,

• Educate all law enforcement officials and public officials about the absolute prohibition against torture and make
clear that an) official proved to have committed an act of torture or to have consented to or acquiesced in acts
of torture will be charged with a criminal offense and prosecuted to the full extent of the law,

• Provide an effective means of redress for the victim of torture and the right to fair and adequate compensation,

• Ensure that victims of torture have the opportunity' to file a complaint against those responsible for their torture
and guarantee both the victim and his or her supportmg witnesses safet>' from ill-treatment or intimidation as a
consequence of the complaint

Human Rights Watch/Helsmki 15 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

APPENDIX A:

List of Defendants and Charges Against Them

(in alphabetical order)

The following information was taken £rom the indictment statement as it stood when the investigation was
concluded in August 1993. Many of the charges are said to have been changed prior to that moment

1. Mamuka Aptsiauri: bom 1971 Arrested September 2, 1992, Khvareli. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism) and 17-69 (attempted subversive act) of the Criminal Code of the Rcpubhc of Georgia (hereinafter
the Cnrmnal Code )

2. Zurab Bardzimashvili: bom 1949, geologist Arrested on October 5, 1992, Tbihsi. Charged with violating Articles
17-67 (terrorism), 78 (banditry), 17-69 (subversive act) of the Criminal Code.

3. Bessarion Bochoridze: bom 1961; profession unknown. Arrested August 1 1, 1992. Charged with violating Articles
90-1 (failure to report a state criminal act) and 205 (concealment of a criminal act) of the Criminal Code.

4. Ramazi Charigogdishvili: bom I960, driver Arrested July 10 or 1 1, 1992, Tbihsi Charged with violating Article
78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code

5. Mamuka Danelia: bom 1959; student Arrested August 13, 1992, Tbilisi Charged with violating Articles 90 (failure
to report a stale criminal act) and 206 (concealment of a criminal act) of the Cnmmal Code

6. Viktor Domukhovskii: bom 1948; physicist, former Deputy of the Supreme Council of Georgia, former chairman of
the Judicial Commission Arrested on April 6, 1993, in Baky, Republic of Azerbaijan Charged with violating Articles
17-67 (attempted terronsm), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

7. Iraki! Dokvadze: bom 1961; television and radio engineer, electrician. Arrested September 4, 1992, Khvareli
Charged with violation of Articles 17-67 (attempted terronsm), 17-69 (attempted subversive act), 78 (banditry), 104,
parts 4 and 6 (premeditated murder of two or more people) and 104, parts 4 and 6 (murder) of the Criminal Code.

8. Gedevan Gelbakhiani: bom 1937, doctor, professor, therapist Arrested on September 13, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged
with violation of Articles 1 7-67 (terrorism), 1 7-69 (subversive act), 78 (banditry), 1 7- 1 04, parts 4 and 6 (premeditated
murder of two or more people) and 104, parts 4 and 6 of the Criminal Code.

9. Petre Gelbakhiani: bom 1962, doctor, candidate of medical sciences. Arrested April 6, 1993, Baky, Republic of
Azerbaijan Charged with violation of Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act), 78
(banditrj'), 17-104, parts 4 (premeditated murder of two or more people) and 104, parts 4 and 6, of the Criminal Code

10. Zurab Gogichashvili: bom 1956, farmer, technician. Arrested September 24 or 30, 1992 Charged with violating
Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

11. Givi Kalmakhelidze: bom 1952; military. Arrested September 29 or October 7, 1992. Charged with violating
Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

12. Teimuraz Kapanadze: bom 1950, construction worker, chief of the RepubUcan Committee of Material Resources.
Arrested October 5 or 6, 1992 Charged with violating Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive
act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

13. Serge Khakhviashvili: bom 1966; carpenter. Arrested June 24, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 16 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

14. Oman KochJamazashvili: bom 1943, driver, farmer Airestcd October 4 or 7, 1992 Charges unconfirmed, but are
like!) to include \iolations of Articles 1 7-67 (attempted terronsm), 1 7-69 (attempted subversive act), and 78 (banditiy)
of the CnmmaJ Code

15. Ivane Lashkarashvili: bom 1960,dnver Arrested on July 11, 1992 Charged with violating Article 78 (banditr>')
of the CniTunal Code

16. Cocha Makh\-iladze: bom 1958, economist Arrested June 24, 1992, Tbilisi Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terronsm) and 78 (banditr>) of the Criminal Code

17. Gela Mchedlishvili: bom 1968, policeman, teacher at techmcal college Arrested Jime 24, 1992, Tbihsi Charged
with violatmg Articles 17-67 (attempted terronsm) and 78 (banditrv) of the Cnrmnal Code

18. Tamaz Tsiklauri: bom 1954, economist Arrested October 5, 1992, Tbilisi Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terronsm), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Cnnunal Code.

19. Zaza Tsiklauri: bom 1961, physicist Arrested on August 7, 1992, Tsdo, Republic of Georgia Charged with
violating Arucle 238, parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 (illegal possession, holding, transport, buying, production and selling of a weapon
or explosive device) of the Cnminal Code

Human Rights Watch/Helsmki 17 August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 1 1

APPENDIX B:
Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Lener

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/Helsinki

a^B' f.fthAvemK Ne* Yori NY lOOl 7 6104 TIL (30' 9731400 FAX 3i: ; 973 0905 Em».l hfwiichrvc*.|c ipc or|
OiS33KStr«i WW •9tC WMh.nroi DC 30005 1303 TEL (303 !'l-6593 FAX .303 J7i .0I3< E m«.l hrwmhdt * .^c ipc w|
O 1) Itlingion High Sirrei Undon Uk Nl 9LH TELl447| 7ll 1995 FAX i447i 7| 1 IIOO E rn«.l hrvtickAttgn ape org
□ 1 5 ryf Van Cjmpf nhowi lO40Bfw»«l» Bflgnm TEl tl33 ■ 713 J009 FAX (133,7)30471
■ yio*Qo* Ruiiiir Fedf ration TEL and FAX <7093 363-4441 E-mail hwrnotc^glii ape org

iW USER
Eifcut.v* Oirrciof
MOLLY GARTNER
lULIE mERTUS
Cou ->.(!*
ERlkA DAILEV
lUCHEL DENSER
l\ ASA MZlCH
CHRISTOPHER PANICO
Rttca'cK AtfOCi«itt

Adviiory Commrnet

it.-,rK»"Fan.of Chji-

Ali.r H MtnL.r \,,t Ch».

Ro mi: Al^'ani

R hi". : b*mtle.n

Ch»r

r Bium

nh»i

Rcbfna Cohrr
Lon Damtoich
ItoarDcaL
AJ i- V)L Df>i .nd
r. R.brriDiman
S..n..v FngrlUf.n
AUr R F.nbr-B
Ellf- Fuiic-

M ."»!•! Celltr

'<:'— Clj'Tir

r*. Cct-.c

RuPf-! k Co'omjr

'act. C.(«nitff«

R-i.E Hauvf.

Rortn 'frif.

Rr^oda k»fp»ikifi

Sur^f^ L kail

boilf. kaui'

VTj .ra P."ir Kaulman

^..-.(L«..d^

Vv,j.f: A Un^

1 . .n 1 c^A

TnrOdO' S\ttor
OtooTih M.ltnkoviich
Toni MofTuon
John t Oakci
Hfibrn Oliun
'a-" OUon
U-. O-lov
Srd.a Popov ic
brucr Ribb
Pritf Rcdda»a>
S.^.nRob.oo^.t:
.lohnC R>dfr'
Hrrm»nSth*.an:
fii-.lcs K She.nbaum
Jciume ' Sbrtiack
Ct <«r Soroi
Sc.»nMtb(rSoiOi
MitKad Savern
Fmi Sifm
S*fil»n| Sionf
Rovr Siv ron
li^ unman
C.f^.-^ Uall.nce
R .tlm'd M. h.irhrad
kiomt R ViCincr
% illiam D Zabfl

JuJ> 20. 1994

Gngon ShaJambendzr
GlIN. OnhachaJa Pnson
ul Gorga^aJj, 89a
Tbibsi 380014
Rcpubbc of Georgia
B) lelegram

Dear Mr. Shalambendze,

As \ou know, Human Rights WaicK'Helsinkj (formerly Helsinki W'aich) is
a non-goxemmeniaJ, non-partjsaji orguii^Jiion, ihc largest based in the L'nited States
and an observer al the L'njicd Naoons. On behalf of Human Rights Walch/Helsinki
reprcsentatixes Enka DaiJe> and Alexander Petro\, wlh whom you met lasl month
in Tbibsi. I Lake this oppommjt> to thank you for your consideraoon and your
assisLance in the conduci of our work m Georgia.

V\"e arc grcnilj dishirbcd thai on July 2 a defendant who was undcigomg
nicdif.ij ticaiiiifiii .ind ol)sei-\aijon at the Republican HospiLal for Iiun.itci »ai
ijrtiisfciTcd back lo tJic pic-uial dercnDon cenicr (SIzo), at great nsk lo his heallJi. The
defendant, Zaza Tsiklaun, is currently on tnal on charges of \iolanng Amcle 238, parts
1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Cnrrunal Code of the Georgian RepubLc (illegaJ possession,
acqnisiUon and transfer of firearms and explosive deuces).

Since his arresi on August 7, 1992, he reportedly has been removed to the
SIzo hospital for tieamient from the pre-tnal delenoon center in Tbibsi on three
occasions The first time, he told our represenUD\cs, he was recovering from severe
torture, including brutal beatmgs and scalduigs with boilmg water, infbaed by law
enforcement offiriils in Tbilisi He reported tJiai ihc rortiire took place mitially in
order lo extract a toiifcssion. His most recent stay in llic hospital w^s lo allow him lo
recover from a hunger strike he held to protest die violations of due process that
rcporicdl) led lo his arresi and rrmtreaDiient in deienbon. Within tuo dajT of meeting
with one of our representabv es, Mr TsiJdaun vvas abruptly returned lo the SIzo, wc
bebeve prcmsnuclj and punitively, to prevent Mr. Tsiklaun from further contact v*ith
observers.

HUMAN K£S'n;ETH ROTH E.wot.v» D.fector CYhTTHlA BROWN. Ptorim Dirrcior HOLLY J lURKHALTtR ArfvoMcy Dirwor
'BTT-Tjyc' CaRaLaMARCHE Anoc.iif D.t«tor JUAN E m£NDE2 General Cowntel SUSAN OSNQS Commof«ai«m DwKior
■^'VtWlJ '^O'tERTL BERNSTEIN Chi-r ADRIAN tt' DfMi'lND V«f Cha.r

>( J^iwji Am i*< M^W ttti .

Human Rights AA'atch/Helsinki

August 1994, Vol. 6, No. 11

NN> fcai lh»i Ijck of conjuni mrdiciJ supenision "iD cxicerbur his ilrcad) poor ph>-sical
condjuon, senously endingtrmg his he»llh We rcspecrfull) urge you to use youi good offices lo
insure ihal Mr TsikJjun be relumed inunediuely lo the supemiion of medical penonnel, and be
aUo\ted aU assistance required to maintain him in a sansfaciory heaJth condioon

Thank you in adxance for your aoenlion lo this urgent situation. We look forward to
continued cooperation.

Respectful]} .

Jen Laber
Exccumc Duector

Procurator General Damlei Papilashxili
L'.S Ambassador Kent Bro«Ti
IniemauonJ Commince of the Red Cross
niodia

Hiiinan Rigliti Watch 1 klsinki 19 August 1994, Vol. 6. No. 1 1

Prepared Statement of Human Rights Watch/Helsinki
Urgent Update: Trial in Georgia Draws to a Close

summary

This report is an urgent update on serious human rights violations in a criminal trial in Tbilisi, the capital of the
Georgian Republic, as the trial draws to a close after sixteen months in court. In a detailed report released in August 1994,
Human Rights Watch/Helsinki compiled the evidence that some, and likely all, of the nineteen defendants in Case No.
74938 1 0 — men charged with crimes ranging from murder and terrorism to theft of perfume from a factory — confessed
guilt under torture and intimidation and were subsequently denied basic due process rights. Sixteen of the nineteen men
are charged with crimes that carry a maximum penalty of death; executions are practiced in Georgia. Since that report was
issued, one defendant continues to suffer torture in jail and twelve of the defendants have, without legal justification, been
prevented from attending their own trial. Of those absent from the courtroom, only four are being represented by lawyers
of their choosing; most are denied the right to counsel altogether. The court is likely to hand down a ruling in early
February 1995.

Human Ri^ts Watch/Helsinki's is not in a position to aiCmi or deny the defendants' involvement in the crimes
of which they are accused However, since the arrest, investigation, detention and trial of these men were conducted with
blatant disregard for the right to a fair trial of the defendants and for the rights of their family members. Human Rights
Watch believes there is a high likelihood of a gross miscarriage of justice should the court convict on the basis of the
proceedings of the current trial.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki calls on the Georgian government. Supreme Court, General Procuracy, Ministry
of Internal Affairs, Bar Association (Lawyers Collegium), governmental human rights committees, and on presiding judge
Mirza Dolidze to honor Georgia's obligations concerning due process and prohibition of torture enshrined in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in other instruments. Ironically, Georgia acceded to
the ICCPR in the fall of 1994, even as the rights protected in the covenant continued to be flagrantly violated in this case.
In addition, the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment Forms demands that confessions and other evidence obtained under torture or cruel treatment be ruled
inadmissible.'

background

Between May and October 1992, nineteen men were arrested in Tbilisi and Baky, the capital of neighboring
Azerbaijan, in connection with seven separate criminal investigations. Prominent among the charges is conspiracy to
commit a terrorist bombing on June 15, 1992, wWch apparently targeted and ultimately missed leading government figure
Jaba loseliani, but took the lives of five passersby. Other charges include: alleged abuse of power and plunder of state
property' by ousted, now deceased, Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, current Head of Slate Eduard Shevardnadze's
predecessor as head of state; attempted terrorist acts in the Khvareli forest in eastern Georgia in 1991 and 1992; alleged
armed resistance during the violent coup d'etat in Tbihsi in 1 992, alleged attempts to hamper the elections of October 1 1,
1992, which confirmed Mr. Shevardnadze in his position as Head of State; attempted assassination of Acting Procurator
General of Georgia Vakhtang Razmadze; and alleged theft of perfume from a factory. Some defendants were implicated
in more than one incident.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has previously documented many due process violations in this case: torture of
the defendants, illegal arrests and searches of individuals, including family members of defendants, who were never
charged with any misconduct; interrogation under torture; denial of access to medical care; illegal seizure of property;

' As of this writing. Georgia is not a signatory to the Convention on Torture. However. Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki believes thai all countries should apply this exclusionary rule as the most appropnate to discourage the use
of torture.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 2 Vol. 7, No. 3

denial of timely access to legal counsel of one's choosing; denial of the right to familiarize oneself \^ith information
pertinent to one's case; and harassment of family members and of defense attorneys.'

The ph>'sical abuse of suspects, intimidation and mistreatment during interrogation, and violations of due process
committed in this case, arc not uncommon in Georgia. Moreover, the flagrantly illegal behavior of the judge and Bar
Association and Ihc failure of the government to respond adequately lo reports of abuse in this case reflect a high-level
susccptjbilit)' to both popular and political pressure for a quick trial and a harsh sentence. Rampant, violent cnme plagues
the country, and the 1992 street bombing provoked popular outrage. The Georgian govenuncnt, besieged by political and
economic chaos, has directed extraordinar>' attention to prosecuting the attacks by its opponents in case no 74938 10, such
as the attempted assassinations of Jaba loseliani and Vakhlang Razmadzc, alleged misdeeds of Zviad Gamsakhurdia,
violent seizure of the media stations in 1992, and alleged attempts to hamper the 1992 elections. Mr. Shevardnadze has
himself publicl>- and repeatedly referred to the defendants as "terrorists" and thereby assumed their guilt, contributing lo
a public atmosphere that makes a fair trial all but impossible. It is important to punish these crimes, some of which are
indeed ghastly, and to bring justice to those who perpetrated them But it is just as important that the charged political
atmosphere surrounding the case and violations perpetrated against these defendants not cause a miscarriage of justice.

VIOLATIONS

Since our August 1994 report was issued, violations have continued unabated:

Torture

On August 13 and December II, 1994, defendant Viklor Domukhovsky, who faces the death sentence if
convicted, was savagely beaten in his cell The presiding judge denied him the right to submit a protest at his trial, denied
him medical care following the beatings, and subsequently barred him and his chosen legal representatives from the court
proceedings without due cause (see below, "Violations: Denial of the Right to Confront Evidence").

According to a statement by Mr. Domukhovsky, on August 13, 1994, the same day that Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki, the independent Moscow human rights group "Memorial" and the Georgian governmental Committee
for Human Rights and Interethnic Relations held a joint press conference in Tbilisi on the subject of violations in the trial,
several local law enforcement officials entered his cell and demanded that he yield notes he had been taking on the
hearings. When he refused, they reportedly beat him, leaving him with numerous head and body injuries.

On December 1 1, 1994, seven drunken fellow inmates were reportedly given the kc>s to the cells of several of
the defendants in the trial who are facing the most serious charges, including Petre Gelbakhiani, Gedevan Gelbakhiani,
Irakli Dok-vadze and Viktor Domukhovsk-y. They reportedly visited all four, but beat only Mr. Domukhovsky, Mr.
Domukhovsky was already weak, since he was on the nineteenth day of a hunger strike launched in part to protest the fact
that he and other defendants' were being barred from the proceedings. A senior official at the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Mr Ch\ arelashvili, reportedly met v\ith Mr. Domukhovsky following the attack and initiated a criminal investigation into
the matter; as of this writing, the findings of the investigation are unknown. The judge reportedly did not allow Mr.
Domukhovskys protest of the beating to be submitted into the legal record. Because of injuries suffered in the attack, Mr.
Domukhovsky was forced to end his hunger strike. He and his chosen legal counsel remain barred &om the proceedings;
his court-appointed lawyer was expelled from the Bar Association and thereby stripped of his legal accreditation (_see
below).

' See Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, 'Georgia: Torture and Gross Violations of Due Process in Georgia,' ^4
Human Righu Watch Short Report, vol 6, no. II, August 1 994.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 3 Vol. 7, No. 3

Violations of Due Process

Denial of the Right to Confront Evidence

A tnal cannot be entirely fair if it is carried out without the presence of the defendant, who must be able to know
the accusations against him, to confront the evidence presented against him, and to present evidence of his innocence.'
Yet in the fall of 1994, Judge Dolidzc began barring defendants and their legal counsel from the proceedings. The judge
has barred defendants for reasons as arbitrary and legally unacceptable as "smirking" (in the case of Zaza Tsiklauri).
Since they are unable to participate in the proceedings, the trial has sped up dramatically. The judge removed one
defendant, Oman Kochlamazashvili, from the case entirely, following a break in the trial due to the defendant's illness,
and has failed to explain the current status of Mr. Kochlamazashvili's case. As a result, it is unclear how progress can
be made in resolving the charges against him.

As of this writing, twelve of the nineteen defendants are barred from their own trial. All but one are being tried
on charges that can carry the death penalty. Those barred are (in alphabetical order):

Mamuka Aptsiauri
Zurab Bardzimashvivli
frakli Dok^■adze
Viktor Domukhovsky
Gedevan Gelbakhiani
Petre Gelbakhiani
Zurab Gogichashsvili
Teimuraz Kapanadze
Oman Kochlamazashvili
Gocha Makhviladze
Tamaz Tsiklauri
Zaza Tsiklauri

Denial of the Attorney's Right of Access to the Court

The Georgian Lawyers Collegium, roughly the equivalent of a Lawyers' Union or Bar Association in many
countries, has removed several defense lawyers from Case No. 7493810, stripping them of their right to practice law in
Georgia and denying the defendants legal counsel of choice, in violation of international law. The Bar Association
expelled Tcngiz Nijeradze, counsel for Zaza Tsiklauri and Viktor Domukhovsky, on June 6, 1 994. On October 10,1 994,
it also remo\ed luza Jhamadze, a court-appointed replacement counsel for Viktor Domukhovsky, reportedly citing his
failure to obey the court order for him to represent Mr. Domukhovsky, who rejected Jhamadze as his attorney.

Judge Dolidze ordered Mr. Domukhovsky's chosen legal defenders — his wife, Rusudan Kikaleishvili, and public
defender Giorgi Khoshtaria — stripped of their legal right to defend Mr. Domukhovsky on September 12 and October
19, resf)ectively. On January' 3, 1995, after a Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representative who had been attending the
trial left the courthouse, the judge reporiedly ordered both of them out of the courtroom arbitrarily, forbidding them fit)m
attending the trial even as observers in the public seating area.

' In exceptional circumstances, a court may legitimately remove jjcrsons — including the defendant — from the
proceedings if thai is the only way to ensure that the proceedings can continue In such a case, if the court seeks to remove
a defendant, it must demonstrate thai iheie has ben a serious disruption, that there is no other way to rectify the problem, and
that the measure is temporary and partial

Human Righu Watch/Helsinki 4 Vol. 7, No. 3

RESPONSE OF THE GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT

In June and August of 1994 and January of 1995, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki representatives travelled to
Tbilisi to gather information about the human rights situation in Georgia as part of our ongoing work in the country. The
government granted us meetings with almost all of the numerous agencies we requested, except with representatives of
the Procuracy and of the Ministry of Intanal Affairs, who failed to meet with us despite our written requests foi meetings
and subsequent phone calls.

On the basis of specific inquiries. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki has received written responses concerning
allegations of abuse in this case from the Ofilceof the General Procuracy of Georgia (iee Appendix C) and from the
Committee on Human Rights and Interethnic Relations. Both confirmed that the government had initiated two criminal
investigations into allegations of torture, but that the investigations had not resulted in any charges; since the victims
allegedly were unwilling to give testimony or to press charges, the investigation could not be completed Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki believes it is unreasonable to expect victims who are still held in the same facihty and are under the
control of the same penal and investigatory administration under which they allege the torture took place to give
incriminating testimony necessary to complete such investigations (see below, under "Recommendations").

Neither the Procuracy not the Committee explained why reports of abuse made by the other seventeen defendants
have not been formally investigated, or why the government has not sought independent medical experts to examine all
defendants and submit their findings to the court.

Neither letter addressed any of the concerns raised about other due process violations.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki wrote to the Procuracy for a clarification of the reasons seven separate and
seemingly unrelated criminal cases were united into one. The letter from the Procuracy merely listed the suspects arrested
in five of the seven cases; it neglected to respond regarding two cases. It did not explain how all seven of the cases were
interrelated Its criticism of Human Rights Walch for failing to consult with them ignores the fact that the Procuracy itself
failed to respond to the organization's formal request for meetings.

A representative of the governmental Committee on Human Rights and bterethnic Relations has reportedly
attended the trial regularly and reported back to the committee. The chairman of the committee, Aleksandre Kavsadze,
and his colleagues have met with the defendants in detentioa The Committee facilitated one visit between a representative
of Human Rights Watch/Helsinki and of the Moscow-based human rights group "Memorial" with a seriously ill defendant,
Zurab Bardzimashvili. Mr. Kavsadze also reports that he has issued protests of due process violations to the responsible
court. He meets regularly with representatives of our organization, and participated in a joint press conference on the trial
and human rights violations in Tbilisi in August 1994 with representatives of our organization and of Memorial.

Despite these actions, the committee has had little noticeable effect in mitigating or correcting the abuses in the
trial. Moreo\er, Mr. Kavsadze has resisted investigating many credible reports of abuse. For example, he commented
during a January 3, 1995, meeting with a Human Rights Watch/Helsinki represenUtive that he was aware that twelve of
the nineteen defendants were being tried in their absence, but that he felt it was "pointless" to investigate or protest this
at this point Indeed, he defended their expulsion by stating they were "impeding" the trial. He claimed that criticism of
reported abuse was "interference" that should be avoided since Georgia was a struggling new democracy.

Human Rights Watch/Hclsmki 5 Vol. 7, No. 3

RECOMMENDATIONS
To The Supreme Court of the Republic of Georgia and Judge Mirza Dolidze:

• Implement immediately the pertinent recommendations submitted by our organization in our August report (see
Appendix B).

In addition:

■ Exclude all evidence shown to have been obtained through torture or to be in violation of due process;

• Order that all defendants be returned to the courtroom immediately;

• Order that all defense lawyers be allowed to be present at the trial and submit all legal materials without
impediment, in accordance with the law;

• Allow all defendants to be defended by the legal counsel of their choice;

• Allow independent medical experts immediate access to the defendants;

• Ensure that independent medical examinations be conducted to the full satisfaction of the defendants and
examining medical professionaKs);

• Allow the conclusions of the examinations to be submitted as legal evidence in the case for the consideration of
the presiding court;

• Resolve the legal status of Oman Kochlamazashvili's case;

• Annul proceedings that have taken place without the defendants' presence, or without allowing the defense to
participate in a significant way. Those parts of the proceedings should be repeated, if possible, with the
defendants in attendance and with full respect for the defense's right to cross-examine, object, and appeal.

To the General Procurator of the Republic of Georgia:

■ Investigate and prosecute rigorously in full conformity with international legal standards individuals suspected
of committing, ordering or failing to report torture;

• Guarantee the safety of all individuals bringing allegations of torture, and ensure that personnel accused of torture
are removed from positions of authority over those alleging abuse.

To the International Community:

• Raise concern immediately with Georgian counterparts about the violations documented in this trial;

• The OSCE mission in Georgia should send independent observers to monitor the trial, as should the embassies
of the United States, France, and Germany in particular, if they have not done so already;

• Monitor closely and publicize other investigations and trials in which due process violations are reported.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 6 Vol. 7, No. 3

Human Rights WalckHelsinki (formerly Helsinki Watch)

Human Rights WauJi is a nongovernmental organization established in 1 978 to monitor and promote the observance of
internationally recognized human rights in Afnca, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and among the signatories of the
Helsinki accords It is supported by contributions fiom private individuals and foundations world>*ide. It accepts no
govenunent funds, directly or indirectly. Kenneth Roth is the executive director, Cynthia Brown is the program director.
Holly J. BurUialtcT is the advocacy director, Gara LaMarche is the associate director: Juan E Mcndcz is general counsel;
Susan Osnos is the communications director; and Derrick Wong is the finance and administration director Robert L.
Bernstein is the chair of the board and Adrian W. DcWind is vice chair. Its Helsinki division was estabhshed in 1978 to
monitor and promote domestic and international compliance with the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki
Accords It is affiliated with the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, which is based in Vienna, Austria.
Jeri Laber is the executive director. Holly Gartner, deputy director; Erika Dailcy, Rachel Denber, Ivana Nizich ai>d
Christopher Panico are research associates, Anne Kuper, Ivan Lupis and Alexander Petrov are associates, Zeljka Marki^
and Vlatka Mihelic are consultants. Jonathan Fanton is the chair of the advisory committee and Alice Henkin is vice chair.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 7 Vol. 7, No. 3

APPENDIX A: LIST OF DEFENDANTS AND CHARGES AGAINST THEM

(in alphabetical order)

The following information was taken from the indictment statement as it stood when the investigation was
concluded in August 1993. Many of the charges are said to have been changed in the course of the investigation.

1. Mamuka Aptsiauri: bom 1971. Arrested September 2, 1992, Khvareb. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism) and 17-69 (attempted subversive act) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Georgia.

2. Zurab Bardzimashvili: bom 1949; geologist. Arrested on October 5, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Articles
1 7-67 (terrorism), 78 (banditry), 1 7-69 (subversive act) of the Criminal Code.

3. Bessarion Bochoridze: bom 1961; profession unknown. Arrested August 1 1, 1992. Charged with violating Articles
90-1 (failure to report a slate criminal act) and 205 (concealment of a criminal act) of the Criminal Code.

4 Ramazi Charigogdishsili: bora 1960, driver. Arrested July 10 or 1 1, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Article 78
(banditry) of the Criminal Code.

5 Mamuka Danelia: bom 1959; student Arrested August 13, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged v^th violating Articles 90 (failure
to report a state criminal act) and 206 (concealment of a criminal act) of the Criminal Code.

6 Viktor Domukhovskii: bom 1948; physicist, former Deputy of the Supreme Council of Georgia, former chairman of
the Judicial Commission. Arrested on April 6, 1993, in Baky, Republic of Azerbaijan. Charged with violating Articles
17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

7 IrakliDok-vadzcbom 1961; television and radio engineer, electrician. Arrested September 4, 1992, Khvareli. Charged
with violation of Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act), 78 (banditry), 104, parts 4 and
6 (premeditated murder of two or more people) and 104, parts 4 and 6 (murder) of the Criminal Code.

8. Gedevan Gelbakhiani: bom 1937, doctor, professor; therapist. Arrested on September 13, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with
violation of Articles 17-67 (terrorism), 17-69 (subversive act), 78 (banditry), 17-104, parts 4 and 6 (premediuted murder
of two or more people) and 104, parts 4 and 6 of the Cnminal Code.

9. Petre Gelbakhiani: bom 1962; doctor, candidate of medical sciences. Arrested April 6, 1993, Baky, Republic of
Azerbaijan. Charged with violation of Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act), 78
(banditry), 1 7- 1 04, parts 4 (premeditated murder of two or more people) and 1 04, parts 4 and 6, of the Criminal Code.

10. Zurab Gogichashvili: bom 1956; farmer, technician. Arrested September 24 or 30, 1992. Charged with violating
Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

1 1 . Givi Kalmakhelidze: bom 1952; military. Arrested September 29 or October 7, 1992. Charged with violating Articles
17-67 (attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

12. Teimuraz Kapanadze; bom 1950; construction worker, chief of the Republican Committee of Material Resources.
Arrested October 5 or 6, 1992. Charged with violating Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive
act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

13. Sergo Khakhviashvili: bom 1966; carpenter. Arrested June 24, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

Human Righu Watch/Helsinki 8 Vol. 7, No. 3

14 Oman KochJamazashvili: bom 1943; driver, fanner. Arrested October 4 or 7, 1992. Charges unconfirmed, but are
likcK to include siolaiions of Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act), and 78 (banditry)
of the Cnminal (lode.

15. Kane Lashkarashvili: botD 1960, driver. Anestcd on July 1 1. 1992. Charged with violating Article 78 (banditry)
cfuic CrinJi.uI Code cf il:^ Republic of Georgia.

16. (jocha MakhviJadzc: bom 1958; economist. Arrested June 24, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

17. Gcla Mchcdlishvili; bom 1968, policeman, teacher at technical college. Arrested June 24, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged wah
violating Articles 17-67 (attempted terrorism) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

18. Tamaz Tsiklauri: bom 1954; economist Arrested October 5, 1992, Tbilisi. Charged with violating Articles 17-67
(attempted terrorism), 17-69 (attempted subversive act) and 78 (banditry) of the Criminal Code.

19 Zaza Tsiklauri: bom 1961; physicist Arrested on August 7, 1992, Tsdo, Republic of Georgia Charged with violating
Article 238. parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code (illegal possession, holding, transport, buying, production and selling
of a weapon or explosive device).

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 9 Vol. 7, No. 3

APPENDIX B: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUGUST 1994

It is the responsibility of the government of the Republic of Georgia and of those acting in an official capacity
for tlw government to take all steps necessary to prevent acts of torture and mistreatment on its territory and to provide
redress to those who ha\'e suffered such treatment. The defendants in this case require such redress. Furthermore, the
government and its agents must ensure that defendants are given a fair and impartial forum in which to have the evidence
against them evaluated. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki makes the following recommendations:

To Judge Mirza Dolidze:

• Exclude from the record of the trial any statement by a defendant that is intended to be used against him and that
is shown to have been obtained through torture or other coercive means. Such statements are admissible only
to prove the allegation of torture or coercion. Similarly, exclude from the evidence for the prosecution any
physical or documentary evidence that was obtained as a result of torture or coercion;

• ]f, during the course of the proceedings, evidence reveals that the defendants were not informed of the charges
against them in a timely manner, prosecute those responsible and provide defendants with damages;

• Guarantee defendants access to the legal counsel of their choosing and ensure that defendants are given sufficient
time to consult with their defense counsel to prepare their defense;

• Guarantee to defendants and their defense counsel equal access to all relevant evidence in the case, sufficient time
to familiarize themselves with such evidence, as well as the chance to present their own evidence and to petition
for the production of evidence for the defense;

• Guarantee to those defendants who do not speak or understand Georgian the free assistance of an interpreter.

• Allow defendants access to proper medical evaluations and release into the care of medical professionals those
defendants who are determined to be in poor health.

To the General Procuracy of the Republic of Georgia:

• Initiate prompt and importiol investigations into allegations of torture and mistreatment of individuals under
investigation and, where such allegations are substantiated, ensure that the victims are able to obtain an adequate
remedy as provided for in international law;

• Initiate prompt and impartial investigations into the alleged torture of detainees by police officers in this case,
and if there is evidence of torture, bring criminal charges against all who committed acts of torture, as well as
against any public officials who consented to or acquiesced in the torture.

• Review the legality of the defendants' detention and prosecute anyone responsible for an illegal arrest. Any
evidence for the prosecution obtained through the illegal arrest of the defendant should be excluded from his case.
If the arrest is deemed illegal and the decision to prosecute is not otherwise based on legally obtained evidence,
then the defendant should be released.

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 10 Vol. 7, No. 3

To the Government of the Republic of Georgia:

• Review interrogation rules and procedures for the custod>' and treatment of those in custody in an effort to
prevent future acts of torture,

• Educate all law enfofcemenl officials and public ofljcials about the absolute prohibition against torture and make
clear that any official proved to have committed an act of torture or to have consented to or acquiesced in acts
of torture will be charged with a cnminal offense and prosecuted to the full extent of the law;

• Provide an effective means of redress for the victim of torture and the right to fair and adequate compensation;

• Ensure that victims of torture have the opportunity to file a complaint against those responsible for their torture
. and guarantee both the victim and his or her supporting witnesses safety from ill-treatment or intimidation as •

consequence of the complaint.

Human Rjghu Watch/Helsinki 1 1 Vol. 7. No. 3

APPE^fDIX C: LETTER TO HUMAN RIGHTS ^VATCH/HELSI^fKl FROM GENERAL PROCURACY

Unofficial Translation from Russian

380033 Tbilisi

Gorgasali kucha 24

Procuracy of the Republic of Georgia

No. 810

September 28, 1994

Dear Mr. Jeri Laber,

We have carefully familiarized ourselves with your letter of September 19 concerning Criminal Case No.
74938 10, which is being followed by the Procuracy of the Republic of Georgia, regarding charges against P. Gelbakhiani,
1. Dok-vadze and others [and] inform [you] that the given case has been investigated m accordance with the criminal-
procedural legislature of the Republic of Georgia

The conclusions drawn by your organization in the report about violations of procedural norms during the course
of the investigation rely only on the information of interested parties.

The assertions that, reportedl>', illegal methods were used against the defendants — beating and torture with the
aim of extracting testimonies of guilt necessary to the in\estigation, to confuTn whjch information is cited concerning the
physical injuries to Gedevan Gelbakhiani and Zaza Tsiklauri — do not originate from objective materials of the case.

It has been documented that on Februar>' 8, 1993, prisoner G. Chogovadze inflicted on G. Gelbakhiani physical
injuries in investigative isolation cell No. 1 of the City of Tbilisi as the result of a fight which arose among them {na
bytovoi pochve).

On the basis of this incident, a criminal case was initiated on that same day.

Investigation of the aforementioned confirmed, and also proved, that this incident had no relation to the criminal
case concerning G. Gelbakhiani.

G. Gelbakhiani himself confirmed the fact of the fight with G. Chogovadze and also showed that in the course
of the investigation he was neither influenced by nor forced to give testimony of one sort or another to the investigation.

G. Chogovadze was not brought up for criminal accountability for injuring G. Gelbakhiani and a sentence was
brought against him {sic).

Concerning Zaza Tsiklauri it is necessary to note the following:

On August 18, 1992, a criminal case was initiated in the Procuracy of the Republic of Georgia on the basis of
the infliction of bodily harm on Zaza Tsiklauri.

It has been documented that in June 1992, Zaza Tsiklauri and other members of the criminal group [including]
Mchedlishvili, Makhviladze and others brought from the city of Groznyi explosive substances, fu-e arms and ammunition,
for which he was brought to criminal accountability and he v\as arrested. Since Zaza Tsiklauri hid from the investigation,
a search was initiated On August 7, 1992, he was detained at his house. When he was being transferred to the Saburtalo

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 12 Vol. 7, No. 3

ROVD in a Volga cor, in order to avoid the expected punishment, Zaza TsiUauri attempted to flee, jumped out of the car,
however he fell on the asphalt, and as a result received less serious physical injuries and was detained. The
aforementioned has been documented both by the testimonies of Tsiklauri himself and by other eyewitness testimonies
and materials contained in the case.

It is necessary to note that on August 21, 1992, representatives of the government and of society of Georgia 2L
Kiknadzc, T. Berdzenishvili, V. Rtskhiladze, Ch. Amircdzhibi, Z. Zhvania and others met with prisoner Z. Tsiklauri in
investigative cell No. 1 in Tbilisi. He has also met with representatives of international organizations, wtere he announced
that he received the physical injuries as a result of attempting to flee, when be threw himself on the way from the
automobile. He categorically denied that any ph> sicol harm was done to him.

It is necessary to note that the guilt of the suspects in the perpetration of the crimes for which they are
incriminated is documented not only by their own confessions but by the testimony of numerous witnesses, physical
evidence and other materials contained in the case.

You were unclear on the reasons for unifying into one case several criminal cases which, in your opinion, are
dissimilar in nature.

We clarify' that in accordance with Article 23 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Georgia, criminal cases
are imited into one case in instances when there are charges against several individuals in joint involvement in the
perpetration of one or more crimes.

In the given case, criminal cases ha\e been united into one case against individuals who perpetrated several crimes
and svho ore facing charges [connected with] various episodes. This, in connection with the incident of the bomb explosion
on Chikovani Street Dokvadze, Gelbakhiani, Kalmokhedidze, Makhviladze, Kochlamazashvili, KhakhviashviU and T.
Tsiklauri were brought up on criminal charges.

For committing banditry in the Khvareli region, from among 19 individuals Irokli Dokvaxlze, and Petre and
Gedevan Gelbakhiani were brought up on criminal charges.

For seizure of social property in particularly large sizes from the organization "Lavri" G. Mchedlishvili, G.
Makhviladze, G. Charigodishvili (sic) and I. Lashkarashvili were brought up on criminal charges.

In connection with the assassination attempt on Procurator General V. Razmadze Z. Bardzimashvili, [illegible].
Gogichashvili, T. Kapanadze and T. Tsiklauri were brought up on criminal charges.

For organizing explosions and for terrorist acts G. Kalmakhelidze, T. Kapanadze and 0. [illegible] were brought
up on criminal charges.

Thus it is clear that they and other individuals committed several crimes, for which the given criminal [illegible].

Concerning the releases of arrested individuals Georgi Khakhviashviii, Gocha Makhviladze and Gcla
Mchedlishvili, in accordance with the manifesto of August 3, 1992, we inform [you] that the aforementioned individuals
were &eed from criminal accountability for bandit-attack on the Teleradio Center in Tbilisi in accordance with the
manifesto.

Concerning the bandit-attack on the organization "Lavri," as a result of which state and social property of
particularly large size was seized, and also concerning the incidents of terrorism, the investigation has continued since the
manifesto does not cover these crimes.

Human Rjghts Watch/Helsinki 13 Vol. 7, No. 3

All of the defendants were provided vvith defense by attorneys of their choosing during the course of the
investigation and all investigative actions were conducted with the participation of the attorneys.

The impression is left that an organization as respected by us as yours, which is dedicated to assisting a newly
independent state in matters of human rights protection and the creation of a legal government, is, in reality, not having
any arguments and evidence, discrediting republican law-enforcement organs.

Unfortunately, it must be noted that representatives of your organization did not meet with any of the investigators
or procurators covering the given case. As a result of this, incorrect information was presented to the public, and with
this the civil rights of the investigative workers were violated.

Currently, the trial of this case continues, and, in accordance with recognized legal principles, interference in the
trial is prohibited prior to the taking of an objective decision.

Respectfully,

Deputy of the General Procurator of the Republic of Georgia
State Advisor for Justice

A Baluashvili

Human Rjghts Watch/Helsinki 14 Vol. 7, No. 3

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05984 279 7

This is a U.S. Government publication produced by the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

This publication is intended to inform interested individuals and organizations about
developments within the signatory States to the Helsinki Accords and the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The CSCE publishes transcripts of official heai'ings held before the Commission, analy-
ses of developments in the OSCE, and other periodic documents deemed relevant to the
region. All CSCE publications may be freely reproduced, with appropriate credit, in any
form. The CSCE encourages the widest possible dissemination of its publications.

For a listing of all available CSCE documents, to be placed on or deleted from
the CSCE mailing list, or to request additional copies, please contact:

CSCE

234 Ford House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-6460

Voice: (202) 225-4051 FAX: (202) 226-4199

Email: CSCE@HR.H0USE.GOV

90-005 O - 95 (80)

ISBN 0-16-047325-X

9 780160"473258

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Human rights and democratization in the Republic of Georgia : hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, March 28, 1995"

See other formats