COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORTS OF GEORGIA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the second and third periodic reports of Georgia on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Introducing the report, Konstantin Kavtaradze, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Georgia, said since the Rose Revolution, Georgia had made significant internal reforms aimed at fighting corruption, overcoming poverty and achieving sustainable economic growth, strengthening the rule of law, and ensuring proper protection of human rights. It had continued its transformation towards democracy and good governance with the major priority being to be fully integrated into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. Racial hatred, apartheid or racial segregation were absolutely unknown in Georgia, which was proud that the historical tradition of tolerance of its multiethnic society made it in principle impossible for the mentioned forms of racial discrimination to occur and develop in the country.

In preliminary remarks, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, said the dialogue with the Georgian delegation had been in depth, and exhaustive replies had been given to the written questions which had dealt with different facets of the different matters raised in the report, as well as the oral questions posed. The delegation was commended for the considerable effort made in this. Many issues had been discussed, including poverty-reduction strategies, and the role of minority groups, including the Roma; the return of the different groups to their places of origin including the Meskhetians; and other matters relating to Georgian nationality, abuses by the police against minorities and the need for training and instruction for officials in the area of human rights and in particular with regard to the Convention; and the use of minority languages and the insufficient knowledge of the Georgian language as an obstacle in participation in Georgian civil and political life. He concluded by saying he hoped the dialogue would be as useful to Georgia as it had been to the Committee.

The delegation of Georgia included representatives of the Commission on Human Rights of the Parliament of Georgia, the Ministry of Education, the Department for Foreign Affairs at the Office of the State Minister on Conflict Resolution Issues, the Department on State and Civil Security at the National Security Council, and the Service on Internal Policies and Institutional Settlement at the Administration of the President of Georgia.

The Committee will present its concluding remarks on the report of Georgia towards the end of the session, which will end on 19 August 2005.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be held at 3 p.m. on Thursday 4 August 2005, when it will take up consideration of the twelfth to sixteenth periodic reports of Zambia (CERD/C/452/Add.6/Rev.1).

Reports of Georgia

The second and third periodic reports of Georgia (CERD/C/461/Add.1), note that the period following the submission and discussion of Georgia's initial report was marked by a radical change in Georgian political life. In November 2003, an event that has been called the "Rose Revolution" took place in Georgia. As a result of a mass protest by the population provoked by the authorities' blatant falsification of the outcome of the parliamentary elections, the President of Georgia, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, went into early retirement. Coalitions of youthful reformers - the National Movement and the United Democrats - came to power.

In February 2004, the Georgian Parliament adopted the Constitution Act, in which it introduced a number of very important changes and additions to the Georgian Constitution. On 4 March 2003, the President of Georgia signed a decree approving a plan of action to strengthen protection of the rights and freedoms of various population groups of Georgia for the period 2003-2005. The preamble of this law contains a direct reference to Georgia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and states that "an uncompromising struggle against all forms of discrimination, [and] the protection of the rights and freedoms of various population groups is one of the most important prerequisites for the advancement" of the Georgian State.

Since the President's adoption of the decree, certain steps have been taken to implement the plan. In particular, action has been taken to comply with the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concerning the criminalisation of acts of racial discrimination. The provisions of this article of the Criminal Code do not entirely coincide with the internationally accepted definition of racial discrimination. Nevertheless, the article creates the legal basis for the criminal prosecution of persons guilty of committing this type of act and reduces the likelihood that a given offence will go unpunished. It must be admitted that, so far, no one has been prosecuted under this article.

Introduction of Report

KONSTANTIN KAVTARADZE, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Georgia, introducing the reports, said they covered the period of 2000 to 2003. Since that period, drastic changes had occurred in Georgia almost in all fields, including political, economic, social and cultural life. Since the Rose Revolution, Georgia had made significant internal reforms aimed at fighting corruption, overcoming poverty and achieving sustainable economic growth, strengthening the rule of law, and ensuring the proper protection of human rights. It had continued its transformation towards democracy and good governance with the major priority being to be fully integrated into European and Euro-Atlantic structures.

Under the Constitution, citizens of Georgia enjoyed equal rights in the social, economic, cultural and political life of the country, regardless of language or national, ethnic or religious affiliation. The Constitution also provided for observance of the principle of non-discrimination with regards to non-citizens as well, in that it stated that aliens and stateless persons living in Georgia had the same rights and obligations as Georgian citizens, except where otherwise stipulated by the Constitution and the laws of the country. Combating all forms of discrimination and protecting the human rights and freedoms of different groups of the population was a key prerequisite for the development of the State.

International treaties into which Georgia had entered took precedence over interstate normative acts, and they were an integral part of legislation, applied with the same rule as stipulated for interstate normative acts. The Convention could thus be directly invoked before the national courts. During the period under consideration, there had been no cases of this kind. Racial hatred, apartheid or racial segregation were absolutely unknown in Georgia, which was proud that the historical tradition of tolerance of its multiethnic society made it in principle impossible for the mentioned forms of racial discrimination to occur and develop in the country. To promote this tradition, Georgia planned to translate all reports presented to the Committee, including concluding observations, and to disseminate them and the text of the Convention to the public and to non-governmental organizations in the country.

Discussion

LUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur, commenting on the reports and their presentation, said the introduction had been valuable and interesting, and would help in the consideration of the reports. The Committee was pleased to receive the updated reports, which included comments on the concluding observations on the previous report, and updated information since the political changes in the country. Particular attention should be paid to ratifying other international instruments. The political crisis in Southern Ossetia and other areas ensured that the Government was not in a position to provide information on these areas, and it was hoped that this situation would soon be remedied in order to provide the Committee with the information required.

The large number of ethnic groups in Georgia attested to the importance of the Convention. There was no doubt that the migratory phenomenon had affected these groups. Approximately 60 per cent of the population lived under the poverty threshold, all of which worsened the situation of exclusion in which minority groups found themselves. There was a need for more information on what the Government was doing to remedy this. The Committee for Human Rights and Ethnic Relations and the Ombudsman's Office appeared to have entered a period of reform, and there was also a need for more information in this field. There was a low level of representation of minorities in Parliament, and it was clear that efforts had been made to reverse this, however the increase achieved was still meagre. Perhaps other parameters needed to be introduced to promote this goal, and there was a need for further information in this field.

The main obstacle, Mr. Valencia Rodriguez said, remained the issue of languages. The low level of mastery of Georgian had given rise to exclusion of Armenians. Encouragement should be given to language programmes. The main minority that was excluded was the Kurdish minority. Georgia had taken in a large number of Chechens, who were now encountering problems when they wished to nationalise, due to the requirement to renounce their original nationality. Some degree of flexibility had been introduced in the field of dual nationality, which was a step forward, but the possibilities should be expanded. Reforms, as they affected the elimination of racial discrimination in the employment sphere, also required further elaboration, as did various other topics.

Other Committee Experts then commented on various topics, asking further questions. An Expert noted that the Committee was continuing a very promising dialogue, and hoped that the discussion would continue in this context. The progress of incorporation of the Convention into national law was an issue on which Experts asked for further information. How far was the Penal Code in its current form sufficient to prevent incidents of racial discrimination, an Expert asked. The apparent heavy-handedness in the way that some religious groups were treated was also a topic of concern, and Experts asked whether there was an overlap between religious and ethnic groups.

Several Experts also commended Georgia's submission on the timing of its reports. The issue of the Roma, and the lack of information on this topic in the earlier report was also an issue raised by Experts. It was important to have information about the different positions of men and women with regard to discrimination, one Expert noted, asking if there was a difference for minorities in the context of employment. The speed of progress of the reforms of the society and legislation was also commended.

The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which had led to mass displacement, was a grave difficulty. The situation of the Meskhetian Turks in Georgia was also raised by more than one Expert, as were issues related to religious intolerance regarding Baptists and Evangelical Christians in particular. The next report should contain examples on prosecutions related to the implementation of the Convention. The situation of refugees, in particular those from Chechnya, was also a subject which arose frequently during Experts comments, and the issues of granting of asylum and naturalisation were focused upon.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these issues, the delegation said regarding the status of the Convention, according to the Constitution, any international treaty that had been ratified took prevalence over national legislation, but there was no information on cases where this had taken place. Social reforms in terms of monetisation of social benefits, fiscal reforms, economic reforms aimed at enhancing privatisation and public service reforms all aimed at improving the situation. Changes in the Penal Code had been made also in order to protect human rights. The New Bill on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities had been elaborated on the conceptual strategy level, and it covered groups that had not been included in the report. It was a multi-faceted document which involved different representatives of national minorities on Georgian territory.

Work was being done to create bridges before international documents were ratified. Public opinion was being sought with the aim of bringing it more into line with the perceptions guiding international norms and standards on many issues, including, for example, the issue of the Framework Convention on National Minorities, which would come into discussion in Georgia and would be submitted to Parliament before the end of the year. Regarding the law on the protection of national minorities, one of the non-governmental organizations had proposed its own version of such a draft law, which had been blocked. However, a new draft law on the protection of national minorities would begin to be drafted soon.

The elaboration of the draft Criminal Procedure Code was still underway, but according to information, the delegation said, it would be in full compliance with international obligations, including human rights obligations and it was expected that it would be submitted to Parliament for approval by the end of the year. Efforts were being made to harmonise Georgia's national legislation with international legislation, and this was an ongoing process. One of the barriers for national minorities to actively participate in political life was the lack of knowledge of the national language, but there were programmes aimed at improving the knowledge of State languages among minorities, and the Government spent a significant amount of money to this effect. However, it was limiting to the extent that there were great difficulties for the participation of national minorities even in the context of Parliamentary representation.

Continuing to respond to the questions posed in writing by the Country Rapporteur and orally by the Experts, the delegation said regarding the reasons for the amendment of article 142 of the Penal Code of Georgia and the application of the amended provisions, the article was introduced in order to harmonise internal legislation with international standards and human rights instruments, but following the comments and suggestions made by the Committee, upon its return to Georgia, the delegation would address the Parliament in order to amend the article in question so it would be in full compliance with the distinction of racial discrimination as in Article 1 of the Convention.

The situation of minority groups living in the high mountain regions, particularly the Kurds, and the measures taken for improving their situation had been an issue raised by several Experts. The delegation said there was a Kurdish population in Georgia, but they did not live in the mountain regions, and were mostly located in the cities. Further, the largest Kurdish population was in Tbilisi, and they were among the most successfully integrated minorities in the country. They tended to go to Georgian schools, so they had no problem with the language. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in very senior positions, there were 32 Kurds, for example. Regarding problems in families, the Kurds attempted to change their names so that they could have historically Kurdish names, and this did lead to certain difficulties, but the Parliament had adopted a measure allowing for a simplified procedure for name-changing for all citizens, and this would be adopted at the autumn Parliamentary session.

Regarding the freedom of worship, thought, and conscience, the Kurds did not really have churches, as they worshipped the Sun, and therefore no complaints had ever been received to possible obstructions to their worship in churches. Kurds and Yitzhak children were in schools all across Georgia learning the language. Questions concerning the Roma minority in Abkhazia and the problems faced by it were answered as there had never been any problems with the minority in that area, as there were hardly any of them. They were also among the most successfully assimilated minority groups. At the time of the Soviet Union, they lived in a district in which Roma communities were given education, but today the district no longer had any students, as most Roma communities had left Georgia since independence. The authorities were fully sympathetic to this, recognising the nomadic nature of the minority. Complaints regarding rapes committed against Roma women had been received, but it was not thought that this was an ethnic issue, instead it was treated as a normal crime, and was severely punished.

On the topic of the new Labour Code, the elaboration of this code was still underway, with the active participation of international experts. It was somewhat early to say what the final form of the Code would be like, but there would be specific anti-discrimination provisions. Presumably it would be submitted to the Parliament by the end of 2005, and it was hoped that this Code would be adopted in early 2006. Regarding discrimination in employment, there was no precise statistical data, but the delegation could provide an existing assessment in this respect that had been created by Government bodies, non-governmental organizations and international organizations. More precise statistical data would be provided after the delegation's return home. In the context of access to various professions by representatives of minorities, it was impossible to say that there were some professions that were inaccessible to those from minorities. The main problem in this respect was the lack of knowledge of the official Georgian language that minority members might have. The principle of equal pay for equal work was strictly observed in Georgia. However, in comparison with men, women were mostly employed in low-paid positions, and this was a problem which the Government realised and in the near future the necessary steps would be taken to resolve the situation.

In the context of reports of use of firearms by the police, these had not been racially nor ethnically motivated. Measures taken to eliminate discriminatory practices suffered by asylum seekers and refugees were to be seen in the context of Georgia having ratified the International Convention on Refugees and Asylum-seekers, following which ratification there was a need to harmonise the laws. The existing law on refugees had been reviewed, and some provisions had been brought into line with the Convention, with the aim of simplifying the procedure of being granted the status of asylum-seeker or refugee, with the ability to have recourse to the courts if this status was denied. Some incidents had taken place when those who had crossed the border with no status in this context had been arrested. The existing law would continue to be amended to ensure that those applying for political asylum were aware of the risks involved. With regard particularly to the Chechen refugees, there had been 17 applications for refugee status, of which 16 had been granted. Legislation would be brought fully into line with the Convention.

On the lack of sufficient knowledge of Georgian and that this problem increased the problems linked to ethnic origin and led to the exclusion of minority groups and the possibility of adopting further measures to overcome these difficulties, the delegation said equal access to education was one of the key topics of the ongoing reform of the Georgian educational system, and this was relevant not only for minorities but for those of Georgian ethnicity living in poverty. Ensuring equal access for all to education was one of the most important goals of Georgia, as this would guarantee equal participation of minorities in economic, cultural and political life, as well as equal access to all professions. The agrarian isolation of minorities resulted in the lack of representation in the so-called prestigious professions, but the Government was working to give them equal access and opportunities. The brain drain among minorities was the result of non-equal access, and was also problematic, as minorities were an important cultural and intellectual resource. The Government was attempting to motivate the young of the country to participate in all national exams, in particular minorities.

Regarding educational problems in schools for national minorities, the number of minority schools reflected the number of minorities. Due to Soviet traditions, national minorities preferred to have their children educated in Russian, and this had somewhat continued today, although some had realised that if they wished to keep their linguistic individuality, there was a need for their children to be educated differently. All minority groups and individuals had access to education in the national language, including in schools where a different language was used for teaching, stipulating the school board could afford it. A Law on Languages had been drafted, but it had not been adopted for various reasons, as there had been opposition in the Parliament, where a majority had opposed the proposal that in areas with high concentrations of minorities, they should be allowed to use their own language.

Concerning participation in political life for ethnic minorities, the number of those in Parliament had diminished somewhat, and it was thought this was due to the increased number of elections since the Rose Revolution. Ethnic minorities in Parliament represented constituencies in which there were a high number of minorities. When they arrived in Parliament, they received education in the national language, and there were also interpreters and translators to enable them to participate fully. The incorporation of representatives of ethnic minorities was being accelerated in Parliament and in senior posts. The notion of political integration had been introduced, and there were a significant number of representatives of ethnic minorities in various Governmental bodies.

On the situation of freedom of religion and conscience for ethnic minorities, and some discriminatory issues as reflected in the mass media, the delegation said religious intolerance and ethnic and religious minorities were not identical issues. The majority of ethnic Georgians were Orthodox Christian, but there were also many Muslims and Roman Catholics. There had been incidents under the previous Government where it had apparently aided various groups practising religious discrimination, but since the Rose Revolution no significant act of religious violence had taken place. There had been a suit filed in the Constitutional Court as according to previous legislation, religious groups could not register as such, but had to register as another form of body. As the group had won the case, the legislation had been changed. Regarding police brutality vis-à-vis minorities, this issue of police conduct was a top priority for the Government, and a massive reform of the police bodies had been undertaken, with the concomitant result that incidents of police brutality had been reduced significantly. Low journalistic standards appeared to have perpetrated negative perceptions of ethnic minorities, but a self-regulated body had been created recently, and it was hoped this would allow the media to make a step forward and to also increase its independence.

Regarding the repatriation of the Meskhetians to Georgia, this was due to an act of political will by the Government of Georgia, in the context of the recognition of the historical imperative, and was part of its commitment to international organizations such as the OSCE. International assistance would be required for the repatriation, as there was a large number of Meskhetians living in many countries, but the political will was there. Regarding the establishment of peace in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia believed its society should be based on self-recognition of different groups for the achievement of peace and economic growth. The priority of the Government of Georgia was to achieve peaceful solutions to the conflicts in these regions, offering those in those areas equal participation in the cultural and economic life of Georgia. The President had indicated the willingness of the Government to give a certain amount of autonomy within specific contexts to South Ossetia to the extent of having it inscribed in the Constitution, and all were working towards a peaceful solution of the conflict which would ensure the preservation and protection of human rights and all national minorities. Political status could also be offered to Abkhazia and it would be offered to all sides. The return of internally displaced persons, and security guarantees for them was also an issue that the Government was prepared to discuss, the delegation said.

Georgia was ready to live up to its international obligations, but wished the international community to have the information that it had about 300,000 internally displaced persons on its territory, the delegation said, as well as to be aware of the problems it faced regarding the repatriation of the Meskhetians, as this was not just a political, but also a moral obligation that the Government recognised and wished to live up to. Since the Rose Revolution, Georgia had stepped up its work on this latter point, and it was hoped by 2011, it would be possible to begin to implement all provisions for this repatriation. Regarding the internally displaced persons, it was also hoped that the conflict situation would end in time for them to be repatriated according to the timetable set by the OSCE.

Regarding the Office of the Public Defender, there was no particular sub-body that dealt with issues of racial discrimination, but there was a person whose task was to deal with minority-related issues, and this included religious and sexual as well as ethnic minorities. According to the most recent report of the Public Defender, there were very few incidents of human rights violations based on racial grounds. A lot of work had been done to prepare the concepts to be included in the new Law on Minorities as prepared by the Georgian Human Rights Committee. It had already been submitted to Parliament and to public opinion, and had not yet encountered any barriers. Work was also being done for a framework Convention on Minorities, and a Linguistic Charter. There were non-governmental organizations currently preparing a draft Declaration on the Protection of Minorities, to be adopted, and the Georgian Committee was also monitoring laws adopted by Parliament. It could also receive written complaints from citizens, and tried to follow-up cases of those who believed they were the victims of human rights violations because of their ethnic background, and addressed these complaints to the relevant ministry.

No cases had been reported of applications for redress to courts on cases based on racial discrimination. It had been wondered whether this was due to lack of awareness of rights, lack of confidence in the police or judicial authorities, or lack of awareness by the State, and it had, after analysis, appeared to be due to lack of awareness of rights linked to ethnicity and other issues. More priority would be given to the dissemination of the provisions of the Convention and to the concluding observations of the Committee so that civil society and national minorities would have increased possibilities of access to the provisions of the Convention.

The delegation also noted that Georgia was a secular state, with complete separation between the State and the Church, although the State did have a special relationship with the Orthodox Church, but this did not mean that other religious groups and traditional churches did not have the right to develop in Georgia in a non-discriminatory manner. It was also noted that the concluding recommendations of the Committee would be made available to anybody expressing an interest in Georgia.

In conclusion, the delegation said its members were prepared to collaborate actively with the Committee and to provide reports on the state of issues on the elimination of racial discrimination now and in the future.

Preliminary Remarks

LUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur, said the dialogue had been in depth, and exhaustive replies given to the written questions had dealt with different facets of the different matters raised in the report, as well as the oral questions posed. The delegation was commended for the considerable effort made in this.

The new article 142 of the New Criminal Code sanctioning racial discrimination and how it was in accordance with the Convention and when it would come into effect; steps taken regarding asylum-seekers and refugees; poverty-reduction strategies; the roles of minority groups, including the Roma; employment and unemployment; housing; access to health services and social security; the return of the different groups to their places of origin including the Meskhetians and other matters relating to Georgian nationality; abuses by the police against minorities and the need for training and instruction for officials in the area of human rights and in particular with regard to the Convention; the use of minority languages and the insufficient knowledge of the Georgian language as an obstacle to participation in Georgian civil and political life; NGO participation in human rights defence activities and in preparing the reports to the Committee as well as many other issues had been dealt with during the discussion with a view to follow-up on recommendations. The delegation had spoken about Georgia's commitment to the Committee's decisions, and Mr. Valencia Rodriguez asked for these to be disseminated throughout the country.

In short, it had been a frank dialogue, with a lot of information provided, and it was hoped it would be as useful to the delegation as it had been to the Committee. Mr Valencia Rodriguez thanked the delegation, and said the Committee had every confidence in the arrival of the next report of Georgia.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD05023E