Tamar Kordzaia: “The Minister Could Neither Prove Accusation Nor Convince Us In Espionage of the Detainees”

Koba Bendeliani, “Interpresnews”

Interpresnews interviewed Tamar Kordzaia from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association about the results of the journalists’ meeting with the minister of interior Vano Merabishvili about the detained photo-reporters; Kordzaia also attended the meeting.

-Ms. Tamar, how do you assess the meeting with the MIA and what is your conclusion from it?

-We had two requests to the Minister – first: to make the process transparent which was partly satisfied; they said the trial will be open. However, the secret documents from the case materials which are Top Secret will not become public. As for our second request, it was release of the prisoners under vouch but they categorically refused. The Minister said the release of the detainees might hinder the investigation process. So, the Ministry tries to estimate the links and relations of the detainees and their freedom can threaten the process. Mr. Vano also said if there is no similar threat and the Ministry finds out everything, the photo-reporters might be released in half an hour or never.

The Ministry officials did not provide additional evidence to prove the accusations and they did not tell us anything more important than the society already knew. The Ministry did not provide any arguments to us. Consequently, they could not convince us in the validity of their position. However, at the same meeting the Minister said everybody will get convinced at the trial that the investigation is true about the detainees.

-You might have already seen the materials prepared by the representatives of the international media who met Vano Merabishvili. Did you see any difference in the behavior and statements of the Minister during these two meetings? If there was no difference, why he decided to meet two groups of journalists?

-To tell the truth, so many people have asked me questions since the meeting that I did not have time to read the articles of Georgian journalists who work for foreign media. However, I have some information about it. There is minimal or no difference between the meetings, and it shows that the Ministry has equal strategy towards Georgian and foreign media and does not say more than we already know.

-The journalists participating in the meeting underscore that the minister had told them the phone-conversation between the detainees, which were shown on TV, does not prove their espionage at all and they showed it to convince the society that there was real connection between the detainees. How will you, as a lawyer, evaluate this statement of the Minister?

-Every person can have connection with others and it does not at all mean that they are committing crime or they are spies. In order to prove the espionage, there might be several important components in the case materials. First – somebody shall collect information and send it to a foreign state or spy organizations for money. All these three components shall be very well grounded. The fact that somebody was calling second person on the phone does not prove anything at all. During the meeting with the Minister we could not see the connection between these three accusations. However, Merabishvili said we will see the evidence in the court. He was fully aware that he could neither prove the accusation nor convince us in the espionage of the detainees. He said: “After the court proceedings, you will not have questions in regard with this case.”

-Everybody, who participated in the meeting, said they got more convinced that the law enforcement agencies do not have enough proofs against the detainees. Do you have the same feeling?

-We asked how they proved that the Russian Special Forces transferred money to the detainees and they answered: “We are working on it”. We received the same answer on our many questions. The only news we learned is that the law enforcement institutions try to finish the investigation soon and send the case to the court. Their logic is – to verify the accusations with additional evidence and to promptly send the case to the court. They are fully aware that espionage is complicated crime and they shall seriously work to prove it.

-If Kurtsikidze did not really call Okrikov 24 times or Sinitsin 13 times, if the cell-phone did not belong to Kurtsikidze how can they allege that Kurtsikidze is a spy or Gedenidze was won over by the GRU or Abdaladze have been working for Giorgadze for a long time?

-The phone calls really cannot prove anything. They also know it and it is impossible to blame somebody for espionage based on the undecoded phone-conversations. They also agreed that it was only fact. Dialing the number does not mean anything and the content of the conversation is important.

-It was also interesting that minister told you he liked Kurtsikidze most of all. How do you think, why does the minister like Kurtsikidze, who is accused of espionage for GRU?

-I cannot comment on it. It was his personal opinion and you should ask him why. Maybe, it is connected with the statements of the governmental officials who are sorry that people, whom they trusted – Gedenidze and Abdaladze – committed the crime; but Kurtsikidze did not work for the governmental institutions.

-Part of journalists claim that Vano Merabishvili benefited from the off-recorded meeting with journalists; that journalists should not have met the minister without cameras, etc…

-All of us, who were there, knew that the case is about photo-reporters, freedom of expression, access and transfer of information. If photo-reporters are indirectly punished for having shot photos on May 26, everybody should know that publishing of photos is a significant segment of freedom of expression. We met the Minister to find out whether the detention of the photo-reporters was really connected with the restriction of access to information, freedom of expression and exchange of information.

We expressed the feelings of every person who are sorry for the detention of the photo-reporters. We tried our best to make the process transparent. Our and general civil activity had impact and the court process will be partly open. Although, they did not satisfy our request fully, we had some progress. I cannot say how people will evaluate it. Everybody has personal opinion and right to express opinion.