Human Rights Defenders for the Accused Person’s Right to Freedom of Choice

Shorena Kakabadze, Kutaisi

Court juries will discuss cases of former and acting senior governmental officials. Several days ago, parliament passed legislative initiative after two hearings with 103 votes. Reportedly, additional legislative amendments are planned to the law, which will restrict freedom of choice of the accused person and prosecutor will make final decision whether a concrete case is discussed by jury or not.

Institute of the court juries aims to implement public justice. It is the case when not only judge but people also participate in making decision on guiltiness of the accused person. They listen to the arguments of the parties, observe the process of providing evidence and only afterwards make decision on the guiltiness of the accused with majority of votes. Consequently, if the institute of court juries starts functioning, the level of civil participation in the activities of the judiciary authority will make the court hearings more transparent.

However, with regard to the cases of former and acting senior officials, there is a doubt that court juries will not be impartial because former senior officials have negative reputation in the society.

Public Defender Ucha Nanuashvili commented on the issue: “It is additional factor to ensure practical implementation of the principle of fair trial in the country. As for political cases, it is too complicated. Here we should have absolute content of the society how to discuss these cases – with court juries or without them. I think, people need to have more trust. There are some questions with regard to these cases. So, our office studies every case and we want to release special conclusion on them in near future to provide the society with more information,” Public Defender said.

The draft- amendments on the discussion of cases on senior governmental officials are still subject of discussion. Human rights defenders believe one concrete issues shall be clarified in them – whether the accused person will have opportunity to individually decide to have his/her case be discussed by the jury or not.

“When we speak about the cases on senior officials, there are two different opinions. On the one hand it is logic to claim that society already has some opinion about those people and believe they are guilty. So, jury members might already have preliminary opinions about them. It really is a problem. So, our organization believes the accused shall have right to choose. If they want their cases to be discussed by the jury, their request shall be satisfied. Otherwise, they should decline their service based on well-grounded clarification,” Eka Popkhadze, director general of the Young Lawyers’ Association told humanrights.ge
Lawyers believe that law-makers should consider how convinced former senior officials are that public perception on them will hinder execution of justice towards them.

Levan Bezhashvili of the parliamentary majority clarified: “The accused person shall individually decide to have his/her case discussed by jury or not. They should have right to act in accordance to their own decision and decline court juries if they do not want it. Otherwise it will be public justice which acted during soviet time.”

Public Defender also supports the idea to give freedom of choice to the accused: “Applying of the court juries will be one of effective factors in the cases of former senior officials but I still believe that it is disputable. The topic is very significant. The position and views of the detainees shall be considered by all means.”

The draft-amendments do not mention whether the accused will have right to freedom of choice. However, human rights defenders work on recommendations where they focus on the accused person’s right to freedom of choice.