Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

MIA Clarifies Procedural Laws to the Tbilisi Mayor

February 12, 2013

Interpresnews

MIA replied to the statement of Gigi Ugulava, Tbilisi Mayor and news agency Interpresnews published full text of this statement.

“Response statement of Mr. Gigi Ugulava, Tbilisi Mayor, to the statement of Mr. Irakli Garibashvili, Minister of Interior, clearly disregards Georgian legislation and law enforcement bodies. He [Ugulava] places himself higher than law. Although he verbally denies he has refused to be interrogated as a witness, his action proves the opposite.

Mr. Ugulava is against being interrogated because he does not appear before the investigative body. His statement as if he protects honor of police officers and investigators is demagogical. Mr. Ugulava has no legal rights to estimate action rules for investigative bodies; furthermore he is obliged to obey their lawful requirements.

We would like to clarify to Mr. Ugulava again that in accordance to goals of the Criminal Procedural Law he is ordinary citizen of Georgia who does not enjoy any privileges under procedural laws.

We kindly clarify to Mr. Ugulava that he, as well as any other witness, does not have right to call investigators to the Tbilisi City Hall or to his own house for interrogation. His allegation, as if MIA had released information about its intention to use compulsory measures against him is ungrounded.

Although Article 294 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Georgia, edition of February 20, 1998, states that “investigator questions witnesses, victims, suspects and accused people in the site of ongoing preliminary investigation or where the person is,” witness cannot select the place of interrogation; investigative body is entitled to make decision on the place of interrogation individually and witness has to obey the decision.

In accordance to the Article 294 of the Criminal Procedural Code, witness can be questioned in his place of residence is if it is of urgent necessity – for example if he/she is sick person or cannot move because of physical problems. The person can be questioned in the place of his location only in the aforementioned circumstances.

According to our information, the Tbilisi Mayor does not have problems of movement.

Mayor’s statement with regard to the Article 174 of the Criminal Procedural Code is correct which states that purpose of compulsory delivery of a person to the place of interrogation is to ensure witness’s participation in the investigative activities if he refuses to take part in it and invalid reason of his non-appearance is estimated.

The investigation believes both signs are detected in Mr. Ugulava’s action. On the one hand, he does not wish to appear before the investigation and on the other hand he has not informed the investigation about valid reason of his default.

We would like to clarify to Mr. Ugulava again that if he continues to ignore requirements of the procedural law the investigative body will have to take measures to bring to the interrogation under force in order to ensure his participation in the investigative process as a witness. The purpose of this compulsory measure will be his refusal to appear before the investigative body despite being summoned when he does not have any valid motive of default.

The position of the Tbilisi City Mayor not to appear before the investigative body to take part in the investigation and make testimony as a witness of the incident near the Georgian National Library on February 8, 2013 is crime punishable under Criminal Code of Georgia.

The investigation again warns the Tbilisi Mayor Mr. Ugulava that unless he executes his obligations imposed by the criminal procedural law and does not appear to make testimony, his inactivity will be considered as a witness’ refusal to make testimony despite his public statements and compulsory measures envisaged by the Criminal Procedural Code will be implemented against him,” the MIA statement reads.

News