Human Rights Center prepared Report on Mukhrovani “Mutiny”

The Human Rights Center prepared report on Mukhrovani “Mutiny” and rallies in spring of 2009 in Georgia. Here is the introduction of the report which shortly describes those issues and problems which are discussed in the report in details. Full English text of the report is available on our website; to read the text you can visit the link:

On April 9, 2009 several-thousands strong demonstrations started in Tbilisi.
Demonstrators accused President Saakashvili of authoritarian rule and of dragging Georgia inwar with Russia last year which ended with drastic results for the country. Demonstrations areongoing as to the date of writing this report; yet, unlike November 2007, when the authoritiesviolently dispersed peaceful demonstrations in Tbilisi, this time the Government appears to bemore lenient towards the public protests against it.However, this report demonstrates that the change in the government’s behaviour has happened at the level of form rather than of substance and in reality the government is using undemocratic and even illegal means to quash the dissent and maintain the power.

The primary focus of the report is about what the government has labelled as ‘mutiny’ of May 5, 2009 at Mukrovani Military Base. With this incident in the centre of its focus, the report unpacks the chronicles of politically hot spring in Georgia which has been accompanied by numerous incidents of violence orchestrated and/or condoned by the state.

The report consists of two parts; first one refers to harassments and repressions against the demonstrators and identifies several important features of state action in the context of

ongoing demonstrations:

• State omission to investigate harassments against the demonstrators committed by ‘unidentified people’

• Use of legal mechanism to repress demonstrators rather than to uphold justice: until this very date only those offences have been investigated and prosecuted which were,committed by the demonstrators and not those which have been committed against the demonstrators.

• Detention of political party members on ill-grounded accusations and with the
procedures which do not seem to be in line with the requirements of law.

• Use of disproportionate force and means prohibited by law to dismantle isolated groups of demonstrators for restoring the public order.

In this respect the report deliberately abstains from evaluating the methods used by Georgian political opposition in their political struggle. While we condemn any form of violence, we deem the actions of the political opposition irrelevant when the legality of state action is at question: disobedience to law or ethical rules by a political opponent in no way dissolves the government from its obligation to abide by law in all circumstances whatsoever.

The first part of the report also contains a section about the police special operative activities as they are carried out in Georgia. Such an operative activity was carried out to apprehend the suspects of the ‘mutiny’ and ended with death of one suspect and serious injuries to the other two. The section demonstrates that in Georgia special operative activity in general is one of those contexts where human rights are put at a highest risk by authorities. A well-documented failure of the national justice system to adequately address the issue of excessive use of force in this context and to redress the victims further exacerbates the
situation.

In short, the first part of the report reveals that the Georgian government is intolerant towards the dissent and by action as well as omission undermines the very foundations of political pluralism in the country. But the section concerning the issue of special operative activities further demonstrates that the state violence in Georgia is not only directed towards the political dissent but, more disturbingly, towards the politically neutral citizens as well.

The second part of the report deals in detail with the Mukrovani ‘mutiny’ (referring to the story and consequent developments as Mukrovani incident.) The Mukrovani incident is one of those cases when it is the context not the details so much which matters. Therefore the first part of the report is provided as a context against which it should be judged. Context-conscious  look at the Mukrovani incident demonstrates that it was not an isolated incident but a next step in the government’s quest for power and control. It also demonstrates that this quest heavily relies on violence and misrepresentation of truth.

The second part looks beyond the official story line put forward by the government about the Mukrovani incident and voices two widespread perceptions in the public of what them Mukrovani story is all about. The firth opinion suggests that Government staged the ‘mutiny’ in order to avoid loss of control over the military while facing serious internal difficulties inside the country and inside the military - especially after the lost war in August. Second opinion suggests that what happened at the Military Base was not a mutiny but disobedience towards the government order to dismantle the demonstrations. While it is not easy to assert which version is closer to the truth, it is clear that the story put forward by the government is less credible also because it failed to substantiate its allegations and instead has used the ‘‘mutiny’’ as a ‘legitimizing’ factor to resort to repressions against the former and current military.

A short summary of repressions carried out by the government under the pretext of Mukrovani ‘mutiny’ is as follows:

• One of the suspects of the ‘mutiny’ – Gia Krialashvili was killed in highly questionable circumstances in the context of a police special operative activity, two others – Otanadze and Amiridze were badly injured and remain in the hospital as to the date of writing this report;

• According to unofficial estimates, around 40 people are detained in connection with the ‘mutiny’ charges. The only basis for their detention is the secretly recorded video footage which raises many question marks as to its authenticity.

• There are credible allegations that at least some of the detainees were subjected to physical pressure by the authorities and were forced to testify against certain individuals who are charged in connection with the ‘mutiny.”

• In order to exert pressure on Otanadze who was declared as wanted before his
detention on May 20, authorities illegally detained his family and relatives, including an eight months old child. Moreover, a child of Otanadze’s was also expelled from school when Otanadze was declared as wanted.

The second section zooms on specific human rights endangered by the actions of the government carried out while ‘dealing’ with the ‘‘mutiny.’’ In particular it documents incompatibilities of state action with its positive and negative obligations under the right to life and the right to a fair trial, more precisely the presumption of innocence and access to a lawyer. The section concludes that:

• The special operative activity carried out to apprehend the suspects of the ‘mutiny’ does not seem to be compatible with the legal and human rights framework regulating the use of force by authorities.

• Contrary can be proved only if the state will demonstrate that the use of force during the special operation was proportionate and absolutely necessary and if such a conclusion is reached by thorough and impartial investigation and trial. For meeting this test the investigation and trial must answer the concrete set of questions which are set out in this report.

• Authorities have without any justification denied a victim’s status to the next-of-kin of the suspect who was killed during the special operation. Without the formal status the factual victim is unable to voice its concerns as to how the investigation is going. Unless such status is granted to the next-of-kin of the deceased suspect the ongoing investigation is neither impartial nor thorough.

• State officials violated the suspects’ presumption of innocence when they referred to the suspects as “criminals” in their public statements before that was established by the court.

• Authorities violated a suspect Otanadze’s right to a lawyer: 1) when they kept denying his lawyer access to Otanadze who was hospitalized during the first days; 2) when officials from Special Operative Department were present during their first meeting Moreover, as a result of the violation of the right to a lawyer, Otanadze was effectively denied the possibility to appeal the court decision on his pre-trial detention.

• The government misused the legal system to exert pressure on suspect Otanadze through ill-grounded detention of his the family and relatives. One of his brothers still remains in prison at the moment. Such method goes beyond the basic principle of criminal justice system – no common guilt – and undermines Georgia’s rule of law credentials. The investigations of the ‘mutiny’ and case files of those people who have been detained in connection with it have been classified as a state secret. However, the lawyers involved in the case as defenders of the detainees declare - there is nothing in the case file to qualify as state secret and therefore such a decision has only one possible goal: to immunize the case from public scrutiny. Exactly in order to avoid such developments in respect of the ‘mutiny’ story, Human Rights Center has prepared this report. Human Rights Center will continue watching closely Mukrovani incident as well as the ongoing demonstrations and will deliver a follow up report on these events in the near future