Journalists Are not Allowed to Work Properly in the Telavi District Court

Gela Mtivlishvili, Kakheti

In July of 2007 the parliament of Georgia introduced changes to the Law of Georgia on General Courts. As a result of the amendments photo-video recording and transmitting in the courtroom were prohibited. The initial draft law prohibited audio-recording too but as a result of resistance from local and international organizations this part was removed from the draft law. The Law of Georgia on General Courts does not prohibit audio-recording at trials. Despite that, journalists are not allowed to use Dictaphones at the Telavi district court and so cannot work there properly.

The bailiffs of the court search journalist before they enter the courtroom and seize everything from them. “Turn your pockets out; we must see what you are hiding in your clothes. We warn you that you cannot take audio-recorders in the courtroom,” the bailiffs confront the journalists so. They also demand that the journalists switch off mobile phones before entering the room; turning down the voice of phone calls is not enough for them. Besides that, journalists are under close control. “We do not have guarantees that you will not record the trial by your mobile phones,” the bailiffs claim.

-The law does not prohibit us to audio-record a trial and why don’t you allow me? I asked the bailiffs.

-He is asking explanations from us. If you do not obey our requirements, you will not enter the courtroom,” said the bailiffs.

We could not find any resolution on the information board in the Telavi district court which prohibited us to audio-record the trial.

Nana Vasadze, spokesperson of the Supreme Court of Georgia: According to the law, audio-recording is not prohibited in the courtroom. However, it does not mean that everything that is not prohibited can be done.

-What do you mean? Since the law does not prohibit us to audio-record the trial, we can record the process on a Dictaphone.

-If you want to use audio-recorders in the court room, the judge must be informed about it in advance. If you do, you will not face any problems.

-Does the law oblige us to inform the judge?

-Of course the law envisages it. The Dictaphone might cause some noise, etc. It cannot happen and the trial shall not be hindered. That means you can audio-record the hearing but the judge must know it.

-Can you name the exact article of the law which obliges us to inform a judge or other employee of the court in advance about audio-recording?

-Would it be a crime if you warn a secretary of the trial about audio-recording? Why are creating problems artificially?

-I am trying to enjoy the rights which are envisaged by the law and I should not obey the completely illegal requirements of the court. Even if I decide to warn the judge or a secretary about the audio-recording, I would be difficult to reach them.

-Then before the trial you should inform the assistant to the judge. These problems will be eradicated soon. The Supreme Court is working on a special guidebook which will provide the information about the rights of people while requesting public information, etc. It is done in order to create a court practice similar in every court of Georgia. Journalists will be able to work in the regional courts without obstacles as it happens in the Tbilisi City, Appeal and Supreme Courts.

- In addition to that, the bailiffs let us into the courtrooms only after the seats are occupied in the rooms although we arrive at the court first. Then they tell us we cannot stand in the court room and consequently they try to send us out. Is it lawful?

-Maybe many people want to attend the trial from the defense side and it causes problem. I think, bailiffs should not send journalists out of the court room on purpose.

Nino Zuriashvili, investigation journalist, founder of the studio “Monitor”:  Since the amendments were introduced to Article 12 of the Law on General Courts I have audio-recorded trials several times. The judges protested it and asked me who I was and which organization I represented; s/he demanded me to show what I was holding in my hand. Despite all that, I managed to record the trial. The bailiff has no right to prohibit a journalist audio-recording. Initially, when amendments were introduced to the law, audio-recording was also prohibited. But the OSCE had a very sharp reaction. Consequently, the parliamentary committee removed the prohibition of audio recording. Later, Kote Kublashvili, chairperson of the Supreme Court, held a press conference and said that the court must permit the audio recording of the trial if it is requested by the journalist. If bailiffs prohibit a journalist from audio recording the hearing it is a prevention of their professional activities.

Tamar Gurchiani, lawyer for the Young Lawyers Association: “In accordance with Article 12 of the Law of Georgia on General Courts audio-recording is not prohibited at the trial. Photo and video recording are prohibited. The same article allows a person to audio record the trial according to a resolution of the court or a judge. The resolution shall be in writing. Audio recording can be prohibited if it is based on a written decision of the judge setting forth the reasons for the prohibition.

According to the Supreme Court of Georgia there is no special regulation applicable to the Telavi district court. Neither the court, nor judge has issued a special resolution on any case heard at the court.