Written Submission for 109th session (1 November -

10 December 2023) of the Committee on Elimination

of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
by the National Human Rights Institution – the
Public Defender of Georgia
Contents
I. Introduction...................................................................3
II. Steps taken until 2022...................................................5
III. Flaws and Existing Challenges........................................7
IV. Steps to be taken in the future......................................9

I. Introduction
In 2022, the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination issued
certain recommendations to Georgia that the state should take into account in the 2022-
2026 action plan. In this paper, the National Human Rights Institution (hereinafter the NHRI)
will focus on recommendations 8b and 8c, which imply that:

„The Committee recommends that the State party:

(b) Ensure the systematic provision of specialized training on the investigation and
prosecution of racial discrimination cases for staff in the Prosecutor's Office, the Special
Investigation Service, and the Labor Inspection Service;

(c) Ensure that specialized training on racial discrimination is available to judges at all levels
of the judiciary; “1

The UN Committee is urging Georgia to enhance its efforts in combating racial

discrimination through specialized training. This involves equipping key institutions, such as
the Prosecutor's Office, Special Investigation Service, Labor Inspection Service, and judiciary,
with the necessary skills to effectively address and prosecute racial discrimination cases.

Training is a crucial aspect of fostering awareness and competence in handling such cases. It
not only empowers law enforcement and judicial bodies but also contributes to building a
more inclusive and just society.

These recommendations align with Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Article 2 requires countries to take effective
measures to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to ensure that public
authorities and institutions act in conformity with this obligation. The specialized training
suggested in recommendations 8b and 8c can be seen as a proactive step to fulfill the
broader objectives outlined in Article 2 by addressing racial discrimination within key
institutions and promoting a culture of equality and non-discrimination. 2

Moreover, these recommendations resonate with Article 5 of the Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Article 5 emphasizes the
importance of ensuring equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms for all individuals,
regardless of race, and calls on states to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in
various fields, including the administration of justice. The specialized training recommended

1
Concluding observations on the combined ninth and tenth periodic reports of Georgia Adopted by the
Committee at its 108th session (14 November–2 December 2022)
2
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 2
for prosecutors, investigators, labor inspectors, and judges is a practical way for Georgia to
meet its obligations under Article 5 by actively working to prevent and address racial
discrimination within the legal and judicial systems.3

Additionally, these recommendations are in line with Article 6 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Article 6 encourages countries to
provide effective protection and remedies against racial discrimination before national
tribunals and other state institutions. The specialized training suggested in
recommendations 8b and 8c contributes to enhancing the capacity of the legal and judicial
entities in Georgia, ensuring that they are better equipped to address and remedy instances
of racial discrimination through fair and effective legal processes.4

Also, the recommendations correspond to Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Article 7 focuses on the obligation of states to
undertake effective measures, including legislative and other measures, to combat and
eliminate racial discrimination. It underscores the importance of providing remedies,
including judicial remedies, to victims of racial discrimination.5

The response of Georgia to these recommendations and the subsequent implementation of

measures will be crucial in shaping the country's efforts to combat racial discrimination. It is
not just about compliance with international standards; it is also an opportunity for Georgia
to foster a more inclusive and equitable society. Effective training in key institutions can lead
to a more informed and responsive legal and judicial system. This, in turn, may contribute to
a reduction in instances of racial discrimination, improved access to justice, and the overall
promotion of human rights.

The Public Defender of Georgia is an independent institution tasked with promoting and
protecting human rights and freedoms in Georgia. The Public Defender's role includes
monitoring government activities, investigating human rights violations, and advocating for
the protection of individual rights and liberties.

In the context of evaluating steps taken by Georgia to address racial discrimination, the
Public Defender's Office may release reports, statements, or recommendations based on
3
Ibid, article 5
4
Ibid, article 6
5
Ibid, article 7
their observations and assessments. Because we are considering the existing issue from this
perspective, our work is also an assessment of such a recommendatory quality.

Steps taken until 2022

Georgia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD) on May 30, 1994. Since then, the country has been obligated to take measures to
eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality by the provisions of the convention.

In the period leading up to 2022, Georgia, like other states parties to the convention, would
have been expected to submit periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination detailing the steps taken to implement the convention's provisions.
These reports provide insights into the legislative, judicial, and administrative measures
adopted by the country to address racial discrimination.

Until 2022, Georgia has taken certain steps regarding the training of law enforcement,
judicial, and other relevant personnel to fight against racial discrimination. Georgia, like
other states, tries to be guided by certain rules, such as:6

1. Designing specialized training programs focused on understanding and addressing

racial discrimination. These programs may cover legal frameworks, cultural
sensitivity, and effective investigation and prosecution of discrimination cases.
2. Integrating modules on racial discrimination into the existing training curriculum for
law enforcement, judicial, and other relevant personnel. This ensures a holistic
approach to education and awareness.
3. Providing resources and support to enhance the capacity of institutions responsible
for combating racial discrimination. This could involve the allocation of funds,
personnel, and technology.
4. Conducting public awareness campaigns to foster understanding and cooperation
between communities and law enforcement. This can contribute to a more inclusive
and supportive environment.

6
The combined ninth and tenth periodic reports of Georgia Adopted by the Committee at its 108th session (14
November–2 December 2022) - Annex to State party report: Annex 1, Annex 2.
 5. Collaborating with civil society organizations working on human rights and anti-
discrimination issues. This collaboration can provide valuable insights and expertise
to enhance training programs.

The public defender cannot fail to note the positive aspects that the state has taken over the
years about the court, prosecutor's office, and other bodies, to raise self-awareness in terms
of investigating and prosecuting cases of racial discrimination, as well as making such
training available:

 upon ratification, the CERD, like other international instruments, became an integral
part of the State’s domestic legislation and can be invoked directly before the courts.
 the establishment of various institutions for the promotion and protection of human
rights, such as the Ombudsman and the Committee for Human Rights and Ethnic
Relations.
 amendments in 2010 to the Constitution of Georgia.
 The adoption in May 2014 of the law on the elimination of all forms of
discrimination, which prohibits all forms of discrimination, including the grounds
enunciated in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
 The amendment of article 53 of the Criminal Code, in March 2012, which provides
that offenses under the Criminal Code, if committed based on race, color, national,
ethnic or social origin, birth or social status, and other grounds, shall be deemed to
have been committed with aggravating circumstances.
 The adoption, in March 2014, of the law on the legal status of aliens and stateless
persons.
 Adoption of the Rules of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Public Institutions, approved
by Government Resolution No. 200 on 30 April 2020, which, inter alia, prohibits hate
speech.
 Adoption by the Parliament of Georgia of the Code of Ethics for Members of
Parliament, on 22 February 2019, article 2 of which specifies the prohibition of hate
speech based on race, skin color, sex, religion, or another basis.
 Adoption of amendments to article 53 1 of the Criminal Code, adopted on 30
November 2018, which, inter alia, increase sentencing requirements for racially
motivated crimes; and amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, adopted in
 September 2022, to allow covert investigative activities for the investigation of racial
discrimination cases.7

Flaws and Existing Challenges

Despite these positive changes, it should be noted that there are still many negative cases in
the public institutions and space of Georgia, statements and actions made by public
persons, which arouse negative and racist attitudes among the population. In recent years,
the policy of fighting against hate speech has improved significantly in Georgia. Significant
steps have been taken by state agencies to increase the quality of response to crimes, as
well as to produce joint statistics for law enforcement agencies and courts, but like the
previous year’s reporting period, the ineffective investigation of alleged hate crimes remains
a challenge. Law enforcement agencies still do not meet the standards of effectiveness or
timeliness. Confidence in law enforcement agencies is low among vulnerable groups, and it
is being further decreased by the weak response or lack of response to incidents. An
example of this was the lack of the use of positive measures by law enforcement agencies,
during the violent actions committed by radical violent groups.

In one of the cases the applicant, who is the pastoral leader of the Anglican Church,
indicated that the church performed a wedding ceremony for a couple of the same sex for
the first time and posted the relevant information on the official Facebook page. In a few
hours, the church received messages containing threats against life and health on the
church’s page from homophobic persons. In this regard, the Public Defender’s Office of
Georgia was notified by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia that the agency launched
an investigation into the threats made against the church leader and followers under Article
151 (1) of the Criminal Code and a special questionnaire developed for the identification of
the motive of hatred was used during interviews, but no concluding decision has been made
so far. According to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Georgia, no particular person has
been identified as a victim or accused.8

In another case, Jehovah’s Witnesses indicated that, while standing near a movable
literature stand near Larsi, Kazbegi municipality, a group of 10 people began to curse and

7
Concluding observations on the 1-10th periodic reports of Georgia Adopted by the Committee.
8
https://www.ombudsman.ge- 2022 Special Report on Combating and Preventing Discrimination and the
Situation of Equality: Challenges in the investigation of alleged hate crimes, page 44.
threaten them after finding out that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants took the
threat seriously and stopped their activities. They later pointed to the inadequate and
ineffective response of the police officers standing near the incident site. In relation to the
case, the Public Defender’s Office was notified by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that
administrative proceedings were carried out in the Kazbegi District Division of Mtskheta-
Mtianeti Police Department, and the interviews within the framework of the proceedings
made it clear that there had been just a verbal conflict between the Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the said persons, no violence had taken place and consequently, no investigation had
been launched into the case.9

In addition, it is an important problem that, in some cases, when the law enforcement
agency considers that there are no elements of crime, incidents are classified as
administrative offenses. However, since administrative legislation does not identify a
discriminatory motive as an aggravating circumstance, it fails to make it clear that the victim
was damaged on the discriminatory ground. The Public Defender notes that considering the
seriousness and gravity of the discriminatory illegal actions for a democratic society, it is
important for the law enforcement agency to consider the classification of an action at least
as a less serious crime (for example, Article 142 of the Criminal Code - violation of equality)
when there is a discriminatory motive.10

Steps to be taken in the future

In the future, Georgia could take several steps to implement these recommendations
effectively. Predicting specific future actions by a country can be challenging, but we can
look at examples from other UN member countries that have faced similar
recommendations to get an idea of potential measures Georgia might take.

1. Implementation of Training Programs- In response to similar recommendations, Canada

has implemented training programs for law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies. They
have integrated cultural sensitivity and anti-discrimination training into the curriculum,
ensuring that officials are well-equipped to handle cases involving racial discrimination.11

9
Ibid, https://www.ombudsman.ge
10
Ibid, https://www.ombudsman.ge
11
https://bettercanadainstitute.ca/discrimination-in-canadian-criminal-justice-system/
2. Establishment of Oversight Bodies - The UK created the Equality and Human Rights
Commission, an independent body that oversees the implementation of anti-discrimination
laws. This type of oversight can ensure that the recommended training programs are
effectively implemented and that progress is monitored.12

3. Collaboration with Civil Society - Sweden has actively involved civil society organizations
in the implementation of anti-discrimination measures. This includes partnerships with
NGOs to develop and deliver training programs, ensuring a broader approach to tackling
racial discrimination.13

4. Regular Reporting and Accountability - Australia, as part of its commitment to addressing

racial discrimination, regularly reports to international bodies like the UN on the progress
made. This transparent reporting ensures accountability and provides a mechanism for
continuous improvement.14

5. Legislative Reforms - In response to recommendations, South Africa has undertaken

legislative reforms to strengthen anti-discrimination laws. This includes amendments to
existing legislation to provide better protection against racial discrimination.15

It is worth noting that the effectiveness of these measures can vary based on the socio-
political context of each country. Georgia might take a combination of these approaches,
tailoring them to its specific needs and circumstances. Additionally, ongoing dialogue with
affected communities and collaboration with international organizations can contribute to a
more comprehensive and sustainable strategy against racial discrimination.

12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_and_Human_Rights_Commission
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/who-we-are
13
https://rwi.lu.se/podcasts/racial-discrimination-sweden-legal-perspectives-civil-society-involvement/
14
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/11/committee-elimination-racial-discrimination-examines-
australias-report
15
https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201903/national-action-plan.pdf
“Chapter 6: Addressing racism and discrimination and promoting equality – what we have done so far”