Page 5




Venice Commission Report over Selection of Judges Sparks Mixed Reactions BY THEA MORRISON


he Venice Commission has released their recommendations about the controversial issue of the selection and appointment of Supreme Court judges in Georgia, which was followed by various reactions in the country: ruling Georgian Dream (GD) claimed they are positive, while the opposition and the third sector state the opinion of the commission is critical. The 14-page document reads that the High Council of Justice (HCoJ), which nominates the judges, enjoys very low trust from a large segment of society. “Nevertheless, the fact that the HCoJ – in its current situation – will be selecting nearly all the candidates for judges of the Supreme Court, producing a list which will then be submitted to a political majority in Parliament (in between elections), which in turn will appoint nearly all the Supreme Court judges, should be a matter of concern,” it says, adding this may be detrimental to the high level of public trust that an institution such as the Supreme Court must enjoy in a country. The document reads that in order to reduce such problems, the Venice Commission suggests transforming the fixed term of office of the current Supreme Court judges to lifetime appointments. The commission says that the Parliament should only appoint the number of Supreme Court judges which is absolutely necessary to render the work of the Supreme Court manageable, adding how many new judges will be needed to achieve this should be decided after consultations with the Supreme Court. “The number should not exceed half of the 18 to 20 positions that will be vacant. Further appointments may then be made by Parliament elected at the next general elections. Such a staggered approach

Image source:

in the appointment of all the Supreme Court judges may both alleviate the present burden on the Supreme Court and ensure that it enjoys the public trust and respect it deserves in the long-run,“ reads the report. The request for an urgent opinion was made by the Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, after the introduction of a 10-member list of Supreme Court judges caused uproar and criticism. The Commission was asked to evaluate the amendments containing the provisions on the selection and appointment of Supreme Court judges,

Knowing Russia Better Wouldn’t Have Hurt OP-ED BY NUGZAR B. RUHADZE


laying the game of politics with Russia is not easy for Georgia due to the Russian political irrationality, and because Russia is still in the client-patron mood when it comes to Georgia: it looks like Russia is not about to swallow the unexpected impulsive truncation of its three-century-old sick but still imperial body. Compared to all other ex-soviet states, Russia’s annoyance with Georgia is razor-sharp and badly jagged. Georgia is a special case for the Russian imperial irritation: Georgia’s national freedom and independent statehood being far beyond the Russian political assumption and patience. History knows that well, and historians are the best judges of the RussianGeorgian geopolitical love and hatred. It is like a marriage in which the affectionate husband is so jealous of his innocent wife that in fits of green-eyed resentment, the infuriated but adoring hubby is ready to tear apart his fragile, charming spouse. Russia will not let Georgia get involved in another love affair, whoever its new significant other might be. The tension in the present interaction between the two sides is extreme, hanging right on the verge of the perilously deepened political abyss, which is no heaven for any of the parties. To put it bluntly, we are in dire straits, but at present, thanks to a reasonably regulated relationship, the state of affairs is frozen at some tolerable degree of geopolitical temperature so as to allow additional time and resources for mutual tolerance and cooperation between Russia and Georgia, if ‘tolerance’ and ‘cooperation’ could make an applicable vocabulary to describe the awkward bilateral instance. Not talent or labor, but power and violence are the recognized determinants in the negatively metamorphosed Russian-Georgian dealings. Meanwhile, the conventional fundamentals of power prompt the leaders of both nations to refrain from unreasonable moves that might develop into

destructive consequences for both. We are wellaware of those fundamentals now, but we had no idea what they meant 30 years ago when the RussianGeorgian belligerency started. In this vicious international conundrum, most of the everlasting political and military values were badly confused, and no component of the 200-year relations was considered when mutually disparaging steps were being taken without an iota of thoughtful professional analysis. Seemingly, the historical necessity never demanded the bringing of Russian-Georgian relations to the point where nothing is visible except an impenetrable geopolitical cul-de-sac, out of which no living political scientist can see a peaceful withdrawal. Any Georgian government of the last quarter of a century trying to hold on to power, has seen the dilemma of survival in balancing out its geopolitical performance between Russia and the West. The West is moderately reserved in terms of flexing its muscles, but Russia, being an empire, needs to demonstrate power and splendor to inform the world of its invincibility by means of exuding imperial authority. When Georgia dared to break away from the tentacles of Russian dominance, the insulted Empire dealt a lethal blow on the recalcitrant colony, the shock of which Georgia still feels today as it stumbles towards its genuine freedom and independence. Had Georgia known better 30 years ago the details of the Russian imperial psyche, and the paranoia that accompanies that psyche, would Georgia have behaved the same way? This is the question which is almost impossible to furnish with a reasonable answer forthwith, but I am still posing it, hoping that politics remains the art of possible. One of my conjectures might be that the sense of survival betrayed the Georgian national acumen at that crucial moment of its history. The underlying sense of this presumption is not the old adage that says to join them if you can’t beat them, because I fundamentally believe in the idea of national freedom. What I am saying is much simpler: had we known better, we would have done better. Probably!

including the main draft initiated by Kobakhidze and the ruling GD which was adopted by Parliament with the first reading on March 20. The Commission says that the draft law is too lenient with respect to the age and experience requirements, and suggests higher formal thresholds for both. It also says that persons with such qualifications should not be forced to sit an examination to prove that they are capable of dealing with points of law. The Commission also recommends that conducting secret ballots in the HCoJ should be abolished,

and the procedure of selection should be based on objective criteria on which each candidate is evaluated. Also, the candidates should receive scores, which will allow a list of the best candidates to be presented to Parliament. Kobakhidze held a press conference regarding the issue, saying the recommendations of the Venice Commission would be taken into account. He said that the published opinion was mostly positive, adding a “great part of the recommendations can be accepted, including the removal of judicial examination from the selection criteria.” “As for political recommendations (referring to the recommendation that further appointments may be made after the next Parliamentary polls), we will definitely discuss them, but such recommendations will not be reflected in the draft law,” he stated. Former member of the GD, Eka Beselia, who quit the party after a conflict of interests over the issue of judges, says the conclusion is a “real slap in the face” of the ruling party. “It is impossible to criticize the draft more sharply than it is in the Venice Commission opinion. When the Venice Commission tells you that the High Council of Justice enjoys low public trust and the Parliament should not elect all judges now and some of them should be elected by the next Parliament, this means that neither the HCoJ nor the Parliament enjoy any trust,” she stated. Opposition party European Georgia believes the report answered all the questions regarding setting the criteria of the selection of judges. “Trust towards the High Council of Justice is low based on the information that was provided to the Venice Commission. Therefore, they called on the authorities that this Parliament should not compose the Supreme Court and at least one half of judges should be elected by the next Parliament,” he stressed. NGOs also say the recommendations are very critical and need to be taken into account.

Profile for Georgia Today

Issue #1143  

April 19 - 22, 2019

Issue #1143  

April 19 - 22, 2019