saqarTvelos ganviTarebis kvleviTi

instituti

GEORGIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

saqarTvelos advokatTa asociaciis sisxlis

samarTlis komiteti

GEORGIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE

mrgvali magida saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kanonmdeblobis problemebze

saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsSi cvlilebebisa da

damatebebis proeqtis prezentacia

ROUND TABLE MEETING ON THE PROBLEMS OF THE GEORGIAN

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE OF GEORGIA

Tbilisi, 2 Tebervali, 2012 w.

Tbilisi, February 2, 2012

sarCevi

ganmartebiTi baraTi ................................................................3

1. saqveynoobis principi ...........................................................3

2. SejibrebiTobis principi ......................................................5

3. advokatis uflebebi ..............................................................8

4. gamokiTxvis oqmi ....................................................................9

5. iribi Cvenebis problema ...................................................... 11

6. preiudicia ........................................................................... 12

7. sasamarTlo-fsiqiatriuli eqspertizis sakiTxi .............. 13

8. sasamarTlo sxdomis oqmi .................................................... 13

proeqtisaqarTvelos kanoni saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsSi cvlilebebisa da damatebebis Setanis Sesaxeb ............................................... 14

EXPLANATORY NOTES................................................................... 21

1. Principle of trial in public .................................................... 21

2. Principle of Adversarial Trial ............................................... 223. Rights of a Defense Counsel .............................................. 254. Records of Interviews ......................................................... 25

5. Problem of Indirect Testimony ............................................ 27

6. Judicial Notice ..................................................................... 29

7. Question of Forensic Psychiatric Expertise ...................... 29

8. Record of the Court Session .............................................. 29

DraftLAW OF GEORGIA ON THE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF GEORGIACODE OF GEORGIA .......................................................... 31

- 3 -

ganmartebiTi baraTi

warmodgenili cvlilebebi da damatebebi ramdenime mniSvnelovan Temas exeba, romlebic, Cveni azriT, moqmed sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsSi arasrulyofi-lad aris daregulirebuli, an/da am TvalsazrisiT, sasa-marTlo praqtika arasworad viTardeba.

am paketSi ar aris Setanili cvlilebebi, romle-bic dazaralebulis, saproceso SeTanxmebisa da nafic msajulTa sasamarTlos institutebs Seexeba. saerTo aRiarebiT, samive institutSi bevri ram aris Sesacv-leli. magram Cven migvaCnia, rom samive sakiTxi imdenad mniSvnelovania, rom ufro Rrma da safuZvlian analizs saWiroebs, razec muSaoba momavali wlidan unda daiwyos.

1. saqveynoobis principi

saqarTvelos dRes moqmedi kanonmdebloba araTana-zomierad mkacr wesebs iTvaliswinebs saqmis ganxilvis sa-qveynoobis principis SezRudvis mxriv. amgvari SezRudva ewinaaRmdegeba saqarTvelos konstituciis 24-e muxls, agreTve adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos me-6 muxlis pirveli punqtiTa da me-10 muxliT uzrunvelyo-fil uflebebs.

adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos ganmar-tebiT, konvenciis me-6 muxlis pirveli punqti adgens prezumfcias imisas, rom nebismieri saqme ganixilebodes sazogadoebis da, maT Soris, mediis TandaswrebiT. sazo-gadoebis, maT Soris mediis daswreba procesze imisTvis aris saWiro, raTa marTlmsajuleba ganxorcieldes ara saidumlod, aramed saqveynod da sazogadoebas SeeZlos qmediTi kontrolis ganxorcieleba rogorc marTlmsa-julebis ganxorcielebis procesze, ise mTlianad sa-samarTlo sistemaze. marTlmsajulebis gamWvirvaloba aseve xels uwyobs saqmis samarTlianad ganxilvas, rac

- 4 -

demokratiuli sazogadoebis umniSvnelovanesi amocanaa (ix. Axen v. Germany, 1983).

saqmis ganxilvis saqveyno xasiaTi aseve SesaZleblobas aZlevs presas ganaxorcielos `sazogadoebrivi nagazis~ funqcia, rac konvenciis me-10 muxliT aris uzrunvelyo-fili. presis mier aseTi funqciis ganxorcieleba ki Zalze rTulia, rom ara vTqvaT SeuZlebeli, iseT SemTxvevaSi, rodesac medias erTmeva ufleba ganaxorcielos procesis audio an video Cawera, translireba da a.S.

cxadia, rom piris ufleba – misi saqmis ganxilva Ria iyos sazogadoebis, maT Soris, mediisaTvis, ar aris ab-soluturi ufleba da es ufleba SeiZleba SeizRudos. amasTanave, adamianis uflebaTa evropuli sasamarTlos ganmartebiT, saqmis ganxilvaze sazogadoebis, maT Soris, mediis daswrebis ufleba SeiZleba SeizRudos mxolod im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac amas mkacrad moiTxovs konkretuli saqmis garemoebebi.

procesis daxurvis sakiTxis ganxilvisas mxedveloba-Si unda iqnes miRebuli, Tu ramdenad Tanazomieria, anu proporciulia es zoma im miznisa, romlis miRwevasac em-saxureba igi procesis daxurvisas (ix. Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom).

zemoTqmuli mosazrebebidan gamomdinare, aucileb-lad miviCnieT, mniSvnelovani cvlilebebi Segvetana mo-qmedi sisxlis samarTlis kodeqsis me-10 muxlis me-3 na-wilSi. Cven gvesmis, rom aseTi cvlilebis ganxorcieleba SeuZlebeli iqneboda im SemTxvevaSi, Tu analogiurad ar Seicvleboda `saerTo sasamarTloebis Sesaxeb~ saqarTve-los organuli kanonis me-13 muxlis me-4 punqti. amito-mac, migvaCnia, rom saTanado cvlilebebi iqnes Setanili aRniSnul sakanonmdeblo aqtSic.

- 5 -

2. SejibrebiTobis principi

iTvleba, rom moqmedi sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsis miRebiT kanonmdebelma saqarTveloSi Sejibre-biTobis principis danergva ganizraxa. Tumca, rogorc am kodeqsis amoqmedebis Semdgomi sasamarTlo praqtika gviCvenebs, sasamarTloebSi arcTu mTlad kargad aqvT gacnobierebuli kanonmdeblis es mizani.

aRniSnuli principi, mraval sxva faqtorTan erTad, braldebis mxaris paralelurad, dacvis mxaris mier mt-kicebulebebis mopovebasac gulisxmobs, rac Sejibre-biTobis principze dafuZnebuli procesis efeqturobis aucilebeli pirobaa. swored amitom kodeqsis 38-e mux-lis me-7 nawilSi kanonmdebelma gaiTvaliswina dacvis mxaris ufleba, Caataros gamoZieba, kanonierad moipovos da waradginos mtkicebuleba am kodeqsiT dadgenili we-siT; moiTxovos sagamoZiebo moqmedebis Catareba da ga-moiTxovos mtkicebuleba, romelic saWiroa braldebis uarsayofad an pasuxismgeblobis Sesamsubuqeblad; mona-wileoba miiRos misi an/da misi advokatis Suamdgomlo-biT Catarebul sagamoZiebo moqmedebaSi; moiTxovos ad-vokatis daswreba misi monawileobiT Catarebuli sagamo-Ziebo moqmedebis dros. kodeqsis 39-e muxlis pirveli nawilis Tanaxmad, braldebuls ufleba aqvs, sakuTari xarjiT, TviTon an/da advokatis daxmarebiT moipovos mtkicebuleba. braldebulis mier mopovebul mtkicebu-lebas braldebis mxaris mier mopovebuli mtkicebulebis Tanabari iuridiuli Zala aqvs. ufro metic, imave 39-e muxlis me-2 nawilis Tanaxmad, Tu mtkicebulebis mopo-vebisaTvis saWiroa iseTi sagamoZiebo an sxva saproceso moqmedebis Catareba, romelsac braldebuli an misi ad-vokati damoukideblad ver atarebs, igi uflebamosilia Sesabamisi ganCinebis gamotanis SuamdgomlobiT mimarTos mosamarTles gamoZiebis adgilis mixedviT. mosamarTle valdebulia miiRos yvela zoma, raTa braldebis mxari-

- 6 -

saTvis cnobili ar gaxdes dacvis mxaris mier mtkicebu-lebis mopoveba.

aqve unda aRiniSnos, rom kodeqsis 111-e muxlis me-2 nawili arTmevs dacvis mxares iseTi sagamoZiebo moqme-debis Catarebis uflebas, rogoricaa Cxreka da amoRe-ba, rac, moqmedi kodeqsis Tanaxmad, mxolod braldebis prerogativas warmoadgens. arsebobs sxva magaliTebic, rodesac dacvis mxare aSkarad araTanabar mdgomareoba-Sia braldebis mxaresTan SedarebiT. magaliTad, kodeqsis 33-e muxlis me-6 nawilis `n” qvepuntiT, prokurori uf-lebamosilia moiTxovos da daubrkoleblad miiRos sa-xelmwifo organoebidan dokumenti Tu sxva nivTieri mt-kicebuleba. amgvari `daubrkoleblad miRebis~ ufleba-mosileba dacvis mxarisTvis uzrunvelyofili ar aris.

aRniSnuli uTanasworobis aRmofxvra SeiZleba mxo-lod mosamarTlis keTili nebis SemTxvevaSi, Tu igi, ze-moT miTiTebuli 39-e muxlis me-2 nawiliT gaTvaliswine-bul SemTxvevaSi, daakmayofilebs dacvis mxaris Suamd-gomlobas garkveuli sagamoZiebo an sxva saproceso moq-medebis Catarebis Taobaze. magram, rogorc sasamarTlo praqtika gviCvenebs, winaswari gamoZiebis stadiaze mt-kicebulebis mopovebisaTvis saWiro sagamoZiebo an sxva saproceso moqmedebis Catarebis Sesaxeb dacvis mxaris SuamdgomlobaTa didi umravlesoba sasamarTloebis mier daukmayofilebeli rCeba im motiviT, rom sasamarTloebi aseT Suamdgomlobas ganmartaven, rogorc Suamdgomlo-bas amoRebis Catarebis Taobaze. Cxreka da amoReba ki, rogorc ukve aRvniSneT, mxolod braldebis mxaris pre-rogativaa.

aseTi aSkarad araswori praqtikis gamosasworeblad saWirod migvaCnia, rom, erTi mxriv, kodeqss daematos sagarantio normebi dacvis mxaris mier saxelmwifo an/da kerZo dawesebulebebidan, aseve, kerZo pirebisgan mtki-cebulebebis an/da dokumentebis gamoTxovisa da miRebis

- 7 -

uflebis Sesaxeb; xolo, meore mxriv, gauqmdes akrZalva Cxrekisa da amoRebis Sesaxeb da dacvis mxares mieces uf-leba mimarTos sasamarTlos Cxrekisa da amoRebis Cata-rebis SuamdgomlobiT, im pirobiT, rom Suamdgomlobis dakmayofilebis SemTxvevaSi Cxrekas da amoRebas saxelm-wifo sagamoZiebo samsaxurebi ganaxorcieleben.

mxareTa Tanasworuflebianobis principi da dacvis mxaris mier sakuTari gamoZiebis Catareba gulisxmobs si-sxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsis 38-e muxliT bral-debulisa da misi advokatisaTvis mtkicebulebebis xel-misawvdomobis uflebas im SemTxvevaSic, roca braldebu-li uqonelia da daniSnuli hyavs advokati saxelmwifos xarjze.

saproceso kodeqsiT dauregulirebelia uqoneli braldebulisa da saxelmwifos mier daniSnuli advoka-tis mier gamoZiebis CatarebisaTvis saWiro xarjebis sa-kiTxi, rac, faqtobrivad, am uflebis ganxorcielebas gamoricxavs. erTi SexedviT, moqmedi kodeqsis 46-e mux-lis me-4 nawilis debuleba - `dacvis saxelmwifos xarj-ze ganxorcielebis SemTxvevaSi saxelmwifo saqarTvelos kanonmdeblobiT dadgenili wesiT gaiRebs dacvisaTvis saWiro sxva xarjebsac, Tu es xarjebi pirdapiraa dakav-Sirebuli braldebulis mier sakuTari dacvis ganxor-cielebasTan” – am sakiTxs aregulirebs. Tumca, igi Riad tovebs kiTxvas, Tu ra igulisxmeba `dacvisaTvis saWiro sxva xarjebSi” da moiazreba Tu ara masSi kodeqsis 38-e muxlis me-7 nawilSi miTiTebuli uflebebi.

warmodgenili cvlilebis Tanaxmad, uqoneli bral-debulisa da/an saxelmwifos mier daniSnuli advokatis mier Catarebuli gamoZiebis xarjebs saxelmwifo faravs.

- 8 -

3. advokatis uflebebi

cvlilebebi aseve exeba advokatis samarTlebrivi md-gomareobis maregulirebel normebs (kodeqsis 44-e, 292-e, 300-e, 312-e muxlebi), romelTa araswori interpreta-cia praqtikaSi bevr siZneles uqmnis advokats drouli da efeqturi dacviTi saqmianobis ganxorcielebis mxriv. kerZod, sxadasxva teqnikuri problemebi da rigi uwy-ebebis araoperatiuloba (gansakuTrebiT dasvenebisa da uqme dReebSi patimrobaSi myofi braldebulebis dac-viTi momsaxurebis ganxorcielebisas) SeuZlebels xdis advokatisTvis, moipovos Tavisi dacvis qveS myofisagan formaluri dasturi dacviTi saqmianobis gansaxorcie-leblad. amis gamo, saWirod miviCnieT amogveRo kodeqsis Sesabamisi normidan aseTi dasturis miRebis valdebule-ba. paralelurad, gafarTovda saapelacio da sakasacio instanciaSi saCivris Semtani subieqtebis wre: saCivris Setanis ufleba, msjavrdebuliTan erTad, mieca mis ad-vokatsac.

dabolos, kodeqsis 44-e muxlis me-3 nawilSi Setanili cvlilebebiT navaraudevia advokatis uflebebis gazrda, raTa mas SeeZlos maqsimalurad qmediTad da efeqtianad ganaxorcielos Tavisi dacvis qveS myofi piris interese-bis dacva.

saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kanon-mdebloba sisxlis samarTlis saqmeSi ucxoeli advokatis monawileobis Sesaxeb specialur daTqmas ar Seicavs, rac ukanonod da araTanazomierad zRudavs kodeqsis 41-e muxliT gaTvaliswinebul braldebulis uflebas, pi-radad an misi nebis gaTvaliswinebiT airCios da aiyvanos advokati. warmodgenili cvlilebiT, ucxoeli advoka-tis ayvanis SemTxvevaSi, saWiroa saqarTvelos advokatTa asociaciis Tanxmoba.

- 9 -

4. gamokiTxvis oqmi

kodeqsis 75-e muxlis me-3 nawili uzrunvelyofs mxa-reTa uflebas, 83-e muxlis Sesabamisad, droulad mi-iRon meore mxarisgan gamokiTxvis oqmebi. saxelmwifo organoebSi moaruli azris Tanaxmad, gamokiTxvis oqmi ar warmoadgens mtkicebulebas da igi ar unda gadaeces meore mxares kodeqsis 83-e muxliT dadgenili wesebis Sesabamisad. arsebobs iseTi mosazrebac, rom TiTqos mxarem SeiZleba Caataros piris gamokiTxva, magram ar Seadginos gamokiTxvis oqmi, radgan oqmis Sedgenis val-debuleba TiTqos ar arsebobs. magram faqtia, rom gamo-kiTxva aris sagamoZiebo moqmedeba. gamokiTxvas, rogorc sagamoZiebo moqmedebis erT-erT saxeobas, iTvaliswinebs 113-e muxli, romelic Setanilia kodeqsis me-15 TavSi, saTauriT „sagamoZiebo moqmedebebi“. ufro metic, 113-e muxlis me-3 nawilis Tanaxmad: „gamokiTxvis win unda dadgindes gamosakiTxi piris vinaoba da sxva aucilebeli informacia. es informacia unda aRiniSnos gamokiTxvis oqmSi”.

moqmedi kodeqsis 134-e muxli adgens zogad debu-lebebs sagamoZiebo moqmedebis oqmebis Sesaxeb. am mux-lis pirveli nawili imperatiulad adgens: “sagamoZiebo moqmedebis oqmi dgeba uSualod sagamoZiebo moqmedebis msvlelobisas an misi damTavrebisTanave.” es debuleba yvela sagamoZiebo moqmedebas exeba, maT Soris, gamokiTx-vasac, radgan igi ar Seicavs sagamonakliso debulebas, rom gamokiTxvis oqmis Sedgena savaldebulo ar aris.

ufro metic, 135-e muxlis pirveli nawili gamokiTx-vis oqmis rekvizitebs adgens: “gamokiTxvis oqmSi unda aisaxos gamosakiTxi piris saxeli, gvari, asaki, moqala-qeoba, ganaTleba, samuSao adgili, saqmianoba an/da Ta-namdeboba, sacxovrebeli adgili, ojaxuri mdgomareoba, misi urTierToba braldebulTan Tu dazaralebulTan, mis mier micemuli informaciis Sinaarsi, misi damokide-

- 10 -

buleba sasamarTloSi gamocxadebisa da Cvenebis micemis-admi”.

zemoT citirebuli da miTiTebuli normebi aRar to-vebs kiTxvebs imis Taobaze, aris Tu ara gamokiTxvis oqmi savaldebulo dokumenti, unda CaiTvalos Tu ara igi mt-kicebulebad da, rogorc aseTi, eqvemdebareba Tu ara igi meore mxarisaTvis gadacemas 83-e muxlis moTxovnebis Sesabamisad. gamokiTxvis oqmi araTu aris mtkicebuleba, garkveul SemTxvevebSi igi SeiZleba gadamwyveti mniSvne-lobis mqone mtkicebuleba iyos nebismieri mxarisaTvis. amgvaris uqonlobis SemTxvevaSi saidan unda gansazRvros mowinaaRmdege mxarem, Tu ris Tqmas apirebs sasamarTlo-Si esa Tu is mowme? an rogor unda moemzados mxare ase-Ti mowmis jvaredini dakiTxvisaTvis? an rogor SeiZle-ba srulfasovnad Semowmdes mowmis sandooba, Tu mxares ar gaaCnia xelT dokumenti, romelic Seicavs gamoZiebis procesSi mis mier gakeTebul gancxadebebs?

am konteqstSi unda gavixsenoT evropuli konvencia, kerZod ki, misi me-6 muxlis me-3 punqtis “b” qvepunqti, romlis Tanaxmadac braldebuls unda “hqondes sakmari-si dro da saSualebebi sakuTari dacvis mosamzadeblad”. Tu mas ar eqneba dro da saSualeba jerovnad Seiswavlos nebismieri iseTi piris gamokiTxvis oqmi, romlis sasa-marTloSi mowmis saxiT dakiTxvasac apirebs mowinaaRm-dege mxare, cxadia, rom igi ver moaxerxebs aseT pirTan mimarTebiT konvenciis me-6 muxlis me-3 punqtis “b” qve-punqtiT uzrunvelyofili uflebiT sargeblobas.

- 11 -

5. iribi Cvenebis problema

xifaTi, romelic aseT Cvenebas Tan axlavs, is aris, rom, SesaZloa, sasamarTlom gamamtyunebeli ganaCeni, Tundac, sxva mtkicebulebasTan an mtkicebulebebTan erToblioba-Si, daafuZnos iseTi piris gancxadebaze, romelic sasamarT-loSi SesaZloa Tavad ar gamocxaddes da ar iqnes dakiTxu-li mowmis saxiT. es ki niSnavs, rom braldebuls ar eqneba SesaZlebloba dakiTxos aseTi mowme jvaredini dakiTxvis wesiT da am gziT Seamowmos misi gulwrfeloba, patiosneba, misi gancxadebebis simarTlesTan Sesabamisoba da sxv.

aqedan gamomdinare, aSkaraa, rom iribi mtkicebule-bis dasaSvebobasTan dakavSirebiT unda arsebobdes Zal-ze myari saproceso garantiebi. sadavo ar unda iyos, rom Secdomis albaToba ganaCenis gamotanisas bevrad ufro maRalia im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac ganaCeni irib Cvenebas eyrdnoba, vidre im SemTxvevaSi, rodesac misi safuZveli Cveulebrivi Cveneba an/da sxva dasaSvebi mtkicebulebe-bia. aqve unda gvaxsovdes adamianis uflebaTa evropuli konvenciis me-6 muxlis pirveli punqtiT uzrunvelyo-fili mxareTa SejibrebiTobis principi da imave muxlis me-3 punqtis “d” qvepunqtiT gaTvaliswinebuli bralde-bulis ufleba dakiTxos an daakiTxvinos misi braldebis mowmeebi. bunebrivia, rom iseTi piris mimarT, romelic sasamarTloSi Cvenebas ar iZleva, braldebuls aRniSnu-li uflebebiT sargeblobis SesaZlebloba erTmeva.

Zalze bundovani sakiTxia, Tu ras niSnavs iribi Cve-nebis dadastureba „sxva mtkicebulebiT“. upirveles yovlisa, unda gavixsenoT, rom 2010 wlis 24 seqtembris cvlilebebamde iribi Cveneba unda dadasturebuliyo „mtkicebulebaTa erTobliobiT“. amJamad, moqmed redaq-ciaSi gamoyenebuli mxolobiTi ricxvi imaze miuTiTebs, rom Tundac erTi „sxva mtkicebulebis“ arseboba sakma-risia. aseve did wuxils iwvevs ganumartebloba imisa, Tu ra igulisxmeba am sxva mtkicebulebaSi. SeiZleba Tu ara

- 12 -

vigulisxmoT, magaliTad, sxva iribi Cveneba? Tu es asea, maSin braldebuli dgas Zalze seriozuli safrTxis wina-Se, rom mis mimarT SeiZleba gamotanili iqnes gamamtyune-beli ganaCeni Tundac ori iribi Cvenebis safuZvelze. anu igi SeiZleba damnaSaved iqnes cnobili X-isa da Y-is gan-cxadebebis safuZvelze, romelTagan SeiZleba arcerTi ar gamocxaddes sasamarTloSi da amitom braldebulma vercerTis jvaredini dakiTxva ver moaxerxos. orma, Ta-visTavad cudma da dauSvebelma, mtkicebulebam ar SeiZ-leba Seqmnas ori kargi mtkicebuleba marto imitom, rom isini erTmaneTTan kombinaciaSi arian.

amitomac Cveni winadadebaa, rom kodeqsis 76-e mux-lis me-3 nawili Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT: `sasa-marTloSi saqmis arsebiTi ganxilvis dros iribi Cveneba dasaSvebi mtkicebulebaa, Tu igi dasturdeba sxva iseTi mtkicebulebiT, romelic ar aris iribi Cveneba~.

6. preiudicia

aseve dazustebas moiTxovs moqmedi saproceso kode-qsiT gaTvaliswinebuli preiudiciis sakiTxic. kerZod, kodeqsis 73-e muxlis `g” qvepunqtis safuZvelze sasa-marTlos kanonier ZalaSi Sesuli ganaCeniT dadgenili faqtobrivi garemoebis gamokvlevis gareSe mtkicebule-bad miReba bevr winaaRmdegobas warmoSobs. gansakuTre-biT saxifaToa saqmis arsebiTi ganxilvis gareSe gamota-nili gamamtyunebeli ganaCenebiT `dadgenili faqtebis~ preiudiciad miCneva, radgan aseT dros mtkicebulebebis gamokvleva ar xdeba da, Sesabamisad, arc faqtebis dad-genas aqvs adgili. amitomac, xarvezis aRmosafxvrelad, saWirod miviCnieT miTiTebul normas daematos daTqma procesis monawileTa mxridan ganaCenis kanonierebasTan dakavSirebiT eWvis uqonlobis Taobaze. aseve, ufro de-talurad unda ganisazRvros mxareTa an sasamarTlos mier preiudiciis uaryofis pirobebi da wesi.

- 13 -

7. sasamarTlo-fsiqiatriuli eqspertizis sakiTxi

aucileblad migvaCnia, rom kodeqsis 105-e muxlis me-2 nawilis “b” qvepunqtidan da 283-e muxlis pirveli nawi-lidan amoRebul iqnas sityva `saxelmwifo~, raTa piris Seuracxadobis dasadastureblad ara mxolod saxelmwifo sasamarTlo-fsiqiatriuli eqspertizis daskvnis warmodge-na iyo aucilebeli, aramed kerZo eqspertizisac. mxolod amgvari midgoma iqneboda gamarTlebuli SejibrebiTobis principiT, romelsac ganamtkicebs moqmedi kodeqsi.

8. sasamarTlo sxdomis oqmi

mniSvnelovani cvlilebebis Setanaa saWiro sasamarT-lo sxdomis oqmis Sesaxeb debulebebSic. arsebuli pra-qtikiT, sasamarTlo sxdomis oqmi mxareebs gadaecemaT sxdomis dasrulebis Semdeg. rodesac sasamarTlos sxdo-ma erT dReze met xans grZeldeba, mxares sxva araferi darCenia, Tu ara daelodos sxdomis damTavrebas, rasac SeiZleba Tveebi dasWirdes. adamianis mexsiereba ar aris ukidegano. droTa ganmavlobaSi Cven gvaviwydeba bevri ram, rasac SeiZleba didi mniSvneloba hqondes procesis SedegisaTvis. amitom saWirod miviCnieT, rom sasamarT-los daekisros valdebuleba sxdomis oqmi moamzados sx-domis gadadebis SemTxvevaSic.

aseve aucileblad migvaCnia sasamarTlos davaldebu-leba sxdomis audioCaweris ganxorcielebis da audioCa-nawerebis mxareTaTvis gadacemis Taobaze. teqnikis gan-viTarebis Tanamedrove etapze es sirTules ar warmoad-gens, marTlmsajulebis jerovnad ganxorcielebisaTvis ki Zalze mniSvnelovania.

nino gvenetaZealeqsandre baramiZe

- 14 -

proeqti

saqarTvelos kanoni saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsSi cvlilebebisa

da damatebebis Setanis Sesaxeb

saqarTvelos sisxlis samarTlis saproceso kodeqsSi (saqarTvelos sakanonmdeblo macne, N31, 03.11.2009, mux. 190) Setanil iqnes Semdegi cvlilebebi da damatebebi:

1. kodeqsis me-10 muxlis me-3 nawili Camoyalibdes Sem-degi redaqciiT:`3. sasamarTloSi, aseve sasamarTlo sxdomis darba-

zSi sisxlis samarTlis saqmis ganxilvis foto-, kino- da videogadaReba da translireba nebadar-Tulia, garda im SemTxvevisa, rodesac amgvari mo-qmedeba xels uSlis marTlmsajulebis procesis normalurad ganxorcielebas. nebadarTulia sasa-marTlo sxdomis stenografireba da audioCawera. sasamarTlos mier am nawilSi dadgenili uflebebi SeiZleba SeizRudos mxolod sasamarTlos moti-virebuli gadawyvetilebiT, romelic SeiZleba ga-saCivrdes mxareTa mier ganaCenTan erTad, xolo mesame piris mier _ administraciuli saproceso kodeqsiT dadgenili wesiT.~.

2. kodeqsis 38-e muxlis me-7 nawili Camoyalibdes Sem-degi redaqciiT:`7. braldebuls ufleba aqvs: damoukideblad an advo-

katis meSveobiT Caataros gamoZieba, moipovos da waradginos mtkicebuleba am kodeqsiT dadgenili wesiT; moiTxovos sagamoZiebo moqmedebis Catareba da gamoiTxovos mtkicebuleba, romelic saWiroa braldebis uarsayofad an pasuxismgeblobis Sesam-subuqeblad; monawileoba miiRos misi an/da misi

- 15 -

advokatis SuamdgomlobiT Catarebul sagamoZiebo moqmedebaSi; moiTxovos advokatis daswreba misi monawileobiT Catarebuli sagamoZiebo moqmede-bis dros. Tu braldebuli gadaxdisuunaroa da daniSnuli hyavs advokati saxelmwifos xarjze, am muxlSi miTiTebuli uflebebis gansaxorciele-blad gaweul xarjebs anazRaurebs saxelmwifo.~.

3. kodeqsis 39-e muxlis pirveli nawili Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:`1. braldebuls ufleba aqvs, sakuTari xarjiT, Tvi-

Ton an/da advokatis daxmarebiT moipovos mtkice-buleba; gamoiTxovos cnoba, daxasiaTeba da sxva dokumenti saxelmwifo an kerZo dawesebulebidan, sawarmodan an organizaciidan, romelic valdebu-lia Seasrulos aseTi moTxovna; isargeblos kerZo deteqtivis momsaxurebiT mtkicebulebis mniS-vnelobis mqone cnobebis misaRebad. braldebulis mier mopovebul mtkicebulebas braldebis mxaris mier mopovebuli mtkicebulebis Tanabari iuri-diuli Zala aqvs.~.

4. kodeqsis 42-e muxlis me-3 da me-4 nawilebi Camoya-libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:`3. Tu braldebulis (msjavrdebulis) advokati arasa-

patio mizeziT ar cxaddeba sasamarTloSi, rac sa-samarTlos SefasebiT aWianurebs sasamarTlo gan-xilvas, sasamarTlo uflebamosilia braldebuls (msjavrdebuls) dauniSnos advokati savaldebulo wesiT, rac ar zRudavs braldebulis (msjavrdebu-lis) uflebas, moiwvios advokati sakuTari survi-liT. braldebulis (msjavrdebulis) mier sakuTa-ri surviliT mowveuli advokatis sasamarTloSi gamocxadebisTanave, savaldebulo wesiT daniSnu-li advokati unda Camoscildes sasamarTlo gan-xilvas.

- 16 -

4. Tu braldebulis (msjavrdebulis) advokati sa-patio mizeziT ar cxaddeba sasamarTloSi, sasa-marTlo sxdomas gadadebs araumetes 10 dRis va-diT. Tu am vadis gasvlis Semdeg advokati kvlav ar gamocxadda sasamarTloSi, moqmedebs am muxlis me-3 nawiliT dadgenili wesi.“.

5. kodeqsis 44-e muxlis me-2 da me-3 nawilebi Camoya-libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:`2. sisxlis samarTlis saqmeSi monawileobisaTvis da-

saSvebad advokati waradgens orders da Tavis mowmobas. saqarTvelos advokatTa asociaciis TanxmobiT damcvelad SeiZleba daSvebul iqnes ucxoeli advokati.

3. advokats ufleba aqvs, am kodeqsiT dadgenil far-glebSi da dadgenili wesiT gaecnos braldebis mxaris mtkicebulebebs, miiRos mtkicebulebisa da sisxlis samarTlis saqmis masalebis, maT Soris gamokiTxvis oqmebis aslebi, agreTve isargeblos braldebulis yvela uflebiT da am kodeqsiT ga-Tvaliswinebuli sxva uflebebiT.~.

6. kodeqsis 72-e muxlis me-5 nawili Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`5. mtkicebulebad dauSveblad cnobis sakiTxs wyvets sasamarTlo. sasamarTlo gadawyvetileba dasabu-Tebuli unda iyos.“.

7. kodeqsis 73-e muxlis `g” qvepunqti Camoyalibdes Sem-degi redaqciiT:

`g) sxva sisxlis samarTlis saqmeze saqmis arsebiTad ganxilvis Sedegad gamotanili ganaCeniT dadge-nili faqtobrivi garemoebebi da maTi samarTle-brivi Sefaseba, Tu procesis arc erTi monawile saeWvod ar xdis am ganaCenis kanonierebas;“.

8. kodeqsis 73-e muxls daematos me-2 nawili da Camoya-

- 17 -

libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:`2. mxaris iniciativiT, sasamarTlom SeiZleba uaryos

preiudiciulad dadgenili faqti, Tu es faqti ewinaaRmdegeba sasamarTloSi mtkicebulebaTa ga-mokvlevis Sedegebs.~.

9. kodeqsis 75-e muxls daematos me-3 nawili da Camoya-libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`3. mowmis Cveneba dauSvebeli mtkicebulebaa, Tu am mowmis gamokiTxvis oqmi ar gadaeca meore mxares am kodeqsis 83-e muxliT dadgenili wesis Sesaba-misad.~.

10. kodeqsis 76-e muxlis me-2 da me-3 nawilebi Camoya-libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`2. iribi Cveneba dasaSvebi mtkicebulebaa mxolod im SemTxvevaSi, Tu iribi Cvenebis mimcemi piri miu-TiTebs informaciis wyaros, romlis identifici-reba da realurad arsebobis Semowmeba SesaZlebe-lia.

3. sasamarTloSi saqmis arsebiTi ganxilvis dros iribi Cveneba dasaSvebi mtkicebulebaa, Tu igi dastur-deba sxva iseTi mtkicebulebiT, romelic ar aris iribi Cveneba.~.

11. kodeqsis 105-e muxlis me-2 nawilis `b~ qvepunqti Ca-moyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`b) piri danaSaulis Cadenisas Seuracxi iyo, rac da-dasturebulia sasamarTlo-fsiqiatriuli eqsper-tizis daskvniT;~.

12. kodeqsis 111-e muxlis pirveli da me-2 nawilebi Ca-moyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`1. mxareebs am kodeqsiT dadgenili wesiT sagamoZiebo moqmedebis Catarebisas aqvT Tanabari ufleba-mo-valeobebi. mxareebi sagamoZiebo moqmedebebs ata-reben am kodeqsiT dadgenili wesiT da dadgenil

- 18 -

farglebSi. dacvis mxaris dasabuTebuli Suamd-gomlobiT sasamarTlos ganCinebis safuZvelze sagamoZiebo moqmedebas atarebs gamomZiebeli, romelic ar SeiZleba iyos igive piri, vinc moce-mul saqmeze awarmoebs saqmis gamoZiebas, garda im SemTxvevisa, rodesac saamisod arsebobs dacvis mxaris Tanxmoba. am SemTxvevaSi, sagamoZiebo moq-medebis CatarebasTan dakavSirebuli xarjebi ekis-reba braldebuls, garda im SemTxvevisa, rodesac braldebuli sasamarTlos warudgens mtkicebule-bebs, romlebiTac dadasturdeba mis mier aseTi xarjebis gadaxdis SeuZlebloba.

2. dacvis mxaris ufleba, mimarTos SuamdgomlobiT sasamarTlos sagamoZiebo moqmedebis Catarebis moTxovniT, ar vrceldeba am kodeqsis 112-e muxlis me-5 nawiliT gaTvaliswinebul garemoebebze.~.

13. kodeqsis 195-e muxlis:a) pirveli nawilis Semdeg daematos Semdegi Sinaarsis 11 nawili:

`11. sasamarTlo valdebulia ganaxorcielos sxdomis audio Cawera. mxaris moTxovnis SemTxvevaSi, kom-paqtdiski sxdomis audioCanaweriT mxares unda ga-daeces sasamarTlo sxdomis dasrulebisTanave an, Tu sxdoma sxva dRisTvis gadaido, sxdomis gada-debisTanave.~ ;

b) me-2 da me-5 nawilebi Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:`2. sasamarTlo sxdomis Tavmjdomarem da mdivanma

sasamarTlo sxdomis damTavrebidan an, sxdomis gadadebis SemTxvevaSi, sxdomis gadadebidan ara ugvianes 5 dRisa xeli unda moaweron oqms, rac dauyovnebliv unda acnobon mxareebs.

5. SeniSvnebis ganxilvis Semdeg sasamarTlos gamoa-qvs ganCineba, romliTac adasturebs SeniSvnebis siswores an uaryofs maT. oqmze SeniSvnebi da sa-

- 19 -

samarTlos ganCineba daerTvis saqmes. SeniSvnebis warmdgen mxares SeuZlia gaasaCivros sasamarTlos ganCineba sasamarTlos ganaCenTan erTad.~.

14. kodeqsis 207-e muxlis pirveli da me-2 nawilebi Ca-moyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`1. aRkveTis RonisZiebis gamoyenebis, Secvlis an gau-qmebis Sesaxeb ganCineba SeiZleba erTjeradad, misi gamotanidan 48 saaTSi saapelacio sasamarT-los sagamoZiebo kolegiaSi gaasaCivros proku-rorma, braldebulma da/an misma advokatma. saCi-vari Seitaneba ganCinebis gamomtan sasamarTloSi, romelic am saCivarsa da masalebs dauyovnebliv ugzavnis Sesabamis sasamarTlos gansjadobis mixe-dviT. gasaCivreba ar aCerebs ganCinebis aRsrule-bas.

2. saCivarSi unda aRiniSnos, ra moTxovnebi iqna darR-veuli gasaCivrebuli gadawyvetilebis miRebisas da riT gamoixata gasaCivrebuli gadawyvetilebis debulebaTa mcdaroba. aRkveTis RonisZiebasTan dakavSirebul saCivarSi SesaZloa aseve mieTiTos, ra arsebiTi mniSvnelobis mqone sakiTxebi da mtki-cebulebebi ar gamoikvlia pirveli instanciis sa-samarTlom, romlebsac SeeZlo zegavlena moexdi-na pirisaTvis aRkveTis RonisZiebis Sefardebis marTlzomierebaze.“.

15. kodeqsis 283-e muxlis pirveli nawili, `a~ qvepunq-tamde, Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`1. im msjavrdebulis mimarT, romelsac sasjelad dae-niSna Tavisuflebis aRkveTa, ganaCenis aRsruleba SeiZleba gadaavados ganaCenis gamomtanma sasa-marTlom sasamarTlo-samedicino eqspertizis daskvnis safuZvelze, imave ganaCeniT, xolo misi gamotanis Semdeg – zepiri mosmenis gareSe, ganCi-nebiT, Semdegi safuZvlebis arsebobisas:“.

- 20 -

16. kodeqsis 292-e muxlis me-2 da me-3 nawilebi Camoya-libdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`2. saapelacio saCivris Setanis ufleba aqvT bralm-debels, zemdgom prokurors, msjavrdebuls da/an mis advokats.

3. msjavrdebulis advokats da/an msjavrdebuls, romlis mimarT gamamtyunebeli ganaCeni mis dauswreblad iqna gamotanili, ufleba aqvT, gaa-saCivron ganaCeni msjavrdebulis dapatimrebidan an saTanado organoebSi gamocxadebidan erTi Tvis vadaSi.”.

17. kodeqsis 300-e muxlis 2 da me-3 nawilebi Camoyalibdes Semdegi redaqciiT:

`2. sakasacio saCivris Setanis ufleba aqvT bralmde-bels, zemdgom prokurors, msjavrdebuls da/an mis advokats.

3. msjavrdebulis advokats da/an msjavrdebuls, romlis mimarT gamamtyunebeli ganaCeni mis dauswreblad iqna gamotanili, ufleba aqvT, gaa-saCivron ganaCeni msjavrdebulis dapatimrebidan an saTanado organoebSi gamocxadebis momentidan erTi Tvis vadaSi.”.

18. kodeqsis 312-e muxlis me-2 nawili Camoyalibdes Sem-degi redaqciiT:

`2. axlad gamovlenil garemoebaTa gamo ganaCenis ga-dasinjvis Suamdgomlobis dayenebis ufleba aqvT prokurors, msjavrdebuls da/an mis advokats, xolo msjavrdebulis gardacvalebis SemTxvevaSi – mis kanonier memkvidres da/an mis advokats.~.

- 21 -

EXPLANATORY NOTES

The proposed amendments cover a number of important issues which, in our opinion, are either improperly addressed in the current Criminal Procedure Code (CCP), or in this respect the judicial practice has been moving in a wrong direction.

This package does not include any amendments which may have something to do with the institutes of victim, plea agreement and jury trial. Many would agree that all the three institutes need some changes. However, we believe that those institutes are rather sophisticated ones and, therefore, require some more profound and thorough analysis. We will start working on these topics early next year.

1. Principle of trial in public

The current law of Georgia provides some disproportionately strict rules in terms of limiting the right to a public trial. Such constraints are in conflict with Article 24 of the Constitution of Georgia, as well as Article 6 § 1 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As the European Court of Human Rights has explained it, Article 6 § 1 sets a presumption that any case should be tried in the presence of pub-lic, including media. The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny. By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society (see Axen v. Germany, 1983).

The public character of judicial proceedings also renders the press an opportunity to perform its role of “public watchdog” guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. It would be very difficult, if not impos-

- 22 -

sible, for the press to perform such a role, if media was deprived of a right to make audio or video records of proceedings, broadcast trials and the like.

Obviously, the right of an individual to have trial of his case open to the public, including media, is not an absolute one and it may be subject to some restrictions. However, as the European Court of Human Rights has noted, the right of the public, including media, to attend the trial may be restricted only in such cases when the particular circumstances of the case strictly require so. When the closure of the proceedings is being considered, it should be determined how proportionate such a measure would be of the legitimate aim which is pursued by such clo-sure (Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, 1984).

In view of the above principles, we deemed it appropriate to suggest some important changes to Article 10, Paragraph 3, of the current CPC. We understand that such changes would be impossible to enact if an analogous amendment was not made to Article 13, Paragraph 4, of the Organic Law on General Courts. Therefore, we believe the said legislative act should be similarly amended.

2. Principle of Adversarial Trial

It is broadly believed that by adopting the current CPC the legislator aimed to introduce a principle of adversarial trial in Georgia. How-ever, as the practice of Georgian courts has shown, this goal of the legislator has not been realized quite well by the courts.

The said principle, in addition to many other factors, includes the idea that the defense, just like the prosecution, has a right to collect evidence. This is a condition sine qua non of an effective adversarial trial. This is exactly why in Article 38, Paragraph 7, the legislator has provided the defense’s right to carry out private investigation; to law-fully obtain and present evidence in accordance with the rules set forth in this Code; to request obligatory conduct of an investigative action

- 23 -

and to request submission of evidence necessary for negating charges or alleviating criminal responsibility; to participate in the investiga-tive action carried out on a motion of defendant and/or that of his/her defense counsel; to request that a defense counsel attends investiga-tive action where defendant is to participate. Article 39, Paragraph 1, further provides that the evidence collected by a defendant has equal legal force to that collected by the prosecution. Moreover, under Para-graph 2 of Article 39, if the collection of evidence requires an inves-tigative or other procedural action, which cannot be performed by the defendant or his/her defense counsel, defense is authorized to file a motion with a judge having jurisdiction over the investigation place requesting the issuance of a relevant order. The judge should make every effort not to disclose the fact of collection of evidence by the defense to the prosecution.

In this context, it must be noted that Article 111, Paragraph 2, of the CPC deprives the defense of the right to conduct such investigative actions as search and seizure and declares those to be an exclusive prerogative of the prosecution. There are some other provisions which place the defense in an apparently disadvantageous situation vis-à-vis the prosecution. For example, under Article 33, Paragraph 6, Subpara-graph “m” (according to the Georgian numbering „n“) the prosecutor is authorized to request the submission of documentation and receive them without any obstacle from the state agencies. Such a right - to “receive materials without any obstacles” - is not reserved for the de-fense though.

Such disparity might only be overcome if judge had a good will to use his or her authority under the above-referenced Article 39, Paragraph 2, and grant the defense’s motion for certain investigative or other procedural actions. However, as the judicial practice has shown, at the preliminary investigation stage, the most of defense’s motions for investigative and other procedural actions aimed at the collection of evidence have been rejected due to the fact that the courts have been interpreting such motions as ones for conducting seizures. And as al-

- 24 -

ready noted above, both seizure and search fall within the exclusive ambit of the prosecution.

We believe that such an improper practice may be remedied, on the one hand, by adding to the existing CPC some more procedural guar-antees for the defense which will secure for the defense a right to request and obtain from the public and/or private institutions and in-dividuals any evidence and/or documents; and, on the other hand, by abolishing the search-and-seizure prohibition and entitling the defense to appeal to the court with a search/seizure motion provided that if the motion is granted the search and seizure will be conducted by the public investigative officers.

The principle of procedural equality of the parties and the defense’s right to conduct its own investigation secure the defendant’s and his/her counsel’s right to obtain evidence under Article 38 of the CPC in such cases too when the defendant is indigent and a counsel for him is appointed at the State’s expense.

The current edition of the CPC does not provide any instructions about investigation costs necessary for investigative actions to be taken by the defendant and his counsel appointed at the State’s expense. This shortcoming actually deprives the defendant of a chance to exercise such a right. At the first glance it may seem that the provision of Ar-ticle 46, Paragraph 4, which says that “If defense is conducted at the expense of the state, the State shall also bear other expenses necessary for the defense according rule set by Georgian legislation, if these expenses are in direct connection with exercising the defendant’s right to a defense”, deals with this issue. However, it leaves unanswered the question what exactly is meant in the phrase “other expenses neces-sary for the defense”, and whether or not it implies the rights provided in Article 37, Paragraph 7.

The proposed amendments clearly prescribe that the costs of investi-gative actions taken by the defendant and/or his counsel appointed at the State’s expense should be covered by the State.

- 25 -

3. Rights of a Defense Counsel

Some changes are proposed to the provisions governing the legal sta-tus of a defense counsel (Articles 44, 292, 300 and 312). Incorrect interpretation of those have raised lots of problems in practice and prevented defense counsels from doing their job in a timely and ef-fective manner. In particular, some different technical problems and inefficiency of public authorities (especially when it is necessary to provide legal aid to the detained defendants in days off) make it im-possible for a defense counsel to obtain from his or her client a pro-forma agreement to the counsel-drafted documents. We, therefore, considered it necessary to remove from the CPC the counsel’s obliga-tion to obtain such an agreement. At the same time, we extended the circle of persons who have a right to file appeals in the appellate courts and the cassation court: in addition to the defendant, this right should be vested in his or her defense counsel as well.

Finally, with a proposed new edition of Article 44, Paragraph 4, we are willing to broaden the defense counsel’s rights to enable him or her to defend his or her client in a most effective and efficient way.

The present edition of the CPC does not provide any special guidance regarding the participation of foreign defense counsels in criminal proceedings which, in our view, unlawfully and disproportionately re-stricts the defendant’s right to select and appoint a defense counsel in accordance with his will. We propose to provide the defendant with a right to invite a foreign counsel, in which case he or she should obtain consent from the Georgian Bar Association.

4. Records of Interviews

The proposed edition of Article 75, Paragraph 3, secures for the parties a right to request and obtain from the other party records of interviews in a timely manner, in accordance with Article 83 of the CPC. It has been a popular idea among the government officials that a record of

- 26 -

interview may not be regarded as evidence and, therefore, should not be passed to the other party under Article 83 of the CPC. It has also been believed that a party may interview an individual without devel-oping a record of such an interview as if there was no duty to draw up a record.

The fact is that interview is one of the investigative actions provided by the CPC. The rules for conducting an interview, as one of the vari-eties of investigative actions, are provided in Article 113 of the CPC which is included in Chapter 15 titled “Investigative Actions”. Fur-thermore, Article 113, Paragraph 3, expressly provides that “Prior to the questioning/interview, the identity of a person to be interviewed and other necessary information shall be established and reported in the record of the interview”.

Article 134 of the CPC sets for some general provisions regarding the records of investigative actions. Paragraph 1 of the said article impera-tively requires: “The record of investigative action shall be drawn up during the investigative action or upon its completion”. This require-ment applies to all investigative actions, including interviews, and it does not contain any exception whereby it would allow a party not to draw up a record of interview.

Moreover, Article 135, Paragraph 1, sets for some particular require-ments that should be met while drawing up a record of interview: “The record of an interview/questioning shall indicate a name, surname, age, citizenship, background, place of employment, occupation and/or position, place of residence, family status of a person to be inter-viewed, his/her relations with the defendant and/or victim, substance of information provided, and his/her attitude towards appearing and testifying in the court”.

The provisions referred to and quoted above leave no questions as to whether a record of interview is or is not a mandatory document, whether it should or should not be regarded as evidence and, as such, whether it should or should not be passed to the other party under the

- 27 -

provisions of Article 83 of the CPC. A record of interview not only is evidence, in some cases it may become one of crucial importance for any party. Without such evidence how does a party know what a wit-ness of the opposite party is going to say in the court? Or how could that party prepare for the cross-examination of such a witness? Or how could such a party examine and challenge the credibility of a witness if that party has no record at hand which would document the state-ments made by such a witness during the preliminary investigation?

In this context we must recall Article 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that ev-eryone charged with a criminal offence must “have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”. If the defense has no time and opportunity to adequately review the record of interview of any person who is going to be called and examined as a witness by the op-posite party, it is clear that with respect to such a witness the defense will not be availed of the opportunity to exercise its right under Article 6(3)(b) of the Convention.

5. Problem of Indirect Testimony

The threat which is associated with this kind of testimony is that it renders possibility that a court may derive a guilty judgment, even in conjunction with some other evidence, from the statement(s) of such an individual who may not appear in person in the court and may not be examined there as a witness. This, in turn, means that in that case the defendant will not have an opportunity to cross-examine this wit-ness and, thereby, verify his or her sincerity, honesty, truthfulness of his or her statements, etc.

It is clear, therefore, that there should be some solid procedural guaran-tees with respect to the admissibility of an indirect testimony. It should not be disputed that while delivering a guilty judgment the likelihood of error is much greater in cases when the judgment is based on the in-

- 28 -

direct testimony than in cases when it is based on a regular testimony and/or any other otherwise admissible evidence. Here again we should recall Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whose Paragraph 1 guarantees the right to adversarial process and Paragraph 3, Subparagraph (d) secures for the defendant the right “to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”. Naturally, with respect to an individual who is not called and examined in the court, the defendant will have no op-portunity to exercise the above rights.

It is unclear what it means to have an indirect testimony supported by “other evidence”. First of all, we should recall that before the amend-ments of 24 September 2010, the indirect testimony should have been supported “by the body of other evidence”. The singular case applied in the current edition indicates that the existence of just one “other evidence” may suffice. Another reason for concern is that there is no indication to what one should understand by that “other evidence”. Does it imply, for example, another indirect testimony? If yes, then the defendant may be exposed to a very serious threat that he or she may be found guilty based on, at least, two indirect testimonies. In other words, he or she may be subject to a guilty judgment based on the testimonies of X and Y of whom none may have been appeared in the court and, therefore, the defendant may have been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine any of those two. Two, by itself, bad and inadmissible testimonies should not make two good and admissible testimonies just because they may support each other.

We, therefore, propose that Article 76, Paragraph 3, be amended to read as follows: “During the substantial consideration of a case by the court, indirect testimony shall be admissible evidence if supported by any other evidence that is not an indirect testimony”.

- 29 -

6. Judicial Notice

The question of judicial notice in the present edition of the CPC also needs some corrections. In particular, the provision of Article 73, Para-graph (c) – whereby any factual circumstance established by a res judi-cata court judgment shall be accepted as evidence without examination – may give rise to lots of problems. The biggest danger resides in a pos-sibility to take as granted the “factual circumstances established” in a court judgment which may have been delivered without any substantive consideration of the case and, therefore, without proper examination of evidence and establishing of facts, as such. To remove this shortcoming, we found it necessary to add to the above provision a condition that there should be no objection from the parties to the trial with respect to the lawfulness of the court judgment in question. In addition, the condi-tions and rules of the parties’ or the court’s disagreement with the judi-cial notice should be defined in a greater detail.

7. Question of Forensic Psychiatric Expertise

We found it necessary to remove from both Article 105, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph (b), and Article 283 the identifier “state” to enable a party to prove the defendant’s competence and mental state not only based on a state forensic psychiatric expert report, but also on a pri-vate expert report. Only such an approach would be in line with the requirements of adversarial trial which is said to be a key underlying principle of the present CPC.

8. Record of the Court Session

Some important changes should be made to the provisions regarding the records of the court sessions. Under the existing practice, the re-cords of the court sessions are passed to the parties after the comple-tion of trial. When the trial lasts for longer than a day, all the parties

EXPLANATORY NOTES

- 30 -

have to do is to wait until the trial is over, which may require waiting for months. Human memory is not limitless. With the passing of time we forget many things which might be important to remember if we are looking forward to the positive outcomes of the process. We, there-fore, found it reasonable to oblige the courts to prepare the record of the session in such cases too when the session is adjourned.

It is also necessary to oblige the courts to make audio records of the sessions and to pass the copies of those to the parties. This should not be difficult to do at the present stage of technological development. At the same time, it is very important for the proper administration of justice.

Nino GvenetadzeAlexander Baramidze

- 31 -

Draft

LAW OF GEORGIA ON THE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CODE OF GEORGIA

The following changes and additions shall be made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Sakartvelos Sakanonmdeblo Matsne, 31, 03.11.2009, Art. 190):

1. Paragraph 3 of Article 10 shall read as follows:“3. Photo, film, and video recording and airing of the criminal court hearing at the court building, as well as in the court room shall be allowed, except where any such action may prevent the normal administration of justice. Stenographic and audio record-ing of the trial shall be allowed. The rights set forth in this para-graph may be restricted by a court’s reasoned decision which may be appealed by the parties together with the court’s judg-ment and/or by any third person in accordance with the rules es-tablished by the Administrative Procedure Code.”

2. Paragraph 7 of Article 38 shall read as follows:“7. A defendant shall be authorized to carry out his/her private investigation independently or with assistance of a defense coun-sel, to lawfully obtain and present evidence in accordance with the rules sets forth by this Code; to request obligatory conduct of an investigative action and to request submission of evidence necessary for negating charges or alleviating criminal responsi-bility; to participate in the investigative action carried out on his/her motion and/or a motion of his/her defense counsel. A defen-dant shall also have the right to request that his/her defense coun-sel attends investigative action where defendant is to participate. If the defendant is indigent and he/she has a counsel appointed at the State’s expense, all costs associated with the exercise of rights set forth in this article shall be covered by the State.”

- 32 -

3. Paragraph 1 of Article 39 shall read as follows:“1. A defendant shall have the right to collect evidence person-ally or through his/her defense counsel at his/her own expense; to request any notice, characterization or any other document from any public or private institution, company or organization which shall have a duty to implement such a request; to enjoy services from a private detective in order to obtain any information of evidentiary importance. The evidence collected by a defendant shall have equal legal force to that collected by the prosecution.”

4. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 42 shall read as follows:“3. If defendant’s (convict’s) defense counsel fails to appear be-fore the court without any valid reason, which is considered by the court to be an unjustified delay in proceedings, the court shall have the authority to appoint counsel to the defendant (convict) on a mandatory basis, which shall not restrict defendant (con-vict) right to choose defense counsel on his/her own. Once de-fense council of defendant’s (convict’s) choosing appears before the court, defense counsel appointed on a mandatory basis shall withdraw from the proceedings.4. If defense counsel for defendant (convict) fails to appear before the court for a valid reason, the court shall adjourn the session for not more than 10 days. If after the expiration of this period de-fense counsel still fails to appear before the court, the provision of Paragraph 3 above shall apply.”

5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 44 shall read as follows:“2. A defense counsel shall present his/her credentials and the certificate of a defense attorney for his/her participation in crimi-nal proceedings. With the consent of the Georgian Bar Associa-tion a foreign attorney may be admitted as a defense counsel.3. A defense counsel shall have right for discovery of the prose-cution evidence within the limits and procedure envisaged by this code, obtain copies of evidence and criminal case files, including records of interviews, also enjoy all the rights of a defendant and other rights provided for by this Code.”

- 33 -

6. Paragraph 5 of Article 72 shall read as follows:“5. The court shall decide the issue of inadmissibility of the evi-dence. The court’s decision shall be reasoned.”

7. Subparagraph (c) of Article 73 shall read as follows:“(c) Factual circumstances established by a court judgment in an-other criminal case delivered after the substantive consideration of the case, provided no party to the trial questions legitimacy of such a judgment;”

8. A new Paragraph 2 shall be added to Article 73 to read as follows:“2. On any party’s initiative, the court may reject any fact taken as a judicial notice if this fact contradicts the results of the court’s examination of evidence.”

9. A new Paragraph 3 shall be added to Article 75 to read as follows:“3. A witness testimony shall be inadmissible evidence if the re-cord of interview of this witness has not been passed to the other party under the procedures set forth in Article 83 above.”

10. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 76 shall read as follows:“2. An indirect testimony shall be admissible only if the testify-ing person indicates information source which can be identified and actual existence of which may be verified.3. During the substantial consideration of a case by the court, in-direct evidence shall be admissible evidence if supported by any other evidence that is not an indirect testimony.”

11. Paragraph 2(b) of Article 105 shall read as follows:“(b) the unlawful act was committed by a person in the mentally incompetent state and it is proved by the result of a forensic psy-chiatric examination;”

12. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 111 shall read as follows:“The parties have equal rights and obligations during the conduct of investigative actions. The parties shall conduct investigative actions according to the rule established by this Code and within its frames. Upon the defense’s reasoned motion and the court’s

- 34 -

decision an investigative action shall be conducted by investi-gator who may not be the same person as one in charge of the investigation in the given case, except when the defense agrees thereto. In this case, any costs associated with the conduct of in-vestigative action shall be covered by defendant, except when defendant presents to the court some evidence whereby he/she may prove his/her inability to cover such costs.2. The defense’s right to file a motion with the court for the con-duct of investigative action shall not apply to the circumstances stipulated in Article 115, Paragraph 5, of this Code.”

13. A new Paragraph 11 shall be added to Article 195, after Paragraph 1, to read as follows:“11. The court shall be obliged to conduct audio recording of the court session. Upon a party’s request, a compact disk with the audio record of the session shall be provided to such a party im-mediately upon the completion of the session or, if the session is adjourned to another day, immediately after the announcement of adjournment.”

Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 195 shall read as follows:“2. Within five days of the completion of the court session, or, if the session is adjourned to another day, within five days after the announcement of adjournment the presiding judge and the secretary of the court session shall sign the record and notify the parties thereof.”“5. After considering the remarks the court shall render an order, either approving the remarks or rejecting them. The remarks to the record and the relevant court order shall be annexed to the case file. The party that presented the remarks may appeal the court order at the time of appealing the court’s judgment.”

14. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 207 shall read as follows:“1. The order on applying replacing, or revoking a preventive measure may be appealed once by the prosecutor, the defendant and/or his/her defense counsel within 48 hours from the moment

- 35 -

it was issued, to the investigative panel of an appellate court. An appeal shall be filed with the court whose order is appealed. Ap-peal and case materials shall be immediately forwarded to the court of relevant jurisdiction. The appeal shall not suspend en-forcement of the order. 2. The appeal should specify what requirements were violated when the appealed order was issued and outline the errors of the appealed order. Appeal may also include what substantial issues and evidence was not examined by the first instance court which could have had impact on applying a legitimate preventive mea-sure against the defendant.”

15. Paragraph 1 of Article 283, before Subparagraph (a), shall read as follows:“1. Based on the report of a forensic medical examination, execu-tion of a judgment convicting a person to deprivation of liberty may be postponed by the trial court, and such decision shall be noted in the judgment itself. In case the judgment is already is-sued, its execution may be postponed by a court order without an oral hearing, if one of the following grounds exist:”

16. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 292 shall read as follows:“2. Appeal may be filed by prosecutor, superior prosecutor, con-vict and/or his/her defense counsel.” “3. Defense counsel of a convict and/or convict, who was con-victed in absentia, may appeal the judgment within one month from the moment when s/he gets arrested or appears before the relevant agencies.”

17. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 300 shall read as follows:“2. The cassation appeal may be filed by prosecutor, superior prosecutor, convict and/or his/her defense counsel.”“3. Defense counsel of a convict and/or convict who was con-victed in absentia, may appeal the judgment within one month from the moment s/he is arrested or when s/he appears before the relevant agencies.”

- 36 -

18. Paragraph 2 of Article 312 shall read as follows:“2. The prosecutor, convict and/or his/her defense counsel, and if the convicted person has died – his/her legal successor and/or his/her counsel, shall have the right to file a motion to re-examine the judgment due to newly discovered circumstances.”.