The report prepared by IDFI and EMC with the financial support from EU analyzes the implementation of the activities of the Judicial Strategy and Action Plan (developed based on the requirements of EU-Georgia association agenda) which deal with the most compelling and pressing issues of the judicial system reform: (1) Reform of the High School of Justice; (2) Selection and appointment of judges and other career advancement issues; (3) Reform of the system of liability of judges; (4) Institutional organization of the High Council of Justice and regulation of its activities; (5) Transparency of the Court system.
In overall, this document assesses one-year work of responsible agencies and evaluates the implementation of up to 100 activities. Monitoring revealed the following key findings and challenges:
- The objectives and strategic programs described in the Judicial Strategy and the Action Plan mostly respond to current challenges in the court system; However, the Action Plan does not entail a range of substantial and crucial issues;
- The High Council of Justice defined the organizational instructions for the implementation of the Strategy and the Action Plan 5 months after the approval of these documents. The instructions include a number of flaws and questionable provisions;
- Stakeholders, including representatives of international and local organizations are allowed to attend workgroup sessions only through voting;
- The workgroups met only 11 times within a year after the adoption of the organizational instruction for implementing the Strategy and the Action Plan;
- Deadlines to prepare implementation reports of the Strategy and the Action Plan changed several times due to the ineffective performance of the workgroups;
- 53% of the Action Plan activities assessed during the monitoring period are unfulfilled, 20% - partially fulfilled, 26% - fulfilled. No status was assigned to one activity;
- The one-year implementation progress report published by the High Council of Justice is mostly technical in terms of its contents and does not offer comprehensive information;
- The role of the High Council of Justice – as the responsible agency – is unclear in the implementation of most of the activities considered by the Council to be fulfilled.
Regulating Inadmissible Content – What does the Constitutional Court decision of 2 August 2019 Change09.08.2019
Statement of NGOs on the Charges Made Against former Director-General of Rustavi 2, Nika Gvaramia09.08.2019
Sentencing Zviad Kuprava to Imprisonment Is a Dangerous Precedent of Restricting Freedom of Expression02.08.2019