IDFI calls on the Georgian government to transfer normative acts required by Article 126 of the new law to the Parliament within the legally established deadline.
IDFI Director Giorgi Kldiashvili took part in a human rights conference titled On the Frontline: Human Rights Situation in the EaP Countries. The topics discussed include: human rights challenges in the EaP countries and international mechanisms; human rights defenders: best practices in campaigning, networking and fundraising; and human rights monitoring and protection in conflict zones.
Lately, a number of high-ranking political officials have made statements about constitutional claims having been altered, with some demanding a launch of investigation. The Georgian Parliament has requested the Constitutional Court to recuse several judges from two constitutional cases (so-called Cables-Ugulava and the Rustavi 2 cases), also citing possibly altered claims. In addition, lawyers of the Rustavi 2 case have appealed to the Constitutional Court to also recuse judges from their case because of their public statements. Considering the importance of the issue, IDFI decided to prepare a legal analysis of the situation based on information requested from the Constitutional Court.
The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution recognizing access to internet as a fundamental and basic human right. The resolution “affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”.
The US Freedom of Information Act is a federal law that sets the standards for disclosure of documents and information held by public institutions. It defines the concept of public information and regulates the exceptions for the disclosure of information. This article by IDFI examines the latest amendments to the Freedom of Information Act that significantly improve the access to public information.
In April, 2016, the Public Defender published the 2015 report on the state of human rights and freedoms in Georgia, including freedom of information. The right to freely receive and distribute information is guaranteed by Articles 24 and 41 of the Constitution.
On the following link please find the summary of the case IDFI vs MIA. The article reviews decisions of Tbilisi City Court, Tbilisi Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Georgia. All three instances of court held MIA responsible for disclosing information on salary supplements and bonuses received by high-ranking officials.
Coalition for Independent and Transparent Judiciary issued the statements that includes the opinion of the coalition member organizations - on legislative package drafted for reforming the Code of Administrative Violations - consideration of which will strengthen the implementation process of the reform.
On the 27th of October an amendment was made to the Georgian legislation, which highlights that public access will be restricted to the asset declarations of those high-ranking public officials the position of which has been classified as secret information according to the Law on State Secrecy.
Access to court decisions in Georgia has recently deteriorated. Even different branches of the judiciary cannot agree on the rules for disclosing these decisions. The following is IDFI’s attempt to examine international best practice in this regard, and develop recommendations for Georgia.