OPCAT--GEORGIA WORKS ON IMPROVING PRISON CONDITIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 034314

SIPDIS

SIPDIS - FOR MINSK

THE FOLLOWING TBILISI 00546 DTD 02APR08 SENT ACTION
INFO EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE REPEATED FOR
YOUR INFORMATION 03APR08


QUOTE:


C O N F I D E N T I A L TBILISI 000546

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/CARC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2018
TAGS: PHUM PREL GG
SUBJECT: OPCAT--GEORGIA WORKS ON IMPROVING PRISON CONDITIONS

Classified By: Ambassador John F. Tefft for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (SBU) In June 2007 The Government of Georgia created an
Inter-agency Coordination Council to address the issue of
torture in prisons and other closed facilities. On March 31,
this council met for the first time since September 2007 to
discuss the action plan to implement the Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). One of the key
issues was the impending designation of the Public Defender's
Office (PDO) as the independent monitoring body (or National
Preventive Mechanism). According to NGOs who are experts on
prison issues, the appointment of the Public Defender as the
NPM should not occur by Presidential Decree, as suggested by
the Committee Chairman Giga Bokeria, but by amending the
current law on the Organic Responsibilities of the Public
Defender to give him and his office the authority and the
funding to take on these new responsibilities. Without
amending the law, the PDO could run the risk of having the
monitoring function without the authority or means to
implement it. Although the final decision has not been made,
Bokeria appeared resolute that the Presidential Decree
decision would prevail. End Summary.

Inter-Agency Council
--------------


2. (SBU) Georgia signed the Optional Protocol to the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT),part of the United
Nations Convention Against Torture, in June 2006.
Signatories were responsible for implementing an Action Plan
within one year of signing OPCAT. In June 2007, a
Presidential Decree created the Inter-agency Coordination
Council whose responsibilities were to designate an
independent body (or National Prevention Mechanism (NPM)) to
monitor all closed facilities (prisons, jails, pre-trial
detention facilities, psychiatric hospitals, or facilities
where detained and vulnerable persons are at risk) and to
submit to Parliament an action plan.


3. (SBU) The council, which met three times last September,
recently took up its duties again, with newly appointed
members to include civil society, NGOS, and international
observers. The Inter-Agency Council is made up Georgian
ministry representatives, Georgian NGOS and Civil Society
members and four international members representing the
United Nations Human Rights Office, United Nations
International Children and Education Fund (UNICEF),Penal
Reform International (PRI),and the U.S. Embassy. The
Council's de facto chairperson is MP and influential insider
Giga Bokeria and the co-chair Tina Burjaliani, Deputy
Minister of Justice (MOJ). Accordingly to the decree, the
council is to meet once every three months, or more often if
called. By decree, the council should have appointed and
voted on a facilitator at the first meeting in September, but
Bokeria became the de facto chairman. Prior meetings have
been ad hoc, due in nature to the political events of Fall

2007. Recently the council was reconvened with some newly
appointed members to continue working on the action plan.
The plan, which was based on other European models, included
some, but not all recommendations given by members.

The Action Plan
--------------


4. (SBU) The action plan, which includes provisions for
2008 and 2009, is divided into seven sections that address
medical care, promotion of public awareness, enhancement of
safeguards to eradicate torture/maltreatment, and training of
representatives from relative bodies. The primary criticisms
of the plan from NGOs are the lack of measurable benchmarks
with projected completion dates, the absence of complete
baseline information, and insufficient projected timelines in
which to complete the tasks. More than half the tasks on the
25 page document are listed as "continuous" for completion
date. The closed facilities which would require monitoring
are spread among the Ministries of Education, Internal
Affairs, Defense, and Health, Labor and Social Affairs.
Gathering all of this data for complete baseline information
is a formidable task which will not be done easily, as there
is currently no one single focal point. Lastly, the action
plan is only projected through 2009, which PRI underscored as
a minus given the reforms which need to be done and can not
be done within in a mere year. Bokeria's reasoning is that
the hard tasks should be tackled first and if needed the
council will extend the timeline, but not at the outset.

The Means: National Prevention Mechanism (NPM)
-------------- --


5. (SBU) A critical part of OPCAT is the NPM which is the
independent body which oversees monitoring. All agree that
this body should not be subordinate to the MOJ, given that
the prisons are generally its responsibility, but an
organization which would be truly independent, such as the
Public Defender's Office (PDO). Civil Society and Public
Defender's Office representatives support amendments to the
law which would broaden PDO's authority and resources to do
the job which would have a permanent framework. A
Presidential decree could be rescinded at any time and would
give the PDO the NPM responsibilities without the funding
stream, making him a de facto paper tiger. Conversely,
Bokeria's point was that the PDO currently already has the
legal basis to monitor any facility, so a change in the law
is not needed. As far as funding, the budget law would have
to be changed to reflect the budget priorities for the task,
but this would need to happen regardless of how the PDO is
appointed. Perhaps more telling from the discussion is the
observation that the PDO does not believe his current
authority is enough (his staff says he is not permitted
access to MOD prisons). Bokeria is opposed to changing the
law, which the PDO proposes to amend to include extending
immunity to those carrying out NPM duties (free from arrest,
search, detainment),permitting videotape recording at
facilities, and giving them access to more internal
documents. Bokeria is also opposed to permitting NGOs to
take part in the monitoring.

What's Ahead?
--------------


6. (SBU) When the council adjourned, Bokeria announced that
there would be one more round of updates to the action plan
which would come back to the council when they reconvene in
"several months." Once the action plan has been approved,
then the council would continue to oversee the plan to make
sure that the benchmarks are completed and that the NPM is
working properly. According to the decree, members should
vote on the course of action of how to appoint the NPM, but
Bokeria and Burjaliani seem resolute that a presidential
decree is the remedy.

Comment
--------------


7. (C) The OPCAT Action Plan, if properly implemented,
could go a long way to addressing accountability of prison
officials and police in their maltreatment of prisoners and
addressing poor health care in prisons, by establishing a
means to do so with objective milestones to define success.
In order for it to be truly successful, however, some
ministries will have to overcome their reticence to share
data about their respective facilities and PDO will
necessarily need the access and resources to monitor all the
facilities within his purview. The biggest risk could be
that the PDO is appointed as the NPM, but not given the
access and resources to implement the plan successfully.
Currently his office is not equipped for the myriad new
tasks, and although NGOs are willing and able to help, the
tough call will need to be made as to which NGOs, who are
very competitive and entrenched in the process, will assist
and what their selection criteria will be. It's critical
that the PDO be given the resources to carry out assigned
OPCAT tasks, or it runs the risk, as in the example of the
Domestic Violence Law, of "checking the block" to satisfy
international players, without the funding stream to make the
provisions viable. The U.S. is not a signatory to OPCAT and
so post is careful in its role in this forum, but sees the
action plan as a potentially powerful tool to improve
chronically poor prison conditions.

TEFFT
UNQUOTE: RICE