The term of office of the current Public Defender of Georgia, Nino Lomjaria, expires on December 8, 2022, and the Parliament must select a new Public Defender by December 1, through voting.

The list of candidates for public defender consists of 19 people, among which three people – Ana Abashidze, Nazi Janezashvili and Giorgi Burjanadze – were nominated by non-governmental organizations.

Queer addressed the candidates for public defender with the same structured questions and already shared their views and assessments regarding LGBTQI rights. In this article, you will read their opinions about femicide and the problem of homelessness.

Two of the 19 candidates, Ketevan Chachava and Tinatin Erkvania, answered our questions in writing, telephone interviews were held with 16 candidates. One of the candidates, Nikoloz Nikoladze, was contacted by Queer throughout the week, however, after the interview was postponed several times, Nikoladze told us that he could not be interviewed due to his health condition and limited himself to a general assessment, so his answers were not reflected in the article. In addition, during the period of working on the article, another candidate, Jemal Natelashvili, requested the removal of his own candidacy, so his answers were not reflected in the material.

NOTE: THE SEXIST AND STEREOTYPICAL VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLE DO NOT EXPRESS QUEER’S POSITION, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE OPINION OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER CANDIDATES ON THE MENTIONED ISSUES IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, WE ARE OFFERING THEM UNCHANGED.

What is your vision for responding to cases of femicide, what kind of efforts are needed to reduce violence against women?  

Anna Abashidze: We have been using the wrong method to fight inequality for many years, and the most acute expression of inequality is femicide. Our country is mainly focused on toughening the criminal justice policy, punishment, which is important, but if that is your only solution, you are guaranteed to fail. შენ You can punish a person who has already taken a life, but that can never relax and think that same thing will never repeat. The theories regarding this matter are well explored, there are many levels of prevention, three at least, which differ from one another.  Criminal law practice is the last, third level, which, among other things, is used for prevention, but the first two levels of prevention are far more important. The first is to periodically survey public sentiment to see if progress is being made. What has changed? In what way has it changed? In which areas is more work needed etc. The work of any service should be based on this. The second level, which is crucially important, is early prevention. I mean, when the state knows that there are certain dysfunctional relationships, a person is in a dangerous environment that does not rise to the level of being at risk of physical violence or femicide, but there are signs of violence, and the state knows very well where and how it is.  A citizen should know that even in this case they can get support from the state and leave the environment that is risky for them. The most recourse should go to cases with high risk factors and not the severe ones, so the citizen is supported, no matter who they are. This is the part we have the biggest problems with, as we have no high quality services, I mean financial, psycho-emotional, safety or social services. We have what we have, and only apply it in the most severe cases, when the victim, if they survive, goes to the state for help, but unfortunately, many who did not survive will never be able to use any of this. The solution is to solve the problem with a holistic approach. Also, femicide is not homogeneous, women are not all the same. აIt is possible that they will be subjected to violence because of their identity, because of their orientation, the state should know this too. Domestic violence doesn’t just happen because of gender, it’s a very complex case and a person may have multiple identification markers they can be punished for.  In order to implement the right policies, the state must be aware of this, and the corresponding support services it has, must also be focused on all women, who may represent different groups.

Marika Arevadze: Femicide is a huge problem, and in order to solve it, it is necessary to implement the jurisdictional regulations, which exist.  For example, an electronic bracelet can be used on an abuser, which as I know has not been implemented in practice yet. This will be a good prevention that will protect women more. On the other hand, there is work to be done on the legal regulations, in the direction of which the relevant non-governmental organizations are working, but it is not reflected in the legislation, and the law that we already have should be properly enforced. Also, the reaction of the investigative bodies, the police, should be adequate, which is expressed in the observance of all the standards that exist in this direction.

Giorgi Burjanadze: The main role of the public defender is to constantly provide evidence-based facts to the public, show the situation, what are the challenges, what are the gaps, study the verdicts, present the problems. It is very important for society to see that violence against women is a subject of separate study, special treatment, and approach. Many people have the feeling, I mean men, that they have the right to abuse a woman because she “shamed” them, they have the right to oppress the “weak”, and this is so ingrained in the mentality that it is necessary to raise awareness that both men and women are weak or strong, and the strong should not oppress weak. The main thing is social and educational programs, if we teach the right values to children, we will have less problems in 10 years. Also, as soon as a case of violence is detected, the issue should be actively studied, I mean that, for example, a woman has detected that she is a victim of violence, the mechanisms should be well activated, for example, the electronic bracelet is used in very few cases with us, although it is a very good mechanism, but last year we used it in only 20 cases. The Ministry of Internal Affairs says that women sometimes do not express their consent. I think there is a problem of proper explanation here, preventive measures are necessary. Also, holding a person to strict responsibility in such cases – it should be clearly seen that this will be followed by a strict response and zero tolerance.

Lela Gaprindashvili: In my opinion, it is very important to have accurate data throughout Georgia, this, of course, does not mean that even if one woman dies because of her gender, the public defender should not react to it. Fortunately, human life cannot be calculated in numbers, and the public defender should not rely only on numbers when talking about femicide, but numbers are important for us to indicate the depth of the problem, the seriousness of the problem in the political agenda. I mean, even legislative changes in this direction.If the domestic violence law does not work and we still have a terrible situation of femicide in the country, then it should be tightened or some additional articles should be implemented or a special law should be created. Therefore, it is very important to show the general picture. I draw attention to this picture because there are cases that do not fall into any statistics at all. When I talk about research, I don’t mean only quantitative research, I’m talking about qualitative research, and the public defender must personally discover, be personally interested in cases that are particularly hidden, raise the alarm and take care of bringing these topics to the political agenda.

Sofia Demetrashvili: The public defender has a 6-year term, and the first thing I will do is to create public councils, unions, because it is most important that people understand that their participation will be necessary. It should be possible to obtain information immediately and then, when the community is involved in management and solving certain problems, of course, these problems will be eliminated very quickly, operationally. People should make decisions on all important issues. Specialists from different fields should be involved in these unions. These councils should be established in all directions.

Teona Arkvania: This is an extremely difficult and serious problem, which is most likely caused by disregarding women’s rights and their oppression… The reason for this is the lack of education… First of all, the current legislation should be improved, and later and/or simultaneously the mentality has to be changed as well. In general, work in this direction is already underway at the legislative level, and the current legislation changes from year to year. Nevertheless, there are issues that require revision and additional regulation. This direction will also be one of the main priorities in the event that I am chosen and become a public defender.

Evgenia Tavadze: Solving the problem still depends on the person who is oppressed, persecuted, harassed, deprived of rights. The result depends, first of all, on human efforts, then on the coordinated intervention of power structures. If this does not bring results, then the ombudsman and the parliament create councils where people explain themselves in more detail. The court cannot always answer this, that is, a person must go through these stages in order to fight femicide. Of course, it is also necessary to consider what the European Commission sent, those points, it is easy to implement, they started working on it, but it depends on the effort of the person themselves, how they thinks, how they formulates the complaint, how they get involved in it in a coordinated way, that’s it. Of course, there is also the media here, the relations in the lower link and the relations with the law enforcement officers, so that the right messages are sent, it is important to establish what happened.

Alexander Kobaidze: Femicide is a big tragedy in our country, perhaps this is due to the fact that the state does not properly care for citizens. If the state cared, there would be no more gender-based crimes, even within the family, because more propaganda that men and women have the same rights and more law enforcement involvement with vulnerable groups would produce results. The state only punishes and that is tragic, because in this case the victim themselves is often punished, and do you know why – hardly a day goes by that I do not receive a case related to domestic violence, which is related to gender, as a result of the investigation, the man goes to prison, and the woman, you know what she does? She tries her best to get her husband out of prison, such are the extreme situations that exist in our reality. Therefore, in my opinion, the state should play a decisive role in the direction of prevention, with vulnerable groups, families with a relatively low social status, because often cases of violence are more frequent in such families, and therefore, they should work harder here, so as not to face the problem such as a victim and the so-called abuser. For prevention, the state should intervene more actively, it should be through various propaganda, visits and conversations and a thousand mechanisms that the state does not use, even though it is our direct obligation under the association agreement. This is the approach of the prosecutor’s office: everyone in prison, as soon as the woman says that it was so, the standard in the Criminal Procedure Code disappears immediately and everyone is arrested. This process is taking place effectively, but we cannot see the results, because the state does nothing more than punish, it does not work with either women or men. There are cases when a man comes out of prison and kills a woman. The state should work harder, even by activating social workers, psychologists, and other levers.

Levan Kokorashvili: This is one of the main issues nowadays, and I think the problem is caused by the lack of education. Society, I mean men, are not developed enough to understand that women should enjoy the same rights as men in society and family, among others. In shorts, raising awareness is very important in this regard. 

Nugzar Kokhreidze: I have drawn up a plan and I believe that the legislation regarding femicide should be tightened, and although we have taken steps forward in this direction, because the society still does not understand, so to speak, it is apathetic, we must raise awareness of what femicide means, what differences exist. Work should be intensified in both directions – criminal law and education.

Giorgi Mariamidze: Legally speaking, the term femicide as it is used in our country is wrong. Can you name me a case when a stranger walking down the street ran into a woman he did not know, and beat her, injured her or took her life? Such cases generally do not exist in Georgian reality. If we add the word “-cide” to something, for example, genocide, it is an organized, deliberate campaign of violence against a group, such as the genocide of the Jews, as for femicide, we must mean the deliberate, organized killing of women by men. We don’t have that. These are the consequences of domestic violence, we have a problem within the family, between people with a certain relationship, so it cannot be femicide, the approach is fundamentally wrong. If we follow this logic, then all men are abusers. It is established that men are dangerous and women are weak. I don’t know where such an approach will lead us. Then we should divide the city in the middle, put a big barricade and say that since femicide is raging in Georgia, like it was a pandemic, let’s build this wall, we don’t even need to build a wall, here, Mtkvari, a natural border, we can put men on one side and women on the other.  We can put female police on women’s side and male police on the other and put guard dogs in the middle. Is this how we should live? We hear screams from the neighbors, wife chasing her husband, husband chasing his wife, and so on, but no one reacts, why? Either they are afraid of one side or the other side or the police, that everyone will be arrested or have to be detained for hours. People are so tired that they don’t want this extra burden anymore. Not just citizens, in my practice I have had a case where the policeman does not write an explanation just because “Oh, then they’ll take me to court”. We should not fight against the institution of the family, as it seems, from the people who talk about femicide, about women’s rights, from various organizations, such an impression is created in society that these people are fighting against marriage, the institution of the family and want it to be destroyed, there is no other way to explain it. Here is such an organization, they are shouting that my pussy should belong to me, my body is my property, what is such a radical approach that calls on the society not to marry, not to become slaves to their husbands, is this how you plan to protect yourselves?! On the contrary, it’s more of a provocation, you provoke people. Not everyone is, for example, Giorgi Mariamidze, who will think about all this and say no, people, despite all this, so to speak, let’s think about it, shall we? Not everyone follows the principle of the Good Samaritan that you should love your enemy and no matter who the enemy is, of a different religion and so on, if you see someone in need, you should still help them.. If it were so, we wouldn’t have anything to talk about, so we should live in society in such a way that we don’t irritate each other, so to speak, protect each other. […] I also suggest to the society, maybe we should think about regulating some norms from the beginning, we should find out what causes conflict in the family and then we will group such reasons and it will be written in the marriage contract that if you want to have a doctor as a wife, then you have to come to terms with the fact that she will have to work night shifts. Being on operations. Second thing, if you marry a working lady who runs some establishment, for example, an aesthetic center, it requires her to look attractive in order to attract the clientele, that lady has to wear a little short clothes, a little more beautiful and so on, it’s part of her job, a man who doesn’t like this shouldn’t  marry a woman like this, but someone from a more traditional background, who wears a headscarf and spends 24 hours a day thinking about what to cook for her husband. So the contract should state these aspirations, these weak and strong points. Here, they marry a girl like an angel and then they don’t care that she wants to dress, walk, if you marry a model or a girl with a very good appearance or, so to speak, a person with certain ambitions, she wants to dress differently, and if you can’t give it to her, then she has to work. We should make the contract mandatory.

I have witnessed many family disputes and I try my best to resolve the dispute without court, without noise. Men are more reluctant to take the conflict situation to court, women tend to be more prone to it, they think that when they hold the court’s decision in their hands, they can control their husbands, and that is not true, opposite, he might just kill you, no law can hold him back. 

Sergo Makharadze: I consider raising awareness on these and related issues to be one of the ways to reduce femicide. Relations with people and elimination of social problems need to be taken care of, because these are such interconnected existential topics that, in my opinion, it is not appropriate to separate them and discuss only one issue. Therefore, it should be done comprehensively and on the basis of proper studies.

Maka Mindiashvili: This is killing women, isn’t it? All problems should be prevented, that is, they should be thoroughly studied. Femicide is based on what? When people are in love, femicide won’t happen, right? In other words, it happens on the basis of hatred, it happens on the basis of alcoholism, after the influence of drugs and any other external factor, it is that femicide happens, isn’t that right? Even jealousy, especially jealousy, in today’s society, unfortunately, women think that they have more rights than men, sometimes they do such things, married women, that it should not be discussed, but it is a problem of weak will or lack of self-control, I don’t understand, when a woman or When a man decides to start a family, they have certain responsibilities, don’t they? With yourself first and then with society and your children. Therefore, if we assume that a femicide occurred on the grounds of jealousy, in this case guilt must be determined. Now if your spouse cheated on you, what would you do? You may not kill them, but you will be very angry. And you might even think about it [laughs] right? It is a very painful topic, I understand all those people, whether they are women or men. No, betrayal is not allowed for me. We have so many problems. There is work to be done in every family, it is not only a global problem.

Ketevan Chachava: Femicide is such a complex problem that one agency cannot really deal with it on its own.For this, a unified, constructive state policy is needed, which will be actively focused on achieving essential gender equality. Multifaceted and simultaneous work is needed here on the establishment of a gender-sensitive justice system, on effective investigation of existing crimes and providing the correct qualification, as well as on the determination of a proportional punishment at the stage of sentencing. At the same time, efforts should be made in the direction of breaking gender stereotypes in society and economic and political empowerment of women.

Giorgi Tsobekhia: To solve the problem of femicide, first of all, school education is important, that is where we should start. Media coverage is important for prevention, but it can also have an encouraging effect, so the media has a huge responsibility, it is very hard to draw the line in such cases. This is not an easy issue and requires an in-depth analysis. What I mean is, that the state policy should be changed, it should be redone completely. 

Iago Khvichia: In general, any type of crime, be it violence or organized robbery, needs to be thought through, regardless of the type. What you are asking about femicide, in general people kill each other for many different reasons, not only women are killed, men are also killed, old people are also killed, mostly men kill each other, as a rule. There is a science that studies the causes of this, what it can be, how it can be reduced, there is criminology, criminology, which studies all this, but rightly separates it, that in the case of the murder of women, we have to do something else, in the case of men, something else, and in the case of children or the elderly, something else, according to different professions, let’s say, in the case of the murder of a policeman or in the case of an engineer, I think it will take us somewhere else. In my opinion, we need to create a society where violence is not encouraged and inevitably punished. Such an order is needed so that less femicide occurs, less conflict between men, between the old and the young. If we start caring for one group in particular, then what has the rest done wrong, this is against the logic of the law. In my opinion, we should take care of people equally and we should try not to allow killing of any human being. ცOf course, this is an idealistic goal, and murders will always happen in society, but our system should be designed in such a way that murders happen less often.

Nazi Janezashvili: The problem of violence against women has many layers. The role of the public defender in this case is also related to justice, and it is the same for the realization of any right. A great role and importance is assigned to the judiciary and justice in general, and it may seem superficial, but close cooperation with relevant organizations is necessary. The ways, the steps that have been taken so far should be evaluated, whether they are effective or not, whether more work is needed. The public defender should make the state more sensitive to these issues. The risk of femicide can be faced by any woman, whether she is a housewife or has a career, a high-ranking person or not, because today in Georgia there is a serious situation in this regard. We should all work together to solve this problem, the involvement of the state should be ensured, provoked by the public defender. Here, too, one of the most important things in relation to cases of domestic violence is the proper readiness of the judicial authorities, so that the current processes do not become a basis for encouragement. Work is needed both at the level of response and prevention, in short, in all directions. With systematic work, joint efforts can achieve something.

How should the state take care of solving the problem of homelessness, how do you see the participation of the public defender in this process?

Anna Abashidze: I always say that social issues and people’s daily challenges should be the agenda with which the public defender should work and one of the most acute is the violation of the right to decent housing in our country. This happens mainly because our social policy in general is not focused on people, and it does not fully guarantee that any citizen lives more or less decently. There are many people who are hungry, who are in pain and cannot receive basic services. Among them are people who lose their jobs due to various challenges and remain homeless and on the streets. Decent housing is a basic part of the human right, without which it is impossible to talk about other topics, therefore one of the most important emphasis should be on the basic rights that a person needs to survive, such as housing, education, health care, etc. The public defender should work on criticizing social policies, should offer his experience, should work with the state to improve this process, and should also work on individual cases that concern people, whether they have asylum or asylum seekers. Here, I will say once again that there should be an intersectional approach, because asylum seekers are not similar, they have diverse experiences, needs, and the public defender should look at it from this point of view.

Marika Arevadze: It is necessary to develop a unified state policy and, within this framework, homelessness and other economic problems that cause significant damage, including women and LGBTQ people, should be overcome step by step, although at a fast pace. Policy should be developed and implemented.

Giorgi Burjanadze: I may not be familiar with the situation with any particular group, but in general with homelessness I will say that it is one of the biggest problems and we have seen over the years that the definition is problematic. In Georgia, we have a law that contains an incomprehensible definition. Municipalities have an obligation to care for homeless persons, and every municipality has its own standards, and what is the standard defined by international law for a person to be considered homeless, is not in line with the current approach in Georgia. Real needs of homeless people are not met by legislation, and you may actually have a need for housing, but the law cannot cover this direction. That’s why we started a dispute in the Constitutional Court and challenged many municipal by-laws and laws passed by the Parliament and we are arguing about their dignity. We argue that a person’s dignity is violated when they are homeless, and the state discriminates when it gives status to one category and not to another. The case has yet to go to trial, even though it has been on appeal for years.

Lela Gaprindashvili: The right to housing is fundamental. The public defender has many mechanisms, in any case, they can make a very important contribution to making this issue relevant, and I will repeat again and again, the general picture is very important, unfortunately, we have to show politicians in terms of changing their views and making political decisions that yes, it is an important problem, because this is the picture and the state should improve it.

Sofia Demetrashvili: I faced these problems for 10 years and more when I worked in the public service and every day, not only in the direction of homelessness, but also in the direction of people who are beyond the poverty line, who are left on the street or sheltered by each other, or are illegally hanging on to properties belonging weather to the Ministry of Economy or property on the of local municipalities. We have a similar problem with internally displaced citizens, the problem was caused by the absence of relevant policies while the Shevardnadze administration. The state, in fact, was not ready for the influx of so many people, the hardship has followed us since the 90s. The persons who have occupied the property and have owned the property for years must have the property proved in ownership. The law tells us that if the building stood on the land before 2007, only in this case it is subject to registration. It is incorrect, it is 2022 and this date should be changed. The territory developed, the city expanded. People who do not own property and are sheltered in other people’s property, do not even have basic living conditions, such as natural gas, electricity, water, communications, they do not have anything. How can this problem exist in the state in the 21st century? All this is vital. The situation in the regions is dire and even more severe. The state should have a policy, a strategy, there were attempts, but they were insufficient.

Tinatin Erkvania: The social status and rights of the homeless and especially the elderly is a subject of scientific research for me. In general, the subject of my research is the principle of the social state (recognized by the Constitution of Georgia since 2017) and its implementation standards in Georgia. In general, it is difficult to define how social the state should be. Is the system of social assistance expressed by the state only a good will or the implementation of the positive obligation that the principle of the social state includes? etc. There are many more legal nuances that would take us too far to talk about. In general, shelters for the elderly should exist, and in general, the issue of providing shelter for the elderly is the competence of the municipalities in Georgia, which can be problematic. My immediate priority will be to address the issue of providing shelter for the elderly in this regard.

Evgenia Tavadze:  Of course, it is necessary to collect the statistics of individual cases, which we see in the territory of Studkalaki and other similar settlements, as the duplication of cases can occur and certain structures engage in corruption through schemes. This needs to be controlled, so that the person who is homeless gets the worth of one house. There should be a relationship with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of IDPs, the Ministry of Culture, i.e. it is the coordinated work of the ombudsman — collecting statistics, verifying and participating in ensuring the restoration of their rights to housing and labor rights. This is the state, the state stands on this. Active work is necessary, but those who do not have housing also need to make an effort.

Alexander Kobaidze: The tragedy of our country is that everyone, young and old, is fleeing the country. If we look at society, this problem is everywhere. The reason for this is that, first of all, they feel worthless and insecure. In an unworthy job, for example, because they don’t get a proper salary, they can’t realize themselves, because the law is selective, and  there are problems with the banks. There are a thousand other social problems, so the public defender has a decisive role in all of them. It is necessary to develop such legislative acts that, for example, evictions do not take place when one has one residential house, and also there should be appropriate rehabilitation centers. No one cares about that, no one cares about drug addicts, women who are victims of violence. There should be appropriate programs, people should be rehabilitated, this is not a utopia, it happens in normal countries, but not with us.

Levan Kokorashvili:  I was the head of one of the charity organizations where the mentioned issue was at the forefront. We were asked by many people from Tbilisi about the housing problem, but there were many from the districts who wanted a residential area in Tbilisi, but we did not touch anything without research and determined that some of them had real estate. There were cases when they really had a problem and we turned to the state. The state should develop a strategy to accommodate homeless people, but proper study is necessary.

Nugzar Kokhreidze: Regarding the problem of homelessness, the current public defender also has some recommendations. First, she noted that a task force should be created to develop policies because, according to the report, state policies are inconsistent, including with regard to LGBTQI community. The lack of a unified political vision should be eliminated by the working group, which will give us a framework for action. At the same time, we need to penetrate all agencies so that they make objective decisions so that subjective attitudes do not hinder the solution of the problem. Community involvement should also be increased.

Giorgi Mariamidze: I don’t know how to answer clearly. One — we have casinos in the city center, these tempting establishments, which can end with the sale of the house. The second is drug addiction, alcohol addiction, which leads to the loss of everything. Also, there’s a group that hasn’t had anything before or now, so we have to look at that a bit more complexly. If we say that gambling, loans cause hardship, there are many problems, legal or existential, that need to be taken care of, we should start from there, that we have a problem of lack of education, experience, information, and then comes responsibility, we have a catastrophic situation.

In order to solve the problem of homelessness, we must seek as much information as possible and then act to eliminate the causes that lead to homelessness.

Sergo Makharadze: Social issues will be my priority. Unlike other candidates, for me this direction will be the most important, that is, the problem that actually concerns people. Among them, one of my suggestions is regarding unemployment insurance. The most difficult background in this regard and insurance will be important. At the hearing, I touched on bank interest, the problem of housing, it is important to provide housing for vulnerable groups. I will put a special emphasis, among other things, on providing students with housing, because the majority of students are people from the regions who need significant support, and I think that my involvement in this direction will be decisive.

Maka Mindiashvili: It still amazes me how all governments have failed. We have so many empty areas, even if a few buildings were built in the outskirts of Tbilisi to give these apartments to refugees. For me, this is a two-two, very simple matter, it requires the will of the state, nothing more. So much money is wasted from the budget, how could they not manage to build some buildings, where do our paid taxes go, it is wasted in all areas. I will definitely raise the issue that even if a tender is announced and some buildings are built for these homeless people and refugees, if it is done with nepotism, then it makes no sense. It should be objective.

Ketevan Chachava: The right to adequate housing is one of the most important social rights. The role of the public defender in creating a social system adapted to human rights is very important. The problems related to the right to adequate housing became particularly acute in the light of the pandemic, which made the situation even worse. In order to solve the mentioned problem, it is necessary to develop a unified, effective state policy and then to implement it both at the national and local levels. For this, it is necessary that the issue of the homeless be a priority and be more actively on the agenda.

Giorgi Tsobekhi: The development of state policy is not within the competence of the public defender, however, in the process of policy development and implementation, the role of the defender may be included in the response to human rights violations.

Iago Khvichia: The solution is to get rich, we are a poor country. The problem of homelessness exists everywhere, even in wealthy societies. When we are a poor society, we are stuck in one place, we do not move forward. What should the public defender do to solve the problem, apart from having positions on the development of the economy. If you are asking me whether the homeless should have a house or not, the money with which you have to build it should be taken from someone, you are responsible for taking the money and I am the public defender, am I not a money grabber? [The journalist asks what the state tells people who are currently at risk of becoming homeless due to a number of challenges] What to monitor, what to do, for example, what did Mrs. Lomjaria do to give a house to homeless people, how can this be the competence of the public defender or what should I do? Let me answer this [the journalist clarifies that, for example, the state can pay attention to the condition of existing housing] is someone obliged to build a house for me, to buy a house for a man, to buy a house for him? You are asking me nonsense [the journalist clarifies that we are not talking about buying a house, but about temporary housing, a space where a person can grow strong] I think you are not talking to me seriously and I am begging you to leave me alone, the state is not obligated to be a woman, you want a child, you want to build a big house, The state can take care of those people who could not protect them and lost their land and water, and if you tell me that a woman lives in violence, she has nowhere to go, the state is not obliged to buy her a house. Would you pay that money out of your own pocket? [clarification again that we are not talking about buying, maybe this alternative is a temporary residence] The only thing the state owes to someone is a poor person who dies on the street, he has no money for bread, no money for medicine, he can find first aid to save their life , but in order to protect women, it is not written in anything to rent a house to women who have quarreled with their husbands.

Nazi Janezashvili: I don’t have the proper preparation to talk about housing. I thought about the problem, but not about the ways to solve it. In this case, what I can say is that in the case of public defense, I would strengthen the monitoring mechanisms. Also, it is important to review advocacy mechanisms, to assess what works and what doesn’t. Advocacy can take many forms, from presenting statements to more conversation. In this part, financial provision is problematic, however, it is necessary to conduct a dialogue between different agencies, taking into account human rights. It is not an easily solved problem, but it can be solved somehow with systematic work.

The term of office of the current Public Defender of Georgia, Nino Lomjaria, expires on December 8, 2022, and the Parliament must select a new Public Defender by December 1, through voting.

The list of candidates for public defender consists of 19 people, among which three people – Ana Abashidze, Nazi Janezashvili and Giorgi Burjanadze – were nominated by non-governmental organizations.

Queer decided to find out the vision and evaluations of the candidates for the position of public defender regarding LGBTQI rights, so we addressed each candidate with the same questions. Two of the 19 candidates, Ketevan Chachava and Tinatin Erkvania, answered our questions in writing, telephone interviews were held with 16 candidates. One of the candidates, Nikoloz Nikoladze, was contacted by Queer throughout the week, however, after the interview was postponed several times, Nikoladze told us that he could not be interviewed due to his health condition and limited himself to a general assessment, so his answers were not reflected in the article. In addition, during the period of working on the article, another candidate, Jemal Natelashvili, requested the removal of his own candidacy, so his answers were not reflected in the material.

NOTE: THE HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, SEXIST, STEREOTYPICAL VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLE DO NOT EXPRESS QUEER’S POSITION, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE OPINION OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER CANDIDATES ON THE MENTIONED ISSUES IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, WE ARE OFFERING THEM UNCHANGED.

Queer’s first question was about the violation of LGBTQI rights in Georgia. We were interested in the general evaluation of the candidates. Most of them believe that the rights of LGBTQ people in the country are being violated. Iago Khvichia noted that “I think there is no group of people in Georgia, be it based on sexual orientation, age group, ethnicity or if you wish to divide it into any other type, where we can say that people of this group are never oppressed”.

In response to the question, Sofio Demetrashvili noted that “in her subjective opinion, everyone is equal before the law” and according to her, “it doesn’t matter what kind of sexual worldview an individual has”, the state is obliged to protect their rights.

According to Evgenia Tavadze, “of course, there will be cases of individual oppression. they have the right to hold a demonstration, they have the opportunity to speak. They are given their freedom within certain limits, in a certain area.”

Levan Kokorashvili noted that the violation of LGBTQI rights “happens to a certain extent” and stated that he disagrees with “a lot of things”.

Giorgi Mariamidze and Sergo Makharadze neither confirmed nor denied the violation of rights. Giorgi Mariamidze noted that during his legal career, no person “belonging to this community” has ever contacted him, thus he does not have any information about violation of rights in this regard. And according to Sergo Makharadze, “before we announce something, we should study the issue accordingly and then we should give an answer whether the violation of rights has occurred.” He asked Queer to provide information about a specific “incident” so he could look into it and then respond.

According to Maka Mindiashvili, the candidate for the Public Defender’s Office, nothing happens anymore as it used to happen.

“The rights of Elgebete (purposeful mispronunciation of the term LGBTQI)  people?! What do you mean by violation? I don’t think it’s anything like what was happening, I think society has changed its mind, especially in the recent period. My answer is, now it is not violated as much as it used to be. Do you understand what I mean, it used to annoy some people, now people are used to it, the attitude towards such people in the society has changed,” said Maka Mindiashvili.

After the introductory question, Queer asked the candidates for public defender about basic issues related to LGBTQI rights and safety. We offer the answers unchanged.

IF YOU BECOME A PUBLIC DEFENDER, WHAT WILL BE YOUR VISION IN THE DIRECTION OF STRENGTHENING THE RIGHTS OF LGBTQI COMMUNITY?

Ana Abashidze: I think that one of the main, priority directions that the public defender should have is the strengthening of the policy of equality and work aimed at it, with all the resources that the public defender has within the mandate. Of course, there are many specifics in this direction, which, first of all, the public defender should know, work very close to the community and take into account their views and ideas on how to improve the situation. In addition, the public defender must always be clear, unambiguous, they must not avoid speaking directly and very emphatically on the subject due to different sentiments or pressures, and in fact on every platform where they will speak about human rights, one of the leading topics must be the rights of LGBTQI people. The recommendations that the public defender will work on should be very specific and sometimes harsh, that much is a given. The problem here is that not only is it good to develop a standard of human rights in general, but we are talking about respecting the dignity of people and sometimes, unfortunately, even saving their lives.

Marika Arevadze: It is important to develop a state policy, which does not exist today, and in this regard, there is work to be done in the direction of raising awareness, in the direction of overcoming hate speech.

Giorgi Burjanadze: I think two main directions are important. The first is to raise awareness, to call for tolerance of society in any space, and the second is to demand responsibility for those responsible in cases of rights violations. Perhaps this is what, one can say, should be actively implemented, and beyond these two there are also needs, which imply the abolition of discriminatory legislation through constitutional proceedings, submission of relevant opinions to the court, use of international mechanisms. There is a whole range, a palette, that the mandate of the public defender has, and probably all of them can be used.

Lela Gafrindashvili: The first thing I will do is, of course, I am a gender researcher and I have been teaching this discipline for years at the university, but I think that in terms of doing something important, the public defender needs more competence than theoretical, he needs practically what problems in de facto reality these people have, so we need not theories, but reality and a full picture of that reality in order to act.

Sofio Demetrashvili: Sofio Demetrashvili: There were talks of separation by legislation. I am against this, there should not be a separation, it should not be allowed, in this case all sexual worldviews will be divided and everyone will be given certain rights or their rights will not be restricted. Of course, this is completely unacceptable, that’s why I say, if I will be the public defender, I will be the public defender of everyone, regardless of worldview or any other indicator. If there is a need that they want freedom of expression, of course, even public speeches, even holding events, similar to those beautiful events that are held in other countries, of course, I will not have any objection, on the contrary, if someone is against I will protect everyone’s rights as much as possible, including those who are against it, and I will try my best to explain to them, even in public, that we are all equal so we all understand the concept of “human”, regardless of political opinion.

Tinatin Erkvania: I haven’t been in Georgia in recent years and I’ve missed certain social practices to some extent. However, I actively follow current events and try to have detailed information about the legal status of this type of minorities or their discriminatory treatment… in general, I will try my best to improve the current legislation to the extent that sexual minorities do not perceive themselves as an oppressed social group… and at the same time, in a form that all this is in accordance with the modern achievements of human rights law. In general, the issue of minorities is often the subject of political speculation, and this should be put to an end. And in what form? Precisely by fully defining the legal status of sexual minorities and fighting against the malicious social practices that exist in Georgia.

Evgenia Tavadze: I, for my part, will try to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in such a way that there are no rude interferences. I would focus on the economic condition, socio-economic condition of a person, if it is grossly violated, I would focus on that. On the other hand, the ombudsman does not have the right to interfere with the voluntary actions of an individual, unless it violates the law.

Aleksandre Kobaidze: Community gathering is important. The state should work more so that people do not differ in opinion. I will act as a mediator.

Levan Kokorashvili: Within the framework of my mandate, I will use all the given means and resources to the maximum extent to protect the rights of that group at the maximum legislative level. I will do my best so that all people can exercise their rights. I am a candidate who thinks a lot about vulnerable groups, including the LGBT community. They are a society, they are human beings, you cannot harass them, use hate speech against them, etc.

Nugzar Kokhreidze: I think that the public defender in her last report also made certain recommendations, which I agree with, and I believe that the main direction in this regard should be maintained. I think we need to continue working with the public, raising awareness, dealing with fears, myths, misconceptions, to increase acceptance. In addition, we must work towards the protection of the LGBTQI community. In terms of economic, social, healthcare, housing, their rights are not protected and all this needs work. The pandemic has aggravated the current situation and we need to strengthen them in this regard. I think that the already existing mechanisms, which are possibly not enough, should be put to work in reality. The important part is to start a dialogue. A mode of constant dialogue and clarification is necessary. We create society together and we need to find points of contact to reduce aggression, pressure, non-acceptance and give people more freedom.

Giorgi Mariamidze: Some organizations believe that Orthodoxy is the biggest evil, the reason being that the Orthodox church organized that raid, and yes it was bad. But Orthodoxy had nothing to do with it. If you read what this faith preaches, it is love. Christ himself gives us the example, when the whole village comes out to stone a woman what does he say? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. What example did Jesus give? Yes, this woman broke the rules, she is a whore, but are you not a sinner? You lie, badmouth others, laze around, who amongst you is better? And we are fighting this organization? They don’t say anything else, we love you and come on, don’t make us be aggressive. I had a conversation with pastors and they told me that man, in our parish we have people who have homosexual tendencies, they have such feelings, these people go to church, some people think that they still want to go to church and need spiritual salvation, and they go and declare that they are like that and need spiritual help , the teacher provides this assistance. If it is such that it does not need it, it does not go. The majority of heterosexuals do not go there either. Whoever finds peace of mind goes there. To say that they hate such people is not true. I talked to these people. It seems more like this small group is showing hatred. I may not be loved by many in my district, even more so in Vake, or maybe even more than Vera, because I live in Nadzaladevi district. What should I do now, go out and write, “vakelebo fuck you, why don’t you love me?” It won’t be right. If, for example, I entered prisons and saw prisoners beaten and broken and bruised, if I saw a prisoner asking me what to do, I would say: if we appeal, that is, we resort to extreme measures and appeal, tomorrow and the day after I come, you can already, so to speak , I saw you taken to the morgue from here, right? Because they’re going to rip you off worse, so let’s think of something else, shall we? If you lose yourself in the struggle for the right, nothing will come of it. The main thing is not the rights, it is the person, first he is to be protected. That is, the struggle for expression, I do not understand this. The public defender should try to listen to many people, political groups, actors who are in the direction of rights protection and provide the received information to the state. Maximum communication with each other. Solving the problems will not happen by shaking hands, if we want to live with European values, why are we waiting to be accepted in the European Union, let’s start living with European values ​​now. We need to share information, look out for each other, and we all need to take care of all the problems together. Now, unfortunately, I know a lot of cases locally, based on referrals, but if I become a public defender, I will have a lot more opportunities to get more information.

Sergo Makharadze: My preference is that if I am elected, I intend to communicate directly with people, listen to their hardships and make all decisions based on proper research and not, say, unilaterally or based on what I heard somewhere and so on. Only based on a proper investigation of the circumstances.

Maka Mindiashvili: The public defender is mainly focused on complaints, isn’t that right? If a complaint is failed they should take note of it. The problem lies within the group, social circle where the complaint came from, right? But the complaints won’t just come in, of course. For example, we can monitor the situation, have personal conversations about problems and those problems should be prevented, because it is impossible to solve something superficially.

Ketevan Chachava: If elected as public defender, I will try to contribute to the solution of social, economic and other types of problems faced by society and especially vulnerable groups by working closely with these groups, maximum involvement and constant feedback. As you know, the important functions of the public defender are advocacy and raising awareness on human rights issues, which is a very important prerequisite for solving the existing problems, since public consolidation will be necessary for this.

Giorgi Tsobekhiia: When we talk about the strengthening of rights and the role of the public defender in this process, we must consider the direction in which the public defender can be proactive and active in general within the framework of the three main powers. The first are constitutional lawsuits. In this direction, the current Public Defender’s administration was one of the best, because the most lawsuits have been sent to the Constitutional Court, that is, the authority of the Public Defender has been used, which is confirmed by the Law on Constitutional Proceedings and the Public Defender of Georgia. Second, we must talk about the anti-discrimination legislation, about the elimination of all forms of discrimination, the rights established by the Georgian legislation, according to which the public defender considers complaints and at the same time not only considers these complaints, but proactively has the right to respond to this issue if any case becomes known to him . And if, during the investigation of this case, criminal circumstances are identified, to refer to the relevant authorities and make a decision of a recommendatory nature. In this regard, the authority of the public defender is clearly spelled out in the law, and I would say that it is not so bad, the main thing is how it is performed. As for the third part, one of the most important rights of authority that the public defender has, not a right but an obligation on the one hand, is to submit their report to the Parliament of Georgia within the framework of their supervisory activities on human rights and to issue appropriate recommendations regarding relevant issues when they finds serious violations of human rights. However, we have a problem in the third part — one, as we can see according to the latest report, official statistics exist and are counted, only about 65% of the Public Defender’s recommendations are implemented. The problems in the direction of enforcement are serious, these problems also appear in the direction that the public defender tells us that there are gaps in the direction of human rights protection here and now, they have suggested to the government or the political leadership that we have a problem here and they recommend that it be corrected, that this change be implemented. This should be done, but due to the lack of political will, recommendations on some issues were not shared. The problem is that we are dealing with a recommendation, an indirect legal force. In this regard, what can we do? Naturally, we cannot give the Public Defender’s recommendation an imperative character, it cannot be like that, no Public Defender’s institution known to the world is organized like this. In such a situation, we have the only opportunity to present the role of the public defender in society in such a way that its importance increases so much that non-implementation of the recommendation means paying a certain political price for the members of the legislative body. It is necessary to integrate the institution more into the society, which will protect their interests. In my opinion, one thing that will help to increase the role of the public defender is that everyone will agree that submission of 500 and 1000-page reports, in which the recommendations are just a few sentences, may be relevant for a professionally interested person, but even the form of submission of these reports and recommendations is wrong. Therefore, it is necessary to think of some other format. As of now, the public defender is accountable to the parliament, which indirectly implies accountability to the people, because the composition of the parliament is also based on the people, but we need to create a kind of direct form of accountability to the people. For example, Poland has an interesting mechanism — the public defender appears on television once a quarter and presents a report on human rights to the people. We can, on the one hand, oblige the Public Broadcaster to cover the report of the Public Defender, and on the other hand, make a note in the Law on the Public Defender that they are obliged to submit a report to the country once a quarter, 4 times a year. This will create an opportunity to make information about the facts of human rights violations and the obligations of the public defender more clear to the people. At the same time, the recommendations will be understandable to everyone and the possibility of their implementation will increase. The Institute of the Public Defender is still in the process of development and it is necessary to expand its public influence. My goal is to present these initiatives that will strengthen the institution of the Public Defender. The commission gave me a rather low rating for political activities, which is funny to me, because the public defender has a lot of political influence and the political elements are clear.

Iago Khvichiya: The competence of the public defender is to intervene in the conflicts between state structures and people and control whether any agency violates human rights. In my opinion, clarifying conflicts between people is not the job of the public defender, there are other institutions that are responsible for that. The public defender may also check in some way, but not that the neighbors, some people quarreled and decide who it is right or false. First of all, I am going to say openly that I am a representative of the Parliament, I act on their behalf, including when I see clear violations of human rights. Our main area of interest is the type of relationship between the state and the human being that concerns the imprisonment of a person, incarceration and so on. I think that in this situation the relationship between the citizen and the state is the most clear. We will do our best to convince the public that we are dealing with rights violations, both on a practical and a normative level, mainly from law enforcement agencies and those agencies whose activities are related to the deprivation of human freedom. We will study all cases individually and make a decision.

Nazi Janezashvili: I think that we should somehow talk about the existing problems through a proper campaign, and not only organizations, in general, in order to increase public awareness, and I think that this will be one of the ways to protect human rights. As for the public defender, they must protect all groups that are particularly at risk. Although I always state that one of my priorities, based on my profession, is justice that applies to everyone, whether it is an LGBTQI person or anyone else who has a neighborhood dispute in court, the process is delayed and their rights are violated in this regard. I think that the public defender should not only react correctly and protect these values ​​in the part of non-discrimination and support this policy, but I think that they should be able to work with everyone, with each person, so that the attitudes of the society regarding these issues are appropriate, rational, non-discriminatory . One of the important issues for me would be the rights of minorities, because the essence of this institution is that these issues should be given a lot of attention, and should be a priority, although, of course, not only that.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY, DEMONSTRATION AND EXPRESSION AND HOW SHOULD THE STATE ENSURE THAT THIS RIGHT IS EXERCISED?

Ana Abashidze: Based on the mandate, the first function of the public defender is to be very vigilant and observe the state of realization of human rights in Georgia and to observe the work of those agencies that are obliged to act to allow people to enjoy their rights in any situation. The supervisory part is one of the main things for the public defender, but the second is for the public defender to proactively meet people, professionals, representatives of different professions, communities and share their attitude, their concerns and help the society to gradually make the oppressive lifestyle a thing of the past. . As for the standard of human rights, without any buts and so on, every person has exactly the same right to self-expression – what they wear, how they look, what their identity is and so on, including whether they do it in public, gather with others, with banners, on which street they will be. , where it will be, this right applies to everyone equally and no prejudices, stereotypes, unacceptability of mass, etc. It is not a justification that anyone should cite when restricting human rights. Any office should be very clear and unambiguous about this.

Marika Arevadze: The right to express opinion and assembly is guaranteed by law, however, there is a problem in the direction of implementation, so it is most important to develop a state policy, which will then be implemented according to plan and every group will have an equal opportunity to enjoy the right granted to them.

Giorgi Burjanadze: The main role of the public defender is to remind any official that any peaceful gathering, whatever its content, is protected and naturally, every person should have the opportunity to express their opinion, go out on the street, expression should be protected. The role of the public defender is a reminder, to recall the example of last year, to conduct negotiations with certain groups and also, if someone violates, to demand responsibility. Remembering the terrible events of July 5, we demand that the organizers of the violent events be brought to justice, and we have appealed to the prosecutor’s office with a proposal to initiate criminal prosecution against two specific persons, against whom there is a standard in accordance with publicly distributed video recordings.

Lela Gafrindashvili: This is a very important right and there should not be any group in the state that is restricted from this right. The state must provide security in every possible way at the moment when any group enjoys this right.

Sofio Demetrashvili: I am not against the rally, or what right do I have to be against it. Of course, as it happens in all developed countries, I think there should not be a similar problem with us. Therefore, everyone is identical to me, regardless of any sign. Without a problem, that’s what I’m saying, my dear, without a problem, of course, everyone has freedom of expression, everyone has the right, let’s take the USA even, there the actions are completely open, completely public, one full day is devoted entirely, it’s a huge and beautiful event, you’ve probably seen it , I think everyone has seen it on TV. I have no objections, I am open to everyone.

Tinatin Arkvania: Very simple. A member of a sexual minority, like a member of any other social group, has the right to freedom of assembly and expression. I don’t see any problem at all with holding a demonstration in public to defend their rights. It is simply necessary to protect the demonstrators through a strong police cordon to prevent any excesses. At the same time, religious fundamentalists, who are in all countries and this is not only a Georgian problem, must somehow also be explained in legal language that they are violating the basic rights of others and that this is not at all compatible with Christianity. And at the same time, the government should deal strictly with all persons who will try to provoke violence against sexual minorities! I myself am Orthodox, and for me the oppression of sexual minorities is absolutely unacceptable, as well as violence “explained” by religion and religious fundamentalism. I have been interested in theology since childhood and there is no justification for oppression, persecution and violence anywhere, in any component. We must build a state where any citizen with a worldview can feel safe. To justify the oppression of sexual minorities with Christianity is anti-Christianity. I am writing an article on Christian social ethics these days and I want to emphasize that religious and political education and education in general are very lacking in Georgia.

Evgenia Tavadze: What should the state provide?! Free meetings in the minority of Eljibite (purposeful mispronunciation of the term LGBTQI) are already guaranteed. I’m saying that if an eljibite is restricted, let’s say, the right to work, there is oppression in the workplace, then I say that this person really needs to intervene and protect their rights. Other than that, I think Eljibit has no limitations. Passing freely, gathering and manifesting in some area, in an organized manner, does not harm anyone, and I think they are given this freedom.[After the journalist mentioned past experiences, including the events of July 5, and pointed out that public assembly and demonstration are protected by the constitution] Of course, the ombudsman should be careful, should not interfere harshly and should rely on the law, they should strictly abide it. On the other hand, individual oppression should be addressed, as should the violation of labor rights. what is happening? If individually this person has a right violation, this should be given special attention. On the other hand, they have this freedom if they can pass freely, gather, express their opinion. To ensure this right does not mean that the state must rally the demonstrators around it. I understand what you are saying, you want the state to collect the demonstrators, to ensure that the percentage of them actually increases. [The journalist clarifies that we are talking about the necessary protection levers and not about “gathering of demonstrators”] Is there some pedagogical group that spreads what I want to spread about you, on the other hand, they have freedom.

Aleksandre Kobaidze: Regarding the expression of free opinion, when the state listens to you illegally, and there are many proven cases that it listens to you, first of all, the state should take care that you, as a citizen, are not listened to. I think that illegal eavesdropping is directly related to human freedom, expression of opinion, because if the state does not listen to you, there will be more opportunities to express yourself. When a person has the feeling that the state is listening, he is no longer free whether he likes it or not. First of all, this problem should be solved. Regarding public gatherings, there are law enforcement agencies whose duty it is to ensure security, this is directly the prerogative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Levan Kokorashvili: Everyone’s freedom of assembly and expression is guaranteed by the constitution, which must be protected by the state. The rights and safety of all participants must be protected and everyone must be allowed to express themselves in a free environment and gather to express their opinion, of course.

Nugzar Kokhreidze: Regarding the right to public assembly and expression, the Public Defender should develop recommendations, should talk with all state agencies to carry out preliminary work, ensure processes to realize the right to expression of these people, including, communicating with relevant groups, people who prevent the right to self-expression. The constitution obliges the government to exercise the said right.

Giorgi Mariamidze: The exercise of any right should serve some purpose, if, for example, the assembly serves to protect the rights of this community, and this is the only way to protect the rights, yes, but are other means considered so that the assembly is not necessary. Since it causes excitement in society and many dangers are associated with this particular gathering, is it not advisable to find some other forms to protect the rights and why we resort to a radical form. I walk around in the community, people, and people’s argument is that there is a need to hold Pride, let’s find other means. Members of the community must agree on one thing, that I gather just to gather, because that is what I want if this gathering is to serve something. If I have a particular object, my rights are violated and I cannot defend it in any other way, yes sir, but let us first try other means and not sow a feud because some part of the community thinks that the community is celebrating a victory over something, another member of the community. I believe that no group of society has a moral right to celebrate any victory over society, so it will turn out that we will have a hostile society instead of a united one, which sooner or later will lead to violence. I, for example, unfortunately have never had contact with a representative of this community, I just wanted to talk if there is any other way to protect the rights. Both one side and the other have to give up something in order to live in society, a radical approach does not benefit anyone. Such thinking does not help either side, because if the other side thought so, we got what we got—hangings, beatings, and so on, for which a person is held accountable. Now imagine, as a public defender, on the one hand, I have to say that beating these people is bad, but on the other hand, I have to visit people in prison and take care of their rights. So if you are not defensive and neither are they, maybe we can sit down and talk, maybe there are other means.

Sergo Makharadze: The right to assembly and demonstration should be enjoyed by all people equally and, among them, it doesn’t matter what order a person belongs to or what social affiliation they belong to. All rights must be guaranteed equally.

Maka Mindiashvili: You mean the topic of Pride, right? [The journalist clarifies that it is not just about Pride, but the right to assembly and demonstration in general] My opinion and my view will be a little critical in this regard, I will tell you why. Now, I have a hearing tomorrow and the question will be whether a person owns his own body. [Author’s reference: Girchi members asked this question to the candidates for public defense during the parliamentary hearing] Of course, it belongs, but we have to take into account the public’s opinion, their approaches and views, in which society we live, right?! If, let’s say, the Elgebete (purposeful mispronunciation of the term LGBTQI) representative organizes Pride because they want to express it, as if they consider it their freedom, as if it is freedom and their attitude, then, come on, why are you violating my freedom? And suppose I believe that Elgebete is not a person of the right orientation, is that so? I think it’s the opposite, right? We have different attitudes and let’s not promote any attitude. We have our own life, and in this case pride is not needed for people of the right orientation, nor for people of no orientation. I personally do not welcome Pride.

Ketevan Chachava: The right of assembly and demonstration of all groups, as well as the freedom of expression, must be protected in a legal, human rights-based state. These are the rights protected by the Constitution of Georgia and various international acts. Unequivocally, ensuring the enjoyment of this right is a direct duty of the state. Specifically, the function of law enforcement agencies is to provide the safest possible environment for each citizen of Georgia to exercise these rights. It is also worth noting the role of the state in raising awareness – the state should actively work with society to dispel homophobic, biphobic and transphobic attitudes, which will also contribute to the prevention of violence.

Giorgi Tsobekhiia: The solution regarding the freedom of assembly and expression is the constitution. If we say that the supreme law is the constitution, we should be guided by the constitution so as not to single out people on this or that basis. In this direction, we do not have a problem with the record of the law, but there is a problem with the implementation of the law. Both the state and the public defender should be guided by the law and the constitution.

Iago Khvichiya: A person has the right to speak what he thinks is right. A person has the right to everything. I have always defended this right, from all positions, as I could, as a public defender, and I will try not to allow what I believe in practice – a violation by the state. As far as I know, I think that freedom of speech is still fairly protected at the legislative level, and I will try to make it less dangerous, because there are also discussions in the parliament about new laws restricting freedom of speech. I will try to resist it. I will protect all the rights that the state should insure, although priority will be given, of course, to much more painful topics, but if you ask me if I support the freedom of expression and assembly, of course I do, and I have used this right many times.

Nazi Janezashvili: I remember periods when gatherings were held, for example, in the presence of the police, silently, without the information of the general public, in order to avoid the dangers that we have already experienced in the past. This is not right, of course, because the right to free assembly and expression should be guaranteed to all citizens, but it needs to be worked on accordingly. This, in my opinion, is not a one-day act, it requires long-term, continuous work with the public, providing information, planning a campaign that will make the public more sensitive to the fact that people are actually in great danger. I think that any step that is taken by the public defender should be with broad involvement, in which the community will be involved first and the society as well, and in this way, it should be done with joint involvement. I may be painting in beautiful colors now, but it’s a long process, but step by step everything will be achievable.

HATE CRIME

In addition, we asked the candidates for public defender, in their opinion, how effective is the investigation of crimes motivated by hate and what gaps exist in this direction.

Ana Abashidze noted that the public defender and any person whose duty it is, should first of all work to reduce the level of hatred among people to a minimum. Also, specific cases of hate-motivated crimes should be studied and the perpetrators should be punished accordingly.

According to Marika Arevadze, she has not worked on these topics in depth and it will be difficult to present the details, however, in case of becoming a public defender, she will study all components in this direction. Lela Gaprindashvili made a similar comment and noted that it would be important for her to “talk to people with higher competence and share their information”.

Giorgi Burjanadze said that “there should be a specialized investigative body that will be responsible for the investigation of similar category of cases”. According to him, there is a department in the Ministry of Internal Affairs that monitors the investigation of similar cases, but it is important to have a specialized unit.

Sofio Demetrashvili noted that “the main problem, from which all other problems originate, is education, awareness. In my subjective opinion, education of children in this direction should start from school age.”

Tinatin Erkvania considers strengthening the direction of criminal law as a way to reduce crimes motivated by hate.

In response to the question, Evgenia Tavadze said that the crimes cannot be properly investigated if the victim cannot formulate and analyze what they have to say to the end, and “a person needs effort”.

According to Aleksandre Kobaidze, “the investigation is biased, that is, someone is punished by the law, someone is not”, which should not be the case, because this is how crime is encouraged.

According to Levan Kokorashvili, there are cases of delays in the investigation, and if he becomes the public defender, he is going to actively monitor in this direction. A similar comment was made by Nugzar Kokhreidze, who, based on the Public Defender’s report, states that when it comes to ethnic and religious minorities, investigative agencies practically do not investigate such cases. In his opinion, “this needs to be refined and improved, informational and educational training should be carried out in the investigative system itself, so that they can identify distinguishing marks”.

Giorgi Mariamidze states that the motive of violence is less important and the motive does not have much weight in criminal law: “I didn’t like the person’s dress, I didn’t like the lipstick, the hair color, what does it matter if a man comes in a dress and he is an exaggerated threat, with high heels He wears shoes or something, he has a different kind of touch, not characteristic of a man, and so on, and because of that someone attacks him, these specific cases are unknown to me.”

Like Giorgi Mariamidze, Iago Khvichia also ignored the motive and declared that “the dead motivated by hatred and the dead motivated by love are both dead and both are murders. And I don’t understand the logic that we should consider these two differently”.

Sergo Makharadze told us that it would be difficult to give an answer without a proper investigation, and Giorgi Tsobekhia once again pointed out that it is necessary to effectively use the mandate of the Public Defender.

After asking the question, Maka Mindiashvili started talking about the hatred in the society in general: “So we are talking about any crime?” [The journalist specifies that it is about the motive of hatred] Hate. Hmmm… yeah, there was a lot of hate today. Recently, especially people hate each other, I don’t know why this happened, what caused it, I don’t know if we have mental problems or what”, – the journalist explained to the candidate what the motive of hatred means, after which Mindiashvili voiced homophobic comments – “monitoring will definitely be carried out in this regard, Training will be conducted in schools in particular. We cannot even hate such people, and on the contrary, we should stand by them, maybe what caused him to act like that, right? That is, let’s say that such a lifestyle was caused by some factors, and we can support such people, that’s my opinion.”

Ketevan Chachava noted that the investigation of crimes motivated by hate is a challenge and it is necessary to “see effective justice for the acts of violence committed so far”. She cited the events of July 5 as an example and said that the organizers should be punished.

According to Nazi Janezashvili, one of the problems in relation to crimes motivated by hate is the unprofessionalism of judges, and it is necessary to train people employed in courts and law enforcement agencies.