In the reporting period the situation of Human Rights protection in Georgia was influenced by the political and economic processes running in the country. It can generally be admitted that in terms of Human Rights protection there are most unfavourable conditions established in the country. Yet this cannot be considered a justifiable circumstance for the state authorities at least due to that that creation of such a background is attributable to them themselves. It should also be mentioned that the present authorities have raised to power by virtue of elections held in 1999 which according to the common acknowledgment was conducted with large-scale falsification on the part of all those political parties being in power (the Union of Citizens, the Revival). The aforementioned has been admitted both by local and international observers. It is also worth to mention that the electioneering of the party and the President the former having won the Parliamentary Elections of 1999 and the latter the Presidential Elections of 2000 have mainly been led by those persons later opposing the President and presently seeking to inculcate in the rank of opposition.
Taking into account that Human Rights protection is considerably affected by the common situation created in the country a general presentation of political and economic situation existed in Georgia in 2001 is given bellow.
A profound political and economic crisis was stated in Georgia in 2001. One third of the territory is practically outside the state jurisdiction (Abkhazia, the Former Southern Osetia Autonomous Region, Adjara, Samtskhe-Javakheti, and the Pankisi Valley). Such a difficult situation has mainly been furthered by the aggressive political and military actions of Russia. Notwithstanding international commitments Russia maintains the military bases in Abkhazia, Adjara and Samtskhe-Javakheti until present. Furthermore, Russia endeavors to establish its control on another two third of the territory being controlled by the central Georgian authorities. Stemming from the above-mentioned there is a great risk that the sincere and impartial marches of the population being in a most terrible plight may entail such a destabilisation and uncontrollable processes that antidemocratic forces be raised to power thus the priority of western values being obliterated for a long time. This certainly does not imply that the population must not manifest its objection to the corrupt events but the leaders of such marches should always bear in mind the danger of chaos and uncontrollable consequences and do not transgress the reasonable boundaries beyond which chaos and anarchy begins.
Relying on the foreign factors certain political forces endeavor to maintain their influence in some regions e.g. the forms and methods of the rule of Mr. Aslan Abashidze - the leader of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara. There is in fact a mono-partisan monocracy established in Adjara, without any independent local media and television and the supremacy of law being neglected. For example in grievous breach of law Mr. Abashidze has not released yet and neither sent to a relevant establishment for serving the sentence the former Mayor of Batumi Mr. Tengiz Asanidze despite the fact that he was pardoned by the president of Georgia. Mr. Asanidze had been declared a private enemy of Mr. Abashidze
It is noteworthy that the present general feeling creates a favourable background for enhancing the pro-Russian forces. Everybody remembers very well that in the beginning of 90-ies the Georgian society was unanimous to establish western values in the country, welcomed political and economic decisions of the West taken with regard to Georgia and only perceived them positively. But a great disappointment of the society pertains to the last decade, which strengthened the nostalgia for the Soviet Regime in the considerable part of the population the latter entailing enhancing of the pro-Russian tendencies. One of the main reasons of this change is also inexpedient expenditure of most investments, grants and projects costing millions provided to Georgia from various governmental or non-governmental channels. All these have in fact been expended to no positive effect for the most difficult socio-economic situation of the population; for example the catastrophic situation existed in energetics, industry and other branches. None the better is the situation in terms of establishment of civil society, as on many occasions the resources provided by international foundations are expended ineffectively (vide infra).
The most difficult economic situation worsened even more in 2001. The state budget planned at the minimum level failed again and was sequestered in autumn; the shady economy increased in percentage, contraband and corruption still prevailing. The state authorities willy-nilly do everything to prevent from establishing such a law-abiding society that will solve the problems by law and not by force; where minimal wage or pension will not be eight and ten times less than living wage, where the proper conditions for restoration of territorial and social unity will be set up. The lawless mentality of the authorities and society derives from the Soviet Regime. It is acknowledged that there are mainly communist leaders in power of present Georgia, which is a stumbling block for the process of establishment and development of civil society at a desirous pace. At present those two tangible political forces oppose each other that emerged as a result of the collapse of the ruling party -- the Union of Citizens of Georgia: on the one hand the reliable officialdom of President Shevardnadze and their adhering groups and on the other the activists known as "Reformers" and their adherent groups (so called "National Movement"). Due to the pro-Communist past the former is mainly reckoned to be a pro-Russian and retrograde political force. Yet stemming from that that due to the expiry of the term of office of its leader (the President of Georgia) in 2005 and the fact that the West supports the latter political force there is no evidently perspective leader for the former. As regards the "National Movement", in view of support they enjoy from the West there are prima facie real chances for their raising to power and to this end they by all means (even by virtue of destabilisation) seek the pre-term Parliamentary and Presidential elections. While it is also to be mentioned that these are rather dangerous political games both for the country and the mentioned forces. The fact is that there emerges a possibility for manifestly pro-Russian and antidemocratic forces to be raised to power in the instability circumstances. Furthermore, stemming from the general situation democracy and combating the corruption are the necessary "baits" of all political parties and they compete verbally with each other to appear faithful to these values. Under such circumstances any objective observer is ought to judge these political forces' faithfulness in deed and not in name. And in this regard none of them can be shown to the best advantage. It is also evident that certainly the corrupted and antidemocratic actions of those political forces that actually are in power and keep the rein of corruption are more apparent. Accordingly the reliable officialdom of President Shevardnadze and their adhering groups represent the source of the corrupted policy dominating in the country and its main support. The unbridled policy and the syndrome of impunity of all force-based agencies (especially that of the Ministry of Interior) is enhanced by the protection of these very forces. A general impression is that the main function of the force-based agencies is to ensure winning of those political forces in elections that are acceptable to the President rather than to maintain security of the country and people.
The so-called "National Movement" invokes the western values, but it should be admitted that their actions often differ from their proclaimed principles. For instance some leaders of this movement seek to obtain influence and subject to their control free mass media and NGOs. And all this is veiled with the slogan "For the Protection of Independence and Interests of the Media and NGOs". Consequently those fundamental values that base western democracy are neglected and manipulated with. This process already reached the stage when some NGOs have become complementary to certain political forces and some newspapers serve as forums of the latter. When such political forces lobbies their "own" NGOs and media they prevent the genuinely neutral press and civil society from existing and incite them to liquidate. The recruitment of the electoral commissions with the representatives of that civil sector that would serve to the interests of the mentioned and other political forces should be considered as an attempted exploitation of NGOs. All this was furthered under the slogan "For Democratic and Fair Elections". Such recruitment requires much scrutiny that the present biased electoral commission set up from the political parties' representatives not to be replaced by a new controllable and partial commission composed from the NGOs' representatives.
At this conjuncture that is the context of the unfavourable conditions for Human Rights protection the absolute inability of the Georgian law-enforcement agencies to settle the Pankisi Valley problem is a novelty of 2001. There are more than 7 000 Chechen refugees living in the Pankisi Valley at present. Neither the Ministry of Interior nor the Prosecutor's Office is able to control the criminal situation there. Murder, robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking etc. have become the stile of life on the uncontrollable territory of the Pankisi Valley. At the same time on many occasions representatives of the law-enforcement agencies are involved themselves in these actions. Certainly there are absolutely no conditions for Human Rights protection. Overall in the country the facts of violation of foreigners' right to liberty and security have become more frequent.
One of the reasons of the political crisis created in the country is the absence of a fair balance between the state powers in favour of the executive. Both legislature and the judiciary are under the influence of the presidential institution. At present there are noteworthy debates regarding the abasement of the presidential authority or change to a parliamentary model.