NOTES ABOUT THE BILL "ON MEETINGS AND MASS DEMONSTRATIONS"

Article 21 international pact of 1996 on civil and political rights envisages citizens' rights to peaceful demonstrations. Article 25 of Georgian Constitution writes about it:

1. All persons, except for the employees of military forces, police, and security service, have the right to hold a meeting without any permission;
2. The authority may require information about a meeting in advance, if the meeting is held at the place of street traffic;
3. The authority can cease a meeting or mass demonstration only if the meeting or mass demonstration is illegal.

1. Georgian citizens do not need any preliminary permission from the authority for holding a meeting;
2. The authority may demand to be informed beforehand only in the case if a meeting is held in the place of street traffic;
3. The authority has no right to cease a meeting or mass demonstration, if it is not illegal.

Article 6 of the bill contradicts Article 25 paragraph I of the Constitution. The latter states, that citizens have the right to meet anywhere without preliminary permission. Therefore, Article 6 limits this right and permits them to exercise their constitutional right only in the places chosen by the authority. Article 7 of the bill entitles only private citizens to express their opinions publicly without preliminary information by means of posters, slogans or transparency. However, the same article states that "they have no right to use entrances or staircases of buildings for this purpose". It is unclear what a "private citizens" means; not to mention terms as " entrances or staircases." It seems, that the authority can admit one person to stand with a transparency without preliminary information, and if two more persons join him, the action becomes illegal and the policemen have every right to detain the protesters.

Paragraph 2 of article 9 of the bill entitles the authority to decline the petition to organize a meeting if a petitioner has already violated their obligations during former meetings. Paragraph 5 of the same article entitles the authority prohibit a mass action, "if this action ceases traffic." This stipulation contradicts Article 25 paragraph II of Georgian Constitution.

The bill prohibits holding demonstrations in the buildings with armed protection (Article 10 paragraph 1). There is a great number of such buildings in Georgia! Paragraph 2 of this article says: "Mass actions must not be held within the radius of 100 meters from the Parliament building, President's residence, the buildings of Constitutional and Supreme Courts, Procurator's Office, prisons and colonies, military units, railway stations, airports, hospitals, diplomatic institutions and other important objects."

Naturally, there are the buildings of special importance in our country, where it is inadmissible to hold mass actions. However, the authorities artificially increased the number such objects. If one complied to the definition of "government institutions" and "other important objects", demonstrations would be prohibited on the most area of Tbilisi. Even a simpleton receiving most of his/her education from the movies is aware that the demonstrations are usually held in the vicinity of administrative buildings. Moreover, it is ironic to prohibit the demonstrations near the administrative buildings when most of the protests are addressed against the administration. Prohibition of meetings near "the important objects" will help any authority (present or future) to abuse this paragraph, and declare a certain building or institution "an important object", thereby prohibiting holding mass demonstrations nearby.

Another important question is a mechanism of informing the authority by the organizers of a meeting. According to Article 8 of the bill, "local bodies of government should be informed about mass demonstrations no later than 5 days before the demonstration". According to Article 11, "local government bodies are entrusted to discuss the place and time of mass demonstration during 4 days after receiving the information about the demonstration and make an appropriate decision." Actually, the bill entitles the authority to manipulate it and prohibit the meetings or mass demonstrations. Let's imagine, that the organizers of a meeting informed local bodies on May 1 and appointed the meeting on May 6. According to the above-mentioned article of the bill, the government bodies have the right to refuse to the organizers up to 23.30pm on May 5, or transfer a meeting from one place to another. How can the organizers warn the demonstrators about it? It is quite possible, that the demonstrators will come to the destination and encounter armed policemen. The demonstrators, being sure that they are holding a legal meeting, will oppose the policemen. Such a situation is quite feasible. As specified by Article 17 of the bill, local bodies have the right to receive the information and a day before the meeting, annul this information. According to the bill, one side has indefinite number of rights and the other ( none. Interestingly, Article 11 fully contradicts Article 25 of the Constitution, since the article of the Constitution envisages only the necessity of information, while article 11 of the bill implies the necessity of receiving permission from the authority. One could argue that the main issue is not right to prohibit an action, rather an authority's right to change the place and time of an action. However, one should remember that the authority can postpone an action till the next year. The local officials can prohibit mass actions very easily. They will not receive an information about an action. Such an option is open to them Article 9 of the bill. Though the organizers of a meeting can appeal to higher bodies of the state authority or the court, one can hardly imagine, that it is possible to struggle against the authority's decision.

The bill has other discrepancies as well. For example, according to of Article 14 paragraph I, the participants of mass action have no right to carry objects that can be inflict physical injuries. Paragraph 3 of the same article prohibits wearing uniforms. It is a strange and unclear prohibition. Why could not doctors wear their smocks during the meeting? The following item looks artificial too: according to Article 14 paragraph 4, the participants of an action should observe the norms of ethics. Does this mean that violating the ethical and moral principles is prohibited only for the participants of the demonstration?

According to Article 18 of the bill, local bodies of government can order police to search the demonstrators, i.e. local governments may order a search of the demonstrators. If there is an information that one of the protesters may be planning a terrorist act, then the search must be conducted by appropriate police department in accordance with the corresponding legislation. The bill also includes other elements which enable state officials to abuse their power.

In conclusion, the bill "On Meetings and Mass Demonstrations" should be made a law for the previous law adopted on June 15 1992 by the State Council, has become dated. Though we still consider the adoption of the above-mentioned bill inadmissible; because it practically prohibits any meetings and mass demonstrations.

P.S. While comparing the above-mentioned bill with other corresponding laws, it appeared strikingly similar to the 1989 law of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic on meetings and demonstrations. There is little need to explain how inapplicable is the Soviet law to current Georgian reality. It is full anachronism.

Gela Nikolaishvili