Presently, the topic of political prisoners causes a great disturbance in Georgia. International organisations for human rights and Georgian political parties tried to bring the state of the political prisoners to the attention of Georgian government. Subsequent to these efforts, Georgian officials have become more active towards the problem of political prisoners. Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, the President of Georgia, announced: "I would be ashamed to be not only a President, but even an ordinary citizen of the country, where political prisoners exist. That's why you should find out, whether such people are imprisoned in our country and justice bodies should be held fully responsible for it".
The heads of law-enforcement bodies (Procurator General, Chairman of Supreme Court, Justice Minister, Internal Minister, etc.) followed with their statements on this issue. On December 10 - an international day for human rights - they participated in a two-hour programme on human rights and political prisoners in Georgia. The same day President Shevardnadze submitted a letter to Georgian Parliament on the aforementioned questions. In the same appeal he declared a moratorium on the execution of death until the final vote by the Parliament.
All representatives of the authority categorically deny that political prisoners exist in Georgia. Meanwhile, the political opposition claims the opposite - there are numerous political prisoners in Georgia. In the light of such speculations, the position of the non-governmental organisations on human rights becomes crucial for these establishments are impartial to political motivations.
I do not want to interfere with political debates. That's why I have conducted my own research among the representatives of political parties and other interested groups on the issues of political prisoners in Georgia.
It appeared, that a term political prisoner has various, if not different, interpretation among political parties and individuals. For example, Amnesty International defines "a political prisoner" as a person, who has committed criminal offences for political motives. If we embrace this definition, anyone committing a murder or a robbery with a motive of struggling against the authority, is a political prisoner. Amnesty International does not release the political prisoners from criminal responsibility for their illegal action. However, it demands that these people should be guaranteed fair and timely trial. As for people arrested for their own political or religious convictions, Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience and demands their immediate release.
Other international organisations for human rights have different approaches defining the term "political prisoner." For example, a famous human rights activist Yuri Orlov thinks: "A person, who commits a criminal offence for political motives, provided this crime does not violate the rights and freedoms of another person, is considered a political prisoner." According to his logic, if an innocent person was victimised by a terrorist act conducted for political purposes, the terrorist can not be considered a political prisoner. A famous Polish human rights activist Marek Novitsky shares the same position. In connection to this approach, I recollect a fact from the recent history of the United Kingdom. In 1980s, Irish terrorists kept in British prisons, demanded from the British authorities to be recognised as political prisoners. They even went on chain hunger-strike: firstly one person went on hunger-strike, after his death the second one continued and so on. Although chain hunger-strike continued for one year and 10 prisoners died, the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did not compromise. She said: "We have arrested them not for their political convictions, but for particular terrorist acts that costed many innocent lives." Ironically, the Soviet Union actively supported the Irish terrorists and regarded them as political prisoners, while many were suffering in Soviet prisons for their ideas or spreading anti-Soviet literature. It is not hard to conclude that politicians manipulate the theme of political prisoners in their own political interests.
I am providing the opinions of Georgian politicians about the definition of "a political prisoner" and their attitude towards the prisoners of this category.
Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Law): "Only those persons can be considered political prisoners, who are arrested not for criminal offences, but for their political convictions. Hence, political prisoners do not exist in Georgia at present".
Mr.Tengiz Sigua, the Former Prime-Minister of Georgia: "For example, the former prefect of Samtredia Region Mr.Zviad Dzidziguri is a real political prisoner. I know him personally, since he was a prefect while I was a prime-minister. I can not understand why he was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment. The same can be said about Mr.Jamlet Bockuchava. Both of them were fighting for their own political convictions. Of course, Tengiz Kitovani is a political prisoner too".
Mr.Konstantin Kokoev, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights): "I have said for several times and I repeat again, that there are no political prisoners in Georgia. A person, who commits a criminal offence for political reasons, can not be a political prisoner".
Ms.Irina Sarishvili-Tchanturia, the Chairwoman of National-Democratic Party: "A political prisoner is a person, who has not committed a criminal offence and is arrested only for his political convictions. The authority has itself caused such a situation, since it has not arrested those obvious guilty, until they contradicted the authority politically. It concerns the head of "Mkhedrioni" and others. Mr. Loti Kobalia, who is accused of high treason, was not arrested until he challenged the authority politically. Thus, we have no political prisoners, though the existing tendency negatively disposes a great part of the society."
Ms.Tamar Chkheidze, the Leader of Ilia Tchavtchavadze Society: "Mr.Temur Zhorzholiani is a vivid example political prisoner. The court failed to prove his crimes, thereby putting itself in a ridiculous situation. Another obvious political prisoner is a member of the former Supreme Council Nugzar Molodinashvili. During the National-Liberating Movement Mr. Molodinashvili tried to establish normal relations between the supporters and opponents of ex-president. That's why he was pushed aside from national movement. Currently, there is a great number of political prisoners in Georgia."
Mr.Elene Tevdoradze, the chairwoman of the Parliamentary Committee on Penitential Reform, considers Mr. Molodinashvili to be a political prisoner.
Mr.Giorgi Kervalishvili, the Chairman of the Georgian Association for Human Rights, announces that more than one hundred political prisoners are in Georgia today.
Mr.Otar Pankvelashvili, a lawyer, who defended the interests of Mr. Loti Kobalia now sentenced to death:
"We probably have political prisoners, though they are being punished for various crimes at present, because an article on political crimes does not exist in our Criminal Code".
Since there is no common criterion defining the status of a political prisoner, there cannot be a common opinion about the political prisoners in Georgia. If we adopt the definition by Amnesty International, we can conclude that there are more than one hundred political prisoners are in Georgia today. However, if we define a political prisoner only as a person, accused of anti-state political convictions and propaganda, then political prisoners really do not exist in present Georgia. We shall emphasise Mrs. Sarishvili's opinion that Georgian authority paid no attention to the crimes of many groups or individuals, until they challenged the state ideology. There are many facts when the authority ignored somebody's crime, while the latter was its ally; however, as soon as he became an opponent to the authority, the authority would suddenly "remember" about his criminal activities. Such authority could easily accuse its political opponents of non-existent crimes. The tendency Mrs. Sarishvili emphasise about is already evident Georgia and it is supported by the examples of Temur Zhorzholiani, Nugzar Molodinashvili, Zviad Dzidziguri, Valter Shurgaia, Soso Zhgenti and others.
Hence, one thing is clear for me: with its little regard for due process, the authority has created firm ground for transforming political opponents into defendants or even accused. Until the court reform is not carried out and the judicial institute does not become truly independent, it will be impossible to speak about objective due process in Georgia.
Gela Nikolaishvili