In the last several days the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia released a statement defending the actions of the police and the Georgian Young Lawyer’s Association (GLYA) - the organization defending Mr. Sabelashvili - responded in kind.

The Ministry’s statement was itself a response to an open letter - that can be found on our website (http://peacedialogue.am/english/news_more.php?SID=1&AID=218&Language=Eng#l) - from the Inclusive Foundation demanding accountability for the accusations it made against the conduct of the police during the raid.

Ministry insists raid was about drugs

In its statement defending the actions of the police the Ministry of Internal Affairs claims that there were no underlying homophobic motives to the raid, an accusation supposedly made by the Inclusive Foundation (it must be noted that, at least in the English versions of the open letter and the article on the Foundation’s website, there were no claims of underlying homophobic motives for the raid made by the Foundation). Instead, the Ministry insists that “it was a legitimate operative police action aiming to check operative information received regarding illegal drugs in the given location and to detain suspects if any. Illegal drugs were indeed found as a result of search conducted by police officers in front of Mr. Sabelashvili and two witnesses selected by him.”

Responding to the Foundation’s charge that Mr. Sabelashvili’s confession of drug possession was suspect the Ministry notes that “[i]n his first testimony Mr. Sabelashvili stated that he purchased the drugs abroad and transported it to Georgia. Later at the initial court hearing defendant used his right to be silent, while his attorney petitioned for alternative expertise with regard of quantity of illegal drugs. Defendant and his attorney have not challenged the fact of possession of illegal drugs.” The Ministry goes on to point out that “Mr. Sabelashvili in presence of his attorney and in front of the judge, admitted the fact of purchase and transportation of drugs as part of the plea agreement with prosecutors’ office.”

The GYLA, in its response, says that “[i]n the beginning we want to underline that no one questions that ‘possession as well as consumption of Marijuana is criminalized in Georgia, thus punishable under the law.’ However, it is also true that abuse of power is punishable under article 332 of the Criminal Code.”

Differences remain in accounts of police conduct

The GYLA accuses the Ministry of Internal Affairs of misrepresenting the conduct of the police during the raid. In its response to the Ministry’s statement the GYLA maintains that “instead of quickly reacting to the facts of the human rights violation by the law officers, the Ministry of Internal Affairs blatantly ignores abuse of power by the police officers.”In its statement the Ministry pushes back against the claims of police abuse and procedural violations in the Inclusive Foundation’s open letter and in its 23 December article. The Ministry insists that the police conducted the search, seizure, and arrest within the bounds of the law.

“Quotation in the article that “the police acted disproportionately and completely ignored basic rule of law” is simply false. Police entered the location of interest based on the search order of the investigator (in case of urgent necessity, investigator/prosecutor can order the search; the order needs to be examined by the court within 48 hours. In the present case the court has verified and approved the search order as required by the legislation), which was shown to Mr. Sabelashvili as he requested and additionally, he was in detail informed about his procedural rights by the investigator.”

The GYLA responds by claiming that “even if we assume that search was conducted without warrants due to the emergency, search protocols should nevertheless been drawn up. However, there are no search protocols in the case materials.”

There continues to be a major gap in the way that both sides characterize the actions of the police and those present at the Inclusive Foundation’s office. Objecting to the account in the Foundation’s open letter, the Ministry claims that “[r]eference to any kind of “disproportional actions” is furthermore irrelevant, as police was able to undertake all procedures without any need to use even minimal force. Police officers did order individuals present in the given location, not to leave the office -- this is unfortunately a necessary and unavoidable discomfort for any individual present at a crime scene. Those present, minus Mr. Sabelashvili and two witnesses he has chosen to observe the search, were asked to wait in a separate room.” The Ministry also accuses those present of being “highly aggressive toward the police, insulting and threatening to the extent, that Mr. Sabelashvili himself asked them twice to calm down.” The Inclusive Foundation’s open letter originally accused the police of these types of violations.

In its response the GYLA strongly disputes this characterization of events.

“Unfortunately, in the information provided, there is no mention that those present at the office were taken to the bathroom, ordered to take off the clothes and searched without search warrants for that. GYLA wants to underline that search of the individuals without warrants for private search clearly goes beyond the ‘necessary and unavoidable discomfort’ and constitutes abuse of power.”

The GYLA response continues to note both the claim of excessive force and the claim of “unnecessary damage” to the Inclusive Foundation’s premises.

“GYLA wants to state that the photos taken after the police raid and subsequently disseminated by the Inclusive Foundation representatives, clearly indicates that ‘discomfort’ caused clearly went beyond the reasonable and legal threshold. Under the law, officers performing the search shall “avoid damaging lock, door or any other item and disturbing an order at an apartment or any other premises to be searched as much as possible”. During the search of the Inclusive Foundation office police officers unnecessary damaged some items. LGBT posters were torn down. Noted actions could have never been relevant to purpose of the search to find and seize the evidence of an offence or/and item obtained illegally.”

Unclear claims persist

In its 23 December article and open letter the Inclusive Foundation claimed that the police “did not wear police uniforms…did not inform about their identity or agency they represented.” The Ministry, however, rejects this claim in its statement, saying “the search and detention was undertaken by the local unit of the Criminal Police, which wears easily identifiable coats with the Criminal Police signs. Mr. Davit Khidasheli, an investigator, as well as his colleagues, were all wearing uniforms. Allegation made in the “open letter” that investigator presented himself as Giorgi Gegechkori an officer of the Constitutional Security Department, is confusing, as Mr. Georgi Gegechkori, is head of the Tbilisi Patrol Police and a very well known public face.”

Additionally, the Ministry insists that “[r]eferring to the information indicated in the web-article, which states that “Paata Sabelashvili is not allowed any contact with the outside world”, this information is false, as since the arrest, Mr. Sabelashvili has been visited not only be his legal attorneys both in the pre-trial detention facility and also in the prison, but also three times by Georgian Public Defender representatives, including once personally by the Public Defender.” (emphasis in original) It must be noted, however, that in the English versions of the Inclusive Foundation’s article, its open letter, and the GYLA’s 24 December statement this alleged reference to Mr. Sabelashvili’s inability to access the “outside world” could not be verified.

After detailing the state’s actions in attempting to ensure Mr. Sabelashvili’s safety during his imprisonment the Ministry ends by restating that this affair was a “routine criminal case.”

“Profile of the organization searched, or the sexual, religious, ethnic etc, belonging of a suspect, is irrelevant during the criminal procedures and is irrelevant in terms of the rule of law.”

The GYLA, in its response, continues to be unconvinced and insists that further investigation is necessary to ensure justice.

“Taking into consideration all the above mentioned, GYLA calls on MIA’s General Inspection and other relevant bodies to examine violations listed above and in the statement attached immediately and take necessary measures against individuals concerned.”