The History of Georgian Legislation
The history of Georgian judicial system has developed parallel with the formation of the Georgian statehood. Traditions of Georgian legislation historically have coexisted with the Georgian political state. In ancient Georgia, since the Pharnavazi era, legislative functions were carried out by the People’s Assembly and the Council of Elders.
In the ninth and tenth centuries, the particular function was assigned to a representative body - Darbazi (chamber). The Georgian Chamber included clergy, aristocracy and the commons. The Georgian Chamber was responsible for issuance of important legal documents, such as: Samparavtmdzebnelo Law (Criminal Law), Bagrat Kurapalati Law, Giorgi V Law, Royal Court Regulations, etc.
The Georgian Chamber also covered translation and adaptation of international legal documents, and their harmonization with legal actions in Georgia. Such examples are: Georgian versions of Law of Moses, Greek and Roman-Syrian laws. A great number of legal documents were restored, unified in a single collection, and reintroduced by Vakhtang VI in the beginning of the 18th century. The document is known as the Book of Laws of Vakhtang VI (issued in 1703-1709), was based on long-time experience and the legal acts of early middle ages.
King Vakhtang’s Dasturlamal (the Book of Regulations) has survived to the present day. Composed in 1707-1709, it includes description of the statesmen and assignment of their duties, as well as survey and census of the population, economy, revenues, taxes and property accounts - everything accomplished with exceptional precision. Dasturlamal texts show that surveys of population, economies, taxation etc. had been continually taking place in Georgia once every few years. Such a high level of registry was aimed at reducing burden of the population, fostering economic development and proper regulation of ownership-related issues. The Law of Moses and Greek Law had been functioning in Georgia at the early stage of Christianity. The Armenian version of Syrian Roman Law was introduced later and its Georgian translation – Bagrat Kurapalati Law, in the 10-11th Centuries.
Formation of Catholic Law took centuries: according to Ruis-Urbnisi Legal Document (1104), Georgian jurisprudence was adapting resolutions of councils of clergies throughout the world and utilizing and enacting church acts introduced at those councils. The Ruis-Urbnisi Document itself is a fundamental legal document that relates not only to the Church but to the legal issues of Georgian civilians as well.
The development of Georgian jurisprudence provides a significant example even for modern states. The Georgian Law even practiced forms unfamiliar to European legal processes. Particularly, the 12th Century Georgian Court had a three-grade structure and had been independent from the royal state. Besides, the board of the Georgian Court assembled according to regional, hierarchical and professional ranks. Specific court-boards functioned for Aznauris (dependent nobles), civilians (merchants and artisans) and peasants, as well as for the individual boards for provinces and for corporative unions (winemakers, weavers, stock and land farmers, etc.)
Georgian legal documents considered not only issues of crime and punishment but expiation and amendment of crime as wll. Foremost attention was paid to prevention and the precedent law matters as well.
Georgian law also focused on organization of censuses, registration of property and civilians. The first Georgian inscription on a stone cross asserting land purchase is dated to the 5th Century and is known as Tskisi Inscription. (image)
The legal proceedings were carried out on a regional level and according to divisions. This is proved by a book of Samtskhe-Saatabago legal documents – Beka-Aghbu Law introduced in 13-14th Centuries which later turned into a principal legal document in the state governance system.
Royal Court Regulations, to a certain extent, were a constitutional act. Unfortunately, neither the book of Kurtlu-Arslan Assembly Requests nor the constitutional act, which had legalized the issuance of Kurtli-Arslan, have survived. However, according to the historic sources in 1185, a special legislative act assigned the Georgian Chamber exclusive rights for appointment of authorities, declaration of war, conclusion of truce, approval of the budget, specification of taxes, and determination of regional management. After that, a king only had the representative role of a commander. As to his executive functions, they could be carried out only in agreement and jointly with the Chamber. In 1185, the Georgian Chamber acquired a wide array of functions. In addition, from the time of David Aghmashenebeli, approval and sanctioning of monastery typikons (instruction and rules) was a prerogative of the Georgian Chamber.
According to historians, a high level of democracy in public law administration has been an essential quality of the Georgian state since ancient times.
During ancient times, unique forms of legal proceedings first developed in the Georgian mountain regions (Svaneti, Pshav-Khevsureti, Khevi). According to the mountain system, the functions of the court were carried out by sapikhvno (council). The function of the prosecutor was assigned to makvshi or khevisberi (the elders). The elders represented the local community and acted as supervisors of law.
The position of Minister of Justice of Georgia during ancient times was divided among chancellor, Chief Bookkeeper and Chief Mandaturi (supervisor). The deputy Chief Bookkeeper was primarily in charge of drafting and classifying the king’s legislative acts (both private and of the state). Notary functions were assigned to bookkeepers. Along with other functions, Mandaturis (supervisors) shared supervisory-executive functions related to jurisdiction.
The position of Minister of Justice of Georgia during ancient times was divided among chancellor, Chief Bookkeeper and Chief Mandaturi (supervisor). The deputy Chief Bookkeeper was primarily in charge of drafting and classifying the king’s legislative acts (both private and of the state). Notary functions were assigned to bookkeepers. Along with other functions, Mandaturis (supervisors) shared supervisory-executive functions related to jurisdiction.
It should be noted that functioning of the Georgian court required participation of attorneys, witnesses (at least 3) and court executives. The legislative and state interests were defended and represented by a prosecutor. The special code functioning for criminal cases included institutions for examination, legal sentencing and execution. Those institutions were functioning in accordance with Samparavtmdzebnelo Law (Criminal Law).
It is remarkable that, regardless of the Russian colonization, traditional Georgian law still continued functioning up to the beginning of the 20th Century. After complete occupation of Independent Georgia by Soviet Russia in 1918, legislation in Georgia lost its traditions, along with other state institutions.
The Ministry of Justice in Independent Georgia was formed after the National Council adopted the Act of Independence of Georgia on 26th of May 1918, and it existed until full annexation of the independent state by Soviet Russia.
The Ministry of Justice of Independent Georgia had been authorized to rule the judicial bodies. According to the act of 11th October 1918, a Codification Subdivision was established at the Ministry of Justice that conducted codification of legislation and publishing of official issue “Collection of Laws and Resolutions of the Government”. In addition, the Minister of Justice, along with the Minister of Internal Affairs, issued instructions concerning registration of acts of civil status.
Like the Democratic Republic of Georgia, its Ministry of Justice functioned for only 3 years. On February 12, 1921, the Communists staged a peasants’ uprising in the region bordering Armenia, and on February 16, on the pretext of supporting “rebellion”, the Russian Army invaded Georgia. The main forces of the aggressors – the 11th Army – attacked Tbilisi from Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, other detachments advanced into Abkhazia and on Central Caucasian passes. After heavy fighting on the outskirts of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia fell. The situation at the Turkish border deteriorated as well. The Turks advanced on Batumi and Akhaltsikhe. The remaining Georgian units held them back and maintained Batumi. When the Turkish army left, Batumi was invaded by the Russians. By March 19, 1921, almost all principal centers were under control of the Soviets. Three days earlier, on March 16, Russia and Turkey signed an agreement according to which Artvin, Ardahan and other Georgian areas were awarded to the Republic of Turkey.
Thus, Soviet Russia broke the May 7, 1920 Moscow Treaty and eventually annexed Georgia, establishing a Communist dictatorship in the country.
After restoration of independence in 1991 and adoption of the Constitution of Georgia in 1995, several statutes were enacted, in particular: the statutes of 20th December of 1993, 8th April of 1996, 22nd September of 1997, 31st May of 1999, 13th March of 2000 and 30th October of 2000. Those statutes determined the competence and structure of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia.
The competence of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia has significantly changed several times since enactment of the organic law “About General Courts” (June the 8th 1997) Organizational management of general courts is no longer under administration of the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, after elections of self-governing bodies in Georgia (1998) registration of regulatory acts issued by local self-governing (government) bodies and harmonizing them in accordance with existing legislation came within the competence of the Ministry of Justice. Identical, to Ministries of Justice of advanced democratic states, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia acquired the most important competences, such as: governing the penitentiary system and its organizational management (from the 1st January of 2000), as well as the functions of Public and Civil Register (2004), governing State Archives (2004); organizational maintenance of effective governing system, as well as of State Commission of territorial settlement reform and activities of its workgroups (2006) and other important controls.
Presently, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia conducts its activities in accordance with the resolution enacted by the Presidential Decree #541, November 7, 2008. According to that decree, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia is an executive body that exercises its authority in order to ensure the interest of state governance in the entrusted sphere.
The Ministers of Justice of Independent Georgia
Shalva Aleksi-Meskhishvili – 1918-1919
Johni Khetsuriani – 1990-1992 – 1999-2000
Konstantin Kemularia – 1992-1993 – 2004-2005
Mikheil Saakashvili – 2000-2001
Roland Giligashvili – 2001-20031
George Papuashvili – 2004-2005
Eka Tkeshelashvili - 2007-2008
Nika Gvaramia - 2008/01/31 – 2008/10/27
Zurab Adeishvili – 2003-2004; 2008/11/02 ; 2012/10/25
Tea Tsulukiani 2012/10/25 -Current
The Minister of Justice Held Meetings in the Council of Europe
Through 22-23 November 2012, the Minister of Justice of Georgia held meetings in the Council of Europe.
The first set of the meetings were held with the President of the European Court of Human Rights, the Registrar of the Court, several judges and the representatives of the Registry dealing with the Georgian cases.
The strategy for the future cooperation between the new Government of Georgia and the Court was the subject matter of the meeting. The Minister introduced the plans that are to be implemented by the Georgian Government for strengthening the protection of human rights on the national level and thus reducing the workload of the Court.
The representatives of the Court informed the Minister that there are approximately 700 pending applications against Georgia, which seem to be well-founded as a result of preliminary examination. It was agreed that the Court, where possible, will communicate to the Government the factual circumstances of the concrete cases under the simplified procedure and will play more active role in helping parties to reach a friendly settlement. Use of unilateral declarations will also be encouraged by the Government. The Minister expressed her hopes that this new approach based on mutual understanding of existing problems would unburden the Court and would, at the same time, avoid that Georgian applicants wait for several years until their cases are examined.
The Minister shared with the Court the new Government's commitment to take all the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures for the protection of human rights on the national level in order to prevent rise of potential applications in the future.
On 23 November 2012 the Minister held a meeting with the representatives of the Department for the Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The problems related to the execution of judgments against Georgia were discussed. The discussion revolved around the cases of Enukidze and Girgvliani, Kiladze brothers and other victims of political repressions, cases of the prisoners with the poor health as well as the victims of ill-treatment.
The Minister stated that the effective management of the procedure regulating execution of the judgments will be the priority for the Government, which presumes implementation of the active individual and general measures on the national level. It was noted that the strategy of the new Government would not be the mere imbursement of the allocated sums under Article 41 of the Convention. The new Government will also take every possible measure in order to internally solve systematic/structural problems revealed by the Court and in this manner to mould State practice for prevention of human rights violations.
The Minister informed the representatives of the Department for the Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with the action plan adopted by the Government for the execution of the judgment rendered by the Court on the case of Enukidze and Girgvliani and took on the responsibility to submit periodically, before 31 January 2013, additional information to the Committee of the Ministers on the events developed throughout the investigation process of the case. The above plan enunciates that the new Government condemns the approach taken by the previous Government, according to which the judgments of the Court were solely translated into the transfer of monetary compensations to the applicants and did not envisage re-investigation of cases and elimination of violations by all possible means. According to the plan, the new Government is ready to fulfil its obligation under Article 46 of the European Convention and conduct an objective and thorough investigation of the Girgvliani case, implement various measures for the enhancement of the existing legislation and adopt other necessary general measures in order to guarantee effective execution of the judgment.
The meeting also reflected on to the different issues of the cooperation, including the problem of uninvestigated cases and necessity to adopt a new approach with regard to the victims of political repressions.
The Minister held a meeting with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the President of the Venice Commission and representatives of the Monitoring Committee. Each of these meetings was imbued with mutual yearning for future cooperation and great interest towards the events taking place in Georgia in the aftermath of the parliamentary election.
Package of Legislative Amendments necessary for Judicial Reform will be presented to the Parliament as the Government's Legislative Initiative
The Georgian government presented the package of legislative amendments drafted by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia to the Georgian Parliament. The amendments are designed to carry out institutional reform of the Georgian judiciary.
As is known, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia presented the draft legislative amendments on November 8, 2012, and invited the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities, leaders of international missions accredited in the country, as well as Georgian and foreign nongovernmental organizations working on legal issues to take part in public discussions on this subject. In case the Parliament approves the draft legislative amendments:
- Rules of formation of the Council of Justice will be changed, as a result of which this body will become more free and independent from political influences;
- The civil society will gain a right to exercise effective control over activities of the High Council of Justice;
- Conference of Judges of Georgia will be provided with opportunity to administer real self-government;
- Disciplinary panel of Judges will be completely separated from the High Council of Justice, and will be formed as a separate body;
- The right to use audio and video recording equipment in the courtrooms will be restored, in consequence of which the society will have the opportunity to keep watch on the process of administering justice.
The High Council of Justice, and nongovernmental organization "Georgian Young Lawyers' Association" responded to the initiative of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. Additional consultations were held with representatives of the Supreme Court of Georgia and High Council of Justice, the Coalition for Independent and Transparent Judiciary, leaders of other civil society organizations and other stakeholders, after which all reasonable comments and considerations were incorporated in the drafts legislative amendments.
The Ministry of Justice presented the final version of the drafts to the Venice Commission for their review.
Information About Interstate Applications
Minister of Justice Tea Tsulukiani, after her return from Strasbourg, informed the society about the interstate applications pending before the ECHR.
According to Tea Tsulukiani, proceedings on the first case Georgia vs Russian Federation, concerning the massive expulsion of Georgian citizens from Russia, are completed and closed.
"This means that the European Court will deliver its decision soon. The decision should already be made since deliberations took place as it always happens after an oral hearing before the Court. It is unknown yet what decision was made by the Court as a result of those deliberations. I think we will be informed about this decision very soon because much time has passed since the procedure was closed. I hope that this case will be completed in favor of interests of our State", - stated Mrs. Tsulukiani.
According to her, with regard to the second interstate case against Russia initiated in August 2008, proceedings are far from being completed.
"The Ministry of Justice represents the State on this case, and we will follow the application competently until the end", - stated Tea Tsulukiani.
