Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  Slideshare

At a glance
Home
About the CCJE
A word from the President
Secretariat
Activities
  MEETINGS
Calendar
Meeting reports
  EVENTS
10th anniversary of the CCJE
Conferences
  COOPERATION
Status and situation of judges in member States
Cooperation with other bodies
Documentation
ECHR Judgments
Reference documents
Press releases
  OPINIONS
CCJE Opinions and Magna Carta
Preliminary works
For a proper use of CCJE Opinions...
  SEARCH
Simple search
Advanced search
partners
Restricted access to the collaborative workspace
Coe Bodies, international organisations and research centers


CCJE-BU(2013)4

Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

BUREAU OF THE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL
OF EUROPEAN JUDGES
(CCJE-BU)

Comment on the draft Law of Georgia
“Establishing the Temporary State Commission
on Studying the Miscarriages of Justice”

Document prepared by the Bureau
of the Consultative Council of European Judges

INTRODUCTION:
The President of the Supreme Court of Georgia has forwarded the draft of a Law on Establishing the Temporary State Commission on Studying the Miscarriages of Justice to the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) and requested an opinion of the CCJE.
The Bureau of CCJE has studied the draft, which was provided in an English translation. The following comment is based on this draft only. It was not possible to do an in-depth study of the respective procedural codes. The Bureau of CCJE is unable to consider any political or historical background.
CONTENT OF THE DRAFT LAW:
The objective of the law is to establish a commission, which would be entrusted with studying miscarriages of justice and supporting their elimination. “Interested persons” will be enabled to claim that a miscarriage took place in the period from 2005 to September 2012 in criminal procedures regarding “serious or especially serious crime” or cases with sentences where there had been detention or in civil or administrative procedures regarding a value of the subject of the dispute of more than 100.000 GEL. The commission will examine the relevant case and will have the power to initiate a review by the court, which may revise the judgment on account of newly revealed circumstances (Article 1 and 12),
The Commission is composed of 15 “recognized specialists of law” elected by the majority of members of the parliament (Article 4). Any interference in the activities of the Commission is a crime, and nobody has the right to request a report from a member of the Commission (Article 3).
Two basic problems can be identified:

An essential element of the rule of law is legal finality. People should be able to trust in the inviolability of final court decisions (res judicata).

It is a common provision in procedural laws that after a decision of the court of final appeal the possibilities of reviewing this decision or of reopening the procedure, which led to this decision are limited to very exceptional circumstances. Procedural codes usually only permit such extraordinary steps if the procedure or the decision originated in a criminal act of one of the participants (party, witness, expert, judge) or where is fresh evidence or facts. In most systems the criminal offence has to be established before the procedure of review or renew can start. In most countries such a review can only be initiated by an authority within the judicial system e.g. the procurator general. In any case the decision if a case will be renewed or not is done by a court.
The proposed draft law is not apparently intended to be a general procedural law which would be universally applicable. In fact it derogates from general procedural law and applies only to certain types of cases within a certain timeframe.
The review and reopening of cases which had become legally final and binding should only be possible in exceptional circumstances. Procedural codes can contemplate such a procedure, if in a particular case there has been a serious miscarriage of justice. Only the parties of the case and not any “interested person” should have the right to ask for a review (Article 1 point 2 versus Article 13 point 1). The decision must be taken by a court.
The term “miscarriages” needs clear definition. Article 1 para 1 gives no definition. The draft should state that only “miscarriages” as defined in Article 16 can lead to an activity of the Commission. Even with this clarification the definition of “miscarriages” which are enumerated in Article 16 give too great range of discretionary powers.
The elements “neglected or did not duly evaluate the evidence”, “evaluation of an impartial observer” and “reasonable doubt” in Article 16 para 2 subpara aa are open to a wide range of interpretation. These broad, even vague terms can easily be used by the political power to influence the judiciary.
The same goes in some respect to the para 2 subpara ab and b especially for the terms “gross violation and obvious violation ans para 3.
2.) Independence of the Judiciary
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 6) guarantee for all the decisions by an independent and impartial court. This requires independence from all external influences especially from the other powers of the state. The division and balance of powers of the state constitute fundamental principles of every democratic state and of the rule of law.
As far as the independence of the judiciary as opposite the other powers of state is concerned, several international legal documents underline this necessary international standard e.g.

The Commission, as contemplated in the draft, exercises such an external influence. Its composition is determined by a simple majority of the parliament. This puts the ruling majority in a position to influence judgments and creates the danger of an infringement of the independence of justice and of the principle of the division and balance of powers.
CONCLUSIONS: