EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgia: Many Georgians are Wary of Possible Wiretaps

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIA: MANY GEORGIANS ARE WARY OF POSSIBLE WIRETAPS
Giorgi Lomsadze 11/27/07

The broadcast of recorded phone conversations involving opposition leaders and journalists from the pro-opposition Imedi TV has raised troubling questions about where the right to privacy ends in Georgia, and where national security interests begin.

The government argues that the recordings � some of which include alleged Russian diplomats � help substantiate prosecutors’ allegations that the November 7 clashes between protestors and police were part of a Kremlin-orchestrated conspiracy to topple President Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration. [For background see the Eurasia insight archive].

Three of the individuals recorded � Labor Party leader Shalva Natelashvili, Freedom Party leader Konstantine Gamsakhurdia and his brother, Tsotne Gamsakhurdia � have had espionage and coup conspiracy charges brought against them which were later reduced to being named as witnesses in a state investigation. Former Imedi co-owner Badri Patarkatsishvili has also been named as a suspect in the conspiracy investigation. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The other subjects � former State Minister for Conflict Resolution Goga Khaindrava, opposition Republican Party parliamentarian Levan Berdzenishvili, Imedi anchor Giorgi Targamadze and two Imedi reporters � have not been charged with criminal wrongdoing.

The frequency with which these recordings have been aired � sometimes coupled with video surveillance footage � has rekindled Soviet-era misgivings among ordinary Georgians about the privacy of phone conversations. Attempting to allay these concerns, Saakashvili stated in televised remarks on November 17 that he would welcome a public commission "to show how all this happened."

"I am the first person to protect the principle that no one can invade the private life of a person," he said.

Individuals "who are not committing any crime" should have no concerns that their phones will be tapped, the Georgian leader continued. "However if someone seeks to destroy our homeland, or to commit a crime, they should not be upset by the fact that the state protects itself and people then find out about it."

Nonetheless, questions about the legality of the recordings have lingered. Under Georgian law, telecommunications companies are required to record phone calls and hand over recordings to investigators if presented with a court order. Permits can be obtained after the fact under particularly pressing circumstances, or if a judge is unavailable.

Interior Ministry Spokesperson Shota Utiashvili says that all telephone calls broadcast on television had been recorded after officials obtained a court order. "We strictly abide[d] by the law in doing this. In each case, the investigation was already in progress, and requests were lodged with the court in due course," Utiashvili said.

The Criminal Cases Collegium of the Tbilisi Civil Court declined to confirm or deny if warrants had been issued for wiretapping or retrieving phone records for any of the political leaders and Imedi journalists concerned. Not all of the calls, though, were recorded recently, and none of the current opposition leaders whose recordings were made public were known to be under investigation at the time of the conversations.

Citing the sensitivity of the issue, Interior Ministry spokesperson Utiashvili declined to confirm if there was an investigation in place at the time against two of the men � Natelashvili and Khaindrava.

Prominent National Movement MP Givi Targamadze has claimed, however, that investigators came across the conversations while probing the activities of Russian diplomats, who were suspected of working for Russian intelligence. Only after the diplomats’ calls with Khaindrava and the opposition politicians were intercepted did the investigation started looking into these Georgian public figures’ activities, he told reporters on November 24.

Utiashvili noted that an investigation has "long" been ongoing against former Imedi co-owner Badri Patarkatsishvili, though did not give a specific start date. "He was suspected of using his television [Imedi] as a tool to stage a coup," he said. "The investigation, therefore, looked into the private conversations of Imedi’s crew."

One Tbilisi human rights activist argues that "unauthorized" wiretapping is routine in Georgia. "Unauthorized eavesdropping has become the order of the day here," said Manana Kobakhidze, chairperson of Article 42 of the Constitution, a non-governmental organization. "Georgian courts are prone to give a pro forma approval to such requests from the police."

The chairman of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), Giorgi Chkheidze, believes the government is pushing legal limits by publicly revealing evidence of alleged criminal activity. "Save for outstanding circumstances, the Criminal Code bans public disclosure of investigation materials, especially with an investigation still pending," Chkheidze said. "Not only was such information repeatedly disclosed, but it also has been broadcast through mass media."

Kobakhidze, the NGO activist, argued that public disclosure of the investigation materials is not a problem per se, given the strong public interest in the case. "The problem is that the presumption of innocence is violated. The comments made by journalists or prosecutors about the phone conversations suggest that the persons taped are guilty of a crime, although the court hasn’t found them guilty yet," she said.

While none of the opposition leaders taped have challenged the authenticity of the recordings, they have argued that their comments were taken out of context.

"As a minister for conflict resolution I was supposed to maintain relations with the parties involved in the talks [on breakaway regions]," Khaindrava, now an opposition coalition leader, told reporters after being questioned in the Prosecutor’s Office on November 12. "The question is why I, as a minister, was not told that the people I spoke to worked for foreign intelligence?"

Senior Republican Party member Tina Khidasheli, a former head of the GYLA, believes that all of her phone calls, as well as those of fellow opposition leaders, are taped. She argues that if a private conversation is made public "then the full conversation should be disclosed, not just an excerpt."

"The authorities, however, have carefully selected the bits that may sound damaging, while the rest of the conversation remains under wraps," she argued. "Disclosing parts of evidence runs counter to the law and underscores the selective nature of justice in Georgia."

Meanwhile, many Georgians say that, despite Saakashvili’s reassurances, they routinely avoid political topics in their phone conversations. "It creates a general sense of unease," said Natia Akhvlediani, a Tbilisi resident who recently returned home after completing her university studies in Germany. "All the time I called home from Germany, people on the other end of the line kept telling me things like, ’let’s not discuss this over the phone,’ or, ’it’s not safe to be talking about this.’"

One man, who asked not to be identified, agreed, but added that the recordings are a political strategy that is bound to backfire. "Ultimately," he said, "all it does is frightens people."

Editor�s Note: Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.