Georgia Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council and Anti-corruption Bureau 1. Structure Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council consists of a Secretary and eleven Members, who are convoked by the President for the two-year term. Members of Anti-corruption Council are elected from society and public officials. The Council is presided by the President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze. The Secretary of Anti-corruption Coordination Council is Vladimer Ugulava. The members of Anti-corruption Council are: Bichikashvili Tamar - Deputy Chairman of the Chamber of Control of Georgia; Getsadze Gia - Head of the American Law Organization IRIS ; Gigineishvili Manana - Member of Parliament of Georgia; Targamadze Givi - representative of NGO Freedom Institute ; Tevzadze Gigi - Professor of the Tbilisi State University; Toidze Mariam - Journalist; Isakadze George - Deputy Minister of State; Kvaratskhelia Gucha - Director of the Linguistics Institute; Lortkipanidze Rusudan - Journalist; Oniani Niko - Head of NGO Corruption Research Centre ; Jvania Lasha - Deputy Minister of Finance. The Secretary of Anti-corruption Council is elected upon presentation of the President of Georgia and by consent of the Members of the Council. Secretary of Anti-corruption Council represents Anti-corruption Bureau as a Director, who is a member of the National Security Council of Georgia. 2. Function (1)Improvement of basic directives of the National Anti-corruption Program in view of the current social, political and economic events; elaboration of schedule of measures provided for by the Program; (2)Monitoring of implementation of measures by the State bodies and high officials as provided for by Anti-corruption Program; (3)Analysis of the monitoring results and incoming application and preparation of recommendations for the President of Georgia for the purpose of efficient implementation of the Anti-corruption Program measures; (4)Support of establishment of the system of anti-corruption education of the population and elaboration of effective modeling of anti-corruption propaganda;
Cooperation with international anti-corruption programs and initiatives; (5)Preparation of draft legal acts for the purpose of implementation of Anti-corruption Program measures; (6)Cooperation with NGOs, mass media, entrepreneurs and other groups of citizens in order to involve them in implementation and monitoring of measures as provided for by Anti-corruption Program. 3. Achievement Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia carries out its functions into two basic directions. First is working out of recommendations on implementation of the system changes on the basis of the existing reality and second - reaction to specific violations, ensuing from the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service and examination of certain facts, including results of examinations carried out by other agencies. (1)Enhancement of Anti-Corruption Program During a year, in result of analytical work undertaken in the Anti-corruption Bureau, a number of recommendations have been prepared, which were reflected in the Presidential legal acts in the form of assignments to particular agencies. The mentioned recommendations concern such important directions as: i. Reorganization of the Executive System and Increase of Remuneration in the Public Service; ii. Liberalization of the Business Environment; iii. Financial Management of the State Resources; iv. Issues concerning System of Education; v. Power Structures; vi. Representative Democracy; vii. Improvement of the Legal Procedures. The above-mentioned recommendations were approved by Presidential Provision #758 on Some Anti-corruption Measures of July 27, 2001 and Provision #430 on Approval of Schedule of Anti-corruption Measures of April 17, 2002. The recommendations were considered at the meetings of Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council, as well as directly with the representatives of State Agencies. The mentioned considerations have had the essential meaning with respect to lobbying of the recommendations and examination of the contents of presented proposals by society and State Agencies. Moreover, we would like to outline the work, undertaken by the Bureau in the process of elaboration of recommendations. The recommendations were submitted to the Council after significant analytical activities. In this process, Anti-corruption Bureau
has studied in detail and analyzed the existing structure and functions of the State Agency, provisions of the Supervisory Bodies, particular issues of budgetary control, etc. Thus, the activities of Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council and Bureau in this direction were major and important amongst the work undertaken during the last year. (2)Response to concrete violations of Law The second basic direction of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia is response to concrete violations of law. The basic function of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia is improvement of the basic directives of the National Anti-corruption Program and preparation of respective recommendation; nevertheless, Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council has the right to apply with recommendation any agency or high-official. Anti-corruption Bureau studies specific issues, related to breaches of requirements of Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service; as well as violations, reflected in the summaries of particular supervisors, but disregarded. After studying the issue thoroughly, Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia prepares a summary, which is submitted to Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council. The Council considers the summary and takes recommendation towards an official of the relevant authority to make him response upon a specific fact of violation. Namely on the basis of recommendation of Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council, the following officials were dismissed: Chairman of the State Department of Forestry - Givi Japaridze, Presidential Attorney in the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region - Koba Buchukuri, Head of State Bureau Service of the State Chancellery David Giorgobiani, Head of Service for Regional Policy and Administration of the State Chancellery - Badri Khatidze, Chairman of Department of Logistics and Financial Maintenance of the Ministry of Interior - Vasil Davitaia. In particular: Presidential Attorney in the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region was dismissed due to undeclared economic interest, breach of requirements of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service. Chairperson of the State Department of Forestry was dismissed due to non-fulfillment of the Presidential Edict. Head of Service for Regional Policy and Administration of the State Chancellery was dismissed due to undeclared economic interest, breach of requirements of the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service. Chairperson of Department of Logistics and Financial Maintenance of the Ministry of Interior was dismissed due to improper performance of official duties, violations in spending of the state resources. We would like to speak extensively about the case that has led to dismissal of the
Head of State Bureau Service of the State Chancellery. According to the Presidential assignment of February 18, 2002, Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia has studied the issue of possible violation in the process of privatization of the joint-stock company Poti Shipbuilding. On the basis of the existing documents, it was established that participation of Hyundai Corporation in privatization of the joint-stock company Poti Shipbuilding and a million dollar investment made by offshore firm Darlingworth Ltd in 1999 was suspicious and required inspection of the competent bodies. For this purpose, the documents were forwarded to the General Prosecutor s Office of Georgia, where, on the basis of these documents the criminal proceedings were instituted on facts of misuse of position by officials of the Ministry of State Property Management and State Chancellery in the process of privatization of the joint-stock company Poti Shipbuilding. Investigation is in progress. During the study of the case, it was revealed that the Head of State Bureau Service within the State Chancellery was simultaneously Director of Georgian representation of Darlingworth Ltd ; this does not comply with the Law of Georgia on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in Public Service. Accordingly, upon recommendation of the Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council, by the Presidential Edict, Head of State Bureau Service within the State Chancellery was dismissed from his position. Dismissing of certain high-ranking officials will not change the existing corrupt environment essentially; although, the similar reactions on such violations are necessary in order to eradicate, once and for all, the prevailing syndrome of impunity and make each official feel that he will be liable not only for criminal violation but improper fulfillment of official duties, as well. (3)Monitoring of Implementation of Anti-Corruption Measures There is another direction of activities of Anti-corruption Bureau - monitoring of implementation of anti-corruption recommendations. The fact that we have studied the situation and worked out specific recommendations on systemic changes into various angles, is an important step forward in view of change of corrupt environment; nevertheless, this work would have been vain, if it was not followed by relevant response by government and measures of their enforcement. Monitoring of measures undertaken in accordance with recommendations by the Executive Power is the very direction of activities of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia that may be considered as the most laborious among activities performed by Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia within a year. Unfortunately, there are frequent cases, when anti-corruption recommendations are deliberately interpreted incorrectly, in result of which the essence of measures to be implemented is changed substantially and the threat of inverse outcome befalls.
Therefore, during the last year, Anti-corruption Bureau has paid special attention to cooperation with specific agencies in the process of direct realization of recommendations. There were cases, when the experts of Anti-corruption Bureau have undertaken work that was assigned to various agencies; or the Bureau has worked out an alternative version of legislative proposals that were produced improperly by governmental agencies. For example, State Service of Logistics was assigned to work out proposals concerning the withdrawal of license plates of the official automobiles from consumption. The mentioned agency submitted several versions of the draft presidential decree, but they did not reflect issues, that were provided for by anti-corruption recommendations. Afterwards, the issue was prepared in the Bureau and forwarded to the State Chancellery, whereupon the relevant measures were implemented in this direction in the shortest terms. The similar case took place in respect to the Ministry of State Property Management, which under Presidential Decree was assigned to produce proposals on creation of the holding enterprise for the purpose of management of the state shares. Hence, it is indisputable that the final expected results sought by anti-corruption recommendations may be achieved through cooperation with the various agencies in the process of monitoring of implementation of measures. (4)Expertise of the Draft Laws from Anti-Corruption Angle Expertise of legislative acts from the anti-corruption angle is another direction of the activities of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia. Often, normative basis may be the ground and source of corruption in Georgia. Among post-soviet States, Georgia is at the first place in the number of adopted laws during the last 5 years. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that multitude of laws does not imply their quantity and accuracy of the law-making process. The situation in respect to subordinate normative acts is similar. Here, we must pay our attention to a problem of lobbying of illegal interests during the law making process. In the recent years, there are frequent cases in Georgia, when adoption of a specific normative act is undertaken proceeding from concrete purposes or objectives of an interest group or a single physical or legal person. In this case, the legal services in the Executive Power (Ministry of Justice and State Chancellery), as well as in the Parliament are unable to evaluate an issue fixed in a normative act with regard to expediency; this simplifies for the interest groups lobbying of illegal interests. The outcome is a normative act - perfect with regard to legal techniques, but corrupt in its contents, reflecting the interests only of limited group of persons.
The most part of anti-corruption recommendations concerns the change of normative acts and improvement of normative basis. Accordingly, the special attention should be devoted to non-adoption of such normative acts that regulate particular issues differently than those of anti-corruption recommendations. Measures undertaken for this purpose may not be overt for public, as they bear mainly preventive character and represent conditions to avert corruption-conductive environment, rather than activities directed to reduction of corruption. Nevertheless, such activities bear significant importance and Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia will continue its activities in the mentioned direction. The most important measure undertaken during the recent year is an expertise of the Law of Georgia on Restructuring of Tax Debts and Draft Law on Introduction of Amendments to the Law of Georgia on Bar. In both cases, due to the negative conclusions of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia, approaches to the given issues have changed radically and the possibility of establishing of corrupt relations has been evaded substantially. (5)The Results of Analytical Activities of the Anti-corruption Policy Coordination Council and Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia Nowadays, in Georgia, every sphere is characterized with the same deficiency, and the most important is the non-existence of general principles among them. The system can be efficient and legal if only it is based on a conception or general type of principles and does not recognize exceptions from the general rule. i. With this regard, we would like to emphasize a concept - On the New Model of the Order of Executive Power, which was worked out by the experts of Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia on basis of existing reality and analysis of the normative basis. This is an extensive document, which covers the detailed analysis of the structure and rule of activities of Georgian executive power and establishes a new model of executive power in parallel with the critical evaluation of the existing situation, on the basis of general principle of government order. Recently, there were frequent talks about problems in various spheres and the necessity of changes in the executive power; however, these talks usually were ending with criticism against the existing system without identifying what principles would be acceptable for our state at the given stage of development. At present, we can declare with all due certitude that the new model of executive power worked out in Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia has no analogue and this concept founded upon complex attitudes towards system and structural changes may become the pivotal document, in compliance to which reorganization of the executive power of Georgia will be implemented. To date, the mentioned document was submitted to the representatives of executive
power and the NGOs as well; in the nearest future, the document will be publicly discussed through their direct participation, on the basis of which implementation of the relevant structural changes will be ensured by Commission for Reorganization of Executive Power within the State Chancellery of Georgia. ii. The most successful activity of the last year, in respect to elaboration of conception, was the concept of Security Services, which has been generally recognized. In order to undertake the institutional and structural reforms of the Law-enforcement Bodies under the Basic Guidelines of Anti-corruption Program, to convert them into the civil bodies and place them in service of an individual, society and State, the concept of Security Service was worked out in the Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia. The title of the document is Some Conceptual Principles and Opinions on Activities of the National Special Services. While working on the document the recommendations of International Council of Advisors on Security Issues (ISAB) has been taken into consideration, as well as the recommendations of the invited experts. In the working process, the existing deficiencies of the current Ministry of Security were analyzed, as well as experience of foreign Special Services. The document has been discussed at the meetings with representatives of public organizations, interested bodies and Embassies, as well at the meetings of commissions of reforms of the Ministry of Security. This document became one of the bases of concept produced by Reform Commission of the Security and Law-enforcement system. Nowadays, a number of models drafted in the document are introduced to subdivisions of the Ministry. Except the above mentioned, a new conception has been created during the last year regarding such issues as The Principles and Rules of Issuance of Licenses and Permissions and The Forms and Types of Control of Business Activity. The Anti-corruption Bureau continues its activities in this direction nowadays; however, it should be noted that we come across the difficulties from certain supervisory structures, as well as from the legislative power. From this point of view, while working out such concepts, Anti-corruption Bureau of Georgia is free from institutional interests and can objectively select definition criteria for main principles. 4. Resources http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5253.htm
Anti-Corruption Department at the Chief Prosecutor s Office of Georgia In 2010 Anti-Corruption Department was created on the basis of the Investigative Divison of the Chief Prosecutor s Office of Georgia. Main direction of its activity is fight against corruption and coordination of activities in this direction within the Prosecution Service of Georgia. Head, 2 Deputy Heads, 5 prosecutors and 12 investigators of the especially important cases work at this Department. Resource: 2010 Anti-Corruption Report of Georgia Public Council of the Prosecution Service of Georgia In October 2010 Public Council of the Prosecution Service of Georgia was created in order to increase transparency and exercise public supervision over the system of recruitment, attestation, dismissal of the staff of the Prosecution Service of Georgia. The Council participates in the selection process of interns and organization of trainings for them. It also supervises the implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan of the Reform of the Prosecution Service of Georgia. Function of the Council is public monitoring of the activities of the of the Procedural Management Unit of the General Inspection of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. Members of the Council are members of the Parliament of Georgia, representatives of Judiciary, Council of Europe and USA Department of Justice, as well as experts. Resource: 2010 Anti-Corruption Report of Georgia