Issue date: September 2024

Merab Turava: Foreword

Author: Ana Pirtskhalaishvili

Abstract

With the rise in migratory movements, two key issues have become increasingly relevant: on the one hand, the protection of migrants’ rights and the regulation of migration processes by states; and on the other hand, questions concerning state sovereignty, national security, and internal socio-political tensions. Considering that there are currently around 102 million migrants worldwide - including refugees, (internally) displaced persons and asylum seekers, the relevance of this issue becomes evident. With the rise in global mobility over the past decade, foreigners in host countries have often become particularly vulnerable - legally, socio-economically, politically, culturally, and in other aspects.

While there are individual academic works on this topic and intense scholarly debates are ongoing across Europe, the proposed article offers a new perspective on the issue - namely, from the viewpoint of so-called third countries. These are states that, based on intergovernmental agreements with the countries where asylum is sought (so-called destination countries) allow individuals to remain temporarily on their territory while their asylum claims are being processed in the destination country.

By addressing this and other related issues, the present article offers a contribution to the scholarly debate on migration as a global challenge.

Paper: Migration as Seen from the Perspective of a “third Country”: a Challenge for Global and Classical Constitutionalism

Pages: 9-26

-----------------------------

Author: Lavrenti Maghlakelidze

Abstract

The criminal procedural legislation exhaustively defines the legal grounds under which a court can issue a guilty verdict, impose a penalty, and later grant release from serving the sentence. Specifically, within the system of general courts, issuing a guilty verdict, with imposing a penalty and exemption from its execution can occur, for instance, if the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has expired, or if the person voluntarily renounced the crime or made an active repentance.

This position of the legislator raises several questions from both the practical and doctrinal perspectives. The present article provides a legal analysis of whether it is lawful for the court to issue a guilty verdict against a person who voluntarily renounced the crime, made an active repentance for the committed crime, or if the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution in the case has expired.

Accordingly, the article examines the normative content of Article 269, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia that provides for the provision in question. The issue is studied from both the procedural-legal and substantive-legal perspective; and the respective analysis is presented through the prism of the national and international court judgments.

Paper: Issuing a Guilty Verdict With the Imposition of a Penalty and Certain Legal Aspects of Exemption From Its Execution

Pages: 29-48

------------------

Author: Jamlat Gvidiani

Abstract

In a democratic society, the restriction of a lawyer’s freedom of expression may be justified only in exceptional cases, accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards and subject to a number of necessary preconditions.

The paper examines the scope of lawyer’s freedom of expression in view of its key principles and within the prism of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in terms of its content, form of expression, purpose, the circumstances of the case, and the overall context. The focus is placed on the challenges present in Georgian law, particularly on the deficiencies concerning the qualitative standards of the legal provisions used as a basis for interfering with a lawyer’s freedom of expression, the shortcomings in judicial practice, and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards.

The conclusion outlines the measures to be undertaken to ensure effective legal practice in Georgia, in light of the growing risks to the lawyer’s role in the administration of justice and the erosion of public trust in the legal profession.

Paper: The Boundaries of a Lawyer’s Freedom of Expression

Pages: 49-62

----------------

Author: Marina Meskhi

Abstract

Trafficking in Human Beings, as a modern form of slavery and a major global challenge, remains one of the most lucrative criminal activities worldwide, surpassed only by arms and drug trafficking. The criminalization of human trafficking through national legislation, the refinement of legal frameworks, and the imposition of stricter sanctions - in accordance with the definition established by international instruments - are gaining increasing relevance. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights play a particularly important role in shaping and reinforcing this process.

The aim of this article is to examine the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the violation of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, and that no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

The violation of the aforementioned Article 4 of the Convention will be examined in the present article in the context of human trafficking, specifically involving the following forms of exploitation: labour and sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, and trafficking in minors.

Paper: Analysis of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Concerning Violations of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Pages: 63-74

------------------

Author: Maia Akhvlediani

Abstract

The Georgian criminal procedure system has existed for several years. Initially, the Criminal Procedure Code of February 20, 1998 attempted to regulate the criminal procedure; however, taking into account contemporary developments, the Criminal Procedure Code of 2009 - which remains in force – was adopted to address the criminal justice issues prevailing at the time. Since the criminal procedure is not static, over time, alongside new challenges, it has been shaped by the decisions of the legislative body and the Constitutional Court. It is worth exploring whether the Judgment of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Georgia dated December 28, 2021 imposed limitations on the defendant’s internationally recognized right against self-incrimination, and whether it effectively equated the defendant with a standard witness. This article specifically addresses the common and distinguishing features of the procedural status of the defendant and the witness, and the peculiarities of their testimonies.

Paper: Comparison of the Witness’s and the Defendant’s Testimonies in Legal Discourse

Pages: 75-85

--------------

Paper: Overview of Judgments of the Constitutional Court of Georgia

Pages: 87-93

--------------

Full Issue