The amendments made by the Georgian Dream to the Organic Law on Common Courts, which serve to restrict media access to courts, effectively entered into force today, June 30.

It has become inadmissible to take photos, film, video, or broadcast in court (in the court building, courtroom, or court yard), except in cases when this is carried out by the court or a person authorized by the court. The distribution of filmed materials has been placed at the discretion of the court — it may choose to distribute or withhold photo, film, and video materials of the court proceedings in its possession.

Video and audio recording of a court session, as well as broadcasting, may be permitted only by a specific decision adopted by the High Council of Justice of Georgia in relation to each individual court session.

On the very first day of the law’s enactment, problems with its implementation emerged, effectively preventing media outlets from operating. Several media organizations appealed to the High Council of Justice regarding video and audio recording of a particular court session involving eleven individuals detained in the context of the protests (Andro Chichinadze, Onise Tskhadadze, Guram Mirtskhulava, Jano Archaia, Luka Jabua, Ruslan Sivakov, Revaz Kiknadze, Giorgi Terashvili, Valeri Tetrashvili, Sergey Kukharchuk, and Irakli Kerashvili). However, the Council failed to respond before the session began.

During the court hearing, defense lawyers requested that presiding judge Nino Galustashvili declare a recess to establish communication with the High Council of Justice to clarify the issue of media access. The judge did not take this request into account.

This bureaucratic mechanism effectively blocks media coverage of court proceedings. It is particularly noteworthy that some stages of the trial — so-called first presentation hearings — are often scheduled only a few hours in advance due to short procedural deadlines. In such cases, it is virtually impossible for the media to receive a timely response from the High Council of Justice. It is evident that the purpose of these changes is to restrict coverage of cases with high public interest.

All of the above undermines one of the structural principles of a fair trial — publicity and transparency. Unjustifiably closed legal proceedings create the perception that the court is not interested in informing the public about the quality of justice, which has a directly proportional effect on the reputation of the judiciary.

Photo: TV PIRVELI