Everyone, including any official or organization, should be well aware that the decision of the Conference of Judges is neither an 'incomprehensible' nor a 'fifth step back,' but an expression of the independence of the judiciary, - this is how the Administrative Committee of the Conference of Judges of Georgia responds to the assessments made after the election of two judges to the High Council of Justice, Paata Silagadze and Giorgi Goginashvili.

"We would like to respond to the assessments on the election of the members of the High Council of Justice of Georgia on October 31 of this year by the Conference of Judges, as they are clearly exaggerated, unjustified and contradictory.

We remind all subjects that Georgia is an independent state, whose judiciary also operates independently, without interference and obeys only the law.

According to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all employees of the diplomatic mission accredited in Georgia, including their superiors, are obliged to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state and not to interfere in its internal affairs.

We declare with full responsibility that the judiciary of Georgia always strictly adheres to political neutrality and resolves issues within its competence only on the basis of law, independently of all outside entities. Therefore, everyone, including any official or organization, should be well aware that this decision of the Conference of Judges is neither "incomprehensible" nor "a step backwards", but - it is an expression of the independence of the judiciary, the realization of the principle of separation of powers. The conference was held in full compliance with the law, and if its results are unacceptable to anyone, it is unequivocally wrong to cast a shadow over the whole process. Most importantly, this decision will not harm Georgia's European integration process in any way, because it is the interference in the work of the judiciary and its independent activity that is the cornerstone of the Western rule of law, without which there is no democracy and no rule of law.

It is unclear why the conference was considered "hasty": the conference was scheduled and its agenda was published in full compliance with the Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts. Thus, all interested parties were informed about the date of the conference and the issues to be discussed 7 days in advance.

Of particular concern are the findings that there are judges in the judiciary who "undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary" and that "because of the closed system, many professional members are excluded from the process and deserve better." Such assessments are offensive to the entire judiciary and unequivocally constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation under Article 41 of the Vienna Convention.

It should also be noted that the law does not provide for competitive procedures for the election of a member of the High Council of Justice of Georgia. Any judge can nominate for membership directly at the Conference of Judges. This has not been the case in the past, and at the October 31 conference, no judge was restricted from nominating and thus engaging in the electoral process. The elections were held in a completely free and competitive environment, under the conditions of secret ballot established by law. If any violations have occurred, we are ready to discuss them. Otherwise, the evaluations leave the feeling that certain subjects could not accept the personnel decisions made at the conference and because of this there is an attack on the judiciary. However, the first achievement for the judiciary, the expression of its real independence, is that the decision regarding the candidates is made only on the basis of their merits recognized within the system and the views formed. Therefore, the election or non-election of this or that candidate as a member of the council cannot be done artificially, only on the basis of subjective attitudes outside the system, in some cases.

Since 2013, with the active participation of the judiciary, 4 phases of reforms have been implemented, as a result of which the independence and accountability of the judiciary are fully ensured. We remain open to all possible reforms that focus only on systemic improvements and not on the prosecution of individual judges. At the same time, the court should participate in the reform process with the status of a full-fledged, qualified partner, whose opinion should be heard and taken into account in all decisions, and which should be protected from unfounded attacks", - the statement reads.

source: IPN