The Parliament discussed with the II reading the Bill on Amnesty and adopted with 82 votes against 1.

The author, Chair of the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee, Mikheil Sarjveladze stated that certain changes have been introduced at the II reading. He dwelt on the essence of the Bill stating that it consists of two blocks.

“The first is related to the mitigation of certain penalties established due to the pandemic-related restrictions and hence, we introduced a slightly new approach that the persons serving certain sentences during the pandemic will be subject to amnesty except the case related to the conventional duty of Georgia, namely, the persons convicted for torture. The second block introduces the differentiated approach offered under the alternative Bill. The differentiated approach envisages the application of minor preferences to the persons sentenced with up to 2 years of detention and more preferences to the persons sentenced with more than 2 years of detention. Additional preference is envisaged for women, juveniles and persons over 70 and hence, the amnesty preferences are higher for them”.

As the reporter noted, the second block related to the crimes committed before 2014. “We extend the list of the crimes not subject to the preferences and amnesty”.

He introduced the changes to the Bill stating that additional consultations resulted in the extension of the terms for the preferences. Non-Faction MPs and the representatives of the Political Groups and Factions expressed their positions.

Non-Faction MP Shalva Shavgulidze stated that he welcomes the part of amnesty concerning the pandemic, though cannot support the second part. “I like the first part of the amnesty which concerns the pandemic since we did encounter significant restrictions and they are now being compensated. I welcome this part but this positive intention is aggravated with the imperfect second part, which contains significant political risks and besides, it is legally imperfect”.

According to the member of the Faction “Lelo – Partnership for Georgia”, Ana Natsvlishvili, it is an urgent initiative, for which she thanked the initiators. “The inmates are under full state control and hence, the state carries responsibility for preventing them from the contagious diseases. So, the establishment of the restrictions was the duty of a state and thus, it is a duty of the state to compensate the rights prejudiced with the restrictions”.

The Chair of the Political Group “Girchi” Iago Khvichia considers that amnesty shall as well be applied to the convicts for the use of cannabis. “We also need to release those persons who are not offenders and did no wrong to anyone. Their only crime is that, as we are sure today, does not constitute any threat. We do not have any violence statistic data, including murders or traffic crashes since we have changed our drug policy. On the contrary, the number of users was reduced and the fatalities were also reduced. So, please include these persons in the amnesty”.

David Zalkaniani, on behalf of the Political Group “European Socialists” estimated the Bill stating that the opposition and ruling party held a professional discussion of the Bill, though their positions were divided.

One part of the MPs expressed commitment to supporting the wider amnesty, while another part was for reduction.

“Despite we did not hold a detailed discussion of this document, I will always support any amnesty with the principle “the wider the better”. "You have our support on every similar document. Hence, I would like to thank those groups participating in the development of this Bill, which in any case, will bring positive outcomes”.

According to the member of the Faction “United National Movement – Unified Opposition Unity Makes Strength”, David Kirkitadze, the Bill had a chance to be universally supported.

The opposition unanimously approved the first part, which deriving from the human principle, concerns the pandemic-related restrictions and their compensation, though disagrees with the second part.

“This amnesty released the persons who, after the change of the authority, were sheltered in our occupant country, they were corrupted stealing everything that belonged to the Georgian people. This is the reason we refuse to approve the Bill and share this political responsibility”.

According to the member of the Faction “United National Movement – Unified Opposition Unity Makes Strength”, Roman Gotsiridze, the Bill is adjusted to the political interests of the Georgian Dream. “It is an immoral Bill, mostly conditioned with political sympathies. It reiterates the word “sacral”. Why 2005 and not 2005? It means that the crimes characterizing the elite of the period of Shevardnadze before 2004 shall be pardoned and if in 2005 someone stole something, this crime will not. Because it means that this Bill can be called “Pardon of the crimes committed before the Rose Revolution”.

Archil Talakvadze: “We support the Bill on Amnesty and support the human resolutions towards the convicts within the scales when order and security of our society are reasonably protected”.

According to him, there is yet another Bill on Amnesty developed by the Georgian Dream political group and which exactly is adjusted to this principle – human approaches, human criminal policy, and protection of safety and interests of the society.

He responded to the critical assessments of the opposition: people criticizing the Bill today would be the first in the acutest criticism if the prisoners would be subject to the threat due to the negligence of the penitential system and improper decisions of the healthcare sector.

“I truly could not believe you would afford to criticize the Government for the penitential system, where you, when being in the authority, demonstrated the gravest problems and violations”.

The reporter Mikheil Sarjveladze stated: “Many of the opposition MPs lack the political intuition and political responsibility, or the political conscience”.

Everyone shall know that no one approves or justifies the crimes of any convict later amnestied as amnesty does not mean the justification of crimes. “I will take the advantage and declare my personal appeal to take care and value this decision, which is timely as they also can demonstrate responsible attitude event to these preferences. I understand that the risks may increase and the crime can be repeated but it does not mean irresponsibility and fear. I appeal to you to show particular responsibility and approve this decision”.