Why should I be interested in this topic?

As demonstrated by the past 30 years of experience, the work on the justice system is always at the forefront of the political agenda. We see that without just and independent institutions, social and political stability is difficult to achieve. The reform of the justice system is a crucial part of the 12 recommendations of the European Union, and Georgia's European perspective depends significantly on its implementation. 

Our commnet 

Socially sensitive judiciary has two dimensions: A well-thought-out, systematic process of eliminating problems and striving for social justice, and the development of a universally accessible system for everyone, which responds to the needs of women, children, people with disabilities, groups facing specific challenges. 

What prevents Georgia from building a socially sensitive judiciary in Georgia?

The basis of the judiciary is its accessibility. The researches conducted in Georgia reveal the main problems in terms of accessibility criterion. People who have interacted with the justice system in recent years report that: 

• The terms of consideration of the case and the expenses to be incurred during the process are the most important obstacles for referring to the court; 
• Distrust of the court, the threat of retaliation and the preparation of documents to be submitted to the court remain as important factors. 

The listed factors reflect the economic, social and institutional barriers that must be overcome for access to the judiciary.

Besides access to justice, it is paramount to ensure a fair and independent process from any external influences. The “elitism” of the Georgian judiciary is clearly revealed in the crisis of the internal and external autonomy of the court. 

• Internal factors refer to the independence of individual judges from corporate influences in the justice system; 
• External factors refer to the influence of the political class on the court. 

In Georgia, the justice system has always been a basis for the political elite. Under different governments, its nature changed, from a state of absolute subordination to a cooperative relationship between political and judicial elites.  

It is clear that the political groups are not willing to acknowledge these problems. For example, the draft of the resolution submitted to the Parliament on the existing clan rule in the judicial system failed, although it could have become a prerequisite for significant changes in the justice system. 

How does this influence public opinion? 

Judiciary is not a separate and abstract phenomenon. This is manifested in its characteristic to be predictable. This feature is of a twofold nature. It either stems from a sense of injustice and bias, or vice versa. Georgian society exhibits these attitudes in response to high-profile and public-interest cases. Additionally, when the power imbalance between the parties is evident. The anticipation of a decision is fostered in society by predicting the most likely outcome given the political, social, economic, and cultural factors at play. 

Such a sense of predictability is consistently reflected in public surveys that show public alienation from and distrust of the judiciary. For example, according to the 2020 data of the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC), more than half of the population believes that the judiciary is not free from political influence. The IRI survey of 2022 shows a similar tendency. According to the survey, only 38% have a positive attitude towards the court, and 48% have a negative attitude. 

What should be done?

Over the years, work on improving the justice system of Georgia has been ongoing from the perspective of the so-called institutional design. Several stages of reforms have demonstrated that this approach is not adequate to solve the fundamental problems. Fragmentary changes are not sufficient to confront the axes of power and the vicious logic of managing the system. 

Therefore, it is necessary to change the perspective of working on the judicial system. A new approach must be based on: 

1. Recognition of systemic failures and their causes;
2. Assessment of political, clan and other influences; 
3. The idea of building a system that is genuinely accessible to people and socially sensitive. 

What is necessary? 

Liberating the judiciary from political and clan influences is the basis for creating a fair justice system. This can only be achieved by such a systemic change, which will eliminate the foundation of the sole influence of the majority. Therefore, it is necessary to implement consensus-oriented mechanisms in the judicial and political systems.

In addition, in order to eliminate the alienation of the public from the court and to create a socially sensitive judiciary, it is crucial to:

• Put the concept of people-oriented judiciary on the political agenda. Implementation of this principle in practice implies justice system to be timely and proactive, as well as, full consideration of people's legal needs, creation of a system of inclusive services to eliminate systemic problems; 
• Strengthen the State Legal Aid Service with institutional and human resources in order to provide high-quality legal assistance to broad groups of society;
• Eliminate financial, social, cultural or physical barriers to access to justice, which requires research and analysis of legal needs from the population's perspective. 

Only fundamental changes can become a prerequisite to overcome the existing alienation between judiciary and society. The public should expect from the court to be a creator of the values such as justice and equality. 

The article was prepared by the Komentari with the support of the USAID Rule of Law Program funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the East-West Management Institute (EWMI). The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID and EWMI.