Supreme Court of Georgia

The Scientific-Advisory Board of the Supreme Court discussed the decisions of the Constitutional Court

Published: 12/07/2015

On December 4, 2015 in the Supreme Court the Scientific-Advisory board’s regular session was held on the criminal law direction. The session was attended by the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament of Georgia, Mr.Vakhtang Khmaladze, members of the Constitutional Court, judges of the Common Courts, members of the High Council of Justice, employees of the Prosecutors Office, representatives of international and nongovernmental organizations.

The subject of the board discussion was several decisions of Constitutional Court made during the current year, in particular: the decision of 24 October, 2015 in connection with the Article 260 of Criminal Code, the decision of September 15, 2015 on the case of 9-month pre-trial detention period and the decision of 22 January, 2015 in connection with the indirect testimony.

The Chairperson of the Supreme Court welcomed the meeting participants and noted that, It is important to hold similar kind of meetings in the future by the participation of the Constitutional Court, where the members of the Constitutional Court will express positions on the cases of the high public interest.

On the meeting the first discussed issue was the decision of the Constitutional Court made on October 24, 2015 on the case: "Citizen of Georgia Beka Tsikarishvili against the Parliament of Georgia", where the plaintiff disputed the sanctions proportionality on  the offence envisaged by the paragraph 2 of Article 260 of Criminal Code of Georgia. While discussing the mentioned topic the judges of the common court of Georgia, coming out from the court practice, raised the issue of Article 260, criminal procedure code on alternative sentencing, determining the type and extent of drugs in a comprehensive manner.

Under the active discussion format, participants of the meeting also touched the challenges existing in practice in connection with the indirect testimony and pre-trial detention and the international experience in this regard.

Photo1 Photo2 Photo3