A/HRC/36/65 2. Combating torture and ill-treatment 14. At the end of her visit to Georgia in May 2014, the former High Commissioner, Navi Pillay, recommended the creation of an “independent investigative body to look into allegations of abuse by the police and other law enforcement agencies”.5 In August 2014, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia, recommended that “the State party should pursue its plans to establish an independent and impartial body to investigate allegations of abuse by police and other law enforcement officers, including torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.”6 Through the National Human Rights Action Plan for 2016-2017, the Government committed to the implementation of that recommendation and options were developed by independent experts, including OHCHR, and were presented to the Government in March 2017. 15. In June 2017, draft legislation was elaborated by the Government to create a special department within the Office of the Chief Prosecutor to examine allegations of torture and ill-treatment. This draft legislation is included in the autumn 2017 agenda of the Parliament for discussion. OHCHR stands ready to continue assisting the Government to establish a credible independent mechanism that would demonstrate the commitment of Georgia to preventing and combating torture and ill-treatment. 16. Various sources cited a recent trend of individuals being approached by the police with an “invitation for a conversation” and being de facto apprehended without any procedural guarantees. Reportedly, individuals affected, unlike those who are brought for questioning under regular procedures, were neither registered as having entered a police station nor accompanied by, or granted, a lawyer and a medical check, and were thus deprived of the safeguards against potential ill-treatment. Such a practice should be urgently terminated and guarantees against ill-treatment should be enjoyed effectively by every individual who is de facto deprived of liberty. In 2017, OHCHR included awarenessraising discussions on the unlawful nature of such practices in training programmes for police officers and legal professionals. 3. Protecting the right to privacy 17. In February 2017, at the request of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Issues, OHCHR provided comments on a package of amendments to laws governing surveillance activities of law enforcement agencies. These comments were intended to bring legislation into line with the applicable international standards and with the April 2016 ruling of the Constitutional Court that bans unrestricted access by security agencies to monitor communications conducted over telecommunication networks. Many recommendations by OHCHR were integrated into the amended legislation, which was endorsed by the Parliament on 1 March 2017. However, a number of OHCHR recommendations aimed at ensuring the independence of the leadership of the agency that is tasked with surveillance were rejected. On 20 March 2017, the President of Georgia vetoed the legislation, citing concerns that the Operative-Technical Agency created by the new legislation and mandated to conduct surveillance activities would lack independence, and arguing that the costs of surveillance would be borne by private communications operators. 18. On 22 March 2017, the Parliament overrode the President’s veto of the proposed amendments without taking his concerns into account. The progress report on the implementation of the National Strategy recommended that the legislation be revisited in the light of “the judgment of the Constitutional Court” and of “the principles set out in the National Strategy”.7 OHCHR stands ready to continue to assist all stakeholders to ensure that legislation and practices in this area meet international human rights standards. 5 6 7 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14624. See CCPR/C/GEO/CO/4, para. 12. Report on progress in the implementation of the National Strategy, p. 24. 5