Freedom of Religion or Belief in Georgia

Freedom of Religion
or Belief
in Georgia
Report
2010-2019
Freedom of Religion or Belief
in Georgia
Report
2010-2019
Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)

2020
The report is prepared by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) within the framework of
East-West Management Institute’s (EWMI) "Promoting Rule of Law in Georgia" (PROLoG)
project, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The report is published with the support from the Open Society Georgia Foundation
(OSGF).
The content is the sole responsibility of the Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and does
not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), United States Government, East-West Management Institute (EWMI) or Open
Society Georgia Foundation (OSGF).
Authors: Mariam Gavtadze, Eka Chitanava, Anzor Khatiashvili, Mariam Jikia, Shota Tutberidze,
Gvantsa Lomaia
Project director: Mariam Gavtadze
Translators: Natia Nadiradze, Tamar Kvaratskhelia
Design: Tornike Lortkipanidze
Cover: shutterstock
It is prohibited to reprint, copy or distribute the material for commercial purposes without
written consent of the Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI).
Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI), 2020

Web: www.tdi.ge
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................10
Summary and Key Findings..............................................................................................................................11
Chapter I. The State and Religion...................................................................................................................20

1.1. The Problem of Separation of State and Church in Georgia..............................................20
The principle of separation of State and Religion in a legal framework.............................20
The influence of the Patriarchate of Georgia over political
decisions and legislative initiatives..................................................................................................23
The State’s response to violence committed by the Georgian
Orthodox clergy in the name of religion........................................................................................26
Financial and property privileges of the Georgian Patriarchate............................................27
The State’s attempt to intervene in the autonomy of minority religious
organizations............................................................................................................................................28
1.2. Assessing the mandate and work of the State Agency for Religious Issues.................29
1.3. Registration of religious organizations........................................................................................38
1.4. Restricting public space to minority religious communities..............................................41
1.5. Problems related to border-crossing and carrying religious literature
across the state border..................................................................................................................................44
1.6. The policy and practice of financing religious organizations by the State............................47
Material goods transferred to the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous
Orthodox Church and its purpose....................................................................................................47
Transferring material goods to other religious organizations................................................55
Chapter II: Legislative Initiatives Limiting Freedom of Religion or Belief.................................60

2.1. Amendments to the Constitution of Georgia and potential threats
to freedom of religion....................................................................................................................................60
2.2. Initiatives to adopt the law on religion.........................................................................................62
2.3. Discriminatory initiative against clergy of different faiths.................................................64
2.4. Legislative Initiatives about “offending religious feelings”............................................................65
Chapter III. Inequality in the Georgian Legislation and Judgments
of the Constitutional Court of Georgia........................................................................................................69
3.1. Discriminatory Legal Framework for Purchasing State-owned Property....................71
Constitutional Court on Discrimination Norms of the Law on State Property.................74
3.2. Inequality in Taxation............................................................................................................................76
The Constitutional Court regarding inequalities in the tax system .....................................78
3.3. Privileges granted to the Patriarchate by the legal framework
for higher education.......................................................................................................................................80
3.4. Discriminatory policy on holidays and religious celebrations..........................................82
Chapter IV. Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and State policy...................................84

4.1. General Overview....................................................................................................................................84
4.2. Investigation of violation of Muslims’ rights in 2012-2016.................................................86
4.3. Case of Vagif Akperov, former Sheikh of the Administration
of All Muslims of Georgia..............................................................................................................................95
4.4. Analysis of the human rights violations of Jehovah’s Witnesses......................................96
4.5. Court Statistics of crimes committed on the grounds of religious intolerance...... 101
4.6. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights........................................................... 102
Chapter V. Problems related to property of religious organizations........................................ 106

5.1. Problem of restitution of property confiscated by Soviet authorities....................... 106
Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church........................................................................................ 109
The Catholic Church............................................................................................................................ 113
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church.................................................................................................. 114
Muslim community............................................................................................................................. 116
Jewish community.............................................................................................................................. 118
5.2. Problems related to the construction of new houses of worship.................................. 119
Case of Savior’s Bible Church........................................................................................................... 119
Construction of a new mosque in Batumi.................................................................................. 121
Difficulties faced by the Catholic Church in obtaining
a church construction permit.......................................................................................................... 124
Obstacles for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Terjola.............................................................................. 126
Chapter VI. Religion in Public Schools...................................................................................................... 128
6.1. Violation of Religious Neutrality and Discrimination in Public Schools.................... 128
Ineffectiveness of the work carried out by the Internal Audit Department
of the Ministry of Education and Science................................................................................... 129
Alleged discrimination and violation of the rights of a Muslim
student in Mokhe village.................................................................................................................. 131
6.2. School teachers’ participation in lectures dedicated to “Georgia’s Allotted
to Virgin Mary”................................................................................................................................................ 133
6.3. Intolerance and lack of religious/cultural diversity in school textbooks.................. 134
Content of school textbooks........................................................................................................... 134
Selection and approval of school textbooks............................................................................. 137
Society and I: Review of the subject standards and respective changes........................ 137
Recommendations............................................................................................................................................. 139
Freedom of Religion or Belief in Georgia
Introduction
The present report prepared by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) provides an assess-
ment of the situation of the freedom of religion or belief in Georgia and the respective state
policy for the period from 2010 to 2019. The report also includes recommendations for key
stakeholders.
The report discusses the problem of separation of state and religion, crimes motivated by
religious intolerance and their investigation, including the State’s response to cases of vio-
lation of the rights of Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses and legislative initiatives restricting
freedom of religion or belief. The report also examines the national legal framework in re-
spect of freedom of religion or belief, referencing important judgments of the Constitution-
al Court in relation to the Tax Code and Law on State Property, which has created unequal
conditions for religious organizations; state funding for religious organizations and privileg-
es granted to the Orthodox Church; the issue of religious bias and discrimination in public
schools; issues relating to the property of religious communities including the restitution of
property confiscated by Soviet authorities and obstacles faced by religious organizations in
their attempts to obtain construction permits for new houses of worship; problems related
to the mandate of the State Agency for Religious Issues and the State’s interference into the
autonomy of religious minority organizations.
The majority of problems relating to the freedom of religion or belief in Georgia are struc-
tural. Analyzing state policy suggests the principle of the separation of state and religion
as enshrined in the Georgian Constitution is often breached with financial, legal and social
privileges being granted to the Patriarchate of Georgian Orthodox Church (hereafter, re-
ferred to as Orthodox Church and Patriarchate) and discriminatory treatment towards oth-
er religious communities. Furthermore, the State tends to interfere with the autonomy of
religious organizations. In 2017, state authorities attempted to curb the freedom of religion
within the framework of constitutional reform by introducing vague and unforeseeable cri-
teria such as “national security”. In addition to being unclear, these criteria fail to meet inter-
national standards. The policy and practice pursued by the State Agency for Religious Issues
seek to differentiate religious organizations and reinforce the State’s control over the latter
rather than ensuring the protection of freedom of religion and equal rights to all religious
communities.
8
Introduction
In 2019, discussions on drafting a new law on religion and religious organizations made
headlines with the Human Rights and Civic Integration Parliamentary Committee, the State
Agency for Religious Issues and some religious organizations invoking special “regulations”
while in fact, there was no need to impose additional regulations to protect freedom of
religion and belief nor should the State define such concepts as “religion” and “religious
organizations”. Taking into consideration the Georgian context as well as the history of the
relationship between the State and religious organizations, there is a high risk that the in-
troduction of such legislation would likely cause a hierarchy of religions with their differen-
tiation based on various criteria.
TDI, with the present report, aims to paint a full picture of the systemic problems affecting
the freedom of religion or belief in Georgia. An analysis of state policies and practice, the
legal framework and cases may help religious organizations to fully enjoy their rights. Fi-
nally, the report together with the recommendations enclosed herein, will help the state
authorities to objectively assess the situation in the field of freedom of religion or belief and
tailor their policies to protect fundamental human rights.
9
Methodology
The aim of the presented report is to give an overview and analyze the legal and political
facets of freedom of religion or belief in Georgia.
The report covers the period of 2010-2019 and focuses on specific events when religious
organizations faced acute problems. This approach allows for the assessment of both quali-
tative and quantitative indicators pertaining to cases of human rights violation vis-à-vis cer-
tain political processes and changes within the State’s religious policy. For instance, in order
to showcase the systemic violation of Muslims’ rights, the report depicts particular cases
of human rights violations and discrimination against Muslim citizens between 2012 and
2016, and documents the State’s response to the alleged crimes. To analyze the State-Re-
ligion separation challenges, TDI scrutinized the state policy and practice of funding reli-
gious organizations by processing data derived from public information requested both
from central and local authorities. One of the indicators assessing the State’s policy regard-
ing freedom of religion or belief is the work carried out by the State Agency for Religions
Issues, a government entity, set up in 2014. The report also incorporates all important leg-
islative and political initiatives, tendencies and court decisions with respect to the freedom
of religion or belief in the reporting period.
Some of the issues discussed in the report relate to the challenges which religious organi-
zations face due to the discriminatory legal framework in place, implementation of the law,
artificial barriers created by the State and the privileges granted to the dominant religious
group.
While collecting and processing empirical materials for the report, TDI applied a combi-
nation of various research instruments including desk research and analysis of Georgian
legislation, state documents, reports produced by international and local organizations as
well as the Public Defender of Georgia; public information retrieved from local and central
authorities; outcomes of TDI’s strategic litigation and advocacy, as well as court decisions
and recorded interviews with representatives from religious organizations.
The state policy and practice in relation to the freedom of religion or belief are assessed vis-
à-vis constitutional and international standards for human rights protection.
10
Summary and Key Findings

State and Religion
} The analysis of the State’s policy suggests that the principle of separation of Church and
State is often breached by granting financial, legal and social privileges to the Georgian
Patriarchate and reinforcing differential treatment towards other religious organizations.
} The influence of the dominant religious group over the legislative process in the country
became prominent in December 2013 while working on the self-government code; in
2014, during discussions around the passage of the Law on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination by the Parliament; in 2018, when the Government of Georgia submitted
a bill on the production and cultivation of medical marijuana. Finally, in response to the
Patriarchate’s proposal, the Parliament, through expedited proceedings, announced 12
May as the Day of Georgia’s Allotment to Virgin Mary.
} The privileges granted to the Patriarchate are revealed in the policy and practice of State
funding. At the same time, the State has repeatedly been intruding into the autonomy of
other religious organizations.
} In 2014, the Government created the State Agency for Religious Issues. Human rights and
minority religious organizations were not afforded the opportunity to consult in the process
of establishing the mandate and the statute of the Agency. The policy and the views of the
Agency on freedom of religion or belief was revealed in the Strategy of the Development of
Georgia’s Religious Policy, the document was published in 2015. The content and objectives of
the strategy suggest that the State’s priority is not the protection of freedom of religion or be-
lief and the rights of religious communities, but to reinforce its control over them. The Agency,
instead of “human rights”, emphasizes the need to ensure “security”.
} The 2016-2017 Human Rights Action Plan of the Government identified the State Agency
for Religious Issues as a responsible body for implementing a wide range of important
measures. However, the Agency failed to deliver on its commitments. The State Agency
for Religious Issues remained silent and never positioned itself vis-à-vis ongoing debates
regarding the constitutional amendments in 2017, which created a high risk to unjustifi-
ably interfere with the freedom of religion or belief in the country.
11
} The interaction of the Agency with religious organizations is an important issue; the third
monitoring report (2019) of the implementation of the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) stresses that religious minorities express a low
level of trust towards the State Agency for Religious Issues. Instead they express stronger
confidence in the work of the Council of Religions under Public Defender of Georgia.
} One of the problems faced by religious minority communities is the monopolization of

public space by dominant religious organization. An analysis of the respective practice
suggests that religious minorities have the right to exist but only with limited visibility in
public space.
} In recent years, various aggressive and violent groups have gained considerable visibility
in public space by attacking individuals of different national backgrounds or identities.
Members of such groups often include representatives of the Georgian Orthodox Church
clergy or other organizations with ties to the Georgian Patriarchate. The State does not
have an adequate response to such incidents.
} Representatives of minority religious communities, especially Muslims, often face vari-

ous problems while crossing the State border including those related to the transfer of
religious literature. In addition, the inspection of their travel documents takes unreason-
ably long. Further, belongings and luggage carried by Muslim citizens are often searched
without reasonable doubt. In 2017, the Public Defender of Georgia established the fact of
discrimination against Muslim community members crossing the State border.
} The existing system of financing religious organizations of Georgia can be qualified as a

violation of the constitutional principle of separation between State and Church. From
2002 through 2019, the Georgian Orthodox Church received a total of 276.5 million GEL
from the central budget. Self-governing communities and cities also pursue the practice
of donating property to the Georgian Patriarchate (Annually, approximately 4-5 million
GEL).
} The Georgian Patriarchate is the largest recipient of State funding granted to religious
organizations. Based on TDI’s and other organizations’ data, it is estimated that real estate
that the State donated to the Georgian Orthodox Church covers 64 km2.
12
} State policy is discriminatory when it comes to State funding of other religious organi-
zations. Based on the resolution of the Government of Georgia, since 2014, four religious
communities (Muslim, Jewish, Roman-Catholic and Armenian Apostolic) receive annual
funding as a symbolic compensation for the damages inflicted during Soviet times. The
criteria are based on three characteristics: the size of a particular religious community,
number of clergy and number of houses of worship. Other religious communities who
also experienced repressions, were omitted from this list.
Legislative Initiatives Limiting Freedom of Religion or

Belief
} In the framework of the constitutional reform of 2017, the Parliament of Georgia proposed
amendments to the Constitution which would restrict the freedom of religion or belief on
ambiguous grounds such as “national security’, “prevention of crime” and “administration
of justice”. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission highlighted that the newly added
grounds are not legitimate aims according to Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience
and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
} After succumbing to continuous pressure from religious associations, non-governmental

organizations, lawyers and international organizations, in 2017 the Government initiated
a new amendment to the Constitution resulting in the removal of the ambiguous criteria
legitimizing interference with freedom of religion or belief.
} Issues around the proposed adoption of a special law on religion and religious organi-
zations was a consistent topic on the public discourse agenda in 2019. The Council of
Religions at the Public Defender’s Office disagreed with the idea to adopt such legislation
arguing that it would curb religious freedom and undermine equality among religious
associations.
} In 2019, the issue of abolishing the right of military service postponement for religious
minority clergy was also raised on the political agenda. The initiative of the Defense and
Security Committee of the Parliament stirred discontent among the majority of religious
and non-governmental organizations.
13
} There have been several attempts to restrict the freedom of expression over the past few
years in Georgia, including numerous initiatives of reckless and ambiguous legal norms
to make “blasphemy” and “insulting religious feelings” punishable. These initiatives were
put forward by the Government of Georgia and Parliament members. The Patriarchate of
the Georgian Orthodox Church has been actively campaigning for the criminalization of
“insulting religious feelings”.
Inequality in the Geogian Legislation and Judgements of

the Constitutional Court
} On 3 July 2018, the Constitutional Court of Georgia set a precedent by delivering two
judgments upholding claims by religious organizations. The claimants argued that norms
set forth in the Tax Code and the Law on State Property violated Article 14 of the Consti-
tution (right to equality) and contributed to an environment conducive to discrimination
against religious organizations.
} In its judgment, the Constitutional Court stressed that “the recognition of the special role
of the Church echoes its historical contribution and does not serve to create a preferen-
tial legal condition in favor of the Christian Orthodox religion. Nor should the historical
contribution be perceived as a source of legitimacy for granting privileges. Differential
treatment and affording legal preferences to the Church is not and shall not be the goal
of the Constitution”.
} The Law of Georgia on State Property allows for differential treatment of religious orga-
nizations other than the Georgian Orthodox Church. More specifically, religious organi-
zations, except for the Georgian Orthodox Church, are unable to purchase State-owned
property through a direct sale or receive such property free of charge.
} One of the most striking examples of the discriminatory treatment experienced by re-
ligious organizations is present in certain provisions of tax legislation. The Tax Code of
Georgia allows exemption in certain instances, only for the Patriarchate of the Georgian
Orthodox Church granting the latter privileges which are not accorded to other religious
organizations.
14
} The Georgian Orthodox Church enjoys a series of privileges in the field of higher educa-
tion. However, no such privileges are accorded to any other religious organization.
} The Georgian law regulating labour relations defines secular and religious holidays. Reli-
gious holidays are celebrated only by the Orthodox religious community. The represen-
tatives of religious minority communities whether they work in public or private institu-
tions, also students of general and higher education establishments, have difficulties in
celebrating their religious holidays.
Crimes Motivated by Religious Intolerance

and State Policy
} Religious persecution, physical and verbal assault, illegal interference with religious ritu-
als of representatives of religious minorities, are among the most pressing and systemic
problems in Georgia. While over the course of many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have been
the primary targets of such persecution and discrimination, the past few years have seen
Muslim communities also facing this problem.
} Even though in 2012 a new article was added to the Criminal Code of Georgia to qualify
the motive of intolerance as aggravating circumstances to a crime, there is little evidence
to show that courts apply this article. The sense of the lack of protection of minorities is
also fostered by impunity of perpetrators, inadequate qualification of alleged crimes and
protracted investigations causing mistrust towards law enforcement agencies.
} From 2012 to 2016, eight large-scale violations of Muslims’ rights living in different geo-
graphic areas of Georgia were identified. In seven cases, no charges were filed, while
investigation of some of the cases are still ongoing. The main reason for confrontation
from the side of Orthodox Christians and/or governments is directed mostly at holding
religious rituals, keeping houses of worship, religious schools or other public expressions
of religious faith.
} The forced resignation of Vagif Akperov, the former Sheikh of Administration of All Mus-
lims of Georgia is a clear case of the State’s intrusion into the activities of religious organi-
15
zations. In 2013, he was summoned to one of the buildings of the Ministry of Internal Af-
fairs where, according to him, he was threatened and it was hinted that his family would
experience certain problems if he refused to resign. As of January 2020, Vagif Akperov has
not been recognized as a victim, no one has been charged and the case remains open.
} The violation of rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a long sustained issue in Georgia, the
number of violent occurrences targeting them and the State’s response indicates the
poor situation pertaining to securing the freedom of religion or belief in Georgia. Among
other reasons, due to the ineffective policy of the State, deeply rooted stereotypes and an
active representation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are frequently victims of violations on
the grounds of religious intolerance.
} Crimes against Jehovah’s Witnesses often include physical violence, interference with re-
ligious rituals, damaging houses of worship, assets and religious literature. In many cases,
investigations are never launched, or are prolonged for unreasonable time, crimes are
often qualified inadequately, and charges are rarely made.
} The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down important judgments con-
cerning cases against Georgia with respect to the freedom of religion or belief. At present,
all judgments concern the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In three of the cases, the ECtHR
found a violation of the rights of claimants, while another case ended in settlement as the
Georgian state recognized the violation of rights.
} It is a positive step that in 2018, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) created a human
rights protection and investigation quality monitoring department. One of its objectives
is to ensure timely response and efficient investigation of hate crimes. However the man-
date of the department is limited only to monitoring investigations and providing recom-
mendations and it has no investigative function itself. The European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in its 2016 report on Georgia urged the State to create
a special unit to investigate crimes committed on racist, homophobic and transphobic
grounds. Since the newly created department has no such mandate, ECRI considers its
recommendation to be partially implemented.
16
Problems related to property of religious

organizations
} Among the major problems faced by religious minorities is the issue related to owner-
ship of property, including houses of worship. They face barriers in attempting to regain
property confiscated by Soviet authorities or obtain permits for the construction of new
houses of worship. This problem is coupled with discrimination found in Georgian legisla-
tion which imposes restrictions on religious organizations, except for the Patriarchate of
the Georgian Orthodox Church, to claim back or purchase property.
} In the 20th century, Soviet authorities confiscated all types of property including houses of
worship owned by religious communities. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
and Georgia’s independence, only the Georgian Orthodox Church was able to restore
their ownership over confiscated property while other religious groups were not given
such a possibility. Further, the Church was endowed with the property of other religious
organizations as well. The Patriarchate refuses to return this property to their historical
owners. Problems in relation to confiscated property affect the Armenian Apostolic, Cath-
olic, Evangelical-Lutheran, Muslim and Jewish religious communities the most.
} The majority of religious buildings are monuments of cultural heritage. While the problem
of historical and confessional ownership remains in limbo, the property is under a loom-
ing risk of being destroyed despite the State being officially responsible for its mainte-
nance. Meanwhile, the historical buildings transferred to the Georgian Patriarchate have
lost their authenticity with the original characteristics of the buildings erased to remove
evidence of their historical and confessional origin.
} Religious communities often face discrimination while building houses of worship. Issu-
ing construction permits falls within the competence of local authorities. The role of the
State Agency for Religious Issues in relation to obtaining construction permits by minori-
ty religious communities also raises concerns as the Agency tends to encroach on the
powers of local authorities without any legitimate purpose and legal basis.
} In 2016, Tbilisi City Hall rejected the application of a religious organization to issue a
building permit. The Architecture Service of the City Hall requested from the religious
17
organization a recommendation issued by the State Agency for Religious Issues. The re-
ligious organization applied with a lawsuit to Tbilisi City Court and later, the Tbilisi Court
of Appeals. Both claims were satisfied. In 2017, The Tbilisi City Court ruled that, according
to Georgian legislation, an administrative body was not authorized to demand any addi-
tional document or information (including a recommendation of the LEPL State Agency
for Religious Issues) not designated by law.
} The need for a new mosque has been voiced by the Muslim community in Batumi over the
course of many years. The only mosque in the city cannot accommodate believers who are
forced to perform their religious rite outdoors. The Foundation for the Construction of a
New Mosque in Batumi purchased a plot of land and filed a request to obtain a construction
permit to Batumi City Hall. On 5 May 2017, the local authorities rejected the request. On
30 September 2019, Batumi City Court announced the decision in relation to the Batumi
mosque case. The Court upheld part of the claim of the Foundation for the Construction
of a New Mosque in Batumi and established the fact of discrimination. The judge stressed
that Batumi City Hall had demonstrated unequal treatment towards two different religious
groups citing the fact that there had been seven Orthodox churches built in the same res-
idential zone including those constructed on municipality-owned plots of land. The Court
revoked the decision made by Batumi City Hall denying the application for construction at
the first stage and returned the case to Batumi City Hall for reconsideration. The Court ruled
against the part of the claim which demanded that the Court task Batumi City Hall to issue
an act approving the application for construction permit for the first stage.
Religion in Public Schools
} The Law of Georgia on General Education, adopted in 2005, recognizes religious neutral-
ity and non-discrimination as one of the core principles of public schools. The law aims
to create a learning environment based on the principles of secularity and equality for all
students. However, indoctrination and proselytism in public schools remain a problem.
} Taking national exams and attending various competitions held on Saturdays create
problems for students from certain religious minority groups. For instance, members
18
of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church report that students from this congregation have
problems attending events, school tournaments and final exams held on Saturdays. The
same problem is shared by members of Jewish community.
} The Ministry of Education and Science failed to adequately respond to an alleged case of
discrimination and violations of the rights of a Muslim student in Mokhe village during
2016-2017. In a report prepared on the case, the Internal Audit Report justified an attempt
by the school administration banning the Muslim student from wearing a hijab at school.
} On 8 June 2019, news about dozens of public school teachers from various regions at-
tending theological lectures dedicated to the “Day of Georgia’s Allotment to Virgin Mary”
was spread in the media and on social networks. Teachers were reported to have been
instructed to attend lectures without providing any information as to what the subject of
the lectures would be. The practice of involving teachers in the celebrations dedicated to
the Day of Georgia’s Allotment to Virgin Mary contradicts the principle of the separation
of the State and church enshrined in the Constitution and violates the Law on General
Education.
} T he poor qualification of school teachers and administrative staff, together with the inef-
fective policies of the Ministry of Education tasked with ensuring religious neutrality, as
well as the content of textbooks contribute to creating an environment that is conducive
to intolerance in public schools. An analysis of the content of the textbook reveals that
they are mostly written from the perspective of the ethnic and religious majority when
addressing Georgian history in the mono-religious and ethnocentric context which is
particularly striking.
} In 2019, stakeholders welcomed the decision of the Ministry of Education and Science to
invite human rights experts to work together with specialists in the field and under the
coordination of Public Defender to evaluate all textbooks for the 7th grade submitted for
review. Submitted textbooks were assessed to ascertain to what extent they reflected on
tolerance and diversity culture and met the human rights and non-discrimination crite-
rion.
19
Chapter I. The State and Religion
1.1. The Problem of Separation of State and Church in

Georgia
Secularism is the principle of institutional separation of religion from the State which en-
sures the State’s impartiality with respect to religious groups. Constitutional secularism
allows religious associations, like other public or interest groups, to participate in policy
dialogue and public debates provided that the arguments that they promote do not have
substantial influence over legal and political decision-making. In turn, the State must refrain
from interfering with the autonomy enjoyed by religious associations.
The principle of separation of State and Religion in a legal

framework
Secularity principle is enshrined in the Constitution of Georgia which defines the level of
interaction between the State and the Church. In addition, the Constitution establishes a
set of guarantees for the freedom of religion or belief.
Article 11 of the Constitution recognizes the right to equality before the law regardless of
religion or belief while Article 16 ensures the protection of freedom of belief, religion, and
conscience.
The freedom of belief and religion is also enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution. However,
the same article also references the relationship between the State and the Georgian Orthodox
Church by stating that the State “recognizes the outstanding role of the Apostolic Autocepha-
lous Orthodox Church of Georgia in the history of Georgia and its independence from the State”.
The above mentioned norm is not designed to provide privilege to any religious group,
it is limited only to recognizing the outstanding historical role of the Georgian Orthodox
Church. In addition, it serves to delimitate the State from the Church and establishes guar-
antees distinguishing the two institutions as independent from each other.
20
The principle of separation of State and Church was enshrined in the first Constitution of
Georgia of 21 February 1921. The 1921 Constitution safeguarded the freedom of belief and
religion and provided guarantees for the full protection of religious associations from State
interference. The Constitution also banned the allocation of resources from the State or
local budget intended for religious purposes. The Constitution recognized all religious as-
sociations as having equal rights and legal status.1
The first Georgian Constitution was short-lived and fell victim to Soviet Occupation which
befell the country just a few days after the document’s enactment. Together with the Occu-
pation, the ideals enshrined in the country’s supreme law had also perished. In later years,
the principles of secularism and religious neutrality were passed on to the current Constitu-
tion adopted by the Parliament of Georgia on 24 August 1995.
In 2001, an additional paragraph was added to Article 9 of the Georgian Constitution

(Article 8 in the current version)2 introducing a norm regulating the relationship be-
tween the Georgian State and the Georgian Orthodox Church through a constitution-
al agreement. On 22 October 2002, the Parliament of Georgia agreed a constitutional
agreement between the Georgian State and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Or-
thodox Church.3
Even though the Georgian Orthodox Church is not a subject of international law and has
no international legal personality, the constitutional agreement follows the rules of an in-
ternational covenant and therefore, is supreme to domestic legislation. The Agreement was
signed by the President of Georgia on behalf of the State while the Parliament passed a
respective resolution after the enactment of the Agreement.4
1 Constitution of Georgia of 21st February 1921, Articles 31, 142, 143, 144. Available at: https://matiane.wordpress.
com/2012/09/04/constitution-of-georgia-1921/.
2 Constitutional Law of Georgia of 30 March 2001 (№826-სსმI, №9, 10.04.2001), Article 33.
3 Resolution 1697-Iს of the Parliament of Georgia of 22 October 2002 on approving the Constitutional Agreement between
the State of Georgia and Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.
ge/ka/document/view/41626?publication=0.
4 It is worth noting that because of the international legal incapacity of the Georgian Orthodox Church all tenets that
regards the constitutional agreement between the State of Georgia and the Orthodox Church similar to that between
Italy and Holy See are deemed invalid since Vatican, unlike Georgian Orthodox Church is the subject to international law.
21
The Constitutional Agreement recognizes the Georgian Orthodox Church as a “historically

originated legal entity of the public law”.5 By the time the Agreement was signed, no other
religious associations had legal status up until 2005, they had not been allowed to be regis-
tered as legal entities in any form.6
By signing the Constitutional Agreement, the State undertook a number of responsibili-

ties before the Orthodox Church and granted a wide range of privileges to the dominant
religious group including the recognition of the wedding ceremony held by the Church,
exemption of the clergy from conscription, introduction of chaplaincy in the army, jails and
other places of detention, support to the functioning of the Church-run education institu-
tions. In addition, the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Georgian Church was declared as “invio-
lable”.
Privileges enshrined in the Constitutional Agreement which favor only one religious group
creates an environment conducive to discrimination. For instance, pursuant to Article 6(5),
products and items produced, made, imported, supplied by and donated to the Patriarch-
ate of Georgia, as well as non-economic property and land are exempt from tax while Arti-
cle 7(1) recognizes all functional and non-functional Orthodox churches, cathedrals, mon-
asteries or ruins of such, including land, as property of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
Aside from the constitutional privileges, the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church
enjoys other benefits: pursuant to a resolution of the Government of Georgia of 20 April
2015,7 high-ranking clergy of the Church and administrative staff of the Patriarchate are
eligible for diplomatic passports.8
In the second report on Georgia, the European Commission against Racism and Intoler-
ance (ECRI) highlighted the fact that no such agreement had been concluded with other
religious associations and recommended that the Georgian authorities “take stock of legis-
lation and practice in religious matters including the Constitutional Agreement to ensure
5 Article 1, Para 3 of the Constitutional Agreement.

6 For more information on this matter, see Chapter 1: The State and Religion: registration of religious organisations.
7 Resolution 176 of the Government of Georgia of 20 April 2015 on approving the rule for the issuance of work passport
8 Giorgi Meladze, Giorgi Mumladze. “Constitutional Agreement: History, public discussions and impact on the protection
of the rights of minorities in Georgia”, “Review of Constitutional Law”, N10, September 2016
Available at: https://iliauni.edu.ge/uploads/other/43/43938.pdf.
22
that the current situation does not cause any direct or indirect discrimination against any
religious minority”.9
A report developed by the Oslo Coalition at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights re-
viewing the Georgian Constitutional Agreement pointed out that unlike the constitutions
of 1921 and 1995, the Constitutional Agreement of 2002 does not contain a reference to the
terms “equality”, “universally recognised rights” or “human rights” – rather, it resorts to the
language such as “common interests” of the State and the Church, and the “State support”
of the Orthodox Church”.10
A decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia handed down in 2018 bears particular
importance with respect to equal rights for religious organizations. The Court ruled that the
recognition of the outstanding role of the Orthodox Church of Georgia echoes the historic
significance and does not serve to establish preferential legal treatment at present nor is
the establishment of legal privileges the ultimate purpose of the respective constitutional
norm. 11
The influence of the Patriarchate of Georgia over political decisions

and legislative initiatives
An analysis of the State’s policies suggests that the principle of separation of Church and
State is often compromised by granting financial, legal and social privileges to the Georgian
Patriarchate, reinforcing differential treatment towards other religious associations. On one
hand, the State often uses the Orthodox Church for political legitimacy while the Patriarch-
ate often interferes with political and legal matters – with the ultimate purpose of influenc-
ing decision-making.
9 Second report on Georgia (adopted on 30 June 2006), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI),
para 55.
10 T. Jeremy Gunn in cooperation with Dag Nygaard, “Georgian Constitutional Values versus Political and Financial
Interests, The Constitutional Agreement’s Departure from the Georgian Principle of Equality”, Norwegian Centre for
Human Rights, the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.,2015. Available at: https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/
english/about/programmes/oslocoalition/news/report_georgia_til_nett.pdf.
11 Judgements of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 3 July 2018, Constitutional complaints N671 and 811.
23
In 2011, the Patriarchate shot down amendments to the country’s Civic Code proposed by
a majority in Parliament allowing other religious associations to register as legal entities
under public law. As a response to the proposition, thousands of the clergy and their pa-
rishioners took to the streets in a mass protest using language saturated with hate speech
targeting minorities. However, the Parliament, nevertheless, passed the law through a fast-
tracked procedure.
The influence of the dominant religious group over the legislative process in the country
became ever so prominent in December 2013 when the Patriarch Ilia II weighed in on the
debate around the local self-government code declaring that the draft law posed a “threat”
because it would lead to Georgia’s disintegration and vowed that the Georgian Church
would prevent the passage of the bill. After this announcement, Government representa-
tives visited the Georgian Patriarchate to hold consultations on the draft law. After the con-
sultations they told the public that “some of the norms have been improved”.12 In the end,
the draft law was finalized in a manner which appeased the Patriarchate and stated that
regional unions of municipalities, established by the Code, would be transformed into a
regional consultation board.
In 2014, the Georgian Patriarchate weighed in on the discussions around the passage of
the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination by the Parliament. Ultimately,
the church managed to contribute to the final version of the law.13 During the hearing of
the bill at the Parliamentary Committee of Human Rights and Civic Integration, Ortho-
dox priest, Davit Isakadze threatened to anathemize those members of the Parliament
who supported the passage of the bill. Patriarch Ilia II also called for the postponement
of the discussions around the bill; He said the Georgian legislation protects the rights of
every person whilst the adoption of the bill would trigger controversies and cause frenzy
amongst the public.14
12 Georgian patriarch against local government reform, DFWatch, 6 December 2013 https://dfwatch.net/georgian-
patriarch-against-local-government-reform-59901-24666.
13 The Patriarchate had been particularly vocal against including sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of
potential prohibited grounds of discrimination. While the Parliament chose not to uphold this concern, they nevertheless
added “protection of public order and ethics” as legitimate aim when the discrimination can be justified.
14 Georgia’s Orthodox Church Opposes Antidiscrimination Bill, Radio FreeEurope/RadioLiberty, 29 April 2014 https://
www.rferl.org/a/georgias-orthodox-church-opposes-antidiscrimination-bill/25366250.html.
24
The stance of the Government representatives with respect to the bill stands out as import-
ant against this backdrop. Gedevan Popkhadze, the then-deputy chair of the Human rights
and Civic Integration Committee said he was not going to support the bill if the Synod of
the Georgian Orthodox Church turned their back on the draft law.15
In the end, the State decided to soften the bill following a series of consultations with the
representatives of the country’s dominant religious community.16
On 18 May 2016, the Georgian Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports approved
the syllabus for the subject entitled “Society and I” for general education curricula thus, end-
ing a series of deliberations and discussions lasting for almost a year. The original version
of the document included a chapter entitled “What I believe and have faith in” along with
discussion topics such as “why we should not commit violence in the name of religion, why
to respect a person with a different religion” etc. This version also invoked such terms as “tol-
erance”, “minority,” “gender”. However, the Ministry decided to remove some of the topics
and terms following a consultation with the Georgian Patriarchate. In December 2017, the
Patriarch Ilia II declared that Georgian public schools must teach the history of religion and
that the Government should ensure the subject is introduced in schools. In January 2018,
the Minister, Chkhenkeli, responded to the Patriarch’s statement: “I think that the history
of religions as an optional subject must be available in every school. That is the target we
aim for”.17 This proposition sparked a series of debates and discussions. However, by Janu-
ary 2020 there was no decision made regarding the introduction of religion as a subject in
public schools.
On 18 September 2018, in the run-up to the presidential elections, candidate Salome Zu-
rabishvili slammed the Georgian Orthodox Church for breaching the Constitutional Agree-
ment between the Church and the State.18 Zurabishvili responded to comments made by
15 Gedevan Popkhadze: I prefer to be Orthodox then the MP, Netgazeti.ge, 16 April 2014, available in Georgian: http://
netgazeti.ge/news/31018/.
16 Anti-Discrimination Bill Adopted, Civil Georgia, 2 May 2014 https://civil.ge/archives/123677.
17 A discussion around religion and public school organized by TDI on 6 February 2018. http://tdi.ge/en/news/522-
discussion-public-school-and-religion.
18 Salome Zurabishvili’s statement of 19 September 2018
http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/4232_september_20_2018/4232_edit.html.
25
some members of the clergy19 and denounced the Church’s active involvement in the run-
up to the election. In spite of the tension, Zurabishvili met the Patriarch a day before the
elections after the announcement of the runoff.20
In 2018, the Government of Georgia submitted a bill of law to Parliament on the production
and cultivation of medical marijuana. The draft initiated harsh criticism from the Georgian
Patriarchate. After a meeting was held with the Patriarch and following the vitriol, the Gov-
ernment decided to backtrack on the draft law.21
In response to the Patriarchate’s proposal, the Parliament announced 12 May as the

“Day of Georgia’s Allotted to Virgin Mary”. The decision was taken at an extraordinary
session of Parliament held on 8 May 2019 through expedited proceedings.22 Proposed
amendments to the Labour Code were passed with 96 to 0 vote. Up to 900,000 GEL23
was allocated from the Government’s reserve fund for various events dedicated to the
Allotment Day.24 In addition, by issuing yet another resolution the Government ap-
proved an action plan of events dedicated to the Allotment Day including lectures,
literary events, conferences, movie screenings, performances, folk bands tours in Tbilisi
and in the country’s regions.
The State’s response to violence committed by the Georgian

Orthodox clergy in the name of religion
Due to the State’s loyalty to the Orthodox Church, purported crimes committed by the Or-
thodox clergy often slip through the cracks without an adequate State response.
19 Orthodox Patriarch weighs in on Zurabishvili Controversy, Calls for Political Neutrality, Civil Georgia, 20 September
2019 https://civil.ge/archives/254761.
20 “The Patriarch met with Zurabishvili on the day prior to the elections“, 27 November 2018. Available in Georgian at:
https://bit.ly/2R9RZXY.
21 Georgian officials to withdraw cannabis export bill after meeting Patriarch, OC Media, 2 November 2018, https://oc-
media.org/georgian-officials-to-withdraw-cannabis-export-bill-after-meeting-patriarch/.
22 Parliament approves May 12 as Day of Georgia’s Allotted to Virgin Mary 8 May 2019. https://1tv.ge/en/news/
parliament-approves-may-12-as-day-of-georgias-allotted-to-virgin-mary/.
23 900,000 Georgian Lari is about 315,000 USD, 288,000 Euros.
24 “Georgian government allocates $320,000 for new religious holiday, OC Media, 10 May 2019
https://oc-media.org/georgian-government-allocates-320-000-for-new-religious-holiday/.
26
On 17 May 2013, a Church-led violent mob counter-protested a peaceful rally against ho-
mophobia and transphobia. While physical and verbal assaults by the clergy had been ev-
idenced and supported with testimony from witnesses, no criminal charges were brought
and the Court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to file charges.
The reluctance of the State to effectively investigate violent crimes against religious mi-
norities committed by Orthodox clergy and numerous attempts to elude responsibility to
bring the perpetrators to court25 has been founded in judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights.26
Financial and property privileges of the Georgian Patriarchate
The privileges granted to the Patriarchate are discernible in funding policy and practices
which the State pursues with the Church. Since 2002, the State has been allocating a con-
siderable amount of financial resources to the Patriarchate from the budget. In addition,
the Church has been a recipient of generous donations in the form of real estates and mov-
able assets. While such form of state funding is partial compensation for damage and loss
incurred during the Soviet regime, in fact, the financial support to the Patriarchate is ren-
dered in the form of direct funding. Material and financial assets allocated to the Church
are mostly used for religious works and for purposes which constitutes a violation of the
constitutional principle of separation of State and Church. Since 2014, the State has been
funding an additional four religious organizations with the purpose of compensating for
the damage. However, like in the case of the Patriarchate, the State has not provided any
legal criteria for the compensation.27
The State’s bias is obvious when it comes to restitution of property seized from religious
associations by the Soviet authorities. So far, the State has only returned property to the
dominant religious group, the returned property includes assets which were historically
25 T. Jeremy Gunn in cooperation with Dag Nygaard, “Georgian Constitutional Values versusPolitical and Financial
Interests, The Constitutional Agreement’s Departure from the Georgian Principle of Equality”, 2015, The Oslo Coalition
on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Available at: https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/english/about/programmes/oslocoalition/
news/report_georgia_til_nett.pdf,
26 Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights on Begheluri and others v. Georgia of 3 May 2007 (N71156/01).
27 See Chapter 1, The State and Religion, a subchapter Policy and Practice of Funding of religious organisations.
27
owned by other religious associations and that the State handed to the dominant religious
organization without any preconditions or prior deliberations.
The State’s attempt to intervene in the autonomy of minority

religious organizations
Along with granting privileges to the dominant religious group, the State has repeatedly
been meddling with and exerting control over minority religious organizations.
For instance, in 2013 the State, through means of law enforcement agencies, forced a Mus-
lim religious leader to resign from office.28 In 2011, State efforts led to the creation of a reli-
gious organization known as the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia. Georgia’s Muslim
community has long been complaining for the reorganization of the Administration and
amend the rule for electing spiritual leaders and officials within the Administration. In De-
cember 2019, the Administration held the elections for the new Mufti (Sunni Muslim leader
of the organization). Representatives of the Muslim community complained that the State
intervened with the autonomy of the religious organization as the elections were held with
the active involvement of the state security services29.
As of today, the State works closely with the Administration who also receives estate and
financial assets from the former. Importantly, a State-brokered agreement signed by the
State Agency for Religious Issues and the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia in 2014
sets forth conditions and aims to use money, paid by the State, as compensation against the
damage incurred under the Soviet regime. Pursuant to this agreement, more than half of
the money paid by the State could be spent on salaries for the clergy at the Administration.
Members of the Muslim community believe that the Administration of All Muslims of Geor-
gia, succumbing to the State’s pressure, gave up on an opportunity to build a new mosque
in Batumi – a long-standing quest of the country’s Muslim community. Instead, the Admin-
istration pledged to enlarge the existing mosque and lodged a request to the Government
28 See Chapter 4. Crimes committed on ground of religious intolerance and the State’s policy.
29 Four employees of Administration of Muslims quit posts in protest, 25.12.2019 https://1tv.ge/en/news/four-
employees-of-administration-of-muslims-quit-posts-in-protest.
28
for additional space for the organization’s residential building and the construction of a
Madrasa. The Government decided to uphold these requests.30
The cases above suggest that despite the binding constitutional principle of separation of
Church and State, the government does not shy away from granting apparent privileges
to the Church allowing it latter to interfere with and influence legislative and political pro-
cesses. Furthermore, there are signs of state interference with the autonomy of minority
religious organizations.
1.2. Assessing the mandate and work of the State Agency

for Religious Issues
An interagency commission tasked with examining specific issues related to religious asso-
ciations was set up on 29 November 2013 based on a resolution of the Government of Geor-
gia.31 The Commission, comprising of first deputy ministers and chaired by the State Minis-
ter for Reconciliation and Civic Equality, was tasked, inter alia, to analyze legal acts affecting
religious associations, develop a legal framework to regulate the construction of religious
buildings, investigate issues related to the funding of religious associations, ownership of
property, public worship, and educational activities carried out by religious associations.
The Commission had an advisory mandate with a goal to draft legal amendments in com-
pliance with its core objectives. The statute of the Commission allowed non-governmental
and international organizations, as well as recognized experts in the field to attend sessions,
without the right to vote.
TDI has been vocal in criticising the mandate and warding of the main objectives of the
Commission at its very inception.32 TDI feared that ambivalent and unclear objectives of the
Commission allowed ambiguous interpretations and triggered risks for greater legal pref-
erence in favor of the dominant religious group. Therefore, it was not entirely clear whether
30 See Chapter 5: Property related problems of religious organisations, subchapter: obstacles to constructing new
places of worship.
31 Resolution of the Government N305 establishing an interagency commission to examine specific issues related to
religious associations, 29.11.2013.
32 A statement of Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI), 9 December 2013. Available in Georgian at: http://www.tdi.ge/
ge/statement/tdi-religiuri-sakitxebis-shemscavleli-komisiis-shesaxeb.
29
or not the Commission would be successful in its attempt to ensure an equal environment
for religious minorities.
Between 29 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, the Commission convened five sessions
and developed two normative acts: a draft resolution of the Government of Georgia “on ap-
proving the rule for implementing some measures for the partial compensation of damage
incurred by the Soviet totalitarian regime to Georgia’s religious associations (on 27 January
2014) and a draft resolution of the Government of Georgia “on setting up and approving
the statute of a legal entity under public law State Agency for Religious Issues (on 19 February
2014).
The Interagency Commission ceased its work in February 2014 and was abolished on 30
June 2014.33
On 19 February 2014, the Government issued resolution #177 to set up a legal entity under
public law, the State Agency for Religious Issues (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and
approve its statute.34 According to the statute, the Agency is tasked to develop recommen-
dations in the field of religion for the Georgian Government and it is the Prime Minister who
is mandated to appoint and dismiss the chair of the Agency. It is apparent that the country’s
religious policies are in the hands of not a representative body, but in those of the agency
overseen by the Prime Minister. Rather than ensuring the establishment of an equal envi-
ronment and the protection of the freedom of religion, this institutional arrangement has
created an additional series of risks exerting control over religious associations.
The Agency, as set forth in its statute, is tasked to implement research, scientific and ed-
ucational work, as well as make recommendations related to religious issues. In addition,
its mandate also covers developing recommendations on issues of concern for religious
associations, on the implementation of goals and objectives in line with the Constitution
Agreement, on identification of locations for and construction of religious buildings, sup-
port of tolerance among civil society, in particular, among youth.
33 Normative act available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2384242.

34 Resolution of the Government of Georgia 177. Available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/4021166?publication=0.
30
Human rights organizations and minority religious associations were not afforded the
opportunity to consult in the process of establishing the mandate and the statute of the
Agency. Therefore, the State failed to reflect on actual needs, interests and on the views of
religious minorities both in policy and practice. Echoing this failure, the European Commis-
sion against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) noted that the mandate of the agency is not yet
entirely clear and neither is its procedure for developing recommendations35.
The establishment of a Government agency exclusively mandated to work on religious is-

sues caused discontent among the majority of religious associations and human rights or-
ganizations arguing that is reminiscent of the Soviet Council for Religious Affairs.36
In 2015, the strategy of the development of Georgia’s religious policy was published on the
official website of the State Agency for Religious Issues.37 The legal nature of the document
and the question of who is responsible for its approval remains unclear. According to the
representatives of the Agency, the published document is just a draft version of the strategy
and it was only published to involve stakeholders in its finalization.
The document was developed without any input from representatives of religious minori-
ties or NGOs working in the field of freedom of religion meaning the process of elaboration
was not transparent. The content of the strategy and objectives outlined suggest that the
State’s true intention is to reinforce its control over religious organizations rather than en-
suring freedom of religion or belief and protecting the rights of religious organizations. The
Agency, instead of “human rights”, emphasizes the need to ensure “security”.
The Agency refers to religious groups residing in the country’s border regions as a potential
threat to Georgia’s domestic and foreign security: “This situation shapes specific geopolitical
objectives for the Georgian state. More specifically, these objectives include the prevention of
threats that may arise by regional neighbors pursuing their interest in Georgia’s domestic pol-
itics by exploiting the country’s ethnic and religious diversity.” This extract is taken from the
35 Report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Para 97.
36 The council was established in 1965 in order to bring together the council for Russian Orthodox Church and the
council for religious cults. The establishment of this structure had been viewed as a shift of the state policy to the
oversight of religious organisations.
37 The document is available in Georgian at: http://religion.geo.gov.ge/geo/document/saqartvelos-saxelmtsifos-
religiuri-politikis.
31
State’s declared religious policy which aims to reinforce control over religious minorities
rather than taking measures to eliminate problems that these communities face. This ap-
proach has manifested in the treatment of Georgia’s Muslim community members when
they try to cross the state border. In recent years, Muslims have routinely been subjected to
unjustified detentions and search procedures at the border. Carrying religious books from
other countries to Georgia has also been problematic.38
In its monitoring report, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance notes
that viewing religious freedom and the rights of religious minorities through a security per-
spective is detrimental to the protection of rights and the prevention of discrimination and
intolerance.39 ECRI recommends that the Agency amend the strategy for the development
of a religious policy to focus on the rights of religious minorities, the principle of non-dis-
crimination and the promotion of religious tolerance from a perspective of inclusion and
integration.
The draft state strategy also implies differentiation of religions into mainstream and
non-mainstream, traditional and non-traditional groups and triggers a threat of further
classification. Such an approach contributes to more stigmatization and marginalization of
certain religious groups and increases intolerance towards them.
The strategy makes it clear that the State intends to enact a law on religion since “existing
norms are either of private nature and hence fail to cover the whole range of rights and
relationships, or are scattered without much structure and cannot construct the holistic
legal framework”. It is feared that if passed, the law on religion will create a special legal
framework to define the notion of “religious organization” to oversee and regulate such or-
ganizations, and will set up procedure and rules for registering religious associations, define
their legal status, property ownership and financial matters, as well as matters of education
etc. In fact, the analysis of the legal framework and the State’s practice with respect to the
protection of freedom of religion reveals that most pressing problems faced by religious
minorities are mostly caused, not by lack of systematization of normative acts, but through
discriminatory administration of respective normative acts. Therefore, the adoption of the
38 See Chapter 1: State and Religion, and subchapter: Problems related to border-crossing and carrying religious
literature across the state border.
39 Report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI),Para 99.
32
law on religion is likely to enhance risks compromising their autonomy by the state rather
than contributing to creating an equal environment for religious minorities.
The initiative of the law on religion reappeared in the focus of wider debates in 2018-2019
when a working group set up at the Parliament of Georgia repeatedly raised the need to
adopt necessary regulations in the area of freedom of religion. 40
The Strategy also concerns issues related to rules for construction and ownership of reli-
gious buildings and places of worship. An analysis of existing practice suggests that before
issuing a permit for the construction of the place of worship of religious minorities, admin-
istrative bodies require a recommendation to be issued by the State Agency for Religious
Issues on the expediency of the construction in question. This practice contradicts legisla-
tion regulating construction and creates additional bureaucratic barriers for the applicant.41
The negative role played by the State Agency for Religious Issues came to the fore with
respect to other property issues faced by religious associations. The long-standing demand
of Batumi’s Muslim community for the State allocate land and grant permission for the con-
struction of a new mosque, ended with an agreement which was frowned upon by the ma-
jority of the local Muslim community. The State donated residential and educational prop-
erty to the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia and offered the Muslim community to
enlarge the existing mosque. By making the offer, the State, in fact, rejected the request of
the Muslim community to construct a new mosque.42 In 2014, the Agency set up a special
commission to look into the Muslim community’s request that the State stop dismantling
the old mosque and transfer the building over to the community of the village Mokhe,
Adigeni municipality. Two years after the establishment of the commission, it became clear
that the Agency was not interested in settling the dispute with the Muslim community,
tracing the origin of the building or advocating for the return of the building to its historical
owners.43
40 See Chapter 2: Legislative initiatives to limit freedom of religion, and subchapter: attempts to adopt the law on
religion.
41 See Chapter 5: Issues related to property owned by religious organisations, and subchapter: obstacles to constructing
new religious buildings.
42 See Chapter 5: Issues related to property owned by religious organisations, and subchapter: Construction of a
mosque in Batumi.
43 See Chapter 5: Issues related to property owned by religious organisations, and subchapter: The problem of a
disputed building in village Mokhe.
33
The Agency has pursued a discriminatory policy with respect to allocation of state fund-
ing granted to religious minorities. By adopting resolution #117 of 27 January 2014 the
Government of Georgia approved the rule for undertaking some measures for partial com-
pensation of the damage incurred by religious associations under the Soviet totalitarian re-
gime. Based on this resolution, the Government finances four religious associations (Roman
Catholic Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Muslim and Jewish religious communities) to
compensate the damage. However, the manner in which the State defined the criteria for
selection and the financial amount contradicts legal principles.
The findings of the research undertaken by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or
Belief raise concerns over the work of the Agency. The report highlights three main issues
of concern: the Agency’s mandate and authority, the standard of equality versus hierarchy and
favouritism and the lack of procedures for allocating funds and property.44
In 2018, the Agency published its annual report for 2016-2017.45 The work that the Agency
carried out and its stance with respect to returning property to religious associations, vio-
lence based on religious intolerance, revising the legal framework and compensating for
the damage sustained under the Soviet Occupation, deserve close attention.
The Agency repeatedly mentions that it routinely helps various religious organizations receive
buildings of worship. These issues are assigned to the Agency’s recommendatory commission
for the study of property and financial matters pertaining to religious communities. However,
since its establishment, the Agency constantly tries to evade responsibility for researching
and resolving issues related to the return of religious buildings appropriated by the Soviet
authorities from religious minorities to their historical owners. Not one building of worship
which the Agency returned to religious minority organizations, belonged to a category of
buildings seized by Soviet authorities, buildings left without function and/or so called disput-
ed buildings which Armenian Apostolic, Roman Catholic, Evangelical-Lutheran, Muslim and
Jewish religious groups have advocated for since Georgia’s independence of the 1990s.
44 T. Jeremy Gunn in cooperation with Dag Nygaard, “Georgian Constitutional Values versus Political and Financial
Interests, The Constitutional Agreement’s Departure from the Georgian Principle of Equality”, Norwegian Centre for
Human Rights, the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief., 2015. Available at:
https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/english/about/programmes/oslocoalition/news/report_georgia_til_nett.pdf.
45 Annual report for 2016-2017 of the State Agency for Religious Issues. Available in Georgian at: http://religion.geo.gov.
ge/geo/document/reports/religiis-sakitxta-saxelmtsifo-saagentos-tsliuri2.
34
In addition, the report also provides a list of religious organizations and number of build-
ings which were transferred to religious groups based on the recommendation issued by
the commission. It should be noted that when it comes to returning property to minori-
ty religious groups, the Agency fails to specify that these buildings are handed over on a
temporary basis without entitlement to ownership unlike the Georgian Patriarchate who
happens to have existing, as well as newly granted property with the right of ownership.
Therefore, the buildings that were “returned” to religious minority groups are those factu-
ally possessed by religious minorities and used for worship. Importantly, these buildings
remain under the State’s ownership.
By transferring religious buildings for a limited period of time rather than under full legal
ownership, religious organizations are not able to fully dispose of property. What is most
important is that by spearheading such an arrangement, the State retains the leverage of
control over religious organizations who will have to yield properties back to the State if the
latter requires them to do so.
Importantly, with respect to Muslim religious buildings, they have been transferred exclu-
sively to the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia, the organization believed to be mis-
trusted by a considerable part of the local Muslim community and may not be pursuing
their best interests. Therefore, there is the question as to what criteria the State uses when
transferring religious buildings to the organization while the Muslim community is repre-
sented by numerous organizations in Georgia.
The Agency tends to turn a blind eye to problems related to crimes committed on the
grounds of religious intolerance. This attitude is evident at a policy level as well as in public
statements made by the Agency. While representatives of minority religious organizations
often fall victim to intolerance, the State’s response to cases involving violence against the
former remains inadequate. Investigation bodies often fail to give crimes adequate quali-
fication and investigations are often prolonged in time resulting in law enforcement agen-
cies’ evading their responsibilities. None of the cases from the period of 2012-2016 involving
violence, intimidation and threats, interfering with religious rites and persecution against
the Muslim community have been investigated and none of the applicants has been given
victim status or charged with any of these crimes.46
46 See Chapter 4: Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and state policy.
35
The 2016-2017 Human Rights Action Plan of the Government (chapter on freedom of
religion) identified the State Agency for Religious Issues as the responsible body for im-
plementing a wide range of important measures47. A list of competences assigned to the
Agency include: prevention of crimes motivated by religious intolerance and monitoring of
responses to such crimes, revision and improvement of a relevant legislative framework, re-
vision of the legal framework and preparing recommendations, where necessary, to ensure
the full enjoyment of individual rights safeguarded by freedom of religion or belief, revision
of the legal framework and preparing recommendations, to ensure that religious associa-
tions implement their work without impediment, elimination of discriminatory tax regime
with preferential treatment of the Georgian Orthodox Church, determination of historical
(confessional) owner of religious buildings and transfer of these buildings to the identi-
fied owners, resolution of disputes related to ownership of religious buildings in a timely,
transparent and fair manner. However, the Agency failed to deliver on its commitments.
The fact that it has never attempted to address discriminatory and questionable norms of
the legislation suggests that the Agency is not committed to ensure the freedom of religion
and equality.
According to the 2018-2020 Action Plan of the Government of Georgia,48 the Agency (to-
gether with other institutions) play a leading role for: raising awareness among media on is-
sues related to freedom of religion, tolerance, equality and religious neutrality, conducting
research into root causes of problems identified in reports to ensure evidence-based policy
making, raising awareness among representatives of religious associations (the clergy) of
aspects of freedom of religion and fundamental human rights and freedoms, taking mea-
sures to foster a culture of religious tolerance, re-training staff of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Prosecutor’s Office in determining crimes committed on the grounds of religion
or belief, reviewing school textbooks and upgrading standards of licensing, including prin-
ciples of religious neutrality in training/retraining programs for school teachers and direc-
tors, developing a concept and an action plan for determining the origin and resolution of
disputes with respect to the return of disputed historical religious buildings seized by the
Soviet regime.
47 Human Rights Action Plan 2016-2017 of the Government of Georgia. Available at: http://myrights.gov.ge/en/plan/
Human%20Rights%20Action%20Plan%20for%202016-2017.
48 Human Rights Action Plan 2018-2020 of the Government of Georgia. Available at: http://myrights.gov.ge/en/plan/
Human%20Rights%20Action%20Plan%20for%202018-2020.
36
The pattern of cooperation between the Agency and religious groups also requires atten-
tion. In the report issued under the fifth monitoring cycle the European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), recommended the Government of Georgia to strengthen
their support to and cooperation with the Council of Religions in the Public Defender’s Of-
fice, also to task the State Agency for Religious Issues in the Prime Minister’s Office to part-
ner with the Council of Religions, share the latter’s experience and consider lessons learnt
as well as recommendations to successfully tackle problems related to religious intolerance.
On 5 March 2019, ECRI published a document providing conclusions49 on the implementa-
tion of the recommendations issued by ECRI in 2016. The document states that the Govern-
ment of Georgia did not implement the recommendations.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also called on the Government to
cooperate with the Council of Religions. In its decision on the execution of judgments of
the European Court of Human Rights concerning the government of Georgia, the Com-
mittee encouraged the authorities to enhance cooperation between the State Agency for
Religious Issues and the Council of Religions in order to tackle religious intolerance, taking
into account also the recommendations made by the European Commission against Racism
and Intolerance.50
A third monitoring report (2019) of the implementation of the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) stresses that51 religious minorities express a
low level of trust towards the State Agency for Religious Issues. Instead they express stron-
ger confidence in the work of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office of
Georgia. The possibility provided by the Council of Religions to engage horizontally with 33
religious organizations in an independent platform should be valued accordingly.
It is important to note that 2017 was marked by controversies caused by an amendment

to the Constitution of Georgia. More specifically, the amendment created a high risk to un-
49 Conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Georgia, European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), 5 March 2019. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-conclusions-on-the-implementation-
of-the-recommendations-in-respe/1680934a7e.
50 Committee of Ministers, decision CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8, 25 September 2019 http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/
eng?i=CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8E.
51 Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Third Opinion on
Georgia. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/3rd-op-georgia-en/1680969b56?fbclid=IwAR0Hzmw9vtSyyIg-54T9muRaAnA4
xybJFh1fTVKrQvROxqS7lGX3a0dybqA.
37
justifiably interfere with the freedom of religion or belief and to undermine human rights
protection standards. The amendment caused great discontent among most religious and
non-governmental organizations, lawyers and experts, leading the Venice Commission to
issue critical assessments.52 Against the backdrop of these developments, the State Agen-
cy for Religious Issues, an institution mandated to provide counsel to the authorities on
religious issues, had remained silent and never positioned itself vis-à-vis ongoing debates
regarding the amendment. ECRI highlighted that such an attitude of the Agency had fur-
ther reinforced the perception of the Agency among human rights groups and religious
organizations as a mechanism to control minority religious organizations, rather than an
impartial institution.53
In conclusion, there is a strong indication that the declared policy as well as practice of the
State Agency for Religious Issues have served to differentiate between religious organiza-
tions, compromise the latter’s autonomy and strengthen the State’s influence over them
rather than ensuring freedom of religion or belief and striving for equality for all religious
organizations.
1.3. Registration of religious organizations
Up until 2005, religious organizations were not allowed to register due to gaps in the exist-
ing legislation and the State’s flawed practices. Pursuant to amendments to the Civil Code
of Georgia of April 2005, minority religious groups were given the right to register as non
profit (non-commercial) legal entities (also, in the form of a union or a foundation). Howev-
er, a year later in 2006 both forms of registration, union and foundation were abolished and
religious associations could register as non-profit (non-commercial) entities.
Even in light of these arrangements, some religious associations found it unacceptable to

carry out their work as a non-profit (non-commercial) legal body and demanded to be able
to register as a legal entity under public law (LEPL), a status granted only to Georgian Or-
52 Statement on limitation of freedom of religion in the Constitution. Available at: http://www.tdi.ge/en/news/466-

statement-limitation-freedom-religion-constitution.
53 Conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Georgia, European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), 5 March 2019. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-conclusions-on-the-implementation-
of-the-recommendations-in-respe/1680934a7e.
38
thodox Church as early as in 2002 when the State recognized the latter as a historical legal
entity under public law based on the constitutional agreement between the State and the
Church.
Finally, on 5 July 2011, the Parliament of Georgia succumbing to a long standing demand
from the religious organizations, approved an amendment to the Civil Code,54 enabling
them to register as legal entities under public law. However, the legal amendment does not
prevent religious groups wishing to register as legal entities under private law or continue
their work without a particular form of registration.
For an association to be able to register as a legal entity under public law, it has to meet ei-
ther of the following criteria: 1. Have a historical tie to Georgia 2. Be recognized as a religion
in member states of the Council of Europe.
It is important to note that pursuant to the amendments to the Civil Code, religious organiza-
tions have remained in the legal sphere regulated by private law and the Law of Georgia on
Legal Entities of Public Law is not applicable to religious organizations registered as legal entities
of public law.55 Instead, they are subject to the rule for registration for non-profit (non-commer-
cial) legal entities and their rights and responsibilities are regulated by those norms of the Civil
Code56 which apply to the rights and responsibilities of non-profit legal entities. 57
The aim of such an arrangement was to allow religious organizations to register as a le-
gal entity of public law, an intent which is effectively just a declaration and a measure for
ensuring more or less equal treatment of religious organizations rather than imposing on
them public-law entity liabilities. Conversely, in 2014, the State introduced a practice of ex-
tending norms provided by various normative acts concerning legal entities of public law
to religious organizations.
In 2014, the LEPL National Agency of State Property at the Ministry of Economy and Sus-
tainable Development rejected the request of the Evangelical-Protestant Church request-
54 Article 15091 was added to the Civil Code of Georgia.

55 Civil Code of Georgia, Article 1509(1), Part 5.
56 ibid, Section I, Chapter 2.
57 ibid, Article 15091, Part 5.
39
ing property factually owned by the Church to be registered as its property. The Agency
explained that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Law of Georgia on the State Property, a legal
entity under public law cannot acquire state property through a direct sale.58 In this case,
the State, for the purpose of the Law of Georgia on State Property viewed the religious orga-
nization as a legal entity under public law in its conventional sense and subjected the latter
to public-law restrictions thus, violating the rights of the religious organizations.
The way the National Agency of Public Registry interprets the law is inconsistent and un-
foreseeable. Little is known as to which criteria are used to establish a historical link of a
religious association with Georgia, or whether or not a particular confession or denomina-
tion is recognized as a religion in Council of Europe member states. The problematic nature
of this procedure and issues related to the State’s policy became evident in 2016 when a
group of individuals lodged a request to the National Agency of Public Registry to register
the Autocephalous Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster59 as a legal entity under public
law. The Agency turned down the request arguing that the applicant did not present proof
of presence of this particular religion in Council of Europe member states.
In addition, the term “autocephalous”, used in documents submitted to the Registry, was an
official term to be used in reference to the Georgian Orthodox Church based on Article 6(6)
of the Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and the Church, and para-
graph 24 of the Definition of Terms enclosed in the Constitutional Agreement. Therefore,
the use of the term required the State’s consent to be obtained based on a prior permission
from the Church. 60
It should be noted that in its judgement on the case of Zurab Aroshvili vs. Parliament of
Georgia, the Constitutional Court of Georgia ruled that Article 6(6) of the Constitutional
Agreement “concerns the use of official terminology and symbols of only the Georgian Ap-
58 See Chapter 3: inequality in the Georgian legislation, and subchapter: legal barriers to purchasing state property by
religious organizations.
59 Pastafarianism (the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson who opposed
teaching Creationism instead of Evolution in public schools in the U.S. In 2005 Henderson sent a satirical open letter to
the Kansas State Board of Education mocking scientific foundations of Creationism.
60 According to paragraph 24 of the Definition of Terms Used in the Constitutional Agreement, “the following is the
official terminology of the Church: “Georgian apostolic”, “autocephalous”, “Orthodox”, “Catholicos-Patriarch”, “Holy
Synod”, while pursuant to Article 6, Para 6 permission to use official Church terminology is to be issued by the State
upon prior consent from the Church.
40
ostolic Autocephalous Church and not other confessions or denominations…”. According

to the judgment, Article 6(6) of the Constitutional Agreement does not require other reli-
gious organizations to have permission to use their terminology or symbols. “Any religious
organization has the same right as the Georgian Church to use its own symbols, terminolo-
gy or worship items without any permission or a licence”. 61
Even in the presence of the explanation provided above, the case in question has revealed
the policy pursued by the Public Registry creates problems since it extends terms of the
Constitutional Agreement between the State of Georgia and the Georgian Orthodox Church
to other organizations which, in turn may entail the violation of constitutional principles of
freedom of religion, equality and freedom of association.
OSCE/ODIHR guidelines on legal personality of religious organizations highlight risks which

may arise by the State’s imposing restrictions over registration of religious or belief com-
munities and call on states to protect the freedom of religion or belief and internationally
recognized rights.62 According to the European Court of Human Rights, refusing the regis-
tration of an association amounts to a restriction of the freedom of religion or belief as well
as that of assembly and association.63
1.4. Restricting public space to minority religious

communities
One of the problems faced by minority religious communities is the monopolization of

public space by the dominant religious organization. An analysis of the respective practice
suggests that religious minorities have the right to exist but only with limited visibility in
public space.
Religious organizations face artificial barriers created by the State, the Orthodox clergy and
their parishioners when it comes to obtaining permission for the construction of religious
61 Case of Zurab Aroshvili v. Parliament of Georgia, Judgement 2/18/206 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 22
November 2002.
62 Guidelines on the Legal Personality of Religious or Belief Communities, OSCE/ODIHR, 2014. Available at: https://www.
osce.org/odihr/139046?download=true.
63 ECtHR 1 October 2009, Kimlya and others v. Russia, Application nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, para. 84.
41
buildings, organizing celebrations or festivals in public space, or conducting any activity

which makes the community visible in public space.
In recent years, various aggressive and violent groups have gained considerable visibility in
the public space by attacking individuals with different national backgrounds or identities.
Members of such groups often include representatives of the Georgian Orthodox Church
clergy or other organizations with ties to the Georgian Patriarchate. These groups have
grown considerably since 2017. For instance, the Day of Family Sanctity introduced by the
Georgian Patriarchate in 2018 was marked by a public march accompanied by Fascist sym-
bols. These groups reject the principles of equality and secular state, restrict others’ freedom
of expression and assembly, attack their fellow citizens and commit violence in the name of
religion. On the other hand, the State’s conformism and ineffective policies also contribute
to the rising intolerance and violence.
The previous years saw an abundance of examples supporting the existence of these prob-
lems and developments around the Imedi International Festival (Festival of Hope) of
July 2014, is among these examples. A festival due to have been hosted in the Sports Palace
from 6 to 8 June with a wide range of participants including international Christian-Evan-
gelical organizations and other guests had been in the making for a year. The group of
organizers had signed an agreement with the administration of the Sports Palace well in
advance and paid the required fee. The news of the festival stirred protest among various
public groups and the Orthodox clergy.64 The organizers of the festival faced difficulties as
they were placing advertisement banners and flags in the city. For instance, a few days prior
to the start of the festival, the advertising company Outdoor.Ge removed most of outdoor
advertisements thus, breaching the prior agreement.
A week before the event, the Georgian Patriarchate issued a statement declaring that they
“had nothing to do with the event organized by a Pentecostal religious denomination”.65
On 3 June 2014, three days before the opening of the festival, a suspicious fire started on
the roof of one of wings of the Sports Palace. The fire was put out almost immediately. How-
64 Orthodox activists protest evangelical event in Tbilisi, DFWatch, 7 June 2014,

https://dfwatch.net/orthodox-activists-protest-evangelical-event-in-tbilisi-85449-29295.
65 Patriarchate: we have nothing to do with the “Festival of Hope”, available in Georgian at: http://www.tabula.ge/ge/
story/83833-sapatriarqo-tbilisshi-dagegmil-imedis-festivaltan-kavshiri-ar-gvaqvs.
42
ever, the director of the Sports Palace told the organizers they could not host the event due
to safety risks. The administration turned down the request of the organizers to have inde-
pendent experts assess the outcomes of the fire and security conditions. The small scale fire
as well as unhindered access to the building for the organizers as well as representatives of
NGOs and the Public Defender’s Office reinforced suspicions that artificial barriers had been
used to prevent the event from taking place.
Later in the year, the Sports Palace Ltd commissioned an assessment by the LEPL Levan
Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau. In the report dated 30 June 2014, the Bureau stated
that the fire had no effect on the “resilience and sustainability of Ferro-cement construction”
confirming that holding the event in the Sports Palace would not entail any security risks.
The organizers tried to identify an alternative space for the event and while doing so, ap-
pealed to large companies in Tbilisi. However, all of them chose to refuse. Finally, the or-
ganizers had no other choice but to hold the event, attended by representatives from 150
Christian confessions and great many guests, in a small space of the yard of the Pentecostal
Church in Tbilisi.
An incident which took place on 4 December 2013 during Hanukkah celebrations is yet
another example of restricting public space to religious minorities. At the gathering attend-
ed by the president of Georgia, Israeli ambassador and a Rabbi, two individuals tore down
a poster with the text “Jewish Community wishes you a Happy Hanukkah” and broke speak-
ing lecterns.
Later on the same day, a group of the Georgian Orthodox Church clergy and parishioners
organized a protest rally at the Israeli embassy during which priest Davit Isakadze made
defamatory statements towards the Jewish community, religion and reiterated that he, as a
person of Christian Orthodox faith, condemned the celebration of Hanukkah.66
In addition to meddling with religious holidays celebrated by religious minority commu-

nities, the incidents of Nigvziani, Tsintskaro and Samtatskaro also inferred a restriction
of public space to Georgian Muslims. The Orthodox Christian communities involved in the
66 Radio Liberty, 5 December 2013, available in Georgian at: http://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/a/antisemitizmi/25190584.

html.
43
incidents in all three locations argued that Muslims were allowed to pray privately in their
homes but would not be allowed to do so in the public sphere.67 A complete monopoliza-
tion of the public space by the Georgian Orthodox Church leaves other religious organiza-
tions without any access to this space.
1.5. Problems related to border-crossing and carrying

religious literature across the state border
Representatives of minority religious communities, especially Muslims, often face various

problems while crossing the state border including those related to the transfer of religious
literature across the border. In addition, the inspection of their travel documents takes
unreasonably long. Further, belongings and luggage carried by Muslim citizens are often
searched without reasonable doubt.
In some cases, minority religious organizations are required to present permission is-
sued by either the Georgian Patriarchate or, for Muslims’, that of the Administration of All
Muslims of Georgia. It should be noted that the involvement of the Administration of All
Muslims of Georgia in customs procedures concerning Muslim religious literature has no
legal ground (and it cannot have such). Georgian legislation does not stipulate any kind
of permission, license nor requires a certificate to be presented at the border while car-
rying printed materials. Therefore, the practice observed at border checkpoints is illegal
and without any ground while requesting a written permit from the Administration of
All Muslims of Georgia (or from any other religious organization) by customs officials is
illegitimate.
In some instances, Revenue Service staff argue that they have to check the content of
religious literature as minority religious organizations are perceived as a threat. Howev-
er, Revenue Service staff have neither authority nor expertise to do so. The goal of such
illegitimate requests is allegedly to create more artificial barriers for religious minority
communities.
67 See Chapter 2: Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and state policy, and subchapter: Investigation of violation
of rights of Muslims during 2012-2016.
44
There are cases when representatives of minority religious organizations are required to
pay an import fee even though the Tax Code of Georgia does not stipulate the payment of
a customs fee for the importation of books.
In addition, the study conducted by Tolerance and Diversity Institute at the Sarpi check-
point of the Georgian-Turkish section of the state border from February 2016 to February
2017 revealed a series of violations.
Muslim citizens interviewed by TDI stated that they had been held for unreasonable peri-
od of time ranging from 30 minutes to five hours before crossing to Turkey – for allegedly
checking their travel documents. At times, customs officers told them they had “sent the
documents to Tbilisi’’ and could not let them cross until they received a response. Another
problem identified through the course of the interviews was the practice of searching lug-
gage without reasonable suspicion.
Interviewed Muslim citizens reported that books written in either Turkish or Arabic lan-
guages are perceived as a particular threat at the checkpoint.68 If such books are found,
customs officers re-examine personal belongings/luggage and take photos of the books.
Border police officers argue that these photos must be sent to a “respective” agency without
clarifying which agency they have in mind.
Pursuant to an order issued by the head of the Revenue Service,69 while exercising customs con-
trol, a customs specialist shall make a decision to search the traveller and his/her belonging/
luggage if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person (a traveller) crossing the border 70 may
be hiding forbidden or undeclared goods and items in luggage, on the body or in the body. 71
However, as Muslim citizens reported, public servants often carry out personal search-
es and examine personal belongings and luggage following verbal orders from a rep-
68 In 2017 in their written statement for TDI A.O. and I.G. indicated that if they had not handed in books at the border
they would have ended up on a “black List”.
69 Legal ground for customs clearance of natural persons was Article 214(2), Para A of the Georgian Tax Code (currently
Article 27 of the Customs Code), and Article 16(2), Para E of the Law of Georgia on Police.
70 A traveller – A natural person who legally crosses the state customs border.
71 Order 12858 of the Head of the Revenue Service on the implementation of procedures related to declaring and
transferring goods in and out of the Georgian customs territory, Article 24.
45
resentative of an unidentified agency/public official present on the spot without any

reasonable suspicion and by doing so, violate the Law of Georgia on Police as well as
Order 377 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia on Code of Ethics and Conduct
of the Police.
On 25 April 2017, following the appeals of Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and Hu-
man Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC), the Public Defender of Georgia estab-
lished the fact of discrimination by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and LEPL Rev-
enue Service under the Ministry of Finance against Muslim community members’ crossing
of the border.
The Public Defender issued a recommendation to both agencies to ensure impartiality at

checkpoints and retrain those staff who are directly involved in exercising passport control
and respective customs procedures.72
The Public Defender assessed the artificial barriers posed to Muslims while crossing the
border as interference with freedom of religion, movement and violation of property
rights. The Public Defender said that “Detention of the applicants and other individuals
as they tried to cross the border, and obstacles affecting their ability to import religious
items serve to suppress religious activism which may lead to a freezing effect on aspi-
rations to improve the protection of rights of the Muslim communities residing in the
country”. The Public Defender also stressed that the ban on the importation of religious
literature imposed by the State “encourages the implementation of ambiguous and dis-
criminatory practices.” 73
Despite the fact that the Public Defender established the fact of discrimination and gave
respective recommendations to the state agencies, the discriminatory practice of creating
obstacles for the religious minorities importing religious books remains.
72 Available in Georgian at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/geo/191127024139religia/saqartvelos-saxalxo-damcvelma-

muslimebis-mier-saqartvelos-sazgvris-kvetisas-religiis-nishnit-pirdapiri-diskriminacia-daadgina.
73 Available in Georgian at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2019040913483376773.pdf.
46
1.6. The policy and practice of financing religious

organizations by the State
The existing system of financing religious organizations of Georgia can be qualified as a

violation of the constitutional principle of separation between State and Church. The Geor-
gian Apostolic Autocephalous Church and its legal entities are the largest recipients of state
funding. Even though financial and material resources handed over to the Orthodox Church
by the Georgian state since 2002 are classified as compensation against the loss incurred
during the Soviet regime, the existing practice constitutes a state subsidy rather than com-
pensation against the damage caused by Soviet authorities. It should be noted that the
State does not evaluate the price of real estate and therefore, it is impossible to ascertain its
share and value vis-à-vis the compensation of damages inflicted during the Soviet period.
On the one hand, the policy and practice of state funding of religious organizations uncov-
er loyalty and bias of the State towards the dominant religious organization, on the other
hand, they also demonstrate interference into the autonomy of religious minorities.
Material goods transferred to the Georgian Apostolic

Autocephalous Orthodox Church and its purpose
The Georgian Patriarchate is the largest recipient of state funding granted to religious or-
ganizations. The allocation includes financial resources provided from the central and local
budget. The amount of funding has been increasing year to year. More specifically, in 2013
the funding totalled 29,220,350 GEL74, in 2014 – 32,019.399 GEL75, 2015 – 31,153,900 GEL76, in
2016 the Patriarchate received 30,201,01577 based on information available to TDI.78 Accord-
ing to the State budget in 2017, 2018 and 2019, the funding was estimated at 28 million GEL79.
74 29,220,350 Georgian Lari is about 10,234,798 USD and 9,350,007 Euros.

78 The above data do not include funding allocated by Bolnisi municipality, Property Management Agency at Tbilisi
municipality, and funding provided by Tbilisi City Hall since relevant information was not provided to TDI. In the case of
Khoni municipality, funding comprises sums indicated in respective ordinance on the approval of the municipal budget.
79 Approx. 9,807,355 USD and 8,959,516 Euros.
47
In addition to financial allocations, the Patriarchate also receives real estate including land
and real estate. By 2017, the Georgian Orthodox Church owned land with a total space
of more than 62.7 km2 which almost equates to the size of Batumi city. 96% of the land
was transferred by the State and private persons for free to the Patriarchate’s ownership or
for temporary disposal. Based on information available to TDI, between 2016 and 2018 the
total space of real estate transferred to the Patriarchate by the State totalled 801,308 m2.
Based on TDI’s and other organizations’ data, it is estimated that real estate that the State
donated to the Georgian Orthodox Church covers 64 km2.80
While researching the purpose of the real estate transactions, TDI relied on available pub-
lic information. The analysis revealed that in many instances that the intention of such
transactions are far too vague and general, such as “support”, “improvement of infrastruc-
ture” etc. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain for what purposes the Patriarchate re-
quests funding.
The financial resources allocated to the Georgian Orthodox Church from the central budget
are mostly spent on non-secular purposes.81
The analysis of the funding policy suggests that the increase in the amount of financial re-
sources and size of the real estate transferred by the State to the Patriarchate can be linked
to elections and political developments in the country.
Funding from the central budget
The annual transfers from the central budget account for the biggest share of the funding
of the Georgian Patriarchate. From 2002 through 2019, the Georgian Orthodox Church
received a total of 276.5 million GEL from the central budget, while from 2009 to 2013,
80 The assets of the Patriarchate, a multimedia project of Indigo Magazine. Available in Georgian at: http://
sapatriarqoskapitali.documenti.ge/; The policy of state funding for religious organisations (2014-2015 review), Tolerance
and Diversity Institute (TDI) and Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC). Available in Georgian at: http://
tdi.ge/sites/default/files/religiuri-organizaciebis-saxelmcipo-dapinansebis-politika-2014-2015.pdf.
81 Ibid.
48
the amount of funding from the same source ranged from 2282 to 27 million GEL83. Since
2013, the budget line designated for the Georgian Patriarchy totals 25 million GEL.84 In
2018, the country’s dominant religious organization received 25,535.400 GEL85 from the
central budget. However, for 2019 and 2020 the amount of funding dropped back to 25
million GEL.
Financial resources, movable property and real estate transferred

by the Government
Further to a proposal made by the Georgian Patriarchate, the Parliament declared the 12
May as the Day of Allotment to Mother Mary and allocated an estimated 900.000 GEL86 from
the government’s Reserve Fund for the celebration.87
In 2016-2018 the Government allocated 1,379,700 GEL88 from the Reserve Fund to the Patri-
archate for restoring infrastructure damaged by a fire in Trinity Cathedral, Tbilisi, and other
related costs. As for data for 2019, the Chancellery of the Government of Georgia has not yet
provided the requested information to TDI.
In 2015, the legal entities founded by the Georgian Patriarchate received a total of 1,590,000
GEL89 from the Reserve Fund of the Government of Georgia. In 2014, the Patriarchate re-
ceived 1,542,000 GEL90 for religious educational activities conducted at educational institu-
tions and educational centers while 270,000 GEL91 was allocated from the Reserve Fund for
an enthronement anniversary of Patriarch Ilia II.

86 Approx. 315,236 USD and 287,984 Euros. OC Media. Georgian Government allocates $320,000 for new religious
holiday, 10 May, 2019
87 OC Media. Georgian Government allocates $320,000 for new religious holiday, 10 May, 2019 https://bit.ly/2SoN4pU.
88 Approx. 483,257 USD and 441,480 Euros.
49
In addition to monetary assistance, the Georgian Orthodox Church also receives various
donations in-kind including cars, buses and other items. In most cases, there is no estimate
as to the value of these items.92
The Georgian Orthodox Church receives a considerable amount of real estate transferred
by the State either under ownership or at disposal on an annual basis. Plots of lands are
donated to the Orthodox Church either at the expense of a symbolic 1 GEL or transferred
for their disposal. Donated land includes not only those plots were originally owned by the
Church but also state-owned land and property historically belonging to other religious
organizations.93
In 2018, the Patriarchate received 22 plots of land with total space of 420km2 including
300,245 m2 agricultural and 119,857 m2 non-agricultural land with buildings of 2,750.35 m2
space.
In 2017, the Orthodox Church received 21 plots of land with a total space of 87,984 m2 with
buildings and construction (3,031.8 m2 in total).
The number of plots of land transferred to Church ownership in 2016 totalled 20 plots with
a total space of 287,222 m2 including 282,550m2 for free, transferred to the ownership and
4,672m2 under usufruct agreement. In addition, the Church also received agricultural ma-
chinery (tractors) and 10,000 calc-tufa stones.
In 2015, the Orthodox Church became the owner of 21 plots of land with a total space of
568,060m2. The previous year the Georgian Patriarchate paid the symbolic price of 1 GEL
for 27 plots of land with a total space of 345,454.83m2. As for property transferred under an
usufruct agreement, in 2015, the Patriarchate received one item of real estate with the total
space of 2,207 m2.
92 For additional information see The policy of state funding for religious organisations (2015-2016 review). Joint research
commissioned by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC).
Available in Georgian at: shorturl.at/aJLQ6 P.25.
93 For more information about the property transfer of other religious organizations to the Church, see chapter 5 of the
report.
50
Funding allocated from the Presidential Reserve Fund
In 2017, 2018 and 2019 there were no allocations made from the Presidential Reserve Fund
to the Orthodox Church, Spiritual Academy or other religious organizations.94
In 2016, the Orthodox Church received 40,000 GEL95, out of which 35,000 GEL96 was used
to fund the project Women in the History of Christian Georgia implemented jointly by the
Spiritual Academy and Seminary, while 5,000 GEL97 was spent for the promotion of a doc-
umentary dedicated to the enthronement anniversary of Patriarch Ilia II aimed at Georgian
diaspora, and covering the related expenses.
In 2015, no financial allocations were granted from the Presidential Reserve Fund to either
the Orthodox Church or any other religious organization. In 2014, a total of 108,000 GEL98
was distributed among the legal entities set up at the Patriarchate mostly for the implemen-
tation of social projects.
In 2013, the Presidential Reserve Fund donated 339,000 GEL99 to Poti cathedral to cover the
construction costs as well as those related to a solemn blessing of the cathedral, promotion,
recording TV advertisements and transportation costs for people attending the blessing
ceremony.
An analysis of the allocations from the Presidential Reserve Fund demonstrates that af-
terwards the presidency, as an institute, lost most of its power; the allocations from the
Presidential Fund also dwindled. For instance, during the period 2007-2013, the Georgian
Orthodox Church received 10,806,207 GEL100 from the Fund, the largest amount of which –
5,484,800 GEL101 was allocated in 2008.
94 Letter N9328 from the Administration of President of Georgia, 3 December 2019.

97 Approx. 1,754 USD and 1605 Euros.
51
Donation in-kind by the authorities of Achara Autonomous Republic
Similar to the central Georgian Government, the Acharaian authorities also allocate various
types of resources to the Georgian Patriarchate.
According to the information provided by the Government of the Autonomous Re-

public of Achara 102, no funding was allocated to the Georgian Orthodox Church in
2016, 2017 or 2018, while in 2019, 157,000 GEL 103 was transferred to the Tbel Abu-
seridze Teaching University under the Patriarchate, with the purpose of supporting
higher education.
In 2015, based on the request of Eparch Dimitri of Batumi and Lazeti, Acharian authorities
transferred a regional government-owned plot of agricultural land, 249,909 m2 total space,
located in Kobuleti town to Khar-Puri LTD founded by the Georgian Patriarchate for free for
the period of 49 years. In 2014, the Patriarchate received no donation in-kind from the Acha-
ra Government. In 2013 the regional authorities donated second-hand office equipment to
the Georgian Patriarchate with an estimated cost of 15,978 GEL104.
Municipal funding and transfer of property
Self-governing communities and cities also pursue the practice of donating property to
the Georgian Patriarchate. Based on data from 2013-2019 the Georgian Orthodox Church
received most of the transactions while other religious organizations received just an insig-
nificant amount of allocations. 105
According to the 2019 budgets, 40 local municipality councils transferred a total of 3,269,400
GEL106 to churches, clergy, archdioceses and legal entities under the Patriarchate. In addi-
102 Letter N 01–01/637, 12/02/2020.

103 Approx. 54,100 USD and 47,300 Euros
105 TDI requested public information from 72 municipalities and 10 district administrations of Tbilisi.
52
tion, 10 municipality councils of Tbilisi allocated the overall sum of 1,561,158 GEL107 to the
Orthodox Church108.
In 2018, churches, clergy, archdioceses and legal entities under the Patriarchate received a
total of 2,753,600 GEL109 from 40 local municipalities. Tbilisi municipality councils allocated
1,291,084 GEL.110
In 2017, 2,145,350 GEL111 was allocated from local budgets, while 1,240,885 GEL112 was allo-
cated from the Tbilisi municipality councils.
In 2016, 51 municipality councils and 10 district administrations of Tbilisi transferred

4,423,615 GEL113 to churches, members of the clergy, archdioceses and legal entities
founded by the Georgian Patriarchate (3,105,007 GEL114 accounts for the contribu-
tion made by regional municipalities while Tbilisi based administrations transferred
1,318,615 GEL115).
In 2015, 48 municipalities and 10 district administrations of Tbilisi transferred 3,966,590

GEL116 to churches, members of the clergy, archdioceses and legal entities founded by the
Georgian Patriarchate (2,364,829117 GEL accounts for the contribution made by regional
municipalities while Tbilisi based administrations transferred 1,601,761 GEL118).
107 Approx. 546,815 USD and 499, 401 Euros.

108 Official Letters of Tbilisi City Hall upon requested public information, 30-0120006444, 06/01/2020; 37-01193651179,
31/12/2019.
109 Approx. 964, 483 USD and 881,016 Euros.
114 Approx. 1,087,568 USD and 993,428 Euros.
53
In 2014, 40 municipalities and 10 district administrations of Tbilisi, allocated a total of

4,738,539 GEL119 to the Orthodox Church (2,967,578 GEL120 from regional municipal budgets
and 1,770,961 GEL121 from the budgets of Tbilisi based district administrations).
In 2013, the total amount transferred from local budgets to the Orthodox Church and its
dioceses was estimated at 3,864,871GEL122 including 2,198,336 GEL123 from Tbilisi district
administrations and the remaining 1,666,534 GEL124 from regional municipalities.
In addition to financial resources, the Orthodox Church also received real estate from local
self-government bodies in various regions of Georgia.125
Legal assessment of the State funding for the Georgian Patriarchate
The Orthodox Church and the State justify the practice of direct state funding based on the
Constitutional Agreement signed in 2002. According to Article 11 of the Agreement, the State
acknowledges the moral and material damages inflicted on the Church in the 19th and 20th cen-
turies (especially in 1921-1990) during Soviet Occupation and as the factual owner of part of the
seized property, commits to partially compensating against the material loss experienced.
However, justifying the existing funding based on the Constitutional Agreement is inappro-
priate. More specifically, Article 11(2) of the Agreement points out that the study of issues
related to compensation as well as its forms, amounts, terms and timeframe, transfer of
property and land shall fall under the competences of a special commission which shall also
draft the respective normative acts. The commissions, set up specifically for these purposes,
have never exercised functions.

120 Approx. 1,039,431 USD and 949,391 Euros.
125 The policy of state funding for religious organisations (2014-2015 review), Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)
and Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC). Available in Georgian at: http://tdi.ge/sites/default/files/
religiuri-organizaciebis-saxelmcipo-dapinansebis-politika-2014-2015.pdf.
54
For instance, according to the edict 1 of the President of Georgia dated 7 January 2003,
special commissions were created to develop measures stipulated by the Constitutional
Agreement. Among the five commissions set up for this purpose, one was for the study
of issues related to compensating for material damages inflicted on the Church. However,
there are no session protocols or information archived by the President’s Administration.126
The Presidential edict was abolished on 21 February 2012. Instead, another commission
related to the review of the Constitutional Agreement was set up based on resolution 63 of
the Government of Georgia, dated 21 February 2012.127 One out of eight working groups
was assigned to work on the issue of damages and compensating the Church for the 19th
and 20th centuries. However, the group never functioned and therefore, no decision was
made to serve as a legal ground for funding the Orthodox Church.
Therefore, the direct funding of the Orthodox Church from the state budget cannot be
qualified as a form of compensation against sustained damages. The State started and has
continued direct funding under the pretext of compensation without establishing any nor-
mative acts to define a clear time-frame, the scale nor the procedures regulating the “com-
pensation”.
Transferring material goods to other religious organizations
State policy is discriminatory when it comes to State funding of other religious organi-
zations. Based on the resolution 117 of the Government of Georgia of 27 January 2014,
four religious communities (Muslim, Jewish, Roman-Catholic and Armenian Apostolic) re-
ceive annual funding as a symbolic compensation for the damages inflicted during Soviet
times.128 In total, all four religious communities have received the following funding:
126 Study of Religious Discrimination and Constitutional Secularism in Georgia, Tolerance and Diversity Institute, 2013, P
18. Available at: https://tdi.ge/sites/default/files/study_of_religious_discrimination_and_constitutional_secularism_tdi.
pdf.
127 Resolution 63 of the Government of Georgia of 21 February 2012. Available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.ge/
ka/document/view/1593397.
128 For more information on this matter see Chapter I. The State and religion. Subchapter: Policy and practice of state
funding for religious organisations.
55
2014 – 1,750,000 GEL129

2015 – 4,200,000 GEL130
2016 – 4,500.000 GEL131
2017 – 4,500,000 GEL
2018 – 4,500,000 GEL
2019 – 4,500,000 GEL 132
Article 2(1) of resolution 117 of the Government of Georgia states that the government
“is committed” to partially compensate religious organizations against the loss sustained
during the Soviet regime. Pursuant to paragraph B of the same article, due to inability to
assess the amount of such loss, the compensation shall have a “symbolic” value. The same
rationale is embedded in the agreements concluded between the State Agency and reli-
gious organizations whereby partial and symbolic compensation serve as the purpose of
the allocation of financial resources to signatory religious groups.
Similar to the case of the Georgian Orthodox Church, the practice of financing the four reli-
gious organizations falls under the category of direct funding. A necessary prerequisite for
compensating the damages is the presence and estimated amount of such loss. Having es-
tablished the presence and characteristics of the damages, it is then possible to determine
the timeframe and rules for allocating compensation.
At the first session of the State Agency held in March 2015, the Head of the Agency proposed
criteria to divide existing resources among religious organizations. The criteria are based on
three characteristics: the size of a particular religious community, number of clergy and
number of houses of worship. However, it is impossible to correlate these characteristics
with the wrongs inflicted under the Soviet regime as none of them indicates either the
amount of the loss/damage and/or a mechanism for establishing such loss. For instance,
the most affected religious community may own the least houses of worship at present. The
same refers to the number of clergy and the size of the community. Therefore, the selection
criteria are irrelevant vis-à-vis the allocation of financial resources and determine the rules

132 State Agency for Religious Issues, 2016-2017 report. Tbilisi, 2018.
56
for subsidising religious organizations rather than compensating for their loss. To be noted,
the State transfers public goods to the Orthodox Church without setting any criteria.
The recognition of only four religious organizations as victims of the Soviet repressions is
illustrative of the State’s discriminatory approaches since there are far more religious com-
munities who experienced repressions during the Soviet times.
The State Agency for Religious Issues signs agreements with religious organizations on an
annual basis. Signatory organizations must submit an outline of spending per stated goals
within a month of signing the agreement. However, the same requirement does not apply to
the Patriarchate. The Agency is also authorized to carry out an audit of submitted reports. This
practice suggests that the State provides direct funding for selected religious organizations.
This policy, similar to one subsidizing the Georgian Orthodox Church from the state budget,
constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of separation between the State and
Church as well as interference with the autonomy of religious minority communities.
Religious organizations selected as recipients of funding must meet certain preconditions

in order to receive the financial resources from the budget. The resolution applies only to
those religious organizations which have been registered as legal entities under public law
prior to the adoption of this regulation. It is unclear why privileges are given to religious
groups registered as legal entities under public law whereas non-profit (non-commercial)
legal entities have the same rights and liabilities under the Civil Code of Georgia.
According to the resolution of the Government, religious organizations were expected to

reorganize into a single legal entity of public law or set up a representative board no later
than 5 November 2014 in order to be eligible for funding. This precondition created prob-
lems for the Muslim minority community. For instance, Sunni and Shia communities be-
came forced to unite under one legal entity, whereas other religious organizations (Jewish,
Catholic and Armenian Apostolic) were funded individually.
Despite this fact, on 4 November 2014, a Shia religious community Supreme Spiritual Admin-
istration of All Muslims of Georgia informed the Agency that they were ready to become a
member of the representative board. However, the funding was allocated to the represen-
tative board without the Administration’s participation.
57
The Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims of Georgia applied to the common court.
The Supreme Court of Georgia partially upheld the claim. The Court ruled that the claimant had
met the eligibility criteria set forth in the Government resolution133. The organization had the
right to be a beneficiary receiving compensation and this eligibility criteria should not have
been the basis for creating the board of representatives or registering as one legal entity (LEPL).
In 2016, the Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims of Georgia submitted the
claim to the Constitutional Court of Georgia against the norms of the resolution which es-
tablish the rules for allocating funding.134 The claimant argued that in forcing Shia and Sunni
Muslims to unite under one legal entity or representative board, as well as imposing this
requirement only on religious organizations registered as legal entities of public law prior
to the adoption of the resolution was against the freedom of religion or belief, freedom of
assembly and equality enshrined in the Constitution of Georgia.
On 15 March 2017,135 the Constitutional Court partially admitted the claim for consideration on
merits concerning the requirement of religious organizations to be registered as legal entities of
public law in order to receive state funding prior to the adoption of the government resolution136.
Even though the Court considered the case on merits, as of January 2020, the judgment has
not yet been published.137
Tbilisi Municipal Funding
Some religious minority organizations also receive municipal funding. According to Tbili-
si City Hall, in 2019, the Armenian Apostolic Church received 9,999 GEL138 to cover repair
133 Complaint Nას-597-556-2017, 3 November 2017.

134 Constitutional Court of Georgia, case of LEPL Administration of All Muslims of Georgia v. Government of Georgia.
Constitutional claim 750.
135 Recording notice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 15 March 2017.
136 Constitutional Court will consider the constitutionality of the Article 1(3) of the resolution in relation to the Article
14 of the Constitution (equality).
137 Constitutional Court of Georgia, N750. LEPL Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims of Georgia v.
Government of Georgia.
58
costs of a church, and 9,993 GEL139 was transferred additionally to Surb Gevorg (St. George’s)
Church.
In total in 2019, religious organizations, other than the Orthodox Church, received 19,992
GEL 140 from the Tbilisi City Hall.
In 2018, the Tbilisi City Hall transferred 7,000 GEL141 to the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of
Georgia. In 2017, Armenian Apostolic Church received 9,999 GEL142 from Tbilisi City Hall to
cover repair costs for a church; One of the worship houses in Zemo Vedzisi settlement in
Tbilisi received 9,915 GEL143, and 4,992 GEL144 was transferred to a cultural and educational
centre under the administration of the Armenian Apostolic Surb Gevorg church. In total,
religious minority organizations received 24,905 GEL.145 In 2016, Tbilisi municipal councils
allocated 28,859 GEL146 to religious minority organizations, in 2015 this sum comprised
18,000 GEL147 and in 2014_34,000 GEL148 .

59
Chapter II: Legislative Initiatives

Limiting Freedom of Religion
or Belief
2.1. Amendments to the Constitution of Georgia and

potential threats to freedom of religion
In the frame of the constitutional reform of 2017, the Parliament of Georgia proposed
amendments to the Constitution which would restrict the freedom of religion on ambig-
uous grounds such as “national security’, “prevention of crime” and “administration of jus-
tice”.149
Up until the presidential elections of 2018, violating the rights of others was the only legit-
imate aim stipulated by the Constitution for restricting the freedom of belief, conscience
and religion. However, as a result of constitutional amendments initiated in 2017 the list of
legitimate aims soared to include five other grounds. Importantly, three of the newly added
aims, more specifically, “national security”, “prevention of crime” and “administration of jus-
tice” fail to meet international human rights standards since they are not deemed as valid
grounds for restricting the freedom of religion or belief by either the European Convention
on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights or the great ma-
jority of constitutions of European states.
The State-initiated amendments to the Constitution triggered a looming risk of dispropor-

tionate interference with the freedom of religion or belief. The risk was further reinforced by
State policy as illegitimate restrictions on the freedom of religion and poor responses from
the State on violations of this right are a frequent occurrence.
In the second opinion of 22 September 2017 on the draft revised Constitution submit-
ted to the Government of Georgia, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission high-
lighted that the newly added grounds are not legitimate aims according to Article 9 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission also stressed that legiti-
149 Article 19 of the Constitution of Georgia (Article 16 in the current version).
60
Chapter II: Legislative Initiatives Limiting Freedom of Religion or Belief
mate aims must be strictly interpreted and should not be extended by way of interpre-
tation to other notions. The report also brings in the case-law of the European Court of
Human Rights150 which has ruled that a State cannot use the need to protect national
security as the basis for restricting the exercise of the right of a person or a group of
persons to manifest their religion.151
Despite a series of harsh criticism152, the Parliament passed the proposed amendments on
26 September 2017. However, after succumbing to continuous pressure from religious as-
sociations, non-governmental organizations, lawyers and international organizations, in
2017 the Government initiated a new amendment to the Constitution resulting in the re-
moval of the ambiguous criteria legitimizing interference in freedom of religion or belief.
The finalized amendments were passed by Parliament on the third reading on 23 March
2018.153 Pursuant to Article 16 of the current version of the Constitution, freedom of belief,
religion and conscience may be restricted only in accordance with the law and with the
purpose of ensuring public safety, or for protecting health, or the rights of others, insofar as
it is necessary in a democratic society.154
In 2019, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR)
published policy guidance for freedom of religion or belief and security.155 OSCE/ODIHR
stresses that in some OSCE participating states “certain laws, security policies and practices
150 Nolan and K. v. Russia, application no. 2512/04, 12 February 2009.

151 European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Draft opinion on the draft revised
constitution as adopted by the Parliament of Georgia at the second reading, 22 September 2017. Available at: http://
www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2017)006-e.
152 Assessments, statements and addresses of non-governmental organizations:
TDI’s assessment on restriction of freedom of religion in the Constitution of Georgia, 1o July 2017 http://tdi.ge/en/
statement/tdis-assessment-restriction-freedom-religion-constitution-georgia
Address of civil society organizations and lawyers on limitation of freedom of religion in draft amendments to the
Constitution of Georgia, 2 August 2017. Available at:
http://tdi.ge/en/statement/address-civil-society-organizations-and-lawyers-limitation-freedom-religion-draft
Statement on limitation of freedom of religion in the constitution, 26 September 2017. http://tdi.ge/en/statement/
statement-limitation-freedom-religion-constitution
Address to the President of Georgia on limitations of freedom of religion in the Constitution, 28 September 2017.
Available in Georgian at: http://tdi.ge/ge/news/470-mimartva-sakartvelos-prezidents-konstituciashi-religiis-
tavisuplebis-shezgudvastan.
153 Constitutional law of Georgia of 23 March 2018 (N2071). Date of publication: 02.04.2018.
154 See also: Georgia: Constitutional Changes to impose impermissible freedom restrictions?, by Mariam Gavtadze, Forum
18, 21 September 2017 www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2316.
155 Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: Policy Guidance, OSCE/ODIHR, 2019. Available at: https://www.osce.org/
odihr/429389.
61
have placed freedom of religion or belief and other universal human rights under significant
pressure. Such measures, especially those that are very broad or applied arbitrarily, are often
enacted in the name of “national”, “state” or “public” security, or in the interests of preserving or
maintaining “peaceful coexistence”, “social stability” or “social harmony”. Experience shows that
such limitations can worsen rather than improve security”. The policy guidance also under-
lines that concerns about “extremism” are often cited by states to justify the need for strict
control over the activities of individuals and religious or belief communities in the interest
of security.
The document emphasizes that sustainable security is not possible without the full respect
for human rights. Freedom of religion or belief and security are not competing rights. They
are complementary, interdependent and mutually reinforcing objectives that can and must
be advanced together.
2.2. Initiatives to adopt the law on religion
Issues around the proposed adoption of a special law on religion and religious organizations
was a consistent topic on the public discourse agenda in 2019. An idea to regulate the field
of religion by adding clauses to existing laws was also voiced amidst ongoing discussions.
It should be noted that Georgia has a fairly elaborate legal framework for religion and there
is no need to introduce additional mechanisms for the regulation of the work of religious or-
ganizations. In addition, definition of such notions as “religion” and “religious organization”
should fall outside of the State’s competences. Otherwise, there is a high risk that once the
State comes up with such definitions, it will attempt to establish a hierarchy within religious
associations and divide the latter based on certain criteria to be prominent or to restrict
the scope of work of religious organizations or even revoke registration of certain religious
organizations, a fear shared across the majority of religious and human rights organizations.
In January 2019, further to an initiative of a chair of the Human Rights and Civil Integration
Committee at the Parliament of Georgia, a working group on religious issues was estab-
lished. The Committee extended the membership invitation to religious associations, the
Public Defender, representatives of non-governmental and international organizations. In
addition, the State Agency for Religious Issues appeared to be quite active when it came to
62
working group meetings held between January and May 2019 (in total, five meetings were
convened).
The chair of the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee told the members that delib-
eration around possible solutions to challenges faced by religious organizations was the main
reason for setting up the group. However, the issue of the adoption of a special law on religion or
introducing new regulations to the existing legal framework was raised at the very first meeting.
At the working group meeting held on 1 February 2019, the Council of Religions at the
Public Defender’s Office disagreed with the idea to adopt a law on religion and religious or-
ganizations arguing that if adopted, the law would curb religious freedom and undermine
equality among religious organizations.156 This argument resulted in a rather harsh, contra-
dictory statement from the chair of the Human Rights Committee and the head of the State
Agency for Religious Issues.
A religious policy development strategy, a paper developed by the State Agency for Reli-
gious Issues, notes that “there is no stand-alone law on religion in Georgia, because of which
there is a lack of legal norms of general nature […] it is critical that a special law on religion
be adopted to incorporate two aspects: 1. Norms regulating religious rights of the individ-
ual and 2. Norms for legal regulations of activities carried out by religious organizations, to
define all general legal categories (including “religious association”), set forth general legal
regulations including rules for the registration of religious organizations, legal status, rights
and liabilities, activities, property and financial matters, issues related to religion and edu-
cation, religious representation (“chaplains”) and other matters.” 157
The head of the Agency, Zaza Vashakmadze told reporters that before setting up the work-
ing group, he had met with religious organizations who voiced the need for the adoption
of the law on religion 158 (Importantly, the idea to adopt the special law or add respective
156 Statement of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office, 1 February 2019. Available in Georgian at:
http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/143716-religiata-sabcho-religiur-organizaciebze-kanonis-shemushaveba-dghis-
tsesrigshi-ar-unda.
157 Strategy for Development of Religious Policy of the State Georgia, 2015. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.
ly/333xnqQ.
158 Georgia: Who needs a Religion Law? By Mariam Gavtadze and Eka Chitanava, Forum 18, 15 August 2019. Available
at:http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2501.
63
clauses to the existing legal framework had been approved by those religious organizations
who are recipients of state funding). At the working group meeting, Vashakmadze also ar-
gued that the number of supporters of the new law prevailed over that of opponents which
meant that proponents constituted the majority of Georgia’s population.
It should be noted that existing rules for the registration of religious organizations are ac-
ceptable to the great majority of religious organizations. The existing legal frameworks al-
low religious organizations to register as a legal entity under public law, or a legal entity un-
der private law, or continue activities without registration. However, any changes to these
rules or an introduction of a new set of criteria convey the risk of the State’s incommensura-
ble interference in the work of any of religious organizations and curbing the latter’s rights.
2.3. Discriminatory initiative against clergy

of different faiths
In 2019, the issue of abolishing the right of military service postponement for religious mi-
nority clergy was raised on the political agenda.
In Georgia, military service is compulsory for almost all young men between the ages of
18 and 27, one of the main exemptions being for clergy of any faith. On 12 March 2019,
Irakli Sesiashvili, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee for Defense and Security submitted
draft changes to the Parliament to revoke those norms in the Law of Georgia on Military
Service which affords the clergy the right to postpone military service. In addition to this
law, clergy of the Georgian Orthodox Church are also exempted under the terms of the
2002 Constitutional Agreement between the State and the Church. Pursuant to Article 4 of
the Agreement, “the member of the clergy shall be exempt from military conscription”. The
same document defines a member of the clergy as an ordained individual such as a nun,
deacon, priest and bishop in the Orthodox Church. Authors of the draft amendments also
discussed the definition of the “clergy”.
Pursuant to Article 30 of the Law of Georgia on Military Duty and Military Service, in a long list of
individuals who have the right to postpone military service, are priests or those who study in a
theological school. Therefore, abolishing the norms of the law will lead to the restriction of this
64
right to the clergy of all faiths however, except that of the Orthodox Church. The initiative had been
prepared by the Chair of the committee without prior consultations with wider public groups.
The initiative of the Defense and Security Committee stirred discontent among the majori-
ty of religious and non-governmental organizations.159 In his public statements, Sesiashvili
cited the Biblical Freedom Church of Georgia as one of the reasons why he came up with
the initiative. The organization was set up in 2017 and has helped around 15.000 individuals
defer military service by giving them the status of a minister. However, experts and many
religious groups believe that the argument about the Biblical Freedom Church of Georgia,
and the need for the introduction of a definition of a clergy was just an excuse relied on by
the State to revive the idea of the Religion Law.160
Ultimately, on 5 April 2019, Deputy Sesiashvili asked Parliament to postpone hearing the
bill “as the issue is very complex and needs further study”.
2.4. Legislative Initiatives about “offending religious

feelings”
There have been several attempts to restrict the freedom of expression over the past few years
in Georgia161, including numerous initiatives of reckless and ambiguous legal norms to make
“blasphemy” and “insulting religious feelings” punishable. These initiatives were put forward
by the Government of Georgia and Parliament members. The Patriarchate of the Georgian
Orthodox Church has been actively campaigning for the criminalization of “insulting religious
feelings”.162 Conversely, members of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office
159 Assessment of the Initiative on Depriving Non-Orthodox Clerics of the Right to be Exempt from Compulsory Military
Service, available at: https://bit.ly/2Hk5AJQ.
160 Mariam Gavtadze and Eka Chitanava, GEORGIA: Who needs a Religion Law?, Forum 18, 15 August, 2019, available at:
http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2501.
161 Mariam Gavtadze and Eka Chitanava, GEORGIA: Proposed insulting religious feelings law withdrawn – for now,
Forum 18, 23 February 2016, available at: http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2152.
162 The Patriarchate of Georgia numerously called on introducing penalty for humiliating religious feelings. For instance:
The Patriarchate’s response to Lia Ukleba’s painting, 2015. Available in Georgian at: https://netgazeti.ge/news/72772/
Deacon Michael Botkoveli: “the Patriarchate is for penalizing offending religious feelings as we have had rather bitter
lessons to learn,” 2018. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2Ta4B43
The Patriarchate: “The State must ensure timely protection of religious feelings”, 2018. Available in Georgian at: https://
bit.ly/37txSfC.
65
and human rights organizations have fiercely opposed efforts to curb freedom of expression
and have highlighted the risks related to the possible passing of such legislation.
Even though freedom of speech and expression is safeguarded by the Georgian Constitu-
tion and the entire national legal framework, the past few years have seen numerous cases
of violence and aggression committed in the name of “offended religious feelings”. Orthodox
clergy and aggressive groups have opposed freedom of speech and expression, including
in media and art. For instance, in 2015, Lia Ukleba, an artist fell victim to wide-scale aggres-
sion, vitriol and threats after she painted Virgin Mary with a toy gun in her hand.163 In 2016,
Levan Sutidze, an anchor of TV program Conversations around Religion and his companions
were verbally and physically assaulted by three individuals.164 Assailants said journalists had
insulted the Georgian Orthodox Church. In 2019, members of an extremist group Georgian
March attacked Giorgi Gabunia, a journalist working for Rustavi 2 TV channel after the latter
talked about Jesus Christ in live streaming causing harsh criticism among some groups.165
Legislative Initiatives
2013
In November 2013 the Georgian Ministry of Interior initiated amendments to the Admin-
istrative Offences Code proposing to add an article for criminal responsibility in relation to
insulting religious feelings. The draft amendments would have introduced administrative
liability for public expression of hatred and/or other insulting behavior against sacred religious
objects, religious organizations, members of clergy or believers with the purpose of humiliating
religious feelings of believers. The initiative was met with criticism voiced by civil society or-
ganizations166 and members of the Council of Religions under Public Defender of Georgia.167
After waves of discontent and opposition, the Parliament did not proceed with the hearing.
163 Suicidal Saint Stirs Controversy, Georgia Today, 02 November, 2015, available at:
http://georgiatoday.ge/news/1764/Suicidal-Saint-Stirs-Controversy.
164 Tabula journalists attacked at Chashnagiri, a restaurant at Kote Apkhazi street. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2MIaX9t.
165 “Members of so-called Georgian March bar Giorgi Gabunia, a Rustavi 2 journalist from entering the TV station
because of his joke”. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2QSpC3r.
Georgian Marsh members sieged Giorgi Gabunia’s car and insulted the journalist. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/3eNamyW.
166 A statement of Civil Society Organizations. Available at: https://bit.ly/2uvNX76.
167 A statement of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office. Available at: http://tolerantoba.ge/index.
php?news_id=510.
66
2015-2016
On 2 December 2015, Ioseb Jachvliani, a ruling party MP (the Georgian Dream) submitted a
draft law on amending the Administrative Offences Code for registration at the Parliament.
The proposed amendment envisioned imposing an administrative penalty of the amount
of 300 GEL168 for the first time and 600 GEL169 for repeated offences for public insult of a
religious organization, a member of the clergy or a believer. The law was drafted by Zviad
Tomaradze, the director of the Foundation for Demographic Development.
On 2 February 2016, the Committee on Human Rights and Civil Integration of the Parlia-
ment voted for the draft law on amending the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia at
the first hearing. An explanatory note of the bill states that “for the past few years, the Geor-
gian Orthodox Church as well as other traditional religious groups have fallen victims to
open and covert attacks in the name of the freedom of speech and expression. Unidentified
groups and individuals target sacred religious objects, buildings and symbols with humili-
ation and insult. Dozens of pages have been created on social media to specifically spread
blasphemy and insult the Orthodox Church, its leader and high ranking clergy.”
Human rights organizations voiced their criticism and discontent with respect to the draft
law and appealed to the Parliament against supporting the initiative in any form. Conse-
quently, on 10 February 2016, the MP who initiated the draft law appealed to the Parliament
for the withdrawal stating that because of the controversy, additional consultations were
required to further improve the bill, which would require a certain period of time.
2018
On 26 March 2018, Emzar Kvitsiani, an MP from the Alliance of Patriots party, submitted yet
another legislative initiative to the Parliament of Georgia to introduce criminal liability for
insulting religious feelings. Again, Zviad Tomaradze, the founder of Georgian Demographic
Society XXI, wrote the draft law.
According to the draft law an additional article would be added to the Criminal Code of
Georgia to penalize “public expression of hatred towards religious sacred objects, religious
168 Approx. 105 USD and 96 Euros

169 Approx. 210 USD and 192 Euros
67
organizations, clergy and believers and/or public display or publication of materials with
the aim to insult religious feelings of believers.” In addition, these amendments would also
penalize “profaning religious buildings and other religious sacred objects, making inscrip-
tions on or inflicting damage to such buildings or objects” with a fine or custodial measure.
An explanatory note of the draft law states that the passage of the law is important against
the backdrop of growing, open or covert defamation and insult against the Georgian Or-
thodox Church as well as other traditional religions in the country. At a hearing of the draft
law, Emzar Kvitsiani told the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee that lately Pa-
triarch Ilia II often falls victim to insults through Facebook. “Insult is generally a bad thing,
but it is worse when it targets religion. Therefore we urge for your support!”-Kvitsiani stated.
The legislative initiative was followed by a series of negative reactions from human rights170
and religious organizations which are members of the Council of Religions under the Public
Defender of Georgia.171 They urged the Parliament to reject the introduction of penalties for
insulting religious feelings. A statement of the Council of Religions signed by 19 religious
organizations says: “We believe that we, religious associations should use only the power of
words, educational activities and mentorship against religious intolerance and insult. Respond-
ing to this problem with repression will only further scale up aggression and intolerance”.
The legislative initiative received a positive reaction from the Human Rights and Civil In-
tegration Committee. However, the Committee members told Kvitsiani the draft needed
further elaboration and that a working group had to be set up for this purpose.172 The Com-
mittee called off supporting the draft at its first hearing.
170 A statement of Non-Governmental Organizations, 25 April 2018. Available at: http://tdi.ge/en/statement/statement-

no-phobia-civil-platform-regarding-initiative-punishability-insults-religious.
171 A statement of the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office, 26 April 2018. Available at: http://tolerantoba.
ge/index.php?news_id=938.
172 Parliament to set up a working group to ban “insulting religious feelings”, Available in Georgian at https://netgazeti.
ge/news/270537/.
68
Chapter III. Inequality in the Georgian Legislation
Chapter III. Inequality in the

Georgian Legislation and Judgments
of the Constitutional Court
of Georgia
Despite the Georgian Constitution establishing high standards for human rights protection,
the country’s legal framework still includes several laws and by-laws that unjustifiably re-
strict the rights of minorities and create unequal conditions. Inequalities embedded in the
legislation concern the acquisition of property by religious organizations, tax regulations
and partial compensation of damage sustained under the Soviet regime.173 State authori-
ties have, so far, failed to take adequate measures for the elimination of discrimination in
the legislation and ensure equal rights to all religious organizations.
On 3 July 2018, the Constitutional Court of Georgia set a precedent by delivering two judg-
ments upholding claims by religious organizations.174 The claimants argued that norms set
forth in the Tax Code and the Law on State Property violated Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion (right to equality)175 and contributed to an environment conducive to discrimination
against religious organizations.176
Over the course of many years, religious organizations have urged for the elimination of
inequalities in Georgian legislation. It has been routinely highlighted in reports commis-
sioned by the Public Defender of Georgia as well as international and local organizations.
In this light, both judgments of the Constitutional Court of Georgia have been pivotal for
ensuring equality for religious organizations.
173 For more information about partial compensation of damage sustained by the Soviet totalitarian regime, see
Chapter 1.6. Policy and practice of State funding for religious organizations.
174 Constitutional Court granted two complaints of religious organizations http://tdi.ge/ge/news/600-sakonstitucio-
sasamartlom-religiuri-gaertianebebis-ori-sarcheli-daakmaqopila.
175 The Constitution of Georgia, Article 11 (of the current version) – right to equality.
176 In relation to both claims, the Claimants were represented by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and Constitutional
Law Clinic of Tbilisi Free University.
69
In October 2015, eight religious organizations177 lodged a claim to the Constitutional Court178. The
Court ruled that the norm of the Tax Code (Article 168(2)B) of Georgia which allowed a VAT exemp-
tion without the right of deduction in relation to construction, restoration and painting of church-
es and temples commissioned only by the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church, was dis-
criminatory and unconstitutional.179 The contested norm granted privileges only to the Georgian
Patriarchate and allowed the latter to purchase services with favourable conditions.
In July 2016, five religious organizations180 lodged yet another claim to the Constitutional
Court.181 The claimants challenged the norm of the Law of Georgia on State Property which
allowed the transfer of property free of charge only to the Georgian Orthodox Church while
other religious organizations were not accorded such an opportunity. The Constitutional
Court upheld the claim and ruled the contested norm as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The defendant in the case, the Parliament of Georgia, stated that the contested norm had
a legal purpose of reinforcing the special relationship existing between the State and the
Orthodox Church, more specifically, by this norm the State recognized the special role of
the Georgian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the country’s history.
However, in its judgment, the Constitutional Court stressed that “the recognition of the special role
of the Church echoes its historical contribution and does not serve to create a preferential legal
condition in favor of the Christian Orthodox religion. Nor should the historical contribution be per-
ceived as a source of legitimacy for granting privileges. Differential treatment and affording legal
preferences to the Church is not and shall not be the goal of the Constitution.182 [...] Granting certain
rights to the Church does not prevent other religious organizations from enjoying the same right”.183
177 LEPL Evangelical-Baptist Church of Georgia, N(N)LE Word of Life Church of Georgia, LEPL Christ Church, LEPL
Pentecostal Church of Georgia, N(N)LE Transcaucasian Union of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, LEPL Apostolic
Administration of Latin Catholics of the Caucasus, N(N)LE Union of Georgian Muslims, LEPL Holy Trinity Church v.
Parliament of Georgia.
178 Constitutional claim N671. 9 October 2014. Available in Georgian at: https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-
acts?legal=2150.
179 Judgement N N1/2/671 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. 3 July 2018. Available in Georgian at: https://
constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=924.
180 LEPL Evangelical-Baptist Church of Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Georgia, LEPL Supreme Spiritual
Administration of All Muslims of Georgia, LEPL Redeemed Christian Church of God, LEPL Pentecostal Church of Georgia.
181 Constitutional claim N811, 21 July 2016. Available in Georgian at: https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=2155.
182 Judgement N1/2/671 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 3 July 2018, Para 34-35.
183 Judgement N1/1/811 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 3 July 2018, Para. 23.
70
In relation to both claims the Court stated that discrimination can be eliminated by fully
revoking privileges as well as by extending them to substantially equal entities.
The Parliament of Georgia had been given a reasonable time (six months from the day the
Court issued its judgments including 31 December 2018) to amend the contested norms
in the Tax Code and the Law on State Property and extend their coverage to all religious
organizations as per the Court’s ruling. However, the Parliament has not taken any measures
to implement the legal amendments. The Parliament failed to demonstrate a will to ensure
equality for religious associations. Therefore, on 31 December 2018, the norms which had
been deemed unconstitutional were declared invalid.
3.1. Discriminatory Legal Framework for Purchasing

State-owned Property
One of the problems in the Georgian legislation derives from some of the norms set forth
in the Law of Georgia on State Property which allows for differential treatment of religious
organizations other than the Georgian Orthodox Church. More specifically, religious orga-
nizations, except for the Georgian Orthodox Church, are unable to purchase State-owned
property through a direct sale or receive such property free of charge.
For example, in 2013, the LEPL Evangelical-Protestant Church attempted to install a fence around
a religious building under their ownership for security purposes. However, since the Evangeli-
cal-Protestant Church was not a legal owner of the property, the State did not grant them the
right to install a fence. Representatives of the Evangelical-Protestant Church appealed to the
Public Defender of Georgia. However, the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development
communicated to the Public Defender that, pursuant to the Law of Georgia on State Property, a
legal entity under public law has no right to purchase State-owned property.184
Demanding religious organizations registered as legal entities under public law, to register
State-owned property with the right to entitlement is discriminatory and devoid of a legal
ground. For this very reason, the State has actively resorted to a policy of transferring re-
ligious buildings and other types of property to minority religious organizations without
184 2013 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in Georgia, P. 169.
71
entitlement to dispose of such property. Therefore, the State remains the legal owner of
property transferred to minority religious organizations.
Matters related to management, disposition and transfer of State-owned property are reg-
ulated by the Law of Georgia on State Property. Pursuant to the law, religious organizations
registered as legal entities under public law, with the exception of the Georgian Orthodox
Church, are not authorized to purchase State-owned property through a direct sale, ex-
change or receive property free of charge.
Who can purchase non-agricultural state-owned land?
Pursuant to the Law on State Property, 185 property can be acquired by a legal entity under
private law or an association of such entities. The law makes no reference to legal entities
under public law with the exception of the Georgian Orthodox Church, which is authorized
to acquire State-owned property through a direct sale as per a governmental resolution.
Therefore, the law creates barriers for other religious organizations registered as legal enti-
ties under public law purchasing State-owned property.
Who can acquire State-owned agricultural land?

The Law of Georgia on State Property186 defines a list of entities eligible to privatize State-
owned agricultural land. The law establishes two types of privatization: privatization with a
fee and privatization free of charge.
A citizen of Georgia or a legal entity under private law is eligible to buy State-owned prop-
erty through privatization with a fee while legal entities under public law, including reli-
gious organizations, have no such right.
The law makes an exception and grants a privilege to the Georgian Orthodox Church to
receive agricultural land through privatization, free of charge. The same right is not accord-
ed to religious organizations registered both as legal entities under public and private law.
185 Article 3(1).

186 Article 3(2).
72
Who can exchange property?
The law also defines a limited list of those entities or persons who have the right to acquire
State-owned property through an exchange (in return for the transfer of the equivalent
property into State ownership). Pursuant to the Law of Georgia on State Property,187 the
title of State property may be transferred to natural persons, legal entities under private law,
the National Bank of Georgia and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The
article specifies the Orthodox Church, as an entity eligible to become an owner of State
property through exchange while other religious organizations, registered as legal entities
under public law, are deprived of such possibility.
None of the legal norms outlined above leave room for religious organizations registered as
legal entities under public law to purchase and become the owners of State-owned prop-
erty. Therefore, non-dominant religious organizations are unable to receive State-owned
property or where they are eligible to do so, only with the right of use. The State remains the
owner of the transferred property in this respect and religious organizations have no right
to dispose of the property. This circumstance is challenging concerning the restitution of
historical property confiscated by the Soviet regime from religious organizations. After the
restoration of Georgia’s independence, the State inherited the confiscated property.
Property not subject to privatization
Article 4 of the Law of Georgia on State Property provides a list of State property which is
not subject to privatization (both with fees and free of charge). The list includes religious
and places of worship (functioning and no longer functioning), their ruins as well as land
plots on which they are located.188
As of today, most religious organizations do not own their religious property nor are they
able to reclaim religious buildings confiscated by the Soviet regime. The above mentioned
norm also imposes restrictions when reclaiming historical property under their possession.
As for the Orthodox Church, pursuant to the Constitutional Agreement, the State recog-
187 Article 3(5).

188 Article 4(1), Para L.
73
nizes Orthodox churches, monasteries (functioning and no longer functioning), their ruins
and plots of land on which they are located throughout the country as the property of the
Orthodox Church.189
Similar restrictions are stipulated by the Law of the Autonomous Republic of Achara on
Management and Administration of the Property of the Autonomous Republic of Ad-
jara.190 The law defines a finite list of individuals and entities eligible to purchase property
owned by the Autonomous Republic of Adjara. Content-wise, the contested norms are sim-
ilar to those of the Law of Georgia on State Property and do not grant the right to religious
minority organizations to purchase property of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara. At the
same time, similar to the law of Georgia, the law of the Autonomous Republic also grants
exceptions and privileges to the Orthodox Church.
On 12 August 2019, nine religious organizations 191 re-appealed to the Constitutional Court.
The claimants sought that the Constitutional Court declare those norms of the Law on State
Property discriminatory which restrict the right of religious organizations, except for the Geor-
gian Orthodox Church, to acquire or exchange State-owned property (Articles 3(1)(2)(5)).192
The claimants are represented by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and the Law Clinic of
Free University of Tbilisi. As of January 2020, the Court has not yet launched proceedings on
the case.
Constitutional Court on Discrimination Norms of the Law on State

Property
On 21 July 2016, five religious organizations appealed to the Constitutional Court request-
ing the Court to find the discriminatory norms of the Law of Georgia on State Property un-
189 Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Church, Article 7(1).
190 Law on Management and Disposition of Property of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara, Article 3(3).
191 LEPL Pentecostal Church of Georgia, N(N)LE Union of Muslims of Georgia, LEPL Apostolic Administration of Latin
Catholics of the Caucasus, LEPL Transcaucasian Union of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, N(N)LE Word of Life
Church of Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Georgia, LEPL Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims
of Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Baptist Church of Georgia, LEPL Georgia Diocese of Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy
Church.
192 Constitutional claim N1440 (date of registration: 12 August 2019).
74
constitutional.193 The claimants were represented by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)
and the Law Clinic of the Free University of Tbilisi. 194
With the judgment of 3 July 2018, the Constitutional Court195 ruled the norm of the Law of
Georgia on State Property196granting privilege of receiving State property free of charge
only to the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church unconstitutional.
The Court stressed that “the major goal of the organizations [claimants] is to carry out religious
activities for which movable and immovable property that they own is of great importance.
For instance, by exercising their right to property, religious organizations ensure necessary condi-
tions for performing religious rites to their followers. All religious organizations have equal interest
to receive property from the State free of charge and use such property for religious purposes.”
The defendant in the case, the Parliament of Georgia, stated that the contested norm had
the legal purpose of cementing the special relationship between the State and the Ortho-
dox Church, more specifically, through this norm, the State recognized the special role of
the Georgian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the country’s history. However, the Con-
stitutional Court stressed that “the recognition of the special role of the Church echoes its
historical contribution and does not serve to create a preferential legal condition in favour
of Christian Orthodox religion.”
The Court also stated that discrimination can be eliminated by fully revoking the privileges
as well as by extending them to substantially equal entities. The Parliament of Georgia had
been given reasonable time (six months from the day the Court issued its judgements in-
cluding 31 December 2018) to amend the contested norm in the Law on State Property and
extend its coverage to all religious organizations.
The Parliament chose not to amend the law and subsequently, on 31 December 2018, the
norms which had been deemed unconstitutional were declared invalid. The Parliament was
193 LEPL Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims of Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Baptist Church of Georgia, LEPL
Pentecostal Church of Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Georgia, LEPL Redeemed Christian Church of God.
194 Constitutional claim N811. 21 July 2016. Available in Georgian at: https://constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=2155.
195 Judgement N1/1/811 of 3 July 2018 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. Available in Georgian at: https://
constcourt.ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=1178).
196 Constitutional validity of the words “Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox” as referred to in Article 63(1) of
the Law of Georgia on State Property.
75
given an opportunity to replace the contested norm with non-discriminatory content and
ensure equal rights to all religious organizations to receive State-owned property free of
charge. Again, the Parliament failed to express a will to accept the reasoning of the Consti-
tutional Court, improve the legislation by demonstrating due consideration of freedom of
religion and the principle of equality.
3.2. Inequality in Taxation
One of the most striking examples of the discriminatory treatment experienced by religious
organizations is present in certain provisions of tax legislation. The Tax Code of Georgia
allows exemption in certain instances, only for the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox
Church granting the latter privileges which are not accorded to other religious organiza-
tions. This problem has been at the center of attention of religious minority organizations,
the Public Defender of Georgia and various local and international organizations.
Profit Tax
Pursuant to the Tax Code of Georgia, Article 99(1) para D, profits from the sale of crosses,
candles, icons, books and calendars used by the Patriarchate for religious purposes are ex-
empt from profit tax.
The norm is ambivalent and allows for multiple interpretations. More specifically, it can be
understood as a benefit applicable only to the Georgian Patriarchate provided that the lat-
ter itself is the seller of items and goods used for religious purposes. Based on such reading
of the law, profit tax exemption is applicable only to the Patriarchate but not any individual
who sells items used by the Patriarchate for religious purposes. However, the norm can also
be read in the following manner: the profit tax exemption applies to profit gained by any
individual as a result of selling goods and products used by the Patriarchate for religious
purposes. With respect to this circumstance, the Constitutional Court of Georgia stated that
the application of the exemption from the profit tax to other persons other than the Geor-
gian Patriarchate, cannot be ascertained from a reading of the norm.197
197 Constitutional Court of Georgia, recording notice N1/8/671, 23 March 2017, Para 9.
76
VAT
Pursuant to the Tax Code of Georgia, Article 168(1) para F, the supply of crosses, candles,
icons, books, calendars and other liturgical items by the Patriarchate of Georgia used only
for religious purposes shall be exempt from VAT without the right to deduction. This privi-
lege allows the Patriarchate to adjust prices for their products/services lower than the mar-
ket price since such products and services do not include VAT, resulting in lower prices.
Import fees
The State has the right to impose the following fees on the importation of goods:198 Import fee
– the rate of which is estimated as 5% or 12% of the customs value of the goods, or as a fixed
rate; VAT – 18% of the amount of taxable import, excise fee – with differentiated excise rate.
Pursuant to the Constitutional Agreement between the State and the Georgian Orthodox
Church,199 certain items imported by the Church are exempt from fees. However, general
conditions for the calculation of fees are applicable to goods and items imported by other
religious organizations.200
According to the Revenue Service201 the legal ground for the application of this exemp-
tion granted to the Georgian Patriarchate lies in the Constitutional Agreement between the
State and the Church. As for other religious organizations, they are subject to the general
legal norms of importation taxes.
Property tax
Pursuant to the Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and the Georgian Apos-
tolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church “religious goods and items produced by the Church, in-
198 See Commodity code search system or Articles 197, 169, 188, 188(1) of the Tax Code of Georgia.
199 Article 6(5) of the Constitutional Agreement: religious goods and items produced by the Church, including
preparation, import, delivery and donation of such goods and items, as well as property used for non-economic
purposes and land are exempt from taxes.
200 Legal grounds for importation fees (import fee, excise, VAT) exemption are set forth in Articles 168, 194, and 199 of
the Tax Code of Georgia.
201 Letter N 21-11/48169 of the Revenue Service of Georgia; 07/05/2019.
77
cluding preparation, import, delivery and donation of such goods and items, as well as property
used for non-economic purposes and land are exempt from taxes”. Because of this norm stem-
ming from the Constitutional Agreement, the Orthodox Church is exempt from property tax.
According to the Tax Code, property owned by the organization or property leased to the
organization except for land and property used for non-economic purposes is exempt from
property tax. This provision together with Article 6(5) of the Constitutional Agreement202 re-
leases the Orthodox Church (which is the biggest owner of land) from property tax. On the
other hand, neither the Tax Code nor any other normative acts provide the same arrange-
ments for other religious organizations which are obliged to pay property tax on plots of
land that they own. Respectively, the Tax Code and the Constitutional Agreement grant the
privilege to only the Orthodox Church. These arrangements create an environment where-
by religious organizations, other than the Orthodox Church, suffer differential treatment.
On 7 May 2019, nine religious organizations203 appealed to the Constitutional Court con-
cerning Article 201, Part 1(A) of the Tax Code of Georgia.204 The claim challenges the nor-
mative content of the contested norm allowing differential treatment of religious organi-
zations other than the Georgian Orthodox Church, as a result of which minority religious
organizations pay tax on land used for non-economic purposes. The claimants are repre-
sented by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and the Law Clinic of Free University of
Tbilisi. As of January 2020, the Court has not yet started proceedings in the case.
The Constitutional Court regarding inequalities in the tax system
In 2015, religious organizations appealed to the Constitutional Court of Georgia205 against the
norms of the Tax Code which put them in an unequal situation. The claimants were represented
by Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) and the Law Clinic of Free University of Tbilisi.
202 Religious goods and items produced by the Church, including preparation, import, delivery and donation of such
goods and items, as well as property used for non-economic purposes and land are exempt from taxes.
203 LEPL Pentecostal Church of Georgia, LEPL Union of Georgian Muslims, LEPL Apostolic Administration of Latin Catholics
of the Caucasus, LELP Transcaucasian Union of the Seventh-day Christian Adventist Church, N(N)LE Word of Life Church of
Georgia, LEPL Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Georgia, LEPL Supreme Spiritual Administration of All Muslims of Georgia, LEPL
Evangelical-Baptist Church of Georgia, LEPL Georgian Diocese of Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy Church.
204 Constitutional claim N1422 registered on 7 May 2019.
205 Constitutional claim N671.
78
On 23 March 2017, the Constitutional Court admitted, for consideration on merits only, part
of the claim concerning the wording “ordered by the Patriarchate of Georgia” as laid down
in Part 2(B) of Article 168 of the Tax Code of Georgia206 and constitutionality of this wording
vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of Georgia.207 Based on the above norm, construction,
restoration and painting in churches and temples are exempt from VAT if such works are
ordered by the Patriarchate of Georgia.
The Constitutional Court did not admit, to consideration on merits, part of the claim which con-
cerned Article 99 of the Tax Code (profits from the sale of goods and items used by the Patri-
archate of Georgia for religious purpose are exempt from profit tax) and Article 168, Part I, para
F (supply of religious items by the Patriarchate of Georgia is exempt from VAT without the right
of deduction). According to the Constitutional Court, even though the contested norms specify
conditions for the exemption specifically for the Georgian Patriarchate, the systemic analysis
of the Tax Code nevertheless suggests that exemption conditions also apply to other religious
organizations while conducting those types of activities that are specified by the law.208
On 3 July 2018, the Constitutional Court upheld the claim and ruled209 the disputed norm
of the Tax Code of Georgia (Article 168, Part II, para B which prescribes the exemption from
VAT tax without the right to deduction construction, restoration and painting of temples
and churches when such works are commissioned by the Patriarchate of Georgia) unconsti-
tutional.210 The Court stressed that the contested norm grants a privilege to the Patriarchate
to purchase services for construction, restoration and painting of churches and temples un-
der more favourable terms. Therefore, this arrangement creates an environment enabling
differential treatment of the claimants.
The Court also stressed that recognition of the special role of the Orthodox Church acknowl-
edges its historical contribution and does not serve to create a preferential legal condition
in favour of Christian Orthodox religion.
206 Article 11 of the current version of the Constitution of Georgia.

207 Recording notice N1/8/671 of 23 March 2017.
208 Recording notice 1/8/671, Georgian Constitutional Court, 23 March 2017.
209 Judgement N1/2/671 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, 3 July 2018. Available in Georgian at: https://constcourt.
ge/ka/judicial-acts?legal=924).
210 Constitutional validity of the words “ordered by the Georgian Patriarchate” as set forth in Article 168(2) Para B of the
Tax Code of Georgia.
79
The Court stated that discrimination can be eliminated by fully revoking privileges as well
as by extending them to equal entities (religious organizations). The Parliament of Geor-
gia was given reasonable time (six months from the day the Court issued its judgments
including 31 December 2018) to amend the contested norms in the Tax Code and extend
their coverage to all religious organizations. However, like in other similar cases, the Parlia-
ment chose not to do so and therefore, on 31 December 2018, the normative content of the
norms ruled as unconstitutional by the court were declared invalid.
3.3. Privileges granted to the Patriarchate by the legal

framework for higher education
The Georgian Orthodox Church enjoys a series of privileges in the field of higher education.
However, no such privileges are accorded to any other religious organization.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and the
Church, both parties of the agreement shall equally and bilaterally recognize the validity of
documents, scientific degrees and titles issued and granted by respective higher education
institutions as a proof of higher education. Both State and Church are authorized to carry
out joint programs in the field of education while the State shall provide support to the
functioning of the Church’s education facilities.
The Law on Higher Education defines an academic degree as a degree awarded to a person
by a higher education institution or a higher Orthodox theological education institution upon
completion of the relevant cycle of academic higher education.211
As stated in the Law, a higher Orthodox theological institution may function as a

structural unit of the Patriarchate of Georgia or separately, as a legal entity under
private law.212 The Law on Higher Education defines higher Orthodox theological ed-
ucation as a higher education course based on Orthodox doctrine and culture con-
sisting of bachelor, master and doctoral theological programs. The higher Orthodox
theological educational institution shall be founded by the Catholicos-Patriarch of
211 Law of Georgia on Higher Education, Article 2.

212 Law of Georgia on Higher Education, Article 9(3).
80
All Georgia who is also authorized to approve the statute, structure (different from
the structure defined by the law) and management bodies of the higher Orthodox
theological institution.213
A higher education institution established by the State can be reorganized or liquidated by

the Government of Georgia. However, terms and conditions set forth by the law do not ap-
ply to reorganization and liquidation of a higher Orthodox theological educational institu-
tion which can only be reorganized or liquidated by the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.
After the liquidation, the property owned by the liquidated institution will be transferred to
the Patriarchate of Georgia.214 In addition, higher education programs offered by Orthodox
theological institutions are exempt from adhering to terms and conditions of accreditation
as laid down by the law.215
Generally, a person may acquire an academic position only through an open competition
while academic positions at higher Orthodox theological educational institutions may be
filled based on the rule defined by the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.216 Strictly defined
terms and conditions for selecting and appointing individuals for academic positions do
not apply to higher Orthodox theological educational institutions.
In addition, the Orthodox Church is the only one which is authorized to establish a higher
theological educational institution and implement higher education programs in theolo-
gy.217 Such differing treatment against religious organizations has been exhibited in specific
cases.
In 2016, LEPL Supreme Spiritual Administration of Muslims requested the authorization

of the right to open a higher Islamic spiritual educational institution from LEPL National
Center of Education Quality Enhancement. The Center218 denied the request on account
of Article 475 of the Law on Higher Education which grants the right to implement theo-
213 Law of Georgia on Higher Education, Article 31¹.

218 Letter MES 2 1600169172 of the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement, 22.02.2016.
81
logical educational programs only to Orthodox theological educational institutions

based on the Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and the Orthodox
Church. The Center noted that if the applicant wishes to establish an authorized edu-
cation institution and issue a state-approved document certifying the completion of
the education cycle, they must do so by establishing a general, vocational or higher
education institution.
3.4. Discriminatory policy on holidays and religious

celebrations
The law regulating labour relations219 defines secular (seven) and religious (ten) holidays.
Religious holidays are celebrated only by the Georgian Orthodox Church. There are no hol-
idays celebrated by religious and ethnic minorities living in Georgia recognized as public
holidays by the law.
Grounds for the recognition of Orthodox religious celebrations as public holidays by the
law are provided by the Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and the
Church220 according to which “great religious celebrations and Sunday are declared holi-
days” while specific holidays are defined by the Labour Code.221
The law does not make any reference to the possibility of marking religious holidays by
groups or individuals of other religions and beliefs. According to the Labour Code of Geor-
gia,222 the employee has the right to request other days off instead of the holidays defined
by the law, provided that such an arrangement is allowed by contract. Thus, religious mi-
norities can use this rule of a general nature. However, whether or not they will be allowed
to use this arrangement, greatly depends on the good will of their employer.
219 Organic Law of Georgia “Labour Code of Georgia”.

220 Constitutional Agreement between the Georgian state and Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church,
Article 1(6).
221 Organic Law of Georgia “Labour Code of Georgia”, Article 20(1).
222 Organic Law of Georgia “Labour Code of Georgia”, Article 20(2).
82
It should also be noted that employees in private or public sectors223 are subject to the same
arrangement with respect to public holidays. Therefore, representatives of religious minori-
ty communities whether they work in public or private institutions, also students of general
and higher education establishments, have difficulties in celebrating religious holidays of
their religious community.
Attending centralized exams or competitions scheduled on Saturdays in educational in-

stitutions can be a challenge for students of certain religious communities (Jewish, Sev-
enth-Day Adventists). There are many instances whereby the state and/or educational insti-
tutions ignore the interest of various religious communities when putting together a school
curriculum.
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations,224
“in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging
to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of
their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use
their own language”.
Pursuant to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Dis-
crimination Based on Religion or Belief, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, reli-
gion or belief includes the freedom to observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and
ceremonies in accordance with one’s religion or belief.225 In the general comment N22, con-
cerning the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights226 states that the freedom to manifest religion or belief
extends to observance of holidays and days of rest.
223 Law of Georgia on Public Service, Article 60(3): ”The rest time of an officer and the public holidays are determined
by the Organic Law of Georgia – the Labour Code of Georgia”.
224 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, Article 27.
225 United Nations General Assembly Resolution N36/55 of 25 November 1981, Article 6(H) (Available at: https://www.
ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ReligionOrBelief.aspx).
226 General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) 30/07/93, par. 4
(Available at: https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/general%20comment%2022.pdf ).
83
Chapter IV. Crimes motivated

by religious intolerance
and State policy
4.1. General Overview
Religious persecution, physical and verbal assault, illegal interference with religious ritu-
als of representatives of religious minorities, are among the most pressing and systemic
problems in Georgia. While over the course of many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have been
the primary targets of such persecution and discrimination, the past few years have seen
Muslim communities also facing the problem.
Even though a new article was added to the Criminal Code of Georgia to qualify racial, re-
ligious, ethnic, national, and homophobic or transphobic intolerance as aggravating cir-
cumstances to a crime, there is a little evidence to show that courts apply this article.227 The
sense of the lack of protection of minorities is also fostered by impunity of perpetrators,
inadequate qualification of alleged crimes and protracted investigations causing mistrust
towards law enforcement agencies.
In a decision on the supervision of the execution of Judgments of the European Court of

Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe228urged the Govern-
ment of Georgia to seriously consider potentially discriminatory motives of crimes, espe-
cially if committed by law enforcement officials, as aggravating circumstances.
An analysis of the State authorities’ responses to offences committed on grounds of reli-

gious intolerance suggests that not only does the State struggle to qualify crimes against
religious minorities as motivated by religious hatred, but it is often a direct or indirect party
responsible for the violation of the rights of religious minorities.
227 Criminal Code of Georgia, Article 53.

228 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Decision CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8, 25 September 2019
Available at: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8E.
84
Chapter IV. Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and State policy
It is a positive step that in 2018, the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) created a human rights
protection and investigation quality monitoring department. On 12 January 2018, a de-
cree of the Minister of Internal Affairs approved the statute of the department, according to
which, one of the objectives is to ensure timely response and efficient investigation of hate
crimes. To improve the quality of the investigation, the department is responsible to iden-
tify shortcomings in the process of investigation and provide recommendations for timely
improvements.
However, it should be noted that the mandate of the department is limited only to moni-
toring investigations and providing recommendations and it has no investigative function
itself. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in its 2016 report on
Georgia urged the State to create a special unit to investigate crimes committed on racist,
homophobic and transphobic grounds229. Since the newly created department has no such
mandate, ECRI considers its recommendation to be partially implemented.230 The Commit-
tee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also calls for the creation of a unit with an investi-
gative function for hate crimes.231
Hate crimes are distinguished from other types of crime by the motive of the perpetrator; If
a criminal justice system does not use the concept of “hate crime”, the motive is not recog-
nized as an essential element of the offence and the existence of hate crimes will therefore
remain invisible.232 Sometimes when cases of hate crime are prosecuted, the motivation in
selecting the victim is not mentioned. If this happens, the opportunity and potential for the
perpetrator’s punishment to have a deterrent effect on others is lost. The danger is that the
message to the victim and the perpetrator is that the State does not recognize the hate mo-
tive which caused the crime.233 Such crimes send a message to members of the community
sharing the characteristic that they, also, do not belong, and could equally be a target. Hate
crimes, therefore, can damage the fabric of society and fragment communities.
229 ECRI report on Georgia, (fifth monitoring cycle), 1 March, 2016, Available at: https://rm.coe.int/fourth-report-on-
georgia/16808b5773.
230 ECRI Conclusions on the implementation of the Recommendations in Respect of Georgia Subject to Interim follow-up,
p. 5. 5 March, 2019, Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-conclusions-on-the-implementation-of-the-recommendations-
in-respe/1680934a7e.
231 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Decision CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8, 20 September 2019.
232 Hate Crime Laws – a Practical Guide, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), p.11.
https://www.osce.org/odihr/36426?download=true.
233 Ibid: p. 28.
85
4.2. Investigation of violation of Muslims’ rights

in 2012-2016
From 2012 to 2016, eight large-scale violations of Muslims’ rights living in different geo-
graphic areas of Georgia were identified. In seven cases, no charges were filed, while in-
vestigation of some of the cases are still ongoing. The main reason for confrontation from
the side of Orthodox Christians and/or governments is directed mostly at holding religious
rituals, keeping houses of worship, religious schools or other public expressions of religious
faith.
In spite of the obvious systemic violence against Muslims, the State does not admit the
acuteness and the scope of the problem. Specific actions are mostly focused on short-term
and superficial resolution of conflicts rather than in-depth understanding, appropriate re-
sponse and prevention of future violations.
The rights of Muslim citizens, as guaranteed by law, were harshly violated in Samtatskaro,
Nigvziani, Tsintskaro villages, Kobuleti, and Adigeni municipality. However, the State has
not responded effectively to any of these cases. The materials of the Nigvziani incident re-
veal that it involved interference with religious rituals, and death threats. Similar issues were
revealed in the villages of Samtatskaro and Tsintskaro, where problems had been snowball-
ing for some time. In each of these cases, the police had passively observed developments
rather than taking proactive steps to protect the safety of the believers.
In Kobuleti, where the right to property and freedom of movement of students and school
administration were violated, the police, with its inaction, encouraged continuous discrim-
ination towards Muslims by representatives of the dominant religion.
In the cases of Tsikhisdziri, Chela and Mokhe, the rights of Muslims were violated by law
enforcement officers, with possible elements of abuse of power. It should also be noted
that in Mokhe village, public servants regularly used hate speech directed at the Muslim
community.
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) questions the validity
of the investigation conducted by the Office of Chief Prosecutor concerning the abuse of
86
power and illegal arrest in the Mokhe case.234 ECRI believes that conflicts reoccur due to the
inappropriate responses on behalf of the State. The report also notes that the local govern-
ment played a negative role in resolving the conflicts and supported the participants of the
violent protest demonstration.235
These cases show that investigation processes do not meet the standards of transparent
and effective investigation – Muslims which experienced physical violence were not rec-
ognized as victims, which makes it challenging to monitor the process of investigation and
finally, deprives the Muslim community to access to justice.
At the same time, it should be noted that in some cases (Nigvziani, Tsintskaro, Samtatskaro,
Chela villages) the State delegated the function of conflict resolution to the Georgian Or-
thodox Church Patriarchate and by doing so recognized the latter as an informal broker for
resolving religious issues. Therefore, the State refused to undertake its positive obligations
and protect the freedom of religion or belief of its citizens.
Nigvziani
On 26 October 2012, in Nigvziani village of the Lanchkhuti municipality, where resettled

Muslims from Achara comprise of 30-35% of the population, the local Orthodox Church,
together with their religious leaders, protested against the Friday prayer of the Muslim com-
munity. According to local Muslims, they threatened to burn down the mosque and threat-
ened their lives.
In a 2012 Parliamentary report, the Public Defender indicated that actions of the Orthodox
congregation have not resulted in any adequate reaction from the side of the law enforce-
ment agencies as they failed or chose not to ensure the safety of affected Muslims nor take
any measures for the elimination of the violence on spot.236
234 ECRI report on Georgia, (fifth monitoring cycle), 1 March, 2016, Para 59, Available at: https://rm.coe.int/fourth-
report-on-georgia/16808b5773.
235 Ibid: Para 71.
236 See 2012 Report of Public Defender of Georgia on the Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, p. 295.
Available at: http://ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2019062409162429228.pdf.
87
On 11 December 2012, the Ministry of Internal Affairs started an investigation based on

Article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia, on illegal interference in religious rituals.
According to the information provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to TDI, on 14 May
2019,237 the evidence gathered during the investigation of the criminal case ruled out the
existence of any crimes listed in the Criminal Code of Georgia and the case was closed on
22 February 2019.
Tsintskaro
Similar to the Nigvziani incident, a series of incidents, motivated by religious intolerance,

occurred in the village of Tsintskaro, Tetritskaro municipality during the period Novem-
ber-December 2012. On a number of occasions, the local Orthodox Christian community
members protested against the Muslim community holding religious rituals. Some local
Christians believed the confrontation was due to the unauthorized removal of a cross from
the gate to a newly built cemetery.
On 30 November 2012, about 40 local Christians gathered at a local worship place and ver-
bally assaulted Muslims including the Muslim clergy. Muslims and their families had their
lives threatened and houses burnt down.238
According to the information provided to TDI by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 14 May
2019,239 signs of a crime were not found from the evidence gathered from the case and
therefore, an investigation was not launched.
On 1 December 2012, the regional division of MIA of Tetritskaro municipality started an in-
vestigation into the damage of the entrance gates of the local cemetery, a crime punishable
under Article 187(1) of the Criminal Code (damage or destruction of property), however,
due to the lack of evidence establishing crime elements, the criminal case was dismissed
on 25 December 2012.
237 Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, letter N MIA 1 19 01225385, 14/05/2019.

238 2012 Report of Public Defender of Georgia, p. 295, Available at: http://ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2019062409162429228.pdf.
239 Letter of Ministry of Internal Affairs N MIA 1 19 01225385, 14/05/2019.
88
Tsikhisdziri
On 14 April 2013, in Tsikhisdziri village, Kobuleti municipality, employees of the Ministry

of Defense were stopping local drivers, demanding they show crosses as evidence of their
Christian faith and thus, establishing they are not of the Muslim faith. Several officers insult-
ed and physically assaulted Muslim citizens.
Batumi City Court found military police officers guilty of hooliganism240 and violation of
property rights.241 In 2013, the Batumi City Court provided TDI with the decision of 20 Au-
gust 2013, however, the decision did not contain any reference to the religious hate ele-
ment of the incident. At sentencing, the Court ruled that there were no aggravating circum-
stances to the case (as stipulated by Article 531 of the Criminal Code of Georgia – religious
intolerance as an aggravating circumstance).
Batumi City Court ruled one of the accused guilty based on Articles 160(2)A and 160(3)A/B
(Violation of inviolability of domicile or of any other property through violence or threat of
violence by more than one person or by using official position) and Article 239(2)A (hooli-
ganism committed by the group with the preliminary agreement); while two other persons
were found guilty according to articles 160(2)A and 160(3)A/B (Violation of inviolability of
domicile or of any other property through violence or threat of violence by more than one
person or by using official position).242
Samtatskaro
On 24 May 2013, another incident took place due to religious differences in Dedoplistskaro
municipality. For several months, Muslims in Samtatskaro village have suffered regular per-
secution. Finally, the religious leader of the local Muslims was forced to temporarily leave
the village.
240 Article 239(2)A of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

241 Articles 160(2)A and 160(3)A/B of the Criminal Code of Georgia.
242 On 20 August 2013 Batumi City Court completed a case examination. Available in Georgian at: http://www.court.ge/
courts/baTumis_saqalaqo_sasamarTlo/?page=25&id=779.
89
On 24 May 2013, Orthodox Christians insulted and attacked Muslims, blocked the road,
intimidated and prevented them from holding Friday prayer.243 The Muslim community was
unable to conduct religious rituals on 31 May 2013 or 7 June 2013. Muslims were only al-
lowed to pray on 21 June 2013. However, after the completion of the religious ritual, sev-
eral dozen Orthodox believers gathered outside the house of the Muslim religious leader
threatening and verbally abusing the religious leader and his family. Witnesses also report-
ed physical violence taking place during the incident.244
An investigation into the Samtatskaro incidents was launched on 10 June 2013 on the grounds
of unlawful interference with the performance of religious rites on 24 and 31 May 2013, as per
article 155(1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Illegal interference into the performance of re-
ligious ritual). According to the information provided to TDI by the Ministry of Internal Affairs
on 14 May 2019,245 the majority of the witnesses did not confirm the fact of interference with
religious rituals and the investigation remains ongoing seven years after the incident.246
Chela
In the village Chela of Adigeni municipality, on 26 August 2013, Muslims’ rights were grossly
violated and their freedom of religion was restricted on a large-scale. Unlike the previous
cases, the State was involved, participating in the violence and violation of Muslims rights.
On 26 August 2013, law enforcement officers forcefully removed a minaret from Chella
mosque247. The Revenue Service explained that it was imported from Turkey and violated
customs legislation; therefore, it had to be disassembled. According to witnesses, at least
one helicopter, about 45 highly-reinforced vehicles, a truck, a crane, up to 200 law enforce-
ment officers, including the Special Forces participated in the process, taking control of the
village of only 50 households for three hours.
243 Felix Corley, GEORGIA: Will police protect Muslim prayers from mobs?, Forum 18, 4 July, 2013, http://www.forum18.
org/archive.php?article_id=1854.
244 Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWjkArE6DU.
247 Authorities Remove Minaret Forcibly, Sparking Muslim Community’s Protest, Civil Georgia, Tbilisi, 26 August, 2013,
https://civil.ge/archives/186767.
90
According to victims and witnesses, the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ officers, in parallel to the
demolition of the minaret, used force against Muslims who tried to protest the dismantle-
ment. Six Muslims sustained body injuries of various severity.
Only three months later, on 27 November 2013, the Adigeni municipality granted permis-
sion for the reconstruction of the minaret in Chela village.
According to the information provided to TDI by the MIA,248 the chief division of Samtskhe-Ja-
vakheti representation started an investigation into the resistance against the police offi-
cers stipulated under Article 353(2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Three Muslim citizens
were arrested on grounds of resisting police officers and were charged with 2,000 GEL as
a measure (later, an aversion agreement in exchange for 40 hours of public service), while
two other persons were charged with 400 GEL249 as an administrative penalty for violation
of article 173.250
As for the alleged abuse of power by the law enforcement officers and the use of force
used against the Muslims, despite multiple requests, the Prosecutor’s Office did not
provide information to TDI on the investigation of the alleged crime committed by the
representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Kobuleti
On 10 September 2014, the local Orthodox community of Kobuleti Municipality protested

against the opening of the boarding school for Muslim students. They blocked the entrance
to the building and nailed a pig’s head to the door.251 Protests continued on 15 and 16 Sep-
tember, where roads leading to the building were blocked and students were unable to
enter the school.
248 Letter of Ministry of Internal Affairs MIA (11700579386 0) 10.03.2017.

249 2,000 GEL is approx. 700 USD and 640 EUR; 400 GEL is approx. 140 USD and 127 EUR.
250 Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Georgia: “Non-compliance with a lawful order or demand of
a law-enforcement officer, military service person, officer of the Special State Protection Service, enforcement police
officer or an employee of the Special Penitentiary Service or an equal-status person, or commission of any other unlawful
act against such person”.
251 Pig’s Head Nailed to Planned Muslim School in Kobuleti, Civil Georgia, Tbilisi, 10 September, 2014, https://civil.ge/
archives/187124.
91
The police were on permanent duty at the entrance of the building from 10-15 September.
Even though they observed violation of fundamental rights of Muslim students and the
school administration, they did not duly respond to any of these violations.
According to information provided to TDI by MIA on 14 May 2019252 an investigation was

launched on 10 September 2014, on the facts of a threat, a crime punishable under Article
151 of the Criminal Code. Officers at Kobuleti District Division interviewed up to 80 witness-
es, inspected the scene and conducted relevant examinations. As of January 2020, the
investigation is ongoing.253
In parallel, the administration, the staff and parents of the students of the boarding
school appealed to Batumi City Court using an anti-discrimination mechanism stipu-
lated by the Law on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination and requested the latter
to oblige private persons to stop the discriminatory treatment of and interference into
the school’s operation. The applicants also demanded that MIA take effective safety
measures.254
Courts of all three instances assessed the offenses on the grounds of religious intolerance
as direct discrimination, however, the courts did not share the position of the claimants
regarding discriminatory treatment from the side of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
At the same time, Kobuleti Water Ltd., founded by Kobuleti Mayor’s Office, which was re-
sponsible for connecting the water supply to the building of the boarding school did not
conduct any works, which the Public Defender assessed as discrimination and recommend-
ed the company to immediately conduct such works in favor of the school.255
The Municipal Mayor’s Office of Kobuleti did not implement the recommendation of the
Public Defender, in which the Public Defender filed a claim against the municipal authori-
ties to the court and requested fulfilment of the recommendation. The City Court of Batumi

254 Interests of claimants in court are represented by Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC).
255 Recommendation of the Public Defender towards Municipality of Kobuleti and Kobuleti Water Ltd., 23 September
2016, available at: https://bit.ly/38o9QUz.
92
upheld the claim of the Public Defender on 12 October 2018 and requested the Mayor’s
Office of Kobuleti to fulfill appropriate works.
“Georgian Muslim Relations”, an NGO along with seven Muslims living in Kobuleti petitioned
the European Court of Human Rights in 2018.
Mokhe
In October 2014, a gross violation of rights of Muslims on religious grounds took place follow-
ing a confrontation between local Muslims and law enforcement bodies in Mokhe, village of
Adigeni. A protest led by local Muslims against the dismantling of the former mosque, currently
a disputed building, was violently dispersed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to wit-
nesses, law enforcement officers were verbally and physically harassing Muslims.
The conflict in Mokhe escalated around the issue related to the return of the so-called dis-
putable building to the Muslim community. For years, the Muslim community had been re-
questing the local government to return and reconstruct the building, but in vain.256 During
the demonstration, the police detained 14 Muslim citizens. According to the information
provided by the MIA to TDI,257 three of these individuals were arrested for crimes stipulat-
ed by Article 353(2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia, resistance, threat or violence against
police or other members of authorities, while another 11 persons were arrested for minor
hooliganism and non-compliance with lawful order or demand of a law enforcement officer
as stipulated by Articles 166 and 173 of the Administrative Offenses Code of Georgia. On 23
October 2014, based on the order of Prosecutor’s Office, three Muslim citizens detained for
criminal offence were released; however, the investigation against them has not been sus-
pended. According to detained Muslims, law enforcement officers verbally and physically
assaulted them both at the scene as well as during detention. A 2014 report of the Public
Defender states that an external inspection of the detained citizens revealed signs of phys-
ical injuries caused on 22 October.258
256 See Chapter 5: Property related problems of religious organizations, subchapter: Problem related to the restitution of
property confiscated by Soviet authorities.
257 Letter of Ministry of Internal Affairs MIA (11700579386 0) 10.03.2017.
258 2014 Report of Public Defender, pg. 332.
93
As for the alleged abuse of power by the law enforcement officers and the use of force
against Muslims, despite multiple requests, the Prosecutor’s Office did not provide
information to TDI on the investigation of the alleged crime committed by the repre-
sentatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
On 10 September 2016, four citizens filed a complaint to the European Court of Human
Rights on grounds of abuse of power by police officers and inappropriate treatment.259
Adigeni
The Muslim population of Adigeni village, Adigeni municipality, collected signatures re-
questing the allocation of land for a Muslim cemetery from the Council of Adigeni in May
2015. The Muslim community first encountered the problem a few years ago, when a suit-
able space could not be found. Due to the lack of a separate cemetery in the village, families
were obliged to bury the deceased in other villages/regions. On 25 February 2015, State
Agency for Religious Issues addressed the Adigeni Municipality with the recommendation
to allocate land for a separate Muslim cemetery.
On 29 February 2016, during an outdoor public gathering in the center of the village to
discuss the issue, a segment of the local Orthodox Christian community attacked Muslims
inflicting body injuries on two citizens, while one citizen was taken to hospital due to severe
cardiac arrest.
On 1 March 2016, Adigeni district division of MIA launched an investigation into the facts
of persecution of the Muslim population of Adigeni village on the grounds of religion and
faith. The MIA states that the investigation did not reveal any evidence of religious persecu-
tion, so the case was eventually closed. Six persons were charged with 100 GEL260 adminis-
trative fine for disorderly conduct.261
259 European Court of Human Rights, application N 54217/16.

260 100 GEL is approx. 35 USD and 32 EUR.
261 Letter of MIA #1621960, 1 July 2016.
94
4.3. Case of Vagif Akperov, former Sheikh

of the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia
The forced resignation of Vagif Akperov, the former Sheikh of Administration of All Muslims
of Georgia is a clear case of the State’s intrusion into the activities of religious organizations.
Vagif Akperov, whose interests are represented by TDI, has been a Muslim religious leader
since 1996. He participates in different formats of interreligious dialogue and is engaged in
various civic activities.
Sine 2011, Vagif Akperov held the position of Sheikh (highest religious position of Shia Mus-
lims) of the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia262 and served at the central Jumma
mosque of Tbilisi. In 2012, after the change of the government, the State started exerting
pressure over him and interfering with the autonomy of the religious organization.
On 27 December 2013, he was summoned to one of the buildings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
(so-called “Module” building), where, according to him, he was threatened with the dissemination
of his personal information and ruining his reputation. MIA staff present at the meeting also hinted
that his family would experience certain problems if he refused to resign, continuing to attend the
mosque, talking to human rights organizations and media instead about this occurrence.
As a result of pressure, Akperov wrote a resignation letter, as dictated by the representative

of MIA, in the same building.
According to the religious leader, on 9 January 2014, the letter that he wrote under duress
appeared at the session of the religious council (a management body of the Administration)
and the council decided to release the Sheikh of his duties.
Since 9 January 2014 (the day his resignation took effect), he has been repeatedly contact-
ed by strangers (he assumes, MIA representatives), offering high-paid jobs in various enti-
ties (including Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation and Gardabani Thermal Power Station), to
buy his silence. However, the former Sheikh has turned down all such offers.
262 Administration of All Muslims of Georgia is a religious entity which existed before 2011 amendments of the Civic
Code of Georgia as a non-entrepreneurial non-commercial entity. After these amendments, the organization registered
as the legal entity of public law.
95
On 27 April 2016, after the joint appeal of the Public Defender of Georgia and Vagif Akper-
ov,263 the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched an investigation into the alleged abuse
of power by a state official, according to article 333(3)C of the Criminal Code of Georgia.
However, relevant actions have not been taken to ensure an effective investigation, and
no legal measures have been achieved. As of January 2020, Vagif Akperov has not been
recognized as a victim, no one has been charged, the case remains open.
The case of Vagif Akperov contains signs of crime and evidences the ineffective response
from law enforcement agencies on cases concerning religious minorities as well as harsh
intervention of the State into the activities of religious entities.
It is important to note that the elections of the Mufti (leader of Sunni direction of the orga-
nization) of the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia were held on 25 December 2019.
Right after the elections, some staff left the Administration as a sign of protest. Represen-
tatives of Muslim community argued that the State once again harshly interfered into the
autonomy of the organization and the elections were held with participation of the State’s
security service.264
4.4. Analysis of the human rights violations

of Jehovah’s Witnesses
The violation of rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a long sustained issue in Georgia, the num-
ber of violent occurrences targeting them and the State’s response indicates the poor sit-
uation pertaining to securing the freedom of religion or belief in Georgia. Among other
reasons, due to the ineffective policy of the State, deeply rooted stereotypes and an ac-
tive representation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are frequently victims of violations on the
grounds of religious intolerance.
The Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses tracks every case and tries to address the issues
using legal mechanisms both on national as well as international levels.
263 Rustavi 2: Case of Vagif Akperov, 2016, available at http://tdi.ge/ge/multimedia/rustavi-2-vagip-akperovis-sakme

264 Four employees of Administration of Muslims quit posts in protest, 25.12.2019 https://1tv.ge/en/news/four-
employees-of-administration-of-muslims-quit-posts-in-protest/.
96
Crimes against this religious community often include physical violence, interference with
religious rituals, damaging houses of worship, assets and religious literature. For years, the
response of law enforcement bodies has raised red flags. In many cases, investigations are
never launched, or are prolonged for unreasonable time, crimes are often qualified inade-
quately, and charges are rarely made.
The past few years have seen persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses by Orthodox Christian
religious leaders. An alleged discriminatory attitude towards Jehovah’s Witnesses has been
displayed by public servants, including law enforcement officers. Offences against this re-
ligious community, as a rule, are not one-off occurrences, as the perpetrators often repeat-
edly violate the rights of this community members on purpose.
Similar to violations against other religious groups, the reported cases involving violence
against Jehovah’s Witnesses have dramatically increased since 2013. This increase has been
highlighted in the annual parliamentary reports of the Public Defender of Georgia as well
as statistics conducted by the Jehovah’s Witness community.
The case analysis suggests that the response of the State to crimes committed on the
grounds of religious intolerance is inconsistent, inappropriate and delayed. Therefore, the
State has failed to ensure the protection of constitutional rights of religious communities.
At the same time, common courts, regardless of the motives of religious intolerance, often
prescribe rather light sanctions.
It is to be noted that the situation regarding crimes committed against Jehovah’s Witness-
es improved in the period 2015-2019. During the previous years, investigations were not
launched based on the correct articles of the Criminal Code which consider religious intol-
erance as the motive, but recently, more investigations are initiated based on Articles 155
(illegal interference with religious rituals) and 156 (persecution on the ground of religion or
belief ) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. However, regardless of an adequate qualification
of the offense, the Prosecutor’s Office still fails to assign the status of victim and to indict
individuals for such crimes.
97
2010 – 2019 statistics of crimes committed against Jehovah’s Witnesses
100
85
75
51
50
46
26 24
25
20
14
9 10
5
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Remark: In the statistical data below, the total numbers of criminal offences committed
against Jehovah’s Witnesses are presented according to the years, 2010 to 2019. Each annu-
al category consists of subcategories showing different types/cases of religious intolerance.
For instance, one incident may include different types/cases of intolerance: physical vio-
lence along with property damage; or physical violence may be directed against more than
one person, or it could be committed repeatedly by the same perpetrator. Consequently,
the number of different types of religious intolerance and criminal offences in subcatego-
ries may exceed the number of total annual incidents.
2019: According to the information of the Jehovah’s Witness Christian Organization, 24

criminal offenses have been committed against Jehovah’s Witnesses on the grounds of
religious intolerance:
} Physical violence – 8
} Vandalism/destroying religious literature and/or stands, cars and other property – 7
} Vandalism/ damage of religious buildings – 5
98
} Interference with religious rituals – 11

} Other cases of religious intolerance – 1
2018: 20 criminal offenses on the grounds of religious intolerance:

} Vandalism/property damage – 8
} Discriminatory treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses by public servants – 1

} Discriminatory treatment from law enforcement bodies – 1

2015: 51 offenses on the grounds of religious intolerance:

} Vandalism/destroying religious literature and/or stands, cars and other property – 13
} Vandalism/damage of religious buildings – 12
2014: 85 criminal offences (maximum number) on the grounds of religious intolerance:

} Vandalism/damage of property – 26
} Discriminatory treatment from law-enforcers or other state officials – 3
99
According to the information provided by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Organization, offenses

reached the peak with most of them involving physical assaults. When compared to previ-
ous years, the number of offenses targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses’ assets has increased. At
the same time, physical violence was accompanied with verbal abuse, threats, undignified
treatment, while the statements and actions of perpetrators displayed signs of religious
motives.
Actions against Jehovah’s Witnesses were often organized by religious persons (clergy of
Georgian Orthodox Church), or with their active participation. Similar to previous years,
law enforcement agencies refrained from effectively responding to and/or limiting their
response to mere verbal warnings in clear cases of crime.
2013: The number of offenses against Jehovah’s Witnesses significantly increased. 46 crim-
inal offenses on the grounds of religious intolerance:
} Physical Violence – 26;
} Vandalism/destroying religious literature and/or stands – 7;
} Vandalism/damage of religious buildings – 16
2012: 9 Criminal offenses on the grounds of religious intolerance:

} Physical violence – 3;
} Vandalism/property damage – 4.


100
4.5. Court Statistics of crimes committed on the grounds

of religious intolerance
Available statistics of Courts examining cases of offenses motivated by religious intolerance

is low. According to the Supreme Court of Georgia,265 between 2014-2019:
For offenses regulated by Article 155 (illegal interference with religious rituals) of the Crim-
inal Code of Georgia:
} Courts of first instances only received four cases (1 in 2014, 1 in 2016, 2 in 2019)
} Courts of Appeal received one case (2015)
} The Cassation Court, during the above period of time, did not receive any criminal cases
on the above-mentioned grounds.
There were guilty verdicts in one case in 2014, one case in 2016 and one case in 2019.
For offenses regulated by Article 156 (persecution on religious grounds) of the Criminal
Code of Georgia:
} Courts of first instances received 26 cases for examination (5 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 9 in 2016,
5 in 2017, none in 2018, 4 in 2019)
} Courts of Appeal received nine cases (2 in 2014, 2 in 2015, 3 in 2016, 1 in 2017, 2 in 2018).
} The Cassation Court, during the above period of time received one criminal case that was
finalized in 2019.
There were guilty verdicts in 3 cases in 2014, 4 cases in 2015, 5 cases in 2016, 5 cases in 2017,
1 case in 2018 and 3 cases in 2019.
According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, in 2019 the following cases with grounds of
religious discrimination were also filed for consideration in district (city) courts of Georgia:
} One case was filed under Article 19-109 (2d) – attempted murder, motivated by racial,
religious, national or ethnic intolerance.
265 Supreme Court of Georgia, Letter N პ-492-18 and N პ-27-20.
101
} Two cases were filed for consideration under Article 11¹–126 (2Z) – domestic crime, vio-
lence motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance.
For offenses regulated through Article 166 (interference with creation of political, pub-
lic or religious unions and interference with their activities) of the Criminal Code of
Georgia, none of the cases was received by common courts during the above period of
time.
4.6. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down important judgments con-
cerning cases against Georgia with respect to the freedom of religion or belief. At present,
all judgments concern the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In three of the cases, the ECtHR
found a violation of the rights of claimants, while another case ended in settlement as the
Georgian state recognized the violation of rights.
97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4

Others v. Georgia
The first judgment of its kind, 97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
and 4 Others v. Georgia266 was handed down by the ECtHR on 3 May 2007, which established
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience
and religion), taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Eu-
ropean Convention on Human Rights.
On 17 October 1999, up to 120 Jehovah’s Witnesses had a religious gathering in Gldani

district, Tbilisi, where they were attacked by a group of extremist Orthodox believers
led by Basil Mkalavishvili, a defrocked priest. Police officials at the scene did not react
to the violence. The State’s failure to act encouraged religious extremism and provoked
further attacks.
266 European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 71156/01.
102
The ECtHR noted that the inaction of the law enforcement bodies which were responsible
for conducting the criminal investigation minimized the effectiveness of any possible ap-
peal mechanisms.
Competent bodies failed to fulfil their responsibilities in taking adequate measures to en-
sure that the group of Orthodox extremists demonstrated tolerance towards the claimant
religious group, allowing them to exercise religious freedom.
The Court considered that the negligent attitude on the part of the police and investigation
authorities, enabled Basil Mkalavishvili to continue to advocate hatred through the media
and to pursue acts of religiously-motivated violence.
Begheluri and others v. Georgia
On 7 October 2014, the European Court of Human Rights handed down another judgment
in the case Begheluri and others v. Georgia.267
A collective application submitted to the ECtHR in 2002 described several attacks, with spe-
cial attention paid to the case of 8 September 2000, involving a dispersal of a gathering of
up to 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses by extremist groups.
The application brings together four cases of violence on grounds of religious intolerance, with
the direct involvement of police officers and other representatives of authorities. It also includes
four other cases, where indirect involvement of these individuals was confirmed. In total, up to 30
cases are described and despite claimants requesting an investigation to be launched in each case,
their complaints were refused. The applicants produced statements of more than 100 victims and
witnesses of the alleged violence, photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks
were taking place, photographs of the injured applicants, as well as video recordings and photo-
graphs of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked.
In the given case, the ECtHR concluded that the relevant authorities were ineffective in
preventing and stopping the religiously motivated violence. Through the conduct of their
103
agents, who either participated directly in the attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses or by their
acquiescence and connivance into the unlawful activities of private individuals, the Geor-
gian authorities created a climate of impunity, which ultimately encouraged other attacks
against Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the country. Furthermore, the Government failed
to redress the violations, thereby neglecting the inherent preventive and deterrent effect
in relation to future violations against Jehovah’s Witnesses. The relevant authorities failed
in their duty to take necessary measures to ensure that Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to
exercise their right to freedom of religion. Various forms of violence directed against the ap-
plicants either by State agents or private individuals were instigated by a bigoted attitude
towards the Jehovah’s Witness community. Secondly, the very same discriminatory state of
mind was at the core of the relevant public authorities’ failure to investigate the incidents of
religiously motivated violence in an effective manner, which confirmed that the authorities,
at least, tolerated that violence.
The ECtHR concluded that there were violations of Article 9 (freedom of thought, con-
science and religion) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) taken in conjunction with Article
14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
Tsartsidze and others v. Georgia
On 17 January 2017, the European Court of Human Rights issued another judgment in the
case Tsartsidze and others v. Georgia,268 establishing a violation of Article 9 (freedom of reli-
gion) of the Convention taken separately, and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination).
The application of three cases taking place during 2000-2001 was filed at the ECtHR in 2004. The
applicants complained about a breach of the Convention on account of the religiously moti-
vated violence to which they had been subjected; also on the failure of the law enforcement to
prevent the violence, and the domestic courts’ failure to provide redress for the violations.
At no stage of the proceedings did the domestic courts make any attempt to establish the
possible discriminatory motive behind the acts of the police officers. Even more to the point,
104
they did not ask the police why, instead of dispersing the religious gathering, they had not
taken any measures to ensure that the applicants’ religious rights had been adequately pro-
tected via, inter alia, ensuring the meeting could be conducted safely and securely.
Gabunia and others v. Georgia
In the case of Gabunia and others v. Georgia269 submitted in 2005, the applicants complained
under Article 9 of the Convention taken separately, and in conjunction with Article 14 of a
breach of their right to freely practice their religion. The claimants referred to religious per-
secution and mob attacks that took place between 1999-2003. The Government of Georgia
acknowledged the violation of freedom of religion or belief and freedom from discrimina-
tion against Jehovah’s Witnesses and asked the Court to strike out the case. As a result, the
parties came to an agreement and thus, the State managed to avert the fourth judgment of
the ECtHR against Georgia on violations of freedom of religion and belief.270
It should be noted that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees
the execution of judgments of the ECtHR by member states, still does not consider the judg-
ments on the above cases as executed. In its resolution of 25 September 2019,271 the Com-
mittee of Ministers noted that the Georgian state still needs to ensure full implementation
of individual measures on these cases. The Committee urged the Georgian Government to
give full effect to the criminal law protection against crimes based on discriminatory mo-
tives, in particular when committed by law enforcement officials, through a general policy
of considering such motives as aggravating circumstances for punishment or considering
such crimes as serious crimes, and through more effective investigations.

270 European Court of Human Rights Accepts Georgia’s Admission of Guilt. 24 October, 2017, https://www.jw.org/en/
news/legal/by-region/georgia/echr-accepts-georgias-admission-of-guilt/.
271 Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe, Resolution CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8, 25 September 2019
Available at: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=CM/Del/Dec(2019)1355/H46-8E.
105
Chapter V. Problems related to

property of religious organizations
Among the major problems faced by religious minorities is the issue related to ownership of
property, including houses of worship. They face barriers in attempting to regain property
confiscated by Soviet authorities or obtain permits for the construction of new houses of
worship. This problem is coupled with discrimination found in Georgian legislation which
imposes restrictions on religious organizations, except for the Patriarchate of the Georgian
Orthodox Church, to claim back or purchase property.272
5.1. Problem of restitution of property confiscated

by Soviet authorities
In the 20th century, Soviet authorities confiscated all types of property including houses of
worship owned by religious communities. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
and Georgia’s independence, only the Georgian Orthodox Church was able to restore their
ownership over confiscated property while other religious groups were not given such a
possibility.
Pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitutional Agreement of 2002 between the Georgian state
and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the State recognizes the mate-
rial and moral damages sustained by the Orthodox Church during the 19th and 20th centuries.
By signing the Agreement, the State, as a factual owner of confiscated property, took over
the responsibility to partially compensate for the material loss sustained by the Church. Since
2002, the State has provided annual allocations from the central budget to the Georgian Patri-
archate.273 As for property of the Orthodox Church, pursuant to Article 7 of the Constitutional
Agreement, “the State recognizes Orthodox churches and cathedrals, monasteries (functional
and non-functional), their ruins and land on which such buildings are located as the property
of the Church”. In addition to the property that had belonged to the Orthodox Church, the lat-
272 For further information on discriminatory norms in the Georgian legislation see Chapter III. Inequality in the
Georgian legislation.
273 For more information on these issues see Chapter I. The State and religion, sub-chapter: policy and practice of state
funding for religious organizations.
106
Chapter V. Problems related to property of religious organizations
ter also received property originally owned by other religious groups. The Orthodox Church
uses these assets and refuses to yield them to original owners.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Georgian state came to own most of the con-
fiscated property. However, the authorities have not yet demonstrated a will to return the
property to other religious communities. In fact, since Georgia’s independence until the
present day, no legal or political measures have been taken to ensure the return of hous-
es of worship to religious minorities. Even though governmental and interreligious bodies
have been set up on several occasions to trace the origins and historical owners of contest-
ed religious buildings, these bodies remained a formality without having undertaken any
effective measures.
In 2014, a recommendatory commission related to finances and property of religious com-

munities was set up at the State Agency for Religious Issues.274 According to its mandate,
which is rather vague, the commission is assigned to review matters in relation to the trans-
fer of religious buildings and the issuing of construction permits to religious organizations.
However, there are no legal grounds which would authorize either the commission or the
Agency itself to interfere in administrative proceedings related to the disposition of the
State-owned property or issuance of construction permits.
The process of transferring houses of worship to religious groups has been repeatedly dis-
played in reports prepared by the State Agency for Religious Issues as the return of the
property confiscated during the Soviet totalitarian regime.275 In fact, all those transactions
that the administrative body label as “return” constitute a mere transfer of property howev-
er, without possession. The use of this term by the State is misleading to many. For instance,
in its reports the Agency points out that during 2014-2017, 170 mosques were handed over
to the Muslim community276 which is distorted as the Muslim community have not received
any property in ownership.
Importantly, the majority of religious buildings are monuments of cultural heritage. While
the problem of historical and confessional ownership remains in limbo, the property is un-
274 Order 6/1 of 2014 of the head of the State Agency for Religious Issues.
275 2015 Report of the State Agency for Religious Issues. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2I637Df.
276 2016-2017 report of the State Agency for Religious Issues, available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2TbkS96.
107
der a looming risk of being destroyed despite the State being officially responsible for its
maintenance. Meanwhile, the historical buildings transferred to the Georgian Patriarchate
have lost their authenticity with the original characteristics of the buildings erased to re-
move evidence of their historical and confessional origin.
Due to the absence of a restitution policy:
} The State has not conducted an inventory/calculation of damages sustained by religious

organizations under the Soviet regime;
} Nor has the State developed any policy with respect to compensation of damages or
return of community property;
} There are no legal regulations which would allow religious groups to demand that reli-
gious property be returned to them and/or compensated against;
} Ownership of numerous religious buildings contested by more than one religious orga-
nization remain unresolved;
} The absence of a restitution policy puts religious organizations under unequal conditions
vis-à-vis the dominant religious group. As of today, the Georgian Patriarchate continues
to receive religious property that had been historically owned by the latter as well as new
State-owned property and assets belonging to other religious groups.
In a third opinion on Georgia of 7 March 2019, the Advisory Committee on the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities points out that religious minorities are
confronted with structural discrimination in accessing funding possibilities and places of
worship. Restitution procedures and construction permit procedures in relation to places
of worship are not sufficiently transparent and are not based on clear and objective legal
criteria. The Committee calls on the State authorities to ensure that the process of restitu-
tion of property to religious communities is carried out in a non-discriminatory manner.277
Problems in relation to confiscated property affect the Armenian Apostolic, Catholic, Evan-
gelical-Lutheran, Muslim and Jewish religious communities the most.
277 Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Third Opinion on
Georgia. Para 17 and 88, Available at: https://bit.ly/32vJb5V.
108
Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church
The Georgian diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy Church lost numerous reli-
gious buildings to the Soviet authorities. Part of this property has been destroyed while the
remaining part remains under the State’s ownership. The issues related to the return of up to
10 religious buildings have remained a pressing problem over the course of many years.278
The majority of the houses of worship are enlisted as monuments of cultural heritage and
currently are part of the State’s property. These buildings are often referred to as “contested”
since the Georgian Patriarchate has also claimed the property right. The Patriarchate suc-
cessfully managed to obtain the property right for one Armenian Church in 2017.279
In 2013, an interagency commission was set up to shed light over the situation with respect
to Armenian religious buildings.280 However, on 25 June 2015, an ordinance of 28 June 2013
which provided the grounds for setting up the commission, was revoked without yielding
any tangible results.
It should be noted that the current condition of Armenian religious buildings requires imme-
diate attention. For instance, the Shamkhoretsots Surb Astvatsatsin church in Tbilisi’s Avlabari
district has fallen into ruin. Since 2007, the church has held the status of a cultural heritage site
and it is located in the Tbilisi cultural heritage protection zone. In 2017, the Tbilisi City Hall issued
a construction permit for a several-storey building next to the church (the distance between
the buildings is 4-5 metres), which blatantly violated the standards for the protection of cultur-
al heritage sites and threatened the steadiness of the already crumbled church281. In 2009, the
Mughnetsots Surb Gevorg on Akhospireli street, Tbilisi, collapsed. Similarly, in 2002, the Surb
Nshan church in Old Tbilisi sustained considerable damage as a result of fire. Again, in 2012, a
fire broke out in suspicious circumstances and the main pillar supporting the dome collapsed.
278 These buildings include: in Tbilisi – Surb Nshan, Mughnetsots Surb Gevorq, Norashen Surb Astsvatstsin,
Shamkhoretsots Surb Astvatsatsin, Surb Ejmiatsin, Erevantsots Surb Minas, Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin and Surb
Nshan (Akhaltsikhe).
279 Tolerance and Diversity Institute: Government of Georgia transferred Tandoyants Temple to the Orthodox Church,
https://bit.ly/2OUb8Pr 17 December 2017.
280 Resolution N671 of the Government of Georgia on setting up the interagency commission for the study of matters
related to privately owned immovable property adjacent to Mughnis, Surb Minas and Surb Nishan churches. 28 June
2013.
281 Tolerance and Diversity Institute, Construction next to the historical Armenian Church, 11 September 2017, Available
in Georgian: https://bit.ly/2PowVyH.
109
In addition, there have been several attempts to erase the traces of the Armenian culture
in churches of Armenian origin. In 2008, an Orthodox priest moved the gravestones of Ar-
menians buried in the yard of Norashen, one of the contested churches in Tbilisi. Further-
more, unidentified persons placed a gravestone with Georgian inscription in the yard of the
church. The dais of the church was also destroyed.
In the second report on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
the Georgian Government stated that in 2011, the paperwork for the reconstruction of the
Armenian churches of Mughnisi (also known as Mughnetsots Surb Gevorg), Surb Nshan and
Norashen was finalized.282 According to a representative of the Armenian Apostolic Church,
State authorities carried out reinforcement work on Norashen church in Tbilisi. According to
the third report on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, reha-
bilitation works on Norashen Virgin Mary Church were completed. The works had been fund-
ed by the Foundation for the Rescue and Preservation of Historical Monuments of Georgia.283
The cases of Armenian churches, Tandoyants and Surb Nshan reveal the dire consequences
caused by the absence of a restitution policy, differential treatment of religious minority
communities and the State’s negligence towards these issues.
Case of Tandoyants Church
An Armenian church known as Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin is located at 38 Agmashen-

ebeli Avenue, Tbilisi. Before Soviet Occupation, the church belonged to the Armenian Ap-
ostolic Orthodox Church. In 1924, the Soviet totalitarian regime confiscated the property
and shut down the church. The historical and confessional origin of the church is proved by
official documents issued by the State as well as numerous historical and archived sources.
Until 2017, the church was enlisted under the State’s ownership. However, in 2017, the State
transferred the church to the Patriarchate. More specifically, by order of the National Agen-
282 Second report submitted by Georgia pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2 of the framework convention for the protection
of national minorities. Council of Europe, 2012. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Dis
playDCTMContent?documentId=090000168008b5b5
283 Third report submitted by Georgia pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2 of the framework convention for the protection
of national minorities. Council of Europe, 2017. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/third-state-report-georgia/168075fc5e
110
cy of State Property of 10 July 2016, the State’s entitlement to the church was revoked as
per request of the Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church of Georgia. On 18 July 2017, the
National Agency of Public Registry made a decision to officially register the property under
the Patriarchate’s ownership. The decision-making body on the ownership of the property
had not even looked into the confessional origin of the building.
Upon gaining entitlement to the ownership of Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin, the Patriarchate
immediately started excavations and cleaning the church’s ground. It should be noted that
the church is subject to regulations stipulated by Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, accord-
ing to which no works shall be carried out in relation to the church without a special permit.
On 5 June 2018, the Georgian Diocese of Armenian Apostolic Church lodged a complaint284
against the National Agency of Public Registry at Tbilisi City Court demanding that the en-
titlement of the Georgian Patriarchate to the ownership of Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin
be revoked. Simultaneously, the Georgian Diocese also filed a complaint against the State
Agency of State Property in relation to the latter’s decision by which the Patriarchate had
encountered no obstacles while claiming entitlement over the church.
By a decision of 24 January 2019, the Tbilisi City Court ruled285 against admitting the claim
against the National Agency of State Property for consideration on merits on grounds of
inadmissibility. The Court held that the Armenian Apostolic Church had no legal interest in
this case. Therefore, the court proceedings on the claim were terminated.
The Armenian Apostolic Church challenged the Court’s decision in the Tbilisi Court of Ap-
peals. However, on 29 March 2019,286 the Appeals Chamber voted against the appeal and
upheld the decision of the City Court.
The legal proceedings against the National Agency of Public Registry were halted until the
finalization of proceedings against the National Agency of State Property. On 12 Decem-
ber 2019, the Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court decided against admitting the
claim for consideration on merits. The legal proceedings of this case are ongoing.
284 Interests of the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church are represented by TDI and EMC.
285 Judgement of Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court, 24 January 2019. Case N3/155-18.
286 Tbilisi Court of Appeals, Chamber of Administrative Cases, 29 March 2019. Case N 3ბ/705-19.
111
Importantly, the case of Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin is rather significant as a judicial prece-
dent with respect to the restitution of religious buildings in Georgia as it allowed a religious
association to engage in the legal battle over winning the right to historical property. On the
other hand, the judicial authorities have a responsibility of great importance to deliberate on
issues around the restitution of historical property, ensuring the protection of the property
right and freedom of religion or belief. What is particularly concerning is the Court’s decision
not to admit the case for consideration on merits. The Court decided against recognizing the
Armenian Apostolic Church as a subject with legal interest with the right to challenge the
lawfulness of the transfer of its historical property to another religious organization.287
Case of Surb Nshan Church
The Armenian church of Surb Nshan at 6 Sultnishani street, Tbilisi is an 18th century mon-
ument of cultural heritage. Like other religious buildings, the church was confiscated from
the Armenian Apostolic Church by the Soviet regime and was put to use for other various
purposes. After the restoration of Georgia’s independence, the church became State prop-
erty and remains so to this day.
By an order of Tbilisi municipality of September 2016, an owner of the land adjacent to the
grounds of Surb Nshan was allowed to proceed with the construction which put the church,
already in a dire state, under great danger. By issuing the above order, the Tbilisi City Hall
violated the interests of the Armenian Apostolic Church to maintain authenticity of a histor-
ical house of worship and protect the monument of cultural heritage.
On 10 April 2018, the Armenian Apostolic Church filed a complaint against Tbilisi City Hall
to Tbilisi City Court288 and demanded that the order of the Mayor of Tbilisi on a zonal agree-
ment be revoked.
287 Justification part of the decision of Tbilisi City Court states that “the claimant failed to produce any document
confirming their entitlement to contested immovable property which would generate any kind of legal right in relation
to the contested property should the challenged administrative-legal act be revoked […] The claimant failed to explain
[…] how the claim will protect their rightful interests […] if the administrative-legal act in question is rendered invalid
[…] The court believes that there is no interest recognized and protected by law which generates entitlement of the
claimant with respect to subject matter of the claim.” (Judgement of Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court, 24
January 2019, case N3/1555-18).
288 Interests of the Georgian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Holy Church are represented by TDI.
112
On 18 January 2019, the Administrative Cases Panel at Tbilisi City Court ruled against
proceeding with the case.289 Similar to the case of Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin church,
the Court refused to recognize the Armenian Apostolic Church as a subject with legal
interest whose rights and interests may be violated by the order issued by Tbilisi City
Hall.
In March 2019, the Armenian Apostolic Church appealed against the judgment to the Tbilisi
Court of Appeals. As of January 2020, proceedings on the case are still ongoing.
The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church lost a significant portion of its property under the Soviet totalitarian
regime. The majority of the property has not yet been regained. The Catholic Church has
been trying to reclaim ownership over seven churches in six locations, Gori, Ivlita village of
Akhaltsikhe municipality, in the villages of Ude and Buzmareti of Adigeni municipality, as
well as in Kutaisi and Batumi. As of today, these houses of worship are owned by the Geor-
gian Orthodox Church and are enlisted as monuments of cultural heritage.
It should be noted that in 2001, the Roman-Catholic Church, acting in the name of Savardi,
a legal entity under private law, attempted to reclaim Kutaisi Catholic Church that had been
transferred to the Orthodox Church through a legal dispute. However, the Supreme Court
of Georgia argued the contested church was Orthodox since the church was used by the
Orthodox Church, ignoring the fact that up until 1939 the church in question had been
religious property of the Catholic Community.
Importantly, direct and exclusive ties between Savardi and Catholic religious organizations
active in the past in Georgia had been recognized by the Holy See and confirmed by the
289 Justification part of a decision by Tbilisi City Court states that “the claimant fails to provide evidence for direct and
immediate damage sustained by them or violation of their rights and interests caused by the contested individual
administrative-legal act. In addition, case files do not include any document which would prove the right of the
claimant to the immovable property in question and the presence of which would qualify the claimant as a subject
with legal interest in relation to the subject matter of the complaint. Considering the above said, their demand that the
contested act be revoked is inadmissible since, as indicated above, the presence of legal interest, which is the paramount
requirement of the law, cannot be established”. (see Judgment of Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court, 16
January, 2019. Case N3/2172-18).
113
Apostolic Administrator of the Catholic Church in the South Caucasus. However, the Court
did not qualify the claimant as the legal successor of Catholic organization.
The Orthodox Church’s attempts to change the appearance of Catholic churches have gone
unnoticed by the State even though the churches are enlisted as monuments of cultural
heritage. For instance, in 2012, the local Orthodox clergy in Ude village took over repairing
the dome of Ude Catholic church at their own will. The State did not undertake any mea-
sures to ensure that the building maintains its historical appearance.
The Armenian Catholic Church of Batumi was built in 1877. After Soviet Occupation, the
church was shut down. On the restoration of Georgia’s independence, the church was not
returned to the religious community. The monument, enlisted as a cultural heritage site, is
now owned by the Georgian Patriarchate. In 2017, the roof of the building collapsed and
the entire building is considerably damaged.
The Holy Mother Virgin Nativity Cathedral in Batumi was built in 1897-1902 with the sup-
port of a Catholic parishioner and benefactor, Stepane Zubalashvili. The cathedral was shut
down under the Soviet rule. In the 1980s, the cathedral was rehabilitated, and its murals
were restored to their original condition. Since 1989, the cathedral has been enlisted as the
property of the Georgian Orthodox Church and Catholic parishioners are not allowed to
perform services in the church. Part of the original frescoes in the church are damaged and
murals on the walls and pillars have been removed. The Catholic Church has long been de-
manding that measures be taken to preserve the church, which is a monument of cultural
heritage, and its historical appearance maintained, but to no avail.
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church
The history of Evangelical-Lutheran houses of worship and other buildings goes back to
1817-1818 when German colonists started settling in Georgia.290 German settlers construct-
ed churches and elementary schools. For example, a small Lutheran church has functioned
in Neu-Tiflis since 1834. Later on, the community started the construction of a larger Lu-
290 Evangelical-Lutheran churches in Georgia, Nestan Tatarashvili, 200th anniversary of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church
of Georgia and South Caucasus, P.82 (Available in Georgian).
114
theran cathedral. By the end of 1819, there were several German settlements, Marienfield,
Neu-Tiflis, Alexanderdorf, Petersdorf, Elisabethhalle, Katarinenfield followed by other settle-
ments in other parts of Georgia.
Lutheran religious communities and parishes eventually ceased to exist under the Soviet
rule. Churches built by German colonists were destroyed or had their functions changed. Ac-
cording to the information provided by the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, there are around
500 members of the community with the majority living in Tbilisi and Bolnisi municipalities.
Currently, several buildings and ruins remain which are of Evangelical-Lutheran origin and
belonged to Georgia’s German community before Soviet Occupation. Since the restoration
of the country’s independence Evangelical-Lutheran Church has repeatedly demanded the
return of its historical property. Representatives of the Church reported that in 2015 they
provided a list of historical buildings to the State Agency for Religious Issues and demand-
ed that they be either returned the property or compensated. However, there has been no
follow up to the letter.
Neu Tiflis Church of Peter and Paul opened in 1946 on Marjanishvili Square, Tbilisi (now,
there is a residential building where the church once stood) was first shut down by the Soviet
authorities in 1946 who forced German captives to dismantle the church. St Paul Luther-
an Church of Alexanderdorf built in the 19th century no longer exists in Tbilisi. Marienfield
church still stands in the village Sartichala, Gardabani municipality, however, it is difficult to
discern the origin of the church since its appearance has been changed and its authenticity
lost. The Lutheran Church of Elisabethhalle and a German cemetery can still be traced in the
village of Asureti, Tetritskaro municipality. The church is enlisted as a monument of cultural
heritage. Part of the building is currently used for Orthodox liturgy. According to the leader-
ship of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, in 2009, they offered the Georgian Patriarchate to
work jointly on the rehabilitation of Asureti Church and arrange space for both denomina-
tions in the church. However, the Patriarchate turned down the offer. In 2017, the Union of the
German Culture Heritage Preservation in the South Caucasus, financially supported by the
German Ministry of Foreign Affairs restored the roof of the Lutheran church of Alexander-
field in the village Trialeti, Tsalka municipality. The Lutheran church of Katerinenfield is now
municipal property while the Lutheran church of Traubenberg and the community center
now homes a local house of culture. The German cemetery is still preserved in the vicinity.
115
Muslim community
The Muslim community lost numerous mosques during the Soviet regime. Part of these
buildings are now destroyed while some of them have had their functions changed. For
instance, the Shah Ismail Blue Mosque was destroyed in 1951 together with the Metekhi
bridge. Most of the surviving mosques are currently State-owned.
Before Soviet Occupation, there were seven mosques functioning in Tbilisi together with
a Shia mosque. As of today, only a Sunni mosque known as Juma Mosque (at Botanikuri
street), remains, which is a place of worship for both Sunni and Shia Muslim communities.
According to the 2016-2017 report of the State Agency for Religious Issues, the State re-
turned 170 mosques to the Muslim community all over Georgia.291 However, this informa-
tion is misleading: what the Agency labels as “transfer/return” is in fact the transfer of prop-
erty without the right to ownership. Under these circumstances, a religious organization is
restricted in their disposition of property (e.g. they cannot sell or carry out rehabilitation
work on the property). In addition, the State retains the right to take back the transferred
property.
The Muslim community have not yet been afforded the right to carry out work on 20 reli-
gious buildings in Achara which are about to collapse due to lack of care and maintenance.
The developments unfolding since 2014 around the mosque in the village of Mokhe, Adige-
ni municipality, deserves close attention in light of restitution policy.
The problem of the contested building in village Mokhe
The Mokhe mosque was built in the first half of the 20th century by the Meskh Muslim com-
munity. The architectural details, typical for mosques, are still discernible on the building.
During Soviet times, the building was used as a warehouse, a library and a village club. In
2007, the mosque became the property of Adigeni municipality council.
291 State Agency for Religious Issues, 2016-2017 annual report. Tbilisi, 2018.
116
In the 1990s, the local Muslim community started actively campaigning for the conserva-
tion and restoration of the building and repeatedly appealed to State authorities, but the
efforts have not yielded any results. The Muslim community were primarily concerned with
the dire need for conservation, fencing and protection of the mosque. However, in 2014,
the local authorities decided to renovate the building and open a musical, choreographic
and ethnographic center on its grounds.
On 18 October 2014, a company who won the tender announced by local authorities, start-
ed dismantling the building. However, as a result of a protest of the local Muslim commu-
nity, the works were temporarily interrupted – the works resumed on 22 October 2014.
Amidst the protest, law enforcement officers physically and verbally insulted the Muslims
and detained 14 participants of the protest. 292
In the aftermath of the developments of October 2014, the Georgian Patriarchate advanced
towards claiming the building stating that until the 18th century, there had been a Christian
church where the mosque now stands. They also stressed that the mosque is built with
stones from the original Christian church. Importantly, the Patriarchate had not produced
any historical evidence or expert opinion to support their claim.
In 2014, in an alleged attempt to establish the origin of the contested building, the State Agency
set up a “commission to look into matters related to the building enlisted as a club and located in
village Mokhe, Adigeni municipality” with representatives of local Christian and Muslim commu-
nities, local authorities, the Ministry of Culture and Monuments Protection and the State Agency
for Religious Issues itself as members of the commission. Despite the demand of the Muslim
community, the State Agency for Religious Issues refused to invite the independent experts and
the Public Defender to participate in the work of the commission. Throughout the two years,
the commission failed to attain any of the set goals nor had it taken any tangible measures. On
11 May 2017, the commission made the final decision293 against transferring and returning the
building to its historical owner. Instead, the mosque was transferred to the National Agency of
State Property and enlisted as a monument of cultural heritage with the status of the “contested
building”. The decision also set a condition under which LEPL, the Administration of All Muslims
of Georgia would receive a plot of land in Mokhe to construct a new mosque.
292 For more information see Chapter IV – Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and State policy.
293 A statement of the State Agency for Religious Issues. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/32n6W00.
117
In 2018, the local Muslim community appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Com-
mittee on matters related to the Mokhe historical mosque.294 As of 2020, the appeal is yet
to be finalized.
Jewish community
Like other religious organizations, the Jewish community too, has lost religious property
under Soviet rule. To this day, the State has not yet transferred any property to them and
synagogues, which survived destruction under the Soviet regime, remain state property.
The Great Synagogue of Tbilisi remains under State ownership while LEPL, Georgian Jews
Union has the legal privilege to use the building. The same arrangement applies to syn-
agogues located in Gori, Akhaltsikhe, Oni, Sachkhere, Batumi (Vazha-Pshavela street 33),
Martvili, and Senaki. Another of Batumi’s synagogues (Nine Marti street 6), the building
which has sustained serious damage over the years, also remains State property. In 2015,
part of the building collapsed. In the same year, the building was handed over to the Jews
Union with the right to use. The second synagogue in Akhaltsikhe (Guramishvili street) was
shut down in 1953 by the Soviet authorities and converted to first, a library and then, a gym.
As of today, the building is damaged and not fit for function.
Some of the property which belonged to the Jewish community in the past are currently
privately owned. For instance, the former building of the synagogue in Tbilisi now homes
the Royal District Theater. In 1988, the building was transferred to the State Drama Theater
with the privilege to use. However, in 2001, a ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia made
the Jewish religious organization a co-owner of the building. The Union decided to relin-
quish the building in favor of the theater.295 The decision has been challenged by the big
part of the Jewish community who have repeatedly pleaded to retain ownership over the
building. The building of a Jewish museum (former synagogue) at Anton Katalikosi street 3,
Tbilisi, remains under State ownership.
294 A statement of the Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center – EMC submitted a complaint to the UN Human
Rights Committee on the Mokhe historic mosque case, 13 April 2018. Available at: https://bit.ly/2SULNam.
295 Tolerance and Diversity Institute, Assessment of the needs of religious organizations in Georgia, Tbilisi, 2014 https://
tdi.ge/sites/default/files/assessment_of_the_needs_of_religious_organizations_in_georgia_tdi.pdf.
118
5.2. Problems related to the construction of new houses

of worship
One of the core components of the freedom of religion is the right of individuals and groups
to freely exercise and/or participate in religious rituals and have access to adequate spaces
to do so. Georgian legislation sets forth a unified standard for the construction of any build-
ing except for those with a specific function (e.g. hydropower station, gas station etc). The
general rules for issuing permits applies to the construction of houses of worship.
Matters related to the issuing of construction permits are regulated by a combination of

laws and by-laws. Regardless of the fact that the law prescribes equal treatment for all indi-
viduals and entities with respect to construction, non-dominant religious groups often fall
victim to discrimination.
Issuing construction permits falls within the competence of local authorities. Their discrim-
inatory decisions are often influenced by protests of the Orthodox clergy and parishioners,
who oppose the construction of houses of worship of other religious groups. The role of the
State Agency for Religious Issues in relation to obtaining construction permits by minority
religious communities also raises concerns as the Agency tends to encroach on the powers
of local authorities without any legitimate purpose and legal basis.
The present chapter provides an overview of these artificially constructed barriers that reli-
gious minority organizations face because of the State’s discriminatory treatment.
Case of Savior’s Bible Church
The case of the Savior’s Bible Church is of strategic importance and aims to eliminate dis-
criminatory practice of administrative bodies and illegal interference of the State Agency
for Religious Issues in the process of issuing construction permits. TDI represented the inter-
ests of the religious organization at administrative bodies and courts.
On 19 June 2015, the religious association filed an application to the Architecture Service
of Tbilisi City Hall requesting the establishment of terms and conditions for using a plot of
119
land for construction. Based on the application, the Architecture Service launched admin-
istrative proceedings with the aim of obtaining a permit for the applicant to commence
construction works on the plot of land owned by the applicant. The request was approved
by an order of 18 October 2015 and the Architecture Service of Tbilisi City Hall established
construction terms.
Pursuant to Resolution N57 of the Government of Georgia, the process of obtaining a con-
struction permit consists of three following stages: I stage – the determination of terms for
city-building (approval of terms for usage of a land plot for construction); II stage – agree-
ment on the architectural-construction project (agreement on architectural project, con-
struction and/or technological scheme); III stage – issuance of the permit.
Therefore, in order to complete the stage II, the religious organization filed an application
to the Architecture Service of Tbilisi City Hall. In their interim response of 22 April 2016, the
administrative body rejected the application. More specifically, in order to proceed with the
review of the application, the Architecture Service requested a recommendation from the
State Agency for Religious Issues.
The religious organization appealed against the decision to the Mayor of Tbilisi on 25 May
2016, however, at a preliminary hearing of the administrative action held on 17 June 2016,
a representative of the Architecture Service failed to show up. After the expiration of one
month from the day of the hearing, the religious organization filed a complaint to Tbilisi
City Court requesting that the individual administrative-legal act (an interim response) of
22 April 2016 be revoked and a new act issued.
On 31 January 2017, the City Court upheld the complaint and declared that 1. Pursuant to
the administrative law of Georgia, the administrative body did not have the authority to re-
quest any additional documents or information from the claimant (including a recommen-
dation from the State Agency for Religious Issues) unless specified otherwise by the law; 2.
The Architecture Service of Tbilisi City Hall had no right to order the claimant to produce
any such document. The Architecture Service could, however, apply to the respective body
in order to obtain additional documents or information 3. The Order issued by the Mayor of
Tbilisi was based on misinterpretation of the law, which restricted the right of the claimant
to use the plot of land under their ownership for construction and exploitation.
120
Both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (judgment of 19 April 2018) upheld the
decision made by the City Court.
The case described above is illustrative of the problem which has long been a matter of
concern for religious organizations and NGOs. The ambiguity of the mandate and functions
of the State Agency for Religious Issues allows administrative bodies to create obstacles for
religious organizations. A review of the Savior’s Bible Church case as well as other similar
cases made it clear that the State Agency for Religious Issues demanded that local authori-
ties consult them and obtain their recommendation for each case prior to taking a decision
on issuing permits for the construction of houses of worship to religious organizations. A
letter with this content was presented by the applicant to the Court.
Construction of a new mosque in Batumi
The need for a new mosque has been voiced by Muslim community in Batumi over the
course of many years. The only mosque in the city cannot accommodate believers who
have to perform their religious rite outdoors.
Authorities have repeatedly promised the Muslim community to resolve the problem. At
a meeting with representatives of the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia held on 5
October 2013, then Prime Minister Ivanishvili pledged that he would personally fund the
construction of a mosque.296
The authorities have reneged on every promise they made. On the contrary – it is the au-
thorities that have created the barriers faced by the Muslim community as they try to have
a new mosque constructed. In 2014, the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia appealed
in writing to the Prime Minister. The signatories of the letter waived the demand for the con-
struction of a new mosque and expressed their consent for the enlargement of the existing
mosque in Batumi (Orta Jame). They also urged the Prime Minister to grant a building for
residential purposes of the Administration and another building for a Madrassa. However,
the appeal had not been supported by the majority of the Muslim community and many
296 Dfwatch, Georgia to build new mosque in Batumi, 20 February, 2013

https://dfwatch.net/georgia-to-build-new-mosque-in-batumi-29673-18083.
121
of them stated they did not agree with the content and demands laid down in the appeal.
Those with dissenting views reported that the text was likely to have been written with the
direct involvement of the State Agency for Religious Issues and that Muslim community
members had not contributed in compiling the letter.
Based on this appeal, the State authorities made the decision against building a new
mosque in Batumi and instead, in 2015, transferred property worth GEL 4.486.400297 to the
Administration of All Muslims of Georgia for a mufti residence and a madrassa. The Ad-
ministration received the property with the right to use.298 The enlargement of the existing
mosque, one of the promises that the Government had made, eventually proved to be a
task impossible to execute.
In 2016, after having witnessed the failure of the authorities to deliver on their numerous
promises, an Initiative Group for Mosque Construction in Batumi collected more than 12.000
signatures and petitioned for the allocation of a plot of land to Achara Government, Batumi
City Hall and the Government of Georgia. However, this initiative failed to achieve progress.
After this attempt, the Foundation for the Construction of a New Mosque in Batumi pur-
chased a plot of land and filed a request to obtain a construction permit to Batumi City Hall
on 8 February 2017. On 5 May 2017, the local authorities rejected the request based on
the following main justifications: 1. The plot of land is located in a residential zone 6, which is
a high intensity residential area where most of the buildings are used for residential purposes.
2. A house of worship requires a specific type of infrastructure with respect to traffic, transport,
parking etc, which are difficult to build on the plot of land in question.
However, interestingly, numerous religious buildings had been constructed in Batumi, in-
cluding in the very same zone 6 and in some instances, plots of land for construction had
been transferred by local authorities themselves to the Georgian Orthodox Church. As a
justification for the refusal, the City Hall indicated an abstract interest of future residential
development of the area in question and by doing so ignored the fundamental rights to
property and the principle of non-discrimination.
297 Appr. 1,482,650 Euros and 1,609,000 US Dollars.

298 Jam-News, Muslims of Batumi: the fight for a new mosque, 13 September, 2017,
https://jam-news.net/muslims-of-batumi-the-fight-for-a-new-mosque/.
122
Parallel to the developments described above, since June 2017, hundreds of Muslim be-
lievers have been regularly performing religious rites outdoors, on the plot of land that
they had purchased. Later they built a temporary wooden construction on the same plot to
perform prayers.
On 10 June 2017, the Foundation for the Construction of a New Mosque appealed against
the decision to Batumi City Court299 demanding the Court to revoke the decision to decline
an application for construction issued by Batumi City Hall, order the City Hall to establish
construction terms for the plot of land purchased by the Muslim community, establish the
case of discrimination and eliminate its consequences.
In 2017, the Public Defender examined the decision of the Mayor of Batumi to ascertain
its legality 300 and established that the decision had been made without due examination
of important circumstances and adequate justification. The Public Defender then issued a
recommendation to Batumi City Hall calling on the latter to revoke its previous decision
and issue a new one based on due justification and consideration of the important circum-
stances.
It took more than two years for Batumi City Court to complete the review of the case. At a
session held on 12 June 2019, the Court offered the parties to strike a deal and gave a dead-
line for negotiations. Two rounds of negotiations between the parties took place on 21 June
and 8 July 2019. A representative of the State Agency for Religious Issues also attended the
meetings.
However, the negotiations did not yield any results. The Mayor of Batumi stated that the
City Hall would only consider issuing a construction permit for a new mosque if the Foun-
dation for the Construction of a New Mosque handed the plot of land that it had purchased
to the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia. The Mayor’s statement once again confirms
that State authorities create the artificial barriers faced by the Muslim community in their
efforts to build a new mosque. The suggestion that the Foundation give up on the plot of
land purchased with financial resources of the Muslim community violates the freedom of
299 The Foundation for the Construction of a New Mosque in Batumi and Muslim community are legally represented
by TDI and EMC.
300 2018 Annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the situation of human rights and freedoms in Georgia.
Available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2019101108583612469.pdf.
123
religion and right to property afforded to the Muslim community. Since the claimant did
not receive a fair offer from the State, the case was returned to the Court.
On 30 September 2019, Batumi City Court announced the decision in relation to the Batumi
mosque case. The Court upheld part of the claim of the Foundation for the Construction
of a New Mosque in Batumi and established the fact of discrimination. The judge stressed
that Batumi City Hall had demonstrated unequal treatment towards two different religious
groups citing the fact that there had been seven Orthodox churches built in the same res-
idential zone including those constructed on municipality-owned plots of land. The Court
revoked the decision made by Batumi City Hall denying the application for construction at
the first stage and returned the case to Batumi City Hall for reconsideration. The Court ruled
against the part of the claim which demanded that the Court task Batumi City Hall to issue
an act approving the application for construction permit for the first stage.
Batumi City Hall appealed against the Court’s decision to Kutaisi Court of Appeals. On 4 De-
cember 2019, the Foundation for the Construction of a New Mosque in Batumi also lodged
an appeal demanding that Batumi City Hall be directly tasked to issue a construction permit
for the first stage.301 As of January 2020 the case remains under review.
Difficulties faced by the Catholic Church in obtaining a church

construction permit
LEPL Apostolic Administration of the Latin Catholics of Caucasus faced numerous obstacles
in their effort to obtain a construction permit for a church. On 16 April 2013, the Catholic
Church filed an application to Rustavi City Hall requesting a permit for the construction of
a church on a plot of land owned by the applicant. On 21 May 2013, Rustavi city council is-
sued an order establishing construction terms. Pursuant to the legislation on 26 June 2013,
the Catholic Church applied to Rustavi City Hall to issue a permit certificate for the second
stage. However, the local authorities did not issue an act approving the application nor did
they notify the applicant of the denial.
301 “Batumi City Hall appeals against the decision of the City Court on the construction of a new mosque in Batumi,
Tolerance and Diversity Institute, 2019. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/37ULPTJ.
124
The Apostolic Administration of the Latin Catholics of Caucasus filed an administrative com-
plaint against Rustavi City Hall. The church demanded the Court to order Rustavi City Hall to
issue a construction permit. The Rustavi City Court indicated in the decision of July 7 2014
that after the expiration of a deadline for the City Hall to approve or deny the application,
the permit is considered as issued. Based on the decision, the Catholic Church addressed
the Rustavi City Hall several times and demanded to issue a permit. The Rustavi City Hall did
not respond to these applications either.
On the later date of November 13 2015, the Apostolic Administration of the Latin Catho-
lics of Caucasus lodged a claim to Rustavi city court demanding a permit certificate to be
issued, establishment of discrimination and the elimination of consequences of discrimi-
natory treatment. While reviewing the claim, the court decided to separate the claims and
single out those that were based on the Law of Georgia on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination from an administrative law suit as a result of which the Catholic Church
withdrew part of the claim concerning the establishment of discrimination and the case
proceeded only on the issuance of the permit certificate.
On 6 June 2016, Rustavi City Court upheld the claim and ordered Rustavi City Hall to issue a
permit to the Apostolic Administration of the Latin Catholics of Caucasus for the construc-
tion of a church building on a plot of land under the Administration’s ownership. However,
Rustavi City Hall appealed against the decision to the Tbilisi Court of Appeals.
What is particularly striking in this case, is the length the local authorities had gone to arti-
ficially hamper the process of issuing a construction permit. At the same time, the minutes
of a meeting that a representative of the Public Defender had with the Governor of Kvemo
Kartli, reveals that Rustavi City Hall representatives had met with Orthodox community and
Orthodox clergy members to discuss the expediency of issuing a construction permit by
local authorities. At the same time, Rustavi City Hall issued a resolution to change the status
of a plot of land owned by the claimant so that the construction of a church on the plot of
land would require a special zonal agreement.
Along with the legal battle, in September 2016, prior to the Pope’s visit, local and central au-
thorities brokered a deal and offered to the Catholic Church to exchange the land which they
owned for another plot of land in Rustavi. According to the authorities, the construction of the
125
church on a new plot of land would not cause discontent among the Orthodox community.
After four years of legal battle and resistance, the Catholic Church decided to accept the dis-
criminatory offer. At last, the new church was opened in Rustavi in October 2018.
Obstacles for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Terjola
On 19 February 2014, the head of Terjola City council issued a resolution to grant a permit to
the non-registered union, Terjola, to start construction on their own plot of land.
The construction was soon followed by waves of protest from the Georgian Orthodox
Church clergy and part of Orthodox community. On 3 June 2014, an adjacent land owner
petitioned the municipal council against the construction and demanded that the work be
terminated for alleged risks to integrity and sustainability of their residence and nearby mo-
torways. On the day of receipt of the application, the head of the municipal council issued
an order302 terminating the construction permit issued earlier.
The issuance of the order was preceded by protest rallies organized by the Orthodox clergy
and their supporters. The director of a local public school, teachers and pupils were report-
ed to have participated in the rallies. These waves of protests presumably influenced the
decision of the State.
During a review of the administrative complaint, the union Terjola presented results of a
geological-engineering examination, according to which, the construction had no negative
impact on the environment and contained no risks to the nearby motorways and other
real estate.303 A similar report had been produced by the LEPL Levan Samkharauli National
Forensics Bureau. Regardless of these reports and conclusions, the local authorities did not
issue an act to allow the continuation of the construction works.
It should be noted that the local self-government violated the terms of administrative case
processing as they awaited a recommendation from the State Agency for Religious Issues.
302 Order N244 of Terjola municipality of 3 June 2014.

303 2014 annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the situation of human rights and freedoms in Georgia.
Available at: http://ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2019062409381078741.pdf.
126
In its decision, the Kutaisi Court of Appeals indicated that local authorities had not made a
decision on the appeal as “materials had been sent to the State Agency for Religious Issues
so that the Agency reviewed documentation and issued recommendations.”304
Union Terjola appealed against the decision of the administrative body to Zestaponi District
Court. On 19 March 2015, the District Court partially upheld the appeal and decided against
ordering the defendant to compensate for the material and moral damage. However, the
Court ordered Terjola municipality to issue an individual administrative-legal act revalidat-
ing the construction permit issued on 19 February 2014.
In parallel to the legal proceedings, in April 2015, representatives of the State Agency for
Religious Issues, local Orthodox community and Orthodox clergy met in Terjola. The State
Agency for Religious Issues recommended the local authorities to allocate alternative land
to Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to ensure “peaceful coexistence”.305
The decision of the Zestaponi District Court was appealed to the Kutaisi Court of Appeals
which ordered the administrative body to pay GEL 1.420306 as compensation against the
damage. Terjola Municipal Council appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Georgia,
however, the Supreme Court considered the claim as inadmissible and upheld the decision
of the Kutaisi Court of Appeals.
304 Decision of the Kutaisi Court of Appeals on the case N3/ბ–221–15.

305 Mariam Gavtadze and Eka Chitanava, GEORGIA: State obstructs building new non-Georgian Orthodox places of
worship, Forum 18. http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2118.
306 Appr. 470 Euros and 510 US Dollars.
127
Chapter VI. Religion in Public Schools
6.1. Violation of Religious Neutrality and Discrimination

in Public Schools
The Law of Georgia on General Education, adopted in 2005, recognizes religious neutrali-
ty and non-discrimination as one of the core principles of public schools. The law aims to
create a learning environment based on the principles of secularity and equality for all stu-
dents. However, indoctrination and proselytism in public schools remain a problem.
Displaying religious symbols in public schools often serve non-academic purposes. Repre-
sentatives of minority religious groups told TDI that students often face differential treat-
ment due to their religion, and on many occasions, derogatory terms are used to describe
specific religious groups or beliefs.
In 2019, TDI developed a guidebook for school teachers entitled Lessons of Tolerance based
on the findings of the research.307 The guidebook is designed to highlight problems related
to freedom of religion or belief and ethnic diversity in Georgia’s public schools and offers
recommendations to these problems.
Taking national exams and attending various competitions held on Saturdays create prob-
lems for students from certain religious minority groups. For instance, members of the Sev-
enth-Day Adventist Church report that students from this congregation have problems at-
tending events, school tournaments and final exams held on Saturdays. The same problem
is shared by members of Jewish community. The Council of Religions at the Public Defend-
er’s Office recommended that the Ministry of Education and Science revise the policy and
consider the interests of various religious groups when organizing the school calendar.308
However, as of today, no effective steps have been taken to address the issue. In addition,
no holidays, celebrated by religious minority groups, are declared as public holidays by
Georgian legislation which could be considered as differential treatment.
307 Teaching Tolerance, TDI, 2019. Available in Georgian at: http://tdi.ge/sites/default/files/tolerantobis_gakvetilebi_0.pdf.

308 Recommendations issued by the Council of Religions at the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia (2017). http://
tolerantoba.ge/failebi/inglisuri_broshura_sasxalxo___damcveli__1__44654.pdf.
128
Ineffectiveness of the work carried out by the Internal Audit

Department of the Ministry of Education and Science
The Internal Audit Department of the Ministry of Education and Science is legally respon-
sible for overseeing the work of public schools’ adherence to legal norms in the sphere of
general education.309 A decision to launch an inspection is made by the Minister based on a
motion of the Department’s head. A statement made by any person can serve as a ground
for inspection.310 As explained by the Ministry of Education and Science,311 the Audit De-
partment may follow up on information received through a hotline or delivered in other
forms in order to establish an offence or disciplinary misconduct.
Based on information provided by the Ministry, between 2017 and 2018 the Internal Audit
Department received 10 reports of alleged religious indoctrination, proselytism and dis-
criminatory treatment. The Department launched an inspection in two cases and issued
eight reports. The violation of religious neutrality was established in two cases and the
schools in question were directed to respond to the violations outlined in the report. In
2019, the Internal Audit Department did not receive any reports concerning alleged viola-
tion of religious neutrality.312
The Ministry is authorized to proactively monitor the implementation of the Law on Gener-
al Education in public schools and identify potential violations of the rights of students.313
Cases of discriminatory treatment of students on grounds of religion and systemic violation
of neutrality in public schools are routinely highlighted in the reports of the Public Defend-
er, as well as international and local organizations which provide sufficient grounds for the
Internal Audit Department to proactively investigate the situation in public schools. How-
ever, the Department has not conducted any research or study to identify cases involving
the violation of religious neutrality, indoctrination, or proselytism.
309 Order №89/ნ of the Minister of Education and Science, Article 6(M) of the Statute of the Internal Audit Department
of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia. Available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/
view/4472158?publication=0.
310 Ibid, Article 19 (3).
311 Letter MES 8 17 00205897 of the Ministry of Education and Science of 2 March 2017.
312 Letter N MES 1 19 01783229 of the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of 31 December 2019.
313 Order #89/ნ, Article 12(1) of the Minister of Education and Science on approving the statute of the Internal Audit
Department.
129
The recent years have seen a number of grave alleged violations of the law in public schools,
which appear to have gone unnoticed by the State authorities.
One such incident took place in October 2014 in one of Tbilisi’s public schools when un-
der-aged students physically assaulted one of their peers. The beating was motivated by
religious intolerance as the victim said Christian miracles were myths. Information about
the incident was released to the media by the victim’s brother. In response, the Ministry
of Education and Science stated that the incident represented “a one off occurrence”.314
Then-Minister Tamar Sanikidze gave the following statement to the media:315 “I cannot say
the situation is alarming with this respect, or there is a growing trend […] I think we should
not give much consideration to bullying based on religion in schools”.316
On 1 January 2014, the Orthodox Christian community of Terjola town gathered to protest
against the construction of a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall317. Teachers and a school
director were among the participants of the protest rally, which took place during school
hours early in the day, as well as students aged 8 to 13 of School N2318. Video footage of the
rally, spread through social networks, featured an Orthodox priest expressing gratitude to
the school director for the latter’s support and their contribution to collecting signatures
against the construction of a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall.319 The Internal Audit De-
partment of the Ministry of Education and Science reported that the students participated
in the rally at their free will and that there had not been any attempts from the school
administration to indoctrinate or proselytize the students. Therefore, the Department did
not consider the incident as a violation of the law even though there was organized partici-
pation of the school students in the rally and open support expressed by the director to Or-
thodox parishioners as well as hate speech targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses which provided a
clear ground for deliberations and called for an adequate response.
314 Information is available in Georgian at: http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/88966-arasrultslovnebi-skolashi-religiuri-

bulingisa-da-indoqtrinaciis-pirispir
315 Minister of Education and Science of Georgia in 2013-2016.
316 Information is available at: http://georgiatoday.ge/news/3018/Non-violent-Communication-Institute-on-Bullying%3A-
Don%E2%80%99t-Hurt%2C-Don%E2%80%99t-Label.
317 Natalia Antelava, Georgia: Orthodoxy in the classroom, BBC, 7 May 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-32595514.
318 Mariam Gavtadze and Ekaterine Chitanava, GEORGIA: State obstructs building new non-Georgian Orthodox places
of worship, 5 November 2015, Forum 18, http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2118.
319 Video footage of the rally is available at: https://www.facebook.com/378911675552081/videos/608770665899513/.
130
Alleged discrimination and violation of the rights of a Muslim

student in Mokhe village
The Ministry of Education and Science failed to adequately respond to an alleged case of
discrimination and violation of the rights of a Muslim student in Mokhe village during 2016-
2017. In a report prepared on the case, the Internal Audit Report justified an attempt by the
school administration banning the Muslim student from wearing a hijab at school.
On 11 December 2016, a 12th grade student T.B., attending a Batumi public school, sub-
mitted paperwork which was required to change school under a mobility scheme. The
applicant wanted to move to a school in Mokhe village. On 22 December, the student
received a notice from the school warning her that her request will be rejected if she
continued to wear a hijab while attending school. The school administration explained
that it was prohibited to wear a headscarf per a statute of the school.320 The school
director continued differential treatment of the student after the latter’s enrollment in
Mokhe school.321
It should be noted that during the same period of time the school director, an active parish-
ioner and supporter of the Orthodox Church, actively participated in protest rallies against
a contested construction in Mokhe village and made anti-Muslim statements.322
According to information provided to TDI on 27 February 2017, the Internal Audit Depart-
ment of the Ministry of Education and Science, based on the examination of the case, es-
tablished that T.B. did not suffer discrimination nor a violation of her rights in Mokhe public
school. 323
However, it should be noted that the Internal Audit Department misinterpreted the
Law of Georgia on General Education by, for example, deeming a headscarf as a reli-
320 Assessment of Internal Audit Report on Mokhe public school. Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI). Available at:
http://tdi.ge/en/statement/assessment-internal-audit-report-mokhe-public-school.
321 Statements of the Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC). Available in Georgian at: https://emc.org.
ge/2017/02/08/emc-213/.
322 For more information about Mokhe’s contested building, see the section Investigation of incidents involving violation
of Muslims’ rights in 2012-2016 and Problem of the restitution of property seized by Soviet authorities.
323 Report N0902171610 of the Internal Audit Department of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia
131
gious item which, according to the law, cannot be displayed on school grounds (Ar-
ticle 18). Conversely, neither the law nor the school statute restricts students wearing
headscarves or any religious attire in school. According to the conclusion of the Audit
Department, despite the fact that the internal regulations of the school do not forbid
wearing a headscarf, some kind of restrictions can still be established for school stu-
dents, for instance having dyed hair.
The report of the Internal Audit Department provides justification for the prohibition of
headscarf by preventing ethnic or religious tensions: “some of individuals in the school make
a connection between wearing a headscarf and developments outside the school, more specif-
ically, the one around the construction of a religious building in Mokhe village, Adigeni munic-
ipality. For this reason, in order to ensure that learning process at the school is not disrupted by
tensions on any ground, the school administration is authorized to deliberate and introduce
restrictive norms, within the limits of the law, to prevent possible root causes from causing con-
frontation on school grounds, and demand that all individuals obliged to act in accordance to
the school statute, adhere to such restrictions.”
TDI believes that restricting the freedom of religion for a student in the context of the so-
called disputed building in Mokhe is not legally justified. Exercising fundamental human
rights, including the manifestation of religious belief, cannot be viewed as a trigger for con-
flict.
On 21 September 2017, the Public Defender addressed the Ministry of Education with a
general proposal calling for the implementation of effective measures to ensure religious
neutrality, free expression of religious identity of students and prevention of religious dis-
crimination in public schools324.
In 2017 however, another case of alleged discrimination against a student wearing a head-
scarf was reported in Karajala village, Telavi municipality.325
324 General proposal of the Public Defender. Available in Georgian at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/geo/zogadi-
tsinadadeba/saqartvelos-saxalxo-damcveli-sadjaro-skolebshi-moswavleta-indoqtrinaciis-faqtebs-exmianeba.
325 Director of Karajala school turned the student away for wearing hijab. Available in Georgian at: https://bit.
ly/30smChE.
132
6.2. School teachers’ participation in lectures dedicated

to “Georgia’s Allotted to Virgin Mary”
On 8 June 2019, news about dozens of public school teachers from various regions attend-
ing theological lectures dedicated to The Day of Allotment to Virgin Mary was reported in
the media and social networks.326
Teachers were reported to have been instructed to attend lectures327without providing any
information as to what the subject of the lectures would be. Attendees later said that lec-
tures were dedicated to the essence of Christianity and the gospel and lacked interactivi-
ty. Importantly, the majority of teachers from Tsalka attending the lecture in Rustavi, were
Muslims. They too had no information on the planned activity. Nor did they know anything
about the topic of the lecture.
An alleged violation of religious neutrality took place in October 2019 during a meeting
of the clergy from Skhalta Diocese, professors at St. Tbel Abuseridze Teaching University,
and school directors in Keda municipality. At the meeting, which took place in the Keda
Educational Resource Center, participants discussed matters related to the celebration of
Georgia’s Allotted to Virgin Mary. Directors of public schools found themselves involved in
events of a religious nature. Moreover, there had been reports that Orthodox clergy tasked
school directors to talk about Achara’s Christian past in schools.
On 8 May 2019, the Parliament of Georgia announced the 12 May as the day of Georgia’s
allotted to Virgin Mary at an extraordinary session through a fast-track procedure328.
This move was a response to an initiative of the Patriarchate of Georgia.329 900,000 GEL330
was allocated from the governmental reserve fund for celebrations and various events
dedicated to the holiday. According to a Government approved action plan, Tbilisi and
regions were to host various events dedicated to the day of Georgia’s allotted to Virgin
326 Information available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2tj1Q7K.

327 Information available in Georgian at: https://bit.ly/2FOuXTj.
328 Parliament sets ‘Day of Georgia’s Allotted to St. Mary’, Messenger, 10 May, 2019
http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/4392_may_10_2019/4392_gvanca1.html.
329 In times of trouble, the Georgian government turns to Mother Mary, Eurasianet, 28 May, 2019,
https://eurasianet.org/in-times-of-trouble-the-georgian-government-turns-to-mother-mary .
133
Mary including literary events, conferences, movie screenings, performances, folk danc-
ing and singing etc.
As noted above, ensuring religious neutrality and eliminating discrimination in public

schools have remained a pressing problem. Rather than supporting tolerance and diversity,
and measures for the elimination of discrimination in public education space, including ca-
pacity building of teachers, the State authorities remain unfazed by public school teachers
participating in religious events held by the Orthodox Church.
The practice of involving teachers in the celebrations dedicated to Georgia’s Allotted to

Virgin Mary contradicts the principle of the separation of the State and church enshrined
in the Constitution. This act also violated the following requirements embedded in the
Law of Georgia on General Education: one of the goals of the state policy in the field of
general education is to ensure the freedom of public schools from religious and politi-
cal associations (Article 3); Proselytism or forced assimilation shall be inadmissible in the
study process in general education institutions. It shall be inadmissible for schools to use
their powers and resources in a way, directly or indirectly, against pupils, parents, teach-
ers or their associations (Article 13); It shall be inadmissible to impose such obligations
upon pupils, parents and teachers that fundamentally contradict their belief and confes-
sion (Article 18).
6.3. Intolerance and lack of religious/cultural diversity

in school textbooks
Content of school textbooks
The poor qualification of school teachers and administrative staff, together with the inef-
fective policies of the Ministry of Education tasked with ensuring religious neutrality, the
content of textbooks also contribute to creating an environment that is conducive to intol-
erance in public schools. According to findings of the research conducted by TDI in 2016,331
textbooks for Georgian Language and Literature, History and Civic Education for 9th-12th
331 Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) A Report on Religious and Ethnic Diversity in School Textbooks. Available at:
http://tdi.ge/sites/default/files/analysis_of_textbooks_tdi_eng.pdf.
134
grades fail to deliver the objectives of the National Goals of the General Education of Geor-
gia which aim to raise the tolerant citizen.
An analysis of the content of the textbook reveals that they are mostly written from the per-
spective of the ethnic and religious majority when addressing Georgian history in the mono-re-
ligious and ethnocentric context which is particularly striking. Therefore, the main discourse of
the textbooks target ethnic and religious majority as the key audience, ignoring the fact that the
circle of readers is not only limited to ethnic Georgians and Orthodox Christians.
Further, in some instances, when it comes to discussing or depicting Christianity, Orthodox

Christianity or ethnic Georgians, narration often switches to the first person.
“Saint George, one of our greatest and one may say, the most venerable saints, was
from Cappadocia…”
History of Georgia, 9th grade
There are texts which display Georgians and representatives of other ethnic groups, Orthodox
Christians and other religious communities through a dichotomy of “guests and hosts”, “us
and others” depending on who native Georgians are as opposed to “emigres” or “the sheltered”.
Teaching the Georgian History from this perspective not only contradicts legal approach, but
also undermines the interest of fostering civic integration and nurturing a culture of tolerance.
“Georgian people peacefully coexisted with representatives of other ethnicities –

Jews, Armenians, Greeks, and many others whom Georgia gave shelter at times of
their hardships and who then shared good times and bad times with the country”.
History of Georgia, 9th grade
Several chapters in the textbooks of Georgian literature as well as history use xenopho-
bic references without corresponding comments from authors or editors of the textbooks
while some questions and comments of the authors of the textbooks can represent exam-
ples of biased and xenophobic narration.
In addition, some texts are based on stereotyped attitudes and these attitudes are attribut-
ed to certain ethnic or religious groups, portraying them as a common negative character-
istic feature of the entire group.
135
“Kurds. Drenched in sweat: as if you are walking past a Jewish mikvah. Alas, is every-
thing losing its nature in Tiflis?!”
“Assyrian Street Sweeper” – women tucked in their clothes as if they have put on
everything they had – when you bump into them – a bitter stench of sweat will im-
mediately catch your nose… Assyria is suffocating the Lion of Iran. His offspring is a
street sweeper in Tiflis. His offspring are boot polishers.”
Homework: Analyze the given excerpt and create a “portrait” of persons described in
this excerpt. Describe their appearance, clothing, activities, characters, nationality, pro-
fession, etc.
Civic Education, 10th grade
The content of the textbooks tends to overlook the role in historical or literary processes
of these groups, historical figures or authors who have different identities. For instance,
characters and authors from minority ethnic and religious backgrounds are underrepre-
sented in textbooks (for instance, in the context of Catholicism, there is no reference to
Sulkhan-Saba Orbaliani nor do texts refer to works of Catholic missionaries and scientists,
or the role of Armenian, and German benefactors in the development of culture, city life
and architecture, charity work, and that of Muslim Georgians in the fight for the country’s
independence).
Pursuant to the Law of Georgia on General Education, school education must be of an aca-
demic character and classroom process must be separated from religion (this principle also
applies to textbooks and discourse). However, authors of history and literature textbooks
often resort to non-academic language. There are instances when clerical publications
and legends are presented without academic distancing, for example, King Mirian’s mira-
cle – the destruction of shrines, and St Andrew’s preaching are described as a scientifically
proved historical fact rather than a religious narrative.
In addition, some texts use incorrect, derogatory and non-academic terminology while de-
scribing various religious or ethnic groups (for instance, Gregorian Church, sect and sect
followers, “Tatars” to denote citizens of Georgia with ethnic Azerbaijani background etc).
136
Selection and approval of school textbooks
In 2017-2018, the Ministry of Education compiled a list of approved new school textbooks
for 1st to 6th grades. Since 2019, the Ministry has been approving new textbooks for basic
education.
In 2019, stakeholders welcomed a decision of the Ministry of Education and Science to in-
vite human rights experts to work together with specialists in the field and under the coor-
dination of Public Defender to evaluate all textbooks for the 7th grade submitted for review.
Submitted textbooks were assessed to ascertain to what extent they reflected on tolerance
and diversity culture and met the human rights and non-discrimination criterion. The Min-
istry plans to invite field experts to assist in the process of approval of school textbooks for
the 8th grade in 2020.
In 2018, TDI developed a guidebook for authors of textbooks offering recommendations

to address gaps and flaws identified in the textbooks. Rather than focusing on a syllabus of
a specific grade or stage, the guidebook highlights general trends to be considered while
compiling textbooks for Georgian Language and Literature, History and Civic Education so
that the contents of respective textbooks are in line with the Law on General Education and
the National Curriculum. The guidebook can be used as a reference point in the process of
compiling any textbook for any grade.332 In 2018-2019, TDI established fruitful cooperation
with a group of authors and publishers and brought both the guidebook and the recom-
mendations to their attention.
Society and I: Review of the subject standards and respective

changes
A new subject titled Society and I was introduced to grades 3rd and 4th during 2018-2019
academic year.333 However, a working process on the standard started as early as 2014 and
was finalized by the Ministry of Education and Science following a series of heated debates
332 A guidebook for authors of school textbooks (TDI), 2018. Available in Georgian at: http://tdi.ge/sites/default/files/
tdi_brochure.pdf.
333 Letter MEC 11701438459 of the Ministry of Education and Science, 24/11/207.
137
and controversies on 18 May 2016.334 The subject aims to develop civic awareness based
on democratic values among students. The standard was developed through collaborative
efforts of teachers, experts and psychologists.
The initiative of the Ministry of Education and Science was perceived as an attempt to un-
dermine traditional values of the Orthodox clergy and their supporters. The original version
of the standard included a chapter “what I believe and what I trust in” as well as discussion
topics “why we should never commit violence in the name of religion, why we should re-
spect people with different faith” etc. The standard also made a reference to such terms as
“tolerance”, “minority”, “gender”. However, none of these topics and terms are found in the
finalized version of the document.
One year later, in February 2016, then-Minister of Education and Science, Tamar Sanikidze
said the Ministry had some consultations with the Georgian Patriarchate concerning the
chapters on religion and family.335
In the end, the Ministry decided against including the chapter “Morality, faith, and religion”,
the draft version of which offered the following discussion topics: “why and how to express
respect towards people regardless of their religion”, “why we should not commit violence in
the name of religion” etc. The final version does not make reference to such terms as “toler-
ance”, “minority”, “gender identity”. 336
Minister Sanikidze said the Constitutional Agreement between the State and the Church
was the reason for close cooperation with the Georgian Patriarchate while working on the
subject standard and noted that if the State is working on religion related issues in the field
of education, it shall have consultations with the Patriarchate.337
334 Ibid.
335 Information available in Georgian at: http://netgazeti.ge/news/94841/.
336 Information available in Georgian at: http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/100858-sapatriarqo-saxelmdzghvanelodan-
amovaghebinet-terminebi-mag-genderuli-identoba.
337 Information available in Georgian at: http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/104551-sanikidze-sapatriarqostan-
mushaobisas-xelshekrulebas-vekrdnobit.
138
Recommendations
Recommendations
The Government and the Parliament of Georgia should:
1. Abide by the Constitutional principle of separation of State and religion;
2. Avoid the influence of the Georgian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Georgia) over
political decisions and legislative initiatives;
3. Amend the State Funding system of religious organizations to remove the privileg-
es granted to the dominant religious organizations (which contradicts the principle of
separation of State and religion) and put all religious communities in an equal position;
4. Eliminate the discriminatory practice of selection and funding of religious organizations

for the purpose of symbolic “compensation” for the damages inflicted during the Soviet
regime; Make a complete record of religious communities affected during the Soviet
rule and develop objective, transparent and fair criteria for compensation in close coop-
eration with the affected religious communities, Council of Religions under the Public
Defender and human rights organizations;
5. Consider and evaluate all risks related to the restriction of freedom of religion or belief
and equality, reject legal initiatives aimed at regulating the activities of religious organi-
zations, and refrain from defining “religion” and “a religious organization” in legislation.
The Parliament of Georgia should:
6. Refrain from adopting a law that would prevent clergy from non-Georgian Orthodox
religious communities to postpone compulsory military service;
7. Avoid adopting legal regulations restricting freedom of expression that would impose
administrative or criminal liabilities for “insulting religious feelings”;
8. Take action to urgently eliminate the discrimination in Georgian legislation granting

privileges and certain rights to only the Georgian Orthodox Church; Consider the deci-
139
sions of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of 3 July 2018 that declared the provisions
of the Law on State Property and Tax Code discriminatory and unconstitutional;
9. To foster equity among religious organizations and eliminate discrimination, amend
the Law on State Property of Georgia so that all religious communities (registered as
legal entities of public law, as well as legal entities of private law) should enjoy the same
rights as the Georgian Orthodox Church, in particular to:
} Acquire non-agricultural State-owned land through a direct sale (Article 3(1))
} Acquire agricultural State-owned land with a fee or free of charge ( Article 3(2))
} Acquire State-owned property through an exchange (in return for the transfer of the
equivalent property into state ownership) (Article 3(5))
} Abolish the provision of State Property Law that bans privatization of State-owned
religious buildings (functional and non-functional), their ruins as well as land plots
on which they are located (Article 4(1), Para L)
10. Amend the Tax Code of Georgia in order to ensure equality and non-discrimination of
religious communities, in particular to:
} Amend the provision of the Tax Code of Georgia, which does not exempt religious
organizations other than the Georgian Orthodox Church from property (land) tax
used for non-economic purposes (Article 201, Part 1(A));
} Grant the right of exemption from VAT for construction, restoration and painting of
temples and churches to all religious communities registered as legal entities of pub-
lic or private law noting that the provision of the law which granted this right only to
the Georgian Orthodox Church was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional
Court of Georgia in 2018 (Article 168, Part II, para B);
} Revise the provision of the Tax Code of Georgia which exempts from tax the supply of
crosses, candles, icons, books, calendars and other liturgical items used for religious
purposes only for the Georgian Orthodox Church (Article 168(1) para F);
} Update the provision of the Tax Code granting a tax exemption to profits from the
sale of crosses, candles, icons, books and calendars used for religious purposes only
to the Patriarchate of Georgia (Article 99(1) para D);
} Apply the exemption from import fees on import and supply of religious items to all
religious organizations. The Georgian Patriarchate is exempt from the import taxes
under the terms of the Constitutional Agreement, while the Tax Code does not grant
the same rights to other religious organizations.
140
Recommendations
11. Develop the legislative framework for the return/restitution of the property confiscated
during Soviet times. Religious communities should be given the possibility to regain
their property or/and receive compensation;
12. Amend the Law on Higher Education to allow other religious organizations other than
the Patriarchate of Georgia to establish higher education institutions and carry out
theological programs;
13. Recognize religious and cultural holidays of different religious and ethnic groups other
than the Georgian Orthodox in the Labor Code of Georgia.
To the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of

Achara:
14. Prohibit discrimination, amend the provisions of Law on the Management and Administra-
tion of the Achara Autonomous Republic Property allowing only the Georgian Orthodox
Church to purchase State property. This right should extend to all religious organizations.
To the Government of Georgia:
15. The Prime Minister of Georgia should review the mandate and activities concerning
the State Agency for Religious Issues and reconsider the necessity of its existence, as
the Agency fails to comply with fundamental principles of human rights, including the
fundamental principle of protection of freedom of religion or belief;
16. Eliminate urgently the practice of interference into the autonomy of religious minority
organizations by the State Agency for Religious Issues;
17. Consider the authoritative recommendations of international organizations (ECRI, Com-

mittee of Ministers etc) and cooperate with the Council of Religions under the Auspices
of the Public Defender on issues related to the freedom of religion;
18. Study the extent of the damage inflicted by the Soviet totalitarian regime experienced
by religious communities and record the confiscated property;
141
19. Establish a competent commission to identify the owners of disputed religious build-
ings. Create an appropriate legislative framework to address the issues therein;
20. Examine the lawfulness of transferring seven Catholic churches (in Gori, Ivlita village of
Akhaltsikhe Municipality, villages of Ude and Buzmareti of Adigeni municipality, Kutai-
si, and two churches in Batumi) to the Georgian Patriarchate and ensure the restoration
of the right to the Catholic Church;
21. Prohibit all forms of reconstruction and renovation of historical religious buildings his-
torically owned by other religious organizations currently under the ownership of the
Georgian Orthodox Church;
22. Examine the legitimacy of transferring the Armenian Tandoyants Church (located on 38 Ag-
mashenebeli avenue, Tbilisi) to the Georgian Orthodox Church in 2017 and prevent all forms
of construction, archeological or other works carried out by the Georgian Patriarchate;
23. Ensure full access to archived materials to religious organizations and researchers in
order to collect data and relevant documents concerning historical property.
24. To the Government of Georgia, Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Develop-
ment of Georgia, LEPL National Agency of State Property:
Suspend the transfer of disputed property to the Georgian Patriarchate until the reso-
lution of the issue;
Return currently State-owned religious buildings which was confiscated during the
Soviet period to their historical owners: Armenian Apostolic Church, Evangelical-Lu-
theran Church, Muslim and Jewish communities.
25. To the Government of Georgia, National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preserva-
tion Georgia:
Ensure the conservation, protection and proper maintenance of all religious buildings
that are cultural heritage sites and/or are currently under State ownership.
142
Recommendations
26. To National Agency of Public Registry:
The NAPR should use a non-discriminatory approach when registering religious orga-
nizations and improve the practice of applying Article 1509 during the registration of
religious organizations as legal entities of public law.
27. To central and local government administration:
Eliminate the discriminatory practice of restricting the access to public space for reli-
gious minorities, allow them to freely celebrate holidays, festivals and carry out various
events in a public space.
To the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s

Office of Georgia:
28. Respond properly and promptly to crimes committed on the grounds of religious intol-
erance, determine hatred as a motive and be guided by the fundamental principle of
the protection of human rights;
29. Maintain comprehensive, coherent statistics on the crimes committed on the ground of
intolerance in order to collect data;
30. Investigate crimes committed against religious minorities relying on the appropriate ar-
ticles of the criminal legislation recognizing religious intolerance as a motive of a crime;
31. Provide information to interested human rights organizations and the public on ongo-
ing investigations into high public interest cases, including on the alleged violation of
Muslims’ rights by law-enforcement officers in villages Mokhe and Chela;
32. The Prosecutor’s Office should investigate alleged crimes committed on the grounds
of religious intolerance against Muslims in villages Chela (2013) and Mokhe (2014) in a
timely and effective manner and respond appropriately to the cases of alleged abuse of
official powers by Ministry of Internal Affairs officers;
143
33. The State should respond to the cases of alleged interference of Muslims rights in Sam-
tatskaro (2013) and Kobuleti (2014) in an efficient and adequate manner and timely
conclude the protracted investigations;
34. The Prosecutor’s Office should grant victim status to the affected Muslims in the cases
of crimes committed on grounds of religious intolerance in 2012-2014;
35. The Prosecutor’s Office should conduct an investigation into the alleged case of forced
resignation of the former Sheikh Vagif Akperov of the Administration of Muslims of All
Georgia in a timely and efficient manner;
36. The State should respond promptly, effectively and adequately to each case of alleged
human rights violations against Jehovah’s Witnesses;
37. The Prosecutor’s Office should grant victim status to Jehovah’s Witnesses who suffered
violence due to their religious beliefs;
38. The Prosecutor’s Office should charge the alleged offenders of crimes committed
against Jehovah’s witnesses with the appropriate qualifications foreseen by the crim-
inal law;
39. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia should raise employ-
ees’ awareness on religious neutrality and human rights matters;
40. The Ministry of Internal Affairs should consider the recommendation of European Com-
mission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), according to which the human rights
department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs should be equipped with an investigative
mandate to respond effectively to hate crimes.
41. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Revenue Service of the Ministry of Finance
should eliminate the discriminatory practice targeting religious minorities when cross-
ing the state border and importing religious literature; reviewing travel documents for
an unreasonable length, searching luggage without reasonable doubt and requesting
to present written permission from other religious organizations etc.
144
Recommendations
42. The Ministry of internal Affairs and the Revenue Service of the Ministry of Finance
should raise awareness and conduct trainings for border police and customs officers on
human rights, non-discrimination, the freedom of religion and professional ethics issues.
To the Supreme Court of Georgia:
43. Consider Article 531 of the Criminal Code of Georgia indicating intolerance as an aggravating
circumstance when charging for offenses committed on the grounds of religious intolerance;
44. Maintain complete and comprehensive statistics on the crimes committed on the
grounds of intolerance, to obtain comprehensive information on hate crimes;
45. Consider all cases in a timely and effective manner within the timeframe set by law, so
that the parties are not deprived of their right to a fast and effective justice system.
To Local Self-Government Bodies:
46. Eliminate discriminatory approaches in the process of granting construction permits

to religious minority organizations and dismantle the artificial barriers; Exclude the
non-legally binding involvement of other administrative bodies, such as the State
Agency for Religious Issues; Refrain from requesting written permission from the Agen-
cy of religious organizations when applying for construction permits;
47. Be guided by the principles of religious neutrality and protection of equality while allo-
cating funding to religious organizations.
48. Batumi City Hall should: Consider the decision of Batumi City Court on the Batumi
New Mosque case, eliminate the discriminatory practice and issue a construction per-
mit on a mosque immediately.
To the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport

of Georgia:
49. The Internal Audit Department of the Ministry should conduct a large-scale investiga-
tion into public schools and monitor schools proactively in order to identify violations
145
of religious neutrality, indoctrination and proselytism, including the display of religious

items for non-academic purposes, as it is prescribed by the law;
50. The Ministry’s Internal Audit department should use existing legal mechanisms effec-
tively to respond to cases of alleged religious discrimination promptly and adequately;
51. Identify religious discrimination and violations of religious neutrality, establish a special
group/unit, responsible for monitoring and responding to violations in public schools,
with the participation of non-governmental organizations and the Public Defender’s
Office;
52. Increase training of the Inspectors of Internal Audit Department to raise awareness and
sensitivity towards the freedom of religion or belief and non-discrimination;
53. Raise awareness among school administrators and teachers, prepare guidelines that
reflect the requirements of the Law of Georgia on General Education, the principles
of protection of religious neutrality and promoting a tolerant environment in pub-
lic schools. The document should be prepared with the participation of experts and
non-governmental organizations working on freedom of religion or belief issues;
54. Evaluate Teachers’ attitudes towards tolerance through exams;
55. The standard of professional ethics for school directors should reflect the skills needed
to develop the environment for intercultural education and tolerance;
56. School textbooks should include historical events, literary texts and civic values reflect-
ing religious and ethnic diversity and foster a culture of tolerance;
57. Public school teachers and administration representatives should not be forced to par-
ticipate in religious activities. Eliminate practices, such as that in 2019, where teachers
were forced to attend meetings and lectures in various regions of Georgia dedicated to
the Day of Georgia’s Allotment to Virgin Mary.
146

Freedom of Religion or Belief in Georgia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Religion or Belief in Georgia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Religion or Belief in Georgia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Religion

Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)

Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI), 2020

Chapter I. The State and Religion...................................................................................................................20

Chapter II: Legislative Initiatives Limiting Freedom of Religion or Belief.................................60

Chapter IV. Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and State policy...................................84

Chapter V. Problems related to property of religious organizations........................................ 106

Summary and Key Findings

} One of the problems faced by religious minority communities is the monopolization of

} Representatives of minority religious communities, especially Muslims, often face vari-

} The existing system of financing religious organizations of Georgia can be qualified as a

Legislative Initiatives Limiting Freedom of Religion or

} After succumbing to continuous pressure from religious associations, non-governmental

Inequality in the Geogian Legislation and Judgements of

Crimes Motivated by Religious Intolerance

Problems related to property of religious

Religion in Public Schools

Chapter I. The State and Religion

1.1. The Problem of Separation of State and Church in

The principle of separation of State and Religion in a legal

In 2001, an additional paragraph was added to Article 9 of the Georgian Constitution

The Constitutional Agreement recognizes the Georgian Orthodox Church as a “historically

By signing the Constitutional Agreement, the State undertook a number of responsibili-

5 Article 1, Para 3 of the Constitutional Agreement.

The influence of the Patriarchate of Georgia over political decisions

In response to the Patriarchate’s proposal, the Parliament announced 12 May as the

The State’s response to violence committed by the Georgian

Financial and property privileges of the Georgian Patriarchate

The State’s attempt to intervene in the autonomy of minority

1.2. Assessing the mandate and work of the State Agency

33 Normative act available in Georgian at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2384242.

The establishment of a Government agency exclusively mandated to work on religious is-

46 See Chapter 4: Crimes motivated by religious intolerance and state policy.

It is important to note that 2017 was marked by controversies caused by an amendment

1.3. Registration of religious organizations

Even in light of these arrangements, some religious associations found it unacceptable to

52 Statement on limitation of freedom of religion in the Constitution. Available at: http://www.tdi.ge/en/news/466-

54 Article 15091 was added to the Civil Code of Georgia.

ostolic Autocephalous Church and not other confessions or denominations…”. According

OSCE/ODIHR guidelines on legal personality of religious organizations highlight risks which

1.4. Restricting public space to minority religious

One of the problems faced by minority religious communities is the monopolization of

buildings, organizing celebrations or festivals in public space, or conducting any activity

64 Orthodox activists protest evangelical event in Tbilisi, DFWatch, 7 June 2014,

In addition to meddling with religious holidays celebrated by religious minority commu-

66 Radio Liberty, 5 December 2013, available in Georgian at: http://www.radiotavisupleba.ge/a/antisemitizmi/25190584.

1.5. Problems related to border-crossing and carrying

Representatives of minority religious communities, especially Muslims, often face various

resentative of an unidentified agency/public official present on the spot without any

The Public Defender issued a recommendation to both agencies to ensure impartiality at

72 Available in Georgian at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/geo/191127024139religia/saqartvelos-saxalxo-damcvelma-

1.6. The policy and practice of financing religious

The existing system of financing religious organizations of Georgia can be qualified as a

Material goods transferred to the Georgian Apostolic

74 29,220,350 Georgian Lari is about 10,234,798 USD and 9,350,007 Euros.

Funding from the central budget

Financial resources, movable property and real estate transferred

82 Approx. 7,705,779 USD and 7,039,620 Euros.

Funding allocated from the Presidential Reserve Fund

94 Letter N9328 from the Administration of President of Georgia, 3 December 2019.

} One of the problems faced by religious minority communities is the monopolization of

} Representatives of minority religious communities, especially Muslims, often face vari-

} The existing system of financing religious organizations of Georgia can be qualified as a

} After succumbing to continuous pressure from religious associations, non-governmental