The Selection of Candidates for the Supreme Court Judges is Arbitrary and Unfair - Transparency Georgia

The selection of candidates for judges of the Supreme Court is arbitrary and unfair, says Transparency International.

The non-governmental organization responds to the process of selecting 9 candidates for the Supreme Court and writes about clan governance:

The High Council of Justice, a conduit of all important processes in the court system, is the main axis of the Clan’s power and wrongful management. Severe problems in the system directly affect public trust. Recent polls show sharp alienation of the society from the judiciary and an apparent crisis of trust.

According to Transparency, the process of selecting candidates for judges was conducted against the background of complete public distrust and the authorities did not take into account the recommendation of the Venice Commission on April 28. 

 The Venice Commission has proposed to the Georgian authorities to re-announce the competition for judges, taking into account the need for reforms and ensuring equality of candidates. Nevertheless, the process of selecting candidates continued and the High Council of Justice published individual evaluations on June 1, and by the June 17 decision, nominated the top nine candidates to the Parliament. The analysis of the contestants’ evaluations reveals shortcomings in a number of areas and raises questions regarding the general fairness and credibility of the competition: