Mandate of the United Nations Independent Expert on Violence and Discrimination based on

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Country visit to Georgia – 25 September to 5 October 2018
End of mission statement

Distinguished persons,

The mandate of UN Independent Expert on the protection against violence and discrimination based
on sexual orientation and gender identity was established by the United Nations Human Rights
Council resolution 32/2 in 2016. This mandate is the result of the community of nations’ awareness
about the intolerance, discrimination and particularly egregious abuses against the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, as documented in two reports produced in 2011 and
2015 by the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I visited Georgia from 24 September to 5 October 2018 with a view to assessing the implementation
of existing national and international human rights standards to combat violence and discrimination
against LGBT people in the country. During my visit I travelled to Tbilisi, Kutaisi and Batumi where
I met with representatives of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, local authorities, and the
Public Defender’s Office. I also visited one shelter for victims of violence, one centre for information
and counselling on reproductive health, and one clinic providing gender affirmation surgeries. In the
context of my visit, I have not been able to assess the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, and the
Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia. I was therefore no able to study the human rights situation
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in these regions, as well as challenges they face.

I would like to warmly thank the Government of Georgia for the invitation extended to me to conduct
this visit and for its excellent cooperation before and during the visit, during which I have not only
benefited from the legendary Georgian hospitality, but also from the exceptional professionalism and
dedication of all Governmental agencies involved in the organisation and execution of the visit.

I was also thankful to have an opportunity to discuss at great length with high-level representatives of
the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church and other religious denominations, including the
Mufti of All Muslims of Georgia and the Chairman of the Jewish Council of Georgia. Despite
differences of opinion, I am encouraged that during all of these meetings we identified a basic
common ground: violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity
are never justified and must be condemned and discouraged. I was also thankful to hear, from all
interlocutors, their willingness to continue a conversation toward learning how to create spaces of
peaceful and respectful coexistence. When creating Resolution 32/2, the community of nations
requested that dialogue be one of the guiding principles for my mandate, and I am delighted to have
been able to deploy this approach so actively during this visit.

I also had the privilege of meeting with a number of civil society organisations working in this field,
whose professionalism and dedication I would like to acknowledge. They showed great generosity in
sharing their knowledge and opinions and facilitated contacts with dozens of members of the LGBT
community who, in their turn, shared their life experiences with me.

To everyone who met with me, I want to express my gratitude for their readiness to engage in an open
and constructive dialogue. I am also thankful to the UN Country Team for their support and
assistance.
 2
End of mission statement Page

This end of mission statement will be followed by a full report with observations, conclusions and
recommendations that will be presented to the Human Rights Council in June 2019, and that will
constitute the totality of my advice to the Government of Georgia.

1. Introduction

The State of Georgia has carried out significant legal and institutional reform on matters of gender,
violence and discrimination. In particular, under the ratification process of the Council of Europe
Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Georgia
amended some 30 normative acts. Similarly, the Parliament of Georgia has established a gender
equality council and an action plan on gender equality has been adopted in its framework. These are
very positive steps towards eradicating such violence and I think that the work of the State in relation
to domestic violence reveals significant progress for which the State must be commended.

Similar positive developments demonstrate political will to act in relation to the particular issue of
sexual orientation and gender identity. These include the creation of an institutional framework
comprised ​inter alia ​of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Administration of the Government of
Georgia, the Human Rights Protection​ ​Department at the Ministry for Internal Affairs, and the
incorporation of specific focus areas within the work of other Governmental agencies, among them,
the Office of the Prime Minister, the Public Defender Office and the Inter-Agency Commission on
Gender Equality, Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

In parallel, training programmes on the prohibition of discrimination and investigation of hate

motivated crimes were carried out for representatives of the prosecutor’s office. In 2018, with the
assistance of a civil society organization, an LGBT perspective was integrated in training modules on
violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

2. Legal and public policy framework

a. Legal framework

Georgia is a State party to most major international and regional instrument on the protection of
human rights and has institutionalised implementation of its international obligations. There seems to
be consensus that, in broad terms, its domestic legal framework contains adequate provisions
regarding the eradication of violence and discrimination.

The fundamental norm for protection from violence and discrimination in the Georgian legal
framework is Article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality), which implicitly includes sexual
orientation and gender identity, as has been declared by the Constitutional Court of Georgia.

Significant legislative reforms implemented in recent years include:

a. the Law on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination, which explicitly list sexual
orientation, gender identity and gender expression as grounds of discrimination. The law
applies to all public institutions, organizations, individuals and legal entities in all fields of
activities. The Public Defender’s Office has been identified as the monitoring body and it
annually reports to the Parliament on the implementation of the law;

b. Article 53.3​1 of the Criminal Code, which since 2012 provides for aggravated sentencing
when a crime is committed based on sexual orientation or gender identity and which was
complemented in 2016 by a recommendation to prosecutors to identify and qualify hate
 3
End of mission statement Page

motivated crimes issued by the Division of Human Rights Protection at the Prosecutor’s
Office of Georgia; and

c. Article 142 of the Criminal Code, which since 2014 typifies violation of human equality on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression;

d. Article 239 of the Criminal Code, which since 2015 sanctions public calls for violent actions
aimed at initiating discord between groups, if this poses an obvious, direct and substantive
threat. This disposition is nonetheless subject to significant criticism from several quarters,
which argue that there are risks that the norm will be used against, rather than for the
protection of, minority groups;

e. Article 56 of the Law on Broadcasting, which forbids the broadcast of programs aimed at the
humiliation and defamation of a person or group based, ​inter alia,​ on their sexual orientation.
This disposition is nonetheless subject to significant criticism because the broadcasters’
self-regulatory mechanisms often refuse to discuss complaints filed by non-governmental
organisations, and the decisions are not subject to appeal.

The strength of this legal framework notwithstanding, all stakeholders agree that there are major
issues in terms of implementation compounded by a lack of awareness about the law and a lack of
reporting by victims.

This is illustrated by the fact that only 11% of the cases of possible discrimination received by the
Public Defender’s Office between 2016 and 2017 relate to sexual orientation and gender identity, and
the Office found acts of discrimination in only a handful of them. This must be put into perspective in
relation to the fact that the LGBT community is one of the most discriminated groups in the country.

b. Public policy framework

Georgia has also implemented significant policy reforms in the field of human rights and to combat
discrimination:

a. a Human Rights Strategy for 2014-2020 which under the strategic path of guaranteeing equal
rights and the protection of the rights of minorities, includes the task of combating
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

b. a Human Rights Action Plan for 2014-2015, which under section 12.5.1 includes the task of
promoting diversity including sexual orientation, and under section 14.4 includes the
objectives of ensuring comprehensive legislation to fight against discrimination on the basis
of gender identity and sexual orientation, and effective punishment of hate crimes through
timely investigation, training, and collection of statistics;

c. a Human Rights Action Plan for 2016-2017, which under section 13.2 included the objectives
of ensuring the legislative guarantees to fight against discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity, an anti-discrimination policy including the establishment of
standards in public service and the regulation of hate speech on law and a Code of Ethics, the
effective enforcement of hate crimes under Articles 53.3​1 of the Criminal Code, and
addressing domestic violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

When assessing the entirety of these public policies, I observe that they could be the basis for a
comprehensive strategy to combat discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender
 4
End of mission statement Page

identity. Unfortunately, as will be detailed ​infra,​ a very significant majority of these targets have not
been met, and very little progress can be observed in most of them. This creates a telling lag in the
progress of such strategic objectives of the State. I have received information to the effect that the
chapter on equality of the 2018-2020 Human Rights Action Plan is still under preparation. According
to information received during the mission, specific measures related to sexual orientation and gender
identity should be incorporated in this chapter. ​I therefore recommend that in the process of
completion of the chapter on gender of the 2018 – 2020 ​Human Rights​ Action Plan include an
evaluation of the factors that have hampered the completion of targets under section 14.4 of the
2014-2015 Action Plan, and 13.2 of the 2016-2017 Action Plan, formulate actions to address the
findings, and provide the means for their realistic implementation in the period 2018 – 2020.

Until such time as these actions are completed, the question that remains is whether the formal
framework in place is effectively addressing violence and discrimination against LGBT persons.
Unfortunately, there is also little controversy to the effect that challenges in connecting the framework
with lived experiences of lesbians, gays and bisexual and trans persons have, so far, failed to have that
impact to a meaningful degree.

2. Lives of LGBT persons in Georgia

The relevance of human rights is to be found in concrete aspects that matter in the everyday life of
individuals. Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said
that human rights begin in small places, neighbourhoods, schools and factories and offices where
persons seek equal justice, equal opportunity and equal dignity without discrimination. During my
visit, I have developed the conviction that in Georgia there are systemic factors that deny lesbians and
gays, and bisexual and trans persons the right to live free and equal in those neighbourhoods, those
schools and those places of work.

While I encountered no negation that these persons exist, or that their sexual orientation and gender
identity is as inherent to them as is the colour of their skin or their height, I did however encounter the
pervasive notion that this inherent aspect of the identity of each one of these Georgians is something
sinful, shameful or pathologic. As a result, the view of a majority is that gays, lesbians, trans and
bisexual persons must conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity if they want to be good
citizens, respectful of good morals and supportive of​ ​good values.

These convictions are in turn fuelled and reinforced by the church, tolerated and at times sponsored by
politicians and governmental or law enforcement agents, and replicated by mass and social media.

The consequences of this concerted attack are real and include the threat of exposure to violence and
exclusion from health, housing, ​work and economic opportunities, social success and other basic
elements that are a fundamental part of a person’s quest for happiness. This nefarious energy has at
the receiving end one of the most disenfranchised, vilified and vulnerable communities in Georgia.
The societal goal, it appears, is to create the notion that Georgia has a homogeneous population
composed exclusively of heterosexual cisgender persons.

But this would not be an accurate reflection of reality. Not only do we know that gay, lesbian and
trans and bisexual persons exist in every corner of the world, we also know that they represent a
certain proportion of Georgians. During these two weeks I spoke with many, who described their
intricate networks and communities, the manner in which thousands of them learn to recognise each
other, maintain contact, and receive and provide support. In the city of Batumi, for example, I was
given a rough estimate according to which the trans community could be as high as 100 persons
 5
End of mission statement Page

during the high season and the number of gay men or men who have sex with men, lesbian and
bisexual people would be in the thousands.

Each lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans person in Georgia puts in place some sort of survival strategy.
Very few will be protected by status or wealth; others will leave the country and break their family
bonds to seek asylum elsewhere. Those that remain will face the choice of revealing their true self and
be subjected to certain violence and discrimination or concealing this essential aspect of their identity
and living in a parallel world, “in a shell”, as one gay man told me in Batumi. For them, the fate is
invisibility of their needs and their realities, non-existence in official data, and constant fear of
exposure.

Indeed, my conversations with Georgians who happen to be gay, lesbian, trans or bisexual have
evoked the notion of freedom. “I am shackled, I can’t live free in this society. I have to lie to myself
and to others all the time,” said to me a gay man. This was a powerful image, this absence of freedom
– a value so cherished by all Georgians.

a. Violence

Virtually all conversations held during the visit lead to presume that violence (physical and
psychological) and discrimination against LGBT people are pervasive in Georgia: beatings are
commonplace, harassment and bullying constant and exclusion from education, work and health
settings appear be the norm.

i. Domestic violence

Domestic violence is a key element in the downward spiral of social exclusion and marginalisation
affecting the LGBT community: in a 2018 survey, 84% of LGBT people reported having experienced
some form of abuse by family members. Members of the community are often subjected to
psychological and physical violence, attempts to limit their freedom of movement and social contacts
with their peers as a punishment for not conforming to socially acceptable behaviours and practices.
For boys, feminine activities or behaviours are considered shameful and rejected by both the family
and society. While girls displaying masculine traits are dismissed as ​kalabicha ​(tomboys) and
expected to change over time, this does not exclude them from extreme violence. During one
conversation with a young lesbian woman, she referred how her father had repeatedly beat her and put
a gun to her head before she could manage to escape and take refuge in a shelter, something that was
autonomously corroborated by a State agency; when the case reached the police, the mother sided
with the father precisely because she considers her daughter’s sexual orientation an insult to the
family.

This leads me to observe that the successful actions of the State in relation to domestic violence
require further refinement when it comes to motives of sexual orientation and gender identity. In that
respect, I am aware that task 13.2.4 of the 2016 – 2017 National Action Plan foresaw actions to ensure
“timely and effective investigation of domestic violence cases based on sexual orientation and gender
identity” and “specific statistics and analysis on cases of domestic violence based on sexual
orientation and gender identity.” The conceptual framework or systems that would allow this
disaggregation has however not been completed. The Supreme Court, for example, provided
information of a pool of 1578 cases of domestic violence, but could not provide any information as to
which, among those, had basis on sexual orientation or gender identity.

I regret, for this reason, the lack of progress of LGBT-specific considerations in this work, which had
been planned by the Government itself. The measures taken to prevent and eradicate violence against
 6
End of mission statement Page

women and domestic violence, as well as support mechanisms for victims, appear to have been
designed from a heteronormative perspective and little consideration has been given to the reality of
the LGBT community.

The responses from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s office were, in this context,
more encouraging: the work required to gather the statistics has already started.

I therefore recommend that the State redouble its efforts to ensure adequate identification and
processing of domestic violence cases based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the
collection of the relevant statistics.

ii. Hate crimes

Hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are presumed to be commonplace:
one NGO reported having worked on 38 such cases during 2017 and so far in 2018, 40. I want to
underline that this must be regarded as the proverbial tip of the iceberg: if this is the number reported
by a single NGO that works with extremely limited resources, the rate of unreported violence must be
presumed to be exponentially higher.

Yet, even with reference to these numbers and the introduction in 2012 of an aggravating
circumstance for hate motivated crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity under Article
53.3​1 of the Criminal Code, it took four years for such a crime to be registered in the official statistical
database of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. During my visit, all information received from all quarters
is consistent to point out that law enforcement bodies rarely link this article to cases, and that Courts
have never applied it in what concerns sexual orientation or gender identity.

Indeed, LGBT persons face significant challenges bringing a complaint before Georgian police – the
first link in the chain of justice. Victims report being unwilling to refer incidents due to lack of trust
and fear of being outed, abused or mocked. Prejudice from police officers is particularly acute towards
trans sex workers and I have heard repeated complaints of abuse of authority, homo/transphobic
attitudes, verbal and physical abuse, and degrading or humiliating treatment. Some of those stories
include allegations that police officers will trade protection for sexual intercourse with trans women
under the auspices of well-established relations continuing for years. Yet, examples of such instances
of abuse are absolutely absent from the information bases of the police oversight mechanisms. This
clearly means that they will not be investigated and will remain unpunished, reinforcing a certainty of
impunity.

Some progress is being made in this regard since early 2018. The creation of the Department for
Human Rights Protection at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with a mandate to oversee the
investigation process of hate crimes, among others, appears to have created a qualitative difference in
the Ministry’s ability to deal with the issue. From January 2018, 40 cases of possible hate crimes have
been identified; among them 20 related to sexual orientation or gender identity, and 10 led to the
formulation of criminal charges. In addition, the Department is carrying out dissemination actions to
make clear that such offenses will be dealt with effectively and appropriately; and a special police
training module on hate crime is currently under development in cooperation with specialised civil
society organisations.

In relation to Prosecution: a) in 2016, four criminal cases were identified as hate motivated on grounds
of sexual orientation and 20 cases on grounds of gender identity. Four individuals were charged with
hate motivated crimes on grounds of sexual orientation; b) in 2017, 12 criminal cases were identified
as hate motivated on grounds of sexual orientation and 37 cases on grounds of gender identity. Four
 7
End of mission statement Page

individuals were charged with hate motivated crimes on grounds of sexual orientation and 4
individuals with hate motivated crimes on grounds of gender identity; and c) for the first months of
2018, four criminal cases were identified as hate motivated on grounds of sexual orientation and nine
cases on grounds of gender identity. Three individuals were charged with hate motivated crimes on
grounds of sexual orientation and five individuals with hate motivated crimes on grounds of gender
identity. I welcome these positive developments while underlining the concern that many cases do not
reach this stage in the proceedings and urging the prosecutorial authorities to intensify the efforts that
have allowed this progress to be reached.

At the level of the judiciary, there seems to be a different pattern altogether. Throughout my visit I
met with a representative section of this branch of the State, including the Supreme Court, the Kutaisi
City Court and Batumi City Courts. In all, I received information to the effect that the hate motive
included in article 53.3​1 has never been retained by judges when sentencing and that consequently
there is no jurisprudence of aggravating circumstances in homophobic or transphobic crime. The
explanations provided are manifold and include allegations of lack of legal prospect and negligence
on the part of the investigation to build properly on the motive of the crime. In one Court, when
discussing a specific case, I was told that, in retrospect, all elements for the application of Article
53.3​1 appeared to be present and the judge could not remember why it had not been applied. The
Legal Aid Bureau concurred and expressed its perplexity as to why, in many cases in which the
homophobic or transphobic motive was a clear line of investigation, it was not pursued.

The discrepancies between official statistics and cases documented by civil society organizations
confirm these concerns: the vast majority of violence against LGBT persons remains undocumented,
and when it is reported, it will be rendered invisible by the lack of proper identification. For example,
at the Supreme Court I was informed that in a case against a trans woman, the victim would be
registered with sole reference to the gender marker in her official identification, leading to most trans
women being registered as men, literally making invisible the problematic that they face.

For these reasons, I concur in my preliminary conclusions with the findings of the Public Defender’s
Office according to which the strategy to tackle hate-motivated violence fails to address the systemic
nature of the problem. Addressing root causes requires to make them visible. Stigma as to sexual
orientation and gender identity creates a vicious cycle where all persons and State agents involved in a
situation consider, at best, that it is in the best interest of the victim to conceal the true cause of
violence, and at worst, that the violence is justified. None of these extremes is conducive to proper
notice, investigation and registration of homophobic and transphobic crime.

It is within this context that I welcome the recent Project “Fight against discrimination, hate crime,
and hate speech in Georgia” that seeks, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, to combine
legislative, capacity-building and awareness-raising actions to ensure appreciation of diversity in
Georgia and the possibility for everyone to freely enjoy their rights, and that – I understand – includes
particular emphasis in the design of data gathering and management systems.

iii. Persons deprived of liberty

Prisons are like a microcosm of the society put under a magnifying glass. The risks of discrimination,
violence and abuse are even higher. All available studies and reports reach a similar conclusion,
namely that LGBT detainees remain amongst the most vulnerable in detention. In Georgia, a system
of social outcast had been put in place whereby inmates perceived as being LGBT would be isolated
from the rest of the prison population, enrolled in the most menial work such as cleaning services, and
would be subjected to mockery and offensive language from other detainees and even sometimes the
administrative personnel. According to the tacit rules of this system, any other detainee who would
 8
End of mission statement Page

touch, speak or simply acknowledge the existence of those perceived to be LGBT – referred as “hen”
– would automatically be associated with them and outcast as well. According to the Public
Defender’s Office, this results in these prisoners being less involved in the existing rehabilitation or
other activities implemented in penitentiary establishments. The Public Defender also noted that the
administration explains such classification in terms of security reasons as it is considered to be the
only way to protect prisoners’ interests and the regime of the penitentiary establishment.”

During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Special Penitentiary Service
and to visit a penitentiary institution, where I met with prison authorities to have a glimpse of the
human rights situation of LGBT persons in detention.

According to information at my disposal, this informal system continues to exist throughout the
country, although at different degrees. For example, in the prison I visited, despite efforts to create an
inclusive environment, it remains impossible for LGBT persons and those believed to be from the
community to distribute food, as other inmates will refuse it. As prison authorities acknowledged, “it
takes time to dismantle stigma and prejudices inherited from the Soviet era, the most important is to
change the mindset of people, the mentalities, and with time things will improve”.

I also note that the current obstacles to legal gender recognition and rigid interpretation of gender in
the judiciary may lead to situations where a trans woman may be sent to a male facility, with all risks
associated with it. This is another illustration of the urgent need to eliminate abuse requirements as
prerequisites for changing gender marker in identity documents, as noted below.

I am encouraged by efforts made by the authorities to combat discrimination towards LGBT persons
in detention. During the visit, I have been informed about the elaboration of a strategy and associated
plan of action for vulnerable detainees, including LGBT inmates that includes components related to
the care, protection and social integration of LGBT detainees through trainings, awareness raising,
and other activities. I however note that there is no baseline information with regard to the size and the
needs of the LGBT community in prison.

I therefore recommend to base policies and programmes, among other, on surveys and studies
assessing the current situation and to measure progress over time. In doing so, anonymity and
confidentiality should be guaranteed, and the safety of the detainees should always remain the
primary consideration.

iv. Hate speech

The general environment is hostile to LGBT people who have to endure homo/bi/transphobic opinions
being shared around them. The lack of knowledge about issues related to sexual orientation and
gender identity and misconceptions create fertile ground for the manipulation of public opinion. An
analysis of Georgian media monitoring shows that in public spaces, homophobic hate speech is most
frequently used by politicians and religious figures. For the former, it is at its height during elections,
as the theme of sexual orientation and gender identity is often used politically. The Criminal Code
does not explicitly prohibit hatred against members of the LGBT community and – despite its
inclusion under 13.2.2 of the 2016-2017 Action Plan - efforts to adopt a Code of Ethics for members
of the Parliament have failed. Further, such acts are never reprimanded publicly by the authorities and
therefore tacitly condoned.

I deeply regret this situation. The responsibility of authorities and public figures not to incite or
exacerbate hatred and discrimination is a well-established obligation under the international human
rights framework. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly established that expressions such
 9
End of mission statement Page

as qualifying homosexuality as a “deviant sexual proclivity” having a “morally destructive effect on

the substance of society” are serious and prejudicial allegations even when they are not calls to hateful
acts, and therefore an exception to the protections of Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. These obligations notwithstanding, a civil society organisation reported 731
homophobic public statements in 2017: 255 by the media, 153 by politicians, 172 by other members
of society, 24 by the clergy and 127 by civil organisations.

Since 2016, members of ultra-nationalists and far-right groups have emerged forcefully in the public
sphere using hate speech towards members of minorities, including LGBT people. These groups are
actively using social media to spread the hate propaganda against LGBT persons or launching violent
online attacks against individuals. There is little evidence of a comprehensive Government strategy to
address cyberbullying, hate speech and online threats against minorities.

I therefore recommend the prompt adoption of the standards on public service and Code of
Ethics envisaged under task 13.2.2. of the 2016-2017 Action Plan, as well as the evaluation of the
current legal framework to determine whether it is fully adequate to address hate speech.
Further, I recommend the adoption of a policy of zero tolerance in relation to hate speech on the
basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, accompanied by the adoption of effective
measures of investigation and sanction.

v. International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT)

On 17 May 2013 a small group of members of the LGBT community and their allies commemorating
the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in Tbilisi was attacked by a crowd of
thousands. For hours the small group of demonstrators were subjected to protracted terror and
physical and psychological damage, while the police failed to control the situation. While there is
contention at the level of involvement, there is consensus on the fact that clerics from the Orthodox
Church and members of extremist groups were involved in inciting the violence, and that groups from
the population executed the attack under mob dynamics.

I must confess that at the beginning of my mission I failed to understand the fundamental nature of
this event in the recent history of Georgia, but dialogue with all parties has convinced me that it is, in
fact, a point of rupture. I have been struck by the extent to which different stakeholders – the
Government, the LGBT community, the civil society and the Church – qualify it as “a source of
shame,” a “societal trauma,” or “the lowest point of Georgian society in recent times.”

Equally worrisome are the effects of these events on the ability of the LGBT community to make
effective use of their freedom of expression. Since then, strong limitations put in place by the
Government to participation in 17 May demonstrations have hampered the ability of the LGBT
community to celebrate this International Day:

a. in 2014 and 2016, not held by external restriction, and in connection to facts currently
pending before the European Court of Human Rights,
b. in 2015, not held by self-restriction,
c. in 2017 and 2018, held but under several limitations.

This chilling effect seems to be supported by a significant majority of the society. According to a
study by a civil society organisation 80.5% of the respondents to a survey considered that LGBT
rallies should be banned by law. To have such a significant part of society convinced that a whole
community does not possess the right to freedom of expression is something that concerns me very
deeply.
 10
End of mission statement Page

In this context, I congratulate the participation of the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and of the
Head of the Human Rights Protection Department in the 2018 celebration, as well as the
announcement prior to the meeting, that violence will not be tolerated.

In 2014, the Orthodox Church of Georgia declared 17 May as Family Purity Day. Since then, the
Patriarchate has held annual demonstrations on 17 May, marching in Tbilisi city center and
celebrating mass wedding ceremonies. I am very thankful of the respectful and open dialogue that
allowed me to convey to the Patriarchate my concerns in this respect: the establishment of a dynamic
of peaceful coexistence must be a common objective, and I am convinced that other solutions could be
found for different beliefs to be manifested without creating risks of confrontation and a dynamic of
competition.

For these of many other reasons, I am convinced that 17 May 2013 is an open wound that remains to
be healed, and I am convinced that this is due to the fact that a shadow exists over the investigation,
prosecution and sanction of those very grave events.

I therefore recommend that the State consider the adoption of measures to ascertain the truth of
the events of 17 May 2013, the establishment of different responsibilities in them, and the
measures of reparation that should ensue, including what measures of non-repetition would be
necessary.

b. Discrimination

i. Leave no LGBT person behind

According to surveys, just as LGBT people are seen by the Georgian population as amongst the most
discriminated in the country, the general attitude however remains negative towards this community.
A 2018 poll conducted by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) highlighted that only 23% of the
population believed that the protection of their rights was important.

These perceptions that translate into discriminatory practices in everyday life and are exacerbated by
stigmatising regulations, such as the prohibition to donate blood by men who have sex with men that
keeps on being struck down by the Constitutional Court only to reappear in other incarnations. I have
indeed been informed that after having been invalidated twice by the Constitutional Court which
found the Ministry of Health’s regulations discriminatory, a ban on blood donation has recently been
introduced prohibiting men who have sex with men to donate blood for 10 years after having had
sexual intercourse with a same-sex partner. As pointed out by the Court in previous decisions, the fact
that modern technologies allow for the detection of HIV/AIDs in donations makes a ban unnecessary.
Such policies only add to the stigma associated with men who have sex with men and should be
abolished.  

To date, the LGBT community is not only invisible in mainstream society, but also in development
strategies, policies, programming and budgeting. There is little knowledge about the community, its
size, its vulnerability, and its needs. It is crucial that the human rights of LGBT people remain firmly
included in the 2030 agenda, and to include LGBT persons, communities and populations in the
design, implementation and evaluation of all related policies.

Without urgent measures to render the community visible and to address violence and discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Georgia will fail to comply with its international
human rights law obligations and deliver on the promise not to leave anyone behind in the
 11
End of mission statement Page

implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Urgent responses are required from the
legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government, as well as non-State actors such as civil
society, faith-based communities, the media, and the private sector.

In this context, I recommend that the State ensure the availability of high-quality, timely and
reliable disaggregated data to enable the formulation of policy changes deemed necessary for
the social inclusion of LGBT people and the protection of their human rights. Data collection
and management should be implemented in strict compliance with human rights standards, as
an effective measure to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence and discrimination against
LGBT persons.

ii. Right to privacy and family life

The new Constitution of Georgia, which will be enacted after the Presidential election planned for
October 2018, replaces the current neutral definition of marriage with a definition that recognizes
marriage “as a union between a woman and a man”. Such definition echoes the long-standing
definition of marriage enshrined in article 1106 of the civil code that defines marriage as a voluntary
union between a woman and a man for the purpose of creating a family.

During my visit, I have been informed that the LGBT community had never claimed marriage
equality for same-sex couples and that this proposal was initiated by some political groups who
appealed to public homophobic sentiments and called for the preservation of a traditional form of
family for political gain. I call on all relevant actors to reflect on how such unnecessary initiatives fuel
negative sentiments towards the LGBT community and contribute to stigma and stereotypes, and on
political leaders to shoulder their responsibility towards promoting social peace and fostering
tolerance.

I note that there is currently no recognised form of same-sex partnerships in Georgia. In that regard, I
have been informed that the Venice Commission issued an opinion in 2017 on the proposed draft
Constitution of Georgia stating that the Constitutional definition of marriage should “in no case be
interpreted as prohibiting same sex partnership” and that “Georgia like any other Council of Europe
member State is obliged to comply with European Convention on Human Rights standards and
therefore must provide legal recognition (such as civil unions or registered partnerships for same sex
couples).”  

iii. Decent work and right to an adequate standard of living

In the absence of official statistical data on the well-being of the LGBT population and their social
inclusion, I can only rely on anecdotal evidence and surveys or studies conducted by
non-governmental sources.

Although the Labour Code explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, all reports
available attest to discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual remaining common in the
workplace. A study conducted by a non-governmental organization showed that discrimination in
employment is the most problematic sphere for LGBT persons, and especially trans persons. The
same study found that one person out of four had been denied employment due to sexual orientation
or gender identity and that only 15.3% of LGBT people are open about their sexual orientation at
work due to fear of discrimination.

Many members of the community said that they were concealing their sexual orientation or gender
identity in order to have decent work. Those whose appearance does not correspond with social
 12
End of mission statement Page

expectations, especially effeminate men, told me that they were not hired or when hired, they were
ostracized at work, subjected to slurs and mockery or fired if coming out. All LGBT community
concurred in saying that the most vulnerable and marginalized were trans women. Unless they live a
double life, trans women have little chance to find a formal job. This is compounded by the
difficulties to obtain legal gender recognition and the sad reality that most trans women have identity
documents that do not correspond with their gender identity. Many, therefore, work in informal
economies with poor working conditions and remuneration, including sex work.

Information received during the mission points to the fact that the vulnerability of the LGBT
community to homelessness and their needs has not yet been examined and taken into consideration
when designing policies and programmes. There is a lack of research regarding the root causes of
homelessness in the country and the possible correlation between domestic violence and
homelessness. LGBT youths are often ousted from their home when “coming out” and many find
themselves in an extremely vulnerable situation, subjected to homelessness, poverty, violence and
prejudice in public spaces. Studies conducted in other countries showed that LGBT youths were
over-represented among the homeless, with one study showing that as much as 40% of the homeless
youths in the country were LGBT.

I regret the lack of data on the number of homeless LGBT youths and the absence of State programme
offering temporary accommodation or specific shelters for LGBT people. I therefore welcome
trainings provided by civil society organizations to staff members of the shelters on service provision
to victims in order to mainstream the special needs of lesbian, bisexual and trans women.

iv. Health

The Law of Georgia on the Protection of the Right to Healthcare prohibits discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation and prohibits negative personal attitude while the Law of Georgia on the
Rights of Patients protects the rights of citizens in the healthcare system and prescribes respect for the
dignity of all patients.

Stereotypes and stigma however permeate in all spheres of life, including when accessing health
services. Members of the LGBT community have reported that medical personnel display
homophobic attitudes towards them and these attitudes adversely affect their access to health as they
refrain from seeking medical services and may choose self-medication in order to avoid negative
attitudes of doctors.

According to a study conducted by non-State actors, 39% of the medical staff interviewed believed
that homosexuality is a disease and can be cured, in complete contradiction with the position of the
World Health Organization. I was myself shocked by the lack of awareness and the stigma attached to
the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity by health professionals.

In 2017, the State Regulation Agency for Medical Activities of the Ministry of Labour, Health and
Social Affairs received seven complaints regarding the provision of medical services to
representatives of the LGBT community, of which the Agency determined that signs of violations
were detected in one case only.

Health-related government policies, strategies and action plans do not cover or address the needs and
interests of the LGBT community, despite a recommendation to that effect by the Parliament’s Gender
Equality Council to the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs.
 13
End of mission statement Page

In the absence of specific studies by the Government, the healthcare needs of the LGBT community
remain unknown. The situation of lesbian and bisexual women is particularly striking in that regard as
there seems to be a total absence of information regarding their access to health care services and
identification of their needs.

According to a 2014 size estimation study, some 17,200 men have sex with men in Georgia. A sharp
increase of HIV prevalence among MSM population has been a serious public health concern. A 2015
study revealed that HIV prevalence among this group increased from 7% in 2010 to 25.1% in 2015 in
Tbilisi. Alarmingly, as a result of low HIV testing coverage of key population, only 14% of MSM
living with HIV know their status. Homophobia and transphobia compounded by HIV/AIDS social
stigma remains a major obstacle for the inclusion of these populations in testing and treatment
services.

Trans persons’ access to health care services is opaque and health professionals are particularly
unaware of specific health needs of trans persons. Access to appropriate gender affirmation services
including psychological, endocrinological and surgical expertise is unregulated. To date, there are no
clinical guidelines with regards to gender affirmation procedures, despite a recommendation to that
effect by the Parliament’s Gender Equality Council to the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social
Affairs, and these are not covered by private health insurance schemes and under the Universal Health
Care Program, making it unaffordable and therefore inaccessible to the vast majority of trans people.

I therefore recommend that the State take immediate measures to improve the health and
well-being of LGBT people and guarantee their access to good quality healthcare services and
health-related information. This includes considering establishing the provision of
gender-affirming care as a State obligation not dependent on a diagnosis and not as a
prerequisite for legal gender recognition.

v. Education, culture and sport

The Law on General Education and the Law on Higher Education of Georgia prohibits discrimination
on any grounds but none of the regulatory documents in the educational system includes issues related
to bullying.

A survey conducted in 2016 by a non-governmental organization showed that bullying remains

widespread with seven of 10 students surveyed having been victim of bullying. Many members of the
community testified about violence and isolation in school. The low level of sensitization to the fact
that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality creates a hostile environment and breeds
intolerance towards LGBT students. Members of the community said that at times parents and
teachers join force to convince LGBT students to change their sexual orientation, including through
psychological counselling. In such an environment, students internalize the negative attitudes and
values of society, which may have a detrimental impact on their mental health and result in self-harm
or violence. It is therefore crucial to urgently adopt specific programmes to promote tolerance towards
LGBT people in the education sector.

Sexuality education is not part of the school curriculum, but the government has introduced the
subject “Me and Society” that aims at addressing issues related to family, society, school environment
and citizenship. There is however little if no information provided in the educational material on
eliminating gender stereotypes and promoting equality and non-discrimination regarding women and
girls, nor on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is of great concern, given the
stigma, stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding gender, sexuality, and LGBT persons in Georgia.
 14
End of mission statement Page

I therefore recommend that the State implement objective, non-partisan sexuality education and
awareness-raising as a crucial vehicle to address the root causes of violence and discrimination
based on gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Culture and sport are two powerful media to sensitize the general population and promote human
rights and to foster social inclusion. Systematically, in all meetings, with all stakeholders, the urgent
need to raise awareness and foster education about sexual education and gender identity was
highlighted as a key building block to eradicate violence and discrimination towards LGBT people.
Unfortunately, to date, there is no State programme, policy, or strategy to tackle this issue through
culture or sport.

vi. Gender identity

According to established practice, full sex reassignment surgery preceded by an assessment by

psychologists and sexologists as well as hormonal therapy are a prerequisite for being able to amend
gender markers in identity documents. Prior to the surgery, they have to be observed by psychologists
and sexologists. I was shocked to be informed that, after that, the surgeon will issue to the patient an
opinion on whether the patient is a “true transsexual” or not, depending on the patient’s will to
undergo full or only partial bodily affirmation procedures. I am extremely concerned by such abusive
requirements applied at the discretion of medical professionals clearly uneducated on sexual
orientation and gender identity, and would note that the surgeries recommended to “true transsexuals”
lead to completely unnecessary mutilation, sterilization, great pain and suffering.

The requirements described are abusive and in contradiction with international human rights
standards. Such treatments and procedures can lead to severe and life-long physical and mental pain
and suffering and if forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary, can violate the right to be free from
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Sterilization requirements run
counter to respect for bodily integrity, self-determination and human dignity, and can cause and
perpetuate discrimination against transgender persons.

Further, the right to equal recognition before the law is a basic element in a well-functioning
framework for protection from arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, as it is well
established that in all situations of deprivation of liberty, the proper identification of the individual is
the first guarantee of State accountability. Without it, trans people are victim of discrimination in all
aspects of life, including in employment, housing, and access to social security, they are socially
excluded, and subjected to high levels of violence. They may also face restrictions on their right to
freedom of movement. For these reasons, the gender recognition system that allow trans persons to
change their name and gender markers on identification documents should be a simple administrative
process based on self-determination of the applicant and it should be accessible and, to the extent
possible, cost-free.

I therefore call on Georgia to eliminate abusive requirements as prerequisites for gender

markers' change, including forced involuntary sterilization and medical procedures related to
transition, as well as surgeries and hormonal therapies, undergoing medical diagnosis,
psychological appraisals or other medical or psychosocial procedures or treatment.

2. Conclusions

In conclusion, I encourage the authorities of Georgia to continue along the road already undertaken. I
deeply appreciate their expressions on the importance of eradicating violence and discrimination
 15
End of mission statement Page

based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and acknowledge the important steps taken in relation
to the legal and public policy framework. The task remaining, however, is significant. That excellent
framework needs now to deploy an impact in the small spaces to which Ms. Roosevelt made
reference: the sidewalk in which persons walk, the field where they play football with their friends,
the school that they attend to educate themselves and the restaurant in which they wait on customers
to gain a living. More importantly, it needs to deploy an impact in the home to which they return.

Some may argue that this work takes one or many generations to be complete. I have no doubt that
that may be the case. But every Georgian who happens to be gay, lesbian or bisexual or trans deserves
to see, today, decided forward action that paves the way to being free and equal.

Thank you.

Tbilisi, 5 October 2018