EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.5.2015 SWD(2015) 103 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Third Progress Report on Georgia's implementation of the action plan on visa liberalisation

{COM(2015) 199 final}



1. INTRODUCTION The Commission Staff Working Document (hereafter CSWD) accompanies the Third Progress Report on the implementation by Georgia of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan (hereafter VLAP). The CSWD, together with the Report, provides a detailed analysis of the most relevant developments relating to the implementation of the so-called second phase VLAP benchmarks concerning the effective and sustainable implementation of relevant measures. The annex of the CSWD includes an update to the assessment of possible migratory and security impacts on the European Union (hereafter EU) of the future visa liberalisation for Georgia. The factual information and assessment included in the CSWD are based on the information gathered during the EU evaluation missions that took place in Georgia between December 2014 and March 2015, which included experts from EU Member States, services of the Commission and the European External Action Service (hereafter EEAS) and the EU Delegation to Georgia. Additional information was obtained through the progress reports submitted by Georgia on 15 October 2014, its updated version received by the Commission on 18 January 2015, and subsequent communications between December 2014 and April 2015. The CSWP follows the VLAP structure. Under the sections corresponding to individual VLAP blocks, the CSWD lists all the benchmarks from the second phase and it describes the state of their implementation, in particular focussing on the developments that took place after the publication of the Second Progress Report, that is, 29 October 2014. 2. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VLAP 2.1. Block 1: Document security, including biometrics Effective implementation of legal and institutional framework for document security, including provision of sufficient financial and human resources, with adequate training programmes; The Public Service Development Agency (hereafter PSDA) has responsibility for registration of all civil acts such as birth, marriage and death as well as the issuance of identity cards and passports. There is over 1000 staff employed on Agency services with over 600 employed in territorial offices. 92% of the cost of providing services is funded out of the fees; the remainder comes from grants and the state budget. Staff is recruited through advertising and interview. References are checked and background checks carried out for those being recruited. Salaries for PSDA staff are higher than the national average and a system of bonuses and pay increments is in place as well as payment for overtime and a benefits package. Staff is provided with job descriptions and guidance on dealing with conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, disclosure of confidential information etc. These factors significantly reduce the attraction of staff fraud/corruption. The management structure of the PSDA is sound with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each of the senior staff. This has ensured that all areas relevant to Block 1 are being properly managed with the appropriate level of staff assigned to individual areas of the operation. Senior staff of the PSDA displays a high degree of knowledge and understanding of the operation and practices were consistent between offices, primarily due to the use of a highly automated system. The PSDA has achieved effective implementation of the legal and institutional frameworks necessary for document security. It maintains a unified database linking personal data through a Personal Identification Number (hereafter PIN) used in all relevant transactions which provides a sound basis for the issue of documents.

A significant effort has been made to improve personal data protection with the appointment in 2013 of a Data Protection Officer and mandatory training courses for all staff. An Information Management Security System is almost complete and aims to be fully compliant with the relevant ISO standard(s). PDSA will be seeking accreditation for the system from ISO in due course. Gradual roll-out of biometric passports in full compliance with highest ICAO standards and recommended practices, and complete phasing-out of old non-ICAO compliant passports, including at Georgian consulates abroad; In relation to the issuance of biometric passports, these are fully compliant with International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (hereafter ICAO) specifications set out in Document 9303 and have been issued since 2010 (2014 in relation to applications made at Georgian diplomatic missions abroad). Fingerprints are included in the electronic chip in accordance with EU document security standards. These passports contain a number of different types of security features as recommended by ICAO and were recently analysed by the MoI of France. Various pieces of legislation have been implemented to comply with the ICAO document security requirements. These include the cessation of extending passports beyond their original validity period and the requirement for ‘one person- one passport’ which removed the ability to include children on an adult’s passport. The previous ‘capped’ passport which is insecure was invalidated for travel from 1 January 2011. A small number of such passports (which were capable of being extended beyond the original validity date) remain valid up to 2016. The small number of ‘capped’ passports still in circulation should not present any significant problem. Arrangements for overseas issuance of biometric passports are now consistent with those in Georgia with applications being sent electronically to Tbilisi for a decision and issuance. Small numbers of Status Neutral Documents are issued for Georgians living in breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Arrangements for establishing entitlement and their secure issuance are satisfactory. Diplomatic and Service passports are authorised for issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and have varying lengths of validity as set out in legislation, ranging from 4 years to 10 years. There are checks and balances in place to ensure that they are issued only to those entitled to such documents. Implementation of the necessary measures to ensure a high level of integrity and security of the document application, personalisation and distribution process for passports, ensuring that stocks of documents are stored at adequately protected places and avoiding the issuance of multiple passports, identity cards and other breeder documents respectively per person; Establishing entitlement to a Georgian document is made according to a comprehensive set of guidance and legal acts. Arrangements for the establishing of identity and the secure issuance of documents (breeder, ID cards, passports both at home and overseas) are very good. This has much to do with the unified database as well as the issuance system for these documents which ensure separation of duties (between front and back offices) to prevent one person from being able to introduce a fraudulent application into the system and produce a document. There are only three personalisation centres in Georgia through which all applications are processed. Random assignment of work also contributes to the robustness of the system and reduces the opportunity for fraud. It is difficult to envisage how the system might be manipulated by corrupt employees given the various integrated checks and balances. Data security arrangements are very good. Access to databases is strictly controlled and monitored. A system-generated random supervisory check on applications seems to be lacking. Some concerns had previously been raised regarding the ability to obtain multiple passports in the same or different names. This has been addressed through legislation introduced in June 2014 to restrict name changes; only one change is allowed for the first name for adult. In all cases checks are made to ensure the person is not ‘wanted’ or has previously changed their name. In relation to the change of family name, this can only be done in very restricted circumstances. Where a change is made, the citizen’s identity card is invalidated and a new card issued in the new name – the PIN remains the same. Second passports are now only granted where the reason for the request meets the strict rules set out. Since 1st September 2014, second passports are granted with one year validity only. Arrangements for the secure storage and handling of blank travel documents are very good and ensure that they can be accounted for at all times. Destruction of spoiled/damaged passports is an overly bureaucratic process as it currently stands and results in documents being stored for lengthy periods of time. The front office staff deal with applicants in person but the process appears to be primarily a database checking function rather than one that includes an element of fraud awareness. Fraud cases are rare, but at present it appears that potential fraud is predominantly dealt with as a back office function based on checking database information. Anti-fraud training seems to be incomplete in the curricula for front office staff.

An internal audit function exists within the PDSA. However the team is small, has a large mandate and has to cover a large number of offices across Georgia. It is important that the audit function is carried out in relation to security of the application and issuance functions, the secure handling of documents, security around the protection of identity cards and passport books. Prompt and systematic reporting to Interpol/LASP database on lost and stolen passports; Reporting of lost and stolen travel passports to Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Document (hereafter SLTD) database is in operation and reports are sent daily from PSDA in response to a citizen reporting the loss of a passport. On 23 December 2014 PSDA and the National Bureau of Interpol (hereafter NBI) concluded a new agreement under which PSDA will provide data on all enlisted lost ID cards. This was necessary as Georgian citizens can travel visa-free to Turkey with their ID card. Based on the same act, since 23 December 2014 the NBI will be notified on a daily basis on the loss of passports and ID cards. Regular exchange of passport specimens, visa forms and information on false documents, and cooperation on document security with the EU; Georgia has exchanged specimens of its passports with a number of countries. There are arrangements in place to ensure that new passport specimens are circulated as widely as possible. At present this is done primarily through the diplomatic missions overseas. In the past, some documents (for example, the Status Neutral Document) have been submitted to the EU Travel Document Expert Group to examine. Examples of Georgian passports issued since 1994 are displayed on PRADO. A new visa format was introduced from September 2014 containing a photograph of the visa holder and a machine readable zone. In 2015 PSDA will start preparations for the issuance of new generation biometric passport, travel documents, including Status Neutral travel document. The Status Neutral travel document (currently non-biometric) may be redesigned to include an electronic chip, but it will not be a valid document for visa-free travel. PSDA has not yet joined the ICAO Public Key Directory (hereafter PKD) nor circulated its Electronic Machine Readable Passport (hereafter eMRP) certificates or Certificate Revocation Lists (hereafter CRLs) to the relevant bodies and partners. 2.2. Block 2: Integrated Border Management, Migration Management, and Asylum 2.2.1. Integrated border management Effective implementation and updating of the national Integrated Border Management (IBM) Strategy and Action Plan, including legislation on border control through adequate border checks and border surveillance procedures and operational effectiveness, situational picture at national and local level, including use of risk analysis, intelligence and data-flow management, as well as direct access and consultation of relevant national and international databases; Institutional and legal framework of Border Management in Georgia – current situation

Progress in demarcation of state borders is still pending with Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. 71 % of the borders with Armenia, 66 % with Azerbaijan and 36 % with Russia have been agreed at the level of the Delimitation Commissions and Expert Groups. Georgia has been in the process since ten years of implementing the institutional reform which started in 2004. The previous military agency, the State Border Defence Department was transformed into a law-enforcement agency in the Ministry of Interior (hereafter MoI). The reform has required strict efforts, including new legislation and creation of a new organisation (Border Police) and later in 2009 reorganising border checks at all border crossing points under the Patrol Police. This work is completed in practise and the focus has been and remains on strengthening the capabilities of the involved agencies. Georgia has developed its border management and promoted the reform by adopting an Integrated Border Management Strategy (IBMS) and Action Plan (AP). The strategy identifies the key factors for effective border management. It provides policies, principles and objectives for a coherent and effective implementation based on the joint efforts of the responsible agencies. A program on Border Police Modernisation, Standardisation and Unification has been started in August 2014. An intra-agency working group in the MoI has been formed to elaborate this program for a period of 5 years according to the plan in order to establish common unified and standardised procedures. An extensive reformation and modernisation of the customs system started in 2007 by establishing the Revenue Service that combined Customs and Tax Services. Control of Georgia's breakaway territories The state border in the areas of Georgia's breakaway territories is not controlled by Georgian authorities. Soon after the 2008 war, Russia (FSB) started the surveillance of the administrative boundary line (ABL) and control of the traffic across the line. Georgian Police is controlling the ABL by mobile patrols and the ABL crossings at check points. The aim of the control is to inform persons seeking to enter the breakaway areas that they are not under the control of Georgian authorities. Third country nationals who are entering the breakaway territories are registered at the check point to verify, if needed, that they have left the area under control of Georgian authorities. When entering from breakaway territories, all cars and persons (and goods) are checked in order to verify their right to stay in Georgia. Travel documents are not stamped when entering or exiting the breakaway territories. Data-flow management and access to databases In order to address new regulations introduced by the Law on Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons, the Border Migration Administering and Reporting System (hereafter BMARS) was launched as of 1 September 2014. The system provides the information needed for border crossings and border checks. Continued improvement of inter-agency cooperation (including exchange of data between all the agencies involved in border management, in particular the Patrol Police Department, the Border Police and the Border Police Coast Guard, and other law enforcement agencies, including customs); That basis for inter-agency cooperation exists and authorities involved in border management are willing further developing their cooperation mechanisms. There is a high level of implementation and especially in cooperation between the Patrol Police and the Revenue Service. At border crossing points the cooperation has received forms which could be considered as best practises according to the EU standards.

Provision of adequate infrastructure, technical equipment, IT systems, financial and human resources in accordance with the IBM Strategy and Action Plan, and effective implementation of training programmes and anticorruption measures; Improving land border infrastructure and surveillance tools is one of the priorities for the next years. Infrastructure supports the effective implementation of border management. Georgia has operational border crossing points, modernised and adapted to control different flows. There is a standard design model applied to all Georgian BCPs which provides for safe and well organised movement of passengers and cargo. Salaries have been raised significantly after the start of the reform. In 2005 a border guard´s monthly salary in the Border Police was 150 GEL; in 2014 it was already 1000 GEL. Respectively, for Patrol Police officer working at a BCP, the monthly salary level was 1000 GEL in 2012 and is currently 1165 GEL. The budget of the Border Police has likewise grown during the recent years, In 2012 the budget was 61,3 million GEL and in 2014 78,6 million GEL. MoI Academy provides training and on-job retraining courses for the personnel of different departments of the MoI of Georgia. Continued improvement in international cooperation, including cooperation with neighbouring countries and effective implementation of working arrangement with FRONTEX; International cooperation in the area of border management was noted to be extensive in border management already during the previous missions. Bilateral cooperation agreements have been adopted with all neighbouring countries. In general, the wide range of international partners' support, operational cooperation, information exchange and sharing of best practises. 2.2.2. Migration management Continued effective implementation of the EU-Georgia readmission agreement, as well as relevant Georgia's readmission agreements with third countries, and of measures providing for the sustainable reintegration of Georgian citizens (returning voluntarily or not); Georgia has signed the readmission agreement with the EU, as well as Switzerland, Norway, Moldova, Ukraine and Denmark. Implementing Protocols are signed with Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Austria, Benelux and Lithuania. Another 11 protocols are under negotiations and a protocol with Denmark is ready for signature. The implementation of the EU-Georgia readmission agreement has been evaluated as very good. Intra-agency cooperation in that area seems to function very well in Georgia. Georgia has introduced the Readmission Case Management Electronic System, coordinated by Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The establishment of the System was financed by EU and implemented by IOM and ICMPD. The System provides an on-line process allowing a speedy communication between the stakeholders and also provides a statistical overview on the readmission activities. Since March 2011 until 31 December 2014; 3739 decisions to accept the person have been adopted and 292 cases have been refused. Most cases were asked and approved to Germany, Greece, France, Austria and Belgium. There have been only 5 readmission cases of third country nationals to Georgia so far. Georgian answers to readmission applications are very clear and timely, which means that internal coordination is effective.

Negotiations on readmission agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Belarus are ongoing. Georgia has proposed to start negotiations to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Israel as well. The main challenge for the future will be to launch negotiations with other important third countries, especially with Algeria, China, Egypt, Iran, Nepal, Nigeria and Turkey. According to the statistical data, overall there were 5409 returns to Georgia in 2013 and 4188 returns in 2014. There were no estimations on the numbers of voluntary returns to the country. Four Mobility Centres in Georgia were established within the project “Reinforcing the capacities of the Government of Georgia in border and migration management”. They were established in March 2013 (Tbilisi) and in the period from April to June 2014 (further 3 centres). There are 4 employees in Tbilisi Mobility Centre and 2 employees in each of 3 centres. The Centres provide reintegration support measures such as activities in return assistance, reception assistance and transport, initial counselling, providing temporary accommodation, medical assistance, support in employment and vocational training and providing support in business creation. Activities of the Mobility Centre concerning the information and counselling to potential migrants are oriented to raise awareness of safe migration, prevention of irregular migration and trafficking and to collect information about push and pull factors. The Mobility Centres have been addressed by 930 persons, returning from 32 countries. The majority of persons (82%) have returned voluntary to Georgia, 16% were returned and 2% of the beneficiaries were readmitted to Georgia (data for the whole period since the establishments of the centres). The State budget already allocated partial funding in 2015 for reintegration activities within Mobility centres (GEL 400,000). Effective implementation of legal framework for migration management, including provision of administrative structures with adequate human and financial resources with clear competences for all aspects of migration management, as well as effective cooperation between relevant agencies; The Law on the Legal Status of Aliens has been amended in November 2014 and in February 2015 prescribing the transitional period until 1 July 2015 for foreigners to gather all documents which are necessary for the procedure of issuing a residence permit in Georgia. The implementation of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons in the fields of legal migration and visa policy is in place since September 2014 and this was confirmed also by statistical data. Every ministry is responsible for its jurisdictions and looks after the organisation, logistics, staff and financial support, as well as training of staff. The regulatory framework provides adequate division of competences between the ministries and agencies. The implementation of the new Law on the Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons is monitored by the established working group within the State Commission on Migration Issues. The working group takes into account the opinion of non-governmental and international organisations and universities on the issues of implementation of the law. The Migration Strategy of Georgia for 2013-2015 was adopted in March 2013 and complemented by an Action Plan from June 2013. The strategy's main areas are prevention and control of irregular migration, promotion of legal migration and reintegration of citizens in Georgia and the development of the asylum system in Georgia. The Action Plan reflects the areas with concrete activities, deadlines, responsible authorities and partners. Out of approximately 100 activities, 42 were completed, while the remaining 58 are expected to be finalised by the end of 2015. Additional financial resources might be necessary to finalise the implementation of the activities. The preparation of the new Migration Strategy 2016-2020 has been entrusted to the State Commission on Migration Issues. The State Commission on Migration Issues acts as an advisory body to the Government, without executive functions, but has coordinative and policy making role in the system. The Commission will prepare the new strategy and action plan, the updated Migration profile, a migration text-book for academia, the plan for VLAP information campaigns, the concept of a migration analytical system and will coordinate the activities within the VLAP. Establishment and regular updating of Georgia's Migration Profile, and effective analysis of data on migration stocks and flows; The Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees was previously responsible for preparation of the Migration Profile of Georgia. So far, Georgia has prepared the Profile for the years 2005 to 2010 and the Migration Profile for 2011 and 2012 was prepared and adopted in September 2013. The profile was amended in the beginning of 2014. The Migration profile for 2014-2015 will be published by the end of February 2016.

An electronic database for irregular migrants (BMARS – Border, Migration Administering and Reporting System) was established and started operating on 1 March 2015. The software counts the numbers of the days after entering the country until the departure for foreign citizens. The database includes the duration of residence and procedures that were launched by that person, including the notice on over-stayers and legal status of individual foreigners. It gives the data for the individual who is in the procedure and shows if the person has stayed in the country longer than he or she is allowed to stay. The coordination of the activities regarding the establishment of a Unified Migration Analytical System has been taken over in February 2014 by the State Commission for Migration Issues, where a special working group has been established. The concept of the Unified Migration Analytical System has been prepared and it is expected that the System will be tested in 2016. Consistent implementation of an effective methodology on inland detection of irregular migrants, risk analysis (including the reporting of relevant agencies and analysis on all administrative levels), and investigation of cases of organised facilitated irregular migration, including effective cooperation between relevant agencies; Inland detection of irregular migrants in Georgia is performed by the Patrol Police, Central and Regional Police. The detection of irregular migrants is executed as a routine work or on the special request of the Migration Department. The Ministry of the Interior has developed a modern and effective concept of the Risk Analyses. Within the MoI, a well-staffed Migration Department has been established in order to ensure the coordination of the activities in the field of combating irregular migration and conduct the deportation procedures and ensure the accommodation of the foreigners in the deportation procedures. The Migration Department has 74 posts, 72 of which are occupied. The Migration Department consists of an irregular migration division (22 posts), a division for legal affairs (11) and the Temporary accommodation centre (37). The capacity seems to be sufficient for the beginning of the implementation, but attention must be given to the implementation, especially to the vulnerable categories and the overall capacity of reception system. The Criminal police is responsible for the fight against irregular migration; the tasks are identification of irregular migrants, investigation of criminal offences on irregular migration, organise preventive actions, as well to reveal the cases of human trafficking. The Criminal police managed to launch 219 investigations for illegal crossing of the state border, 6 investigations on illegal transfer of migrant to the state border of Georgia, 4200 investigations on the use of forged documents were detected in 2014. The authorities are aware of the division of the responsibilities of various agencies in the field of migration and consequently for the role of exchange of information and necessary co-operation. Intra-agency cooperation is covered by the Ministerial Order that established in September 2014 the Co-ordination Group on combating irregular migration; the Migration Department is a key coordinating body within the Ministry of the Interior. Provision of adequate infrastructure (including detention centres) and strengthening of responsible bodies to ensure, according to EU and international standards and in full respect of migrants' human rights, effective expulsion of illegally staying and/or transiting third country nationals from the territory of Georgia; For the accommodation of the irregular migrants who are in the expulsion procedure, Georgia has established the Temporary Accommodation Centre. The capacity of the Centre is 92 persons; up to 50 places for single men, 30 for woman and 12 places for families. Unaccompanied minors will be accommodated with the families. It has been established according to best practices and it is used for the accommodation and detention of irregular migrants since 1 March 2015. The structure of the Centre enables the proper reception and accommodation of all categories of persons; including vulnerable groups. District and Regional Police stations in the territory of Georgia have special premises for the temporary detention of foreigners; called Temporary Detention Isolators. There are 38 Isolators, where a foreigner may be detained for maximum of 48 hours (Order 631 on detention and placement of aliens in the Temporary Accommodation Centre). A foreigner may be detained in the isolators in the first phase of the procedure. The Public defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia will regularly monitor the Centre and the Temporary Detention Isolators.

2.2.3. Asylum policy Effective implementation of asylum legislation, including provision of adequate infrastructure and strengthening of the responsible bodies (staff, funding, training programmes), in particular in the area of asylum procedures, reception of asylum seekers, refugees and other persons in need of international protection, protection of their rights and dignity; The law on Refugees and Humanitarian Status of 2011 provides the necessary institutional framework, legal procedures and principles and is largely in line with international and European standards. A new law is currently being drafted. It will include provisions and clarifications on accelerated procedures, "refugee sur place" concept, special procedure for vulnerable categories, the difference between “exclusion” and “denial of status” and it will introduce the concept of safe country. Based on the 2011 Law on Refugees and Humanitarian Status a foreigner illegally residing in Georgia may express the intention to apply for asylum to every state agency in Georgia. The contacted agency has to refer the applicant to the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees (MRA), responsible for conducting the asylum procedure and providing accommodation to asylum seekers. If a person is legally staying in Georgia, he/she has to apply for asylum at the Ministry. An irregular migrant has to apply for asylum within 24 hours after entering the country. If this deadline is not met, the application shall be refused and the person is not registered as an asylum seeker. The only exception could be the existence of special circumstances. In case the applicant is registered as an asylum seeker, the application will be assessed on its individual merits. A personal interview is done by a caseworker of the MRA and the MRA also systematically sends the personal data to the MoI for a security check. The MRA must examine the application within 6 month after the registration, a period which may be extended for another 3 months. The final decision of granting the status is made by the head of department on the basis of a draft decision by the caseworker and on the grounds of the documentation provided in the case. An appeal against a negative decision may be lodged within 10 days. All judges (especially the first instance judges) dealing with refugee issues should receive training in refugee law. A cause for concern is the high number of rejections that are based on undisclosed security concerns by the MoI. In a total of 703 cases submitted to MoI, 15 cases received a negative security advice “with grounded arguments” and 178 received a negative security advice “without grounded arguments”. Without knowing the profiles of the applications, it is difficult to imagine that in 27,5% of the cases, individual security threats were identified. Indeed, the Law on Refugee and Humanitarian Status allows for exclusion of applicants on broader grounds than the 1951 Convention Grounds. For example, art. 3 e) provides the possibility to exclude, based on a reasonable assumption, that the applicant would be a threat to state security, territorial integrity as well as to the public order of Georgia. It is advisable to limit the exclusion grounds to those foreseen in the 1951 Convention. If an applicant would meet exclusion criteria as per Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention, this applicant should not be rejected based on (disclosed) security information, but should be rejected based on a decision by the MRA with a detailed reasoning on the exclusion grounds, which then could be challenged in the appeal phase. Based on previous recommendations, a Country of Origin Unit was created in 2014. The Unit has 3 employees, the head of the unit and 2 senior specialists. These persons received EASO and UNHCR training on COI and participated in different seminars and expert missions. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the COI unit were drafted in June 2014, and were presented to UNHCR and other experts for recommendations. ICMPD also supported the drafting of the SOP. There are clear indications that the Refugee Status Determination procedure (RSD) is of sufficient quality and efforts are made to improve the quality further. There is a clear structure for RSD. This structure is based on international and European (EASO) standards and is being followed in practice. Rejection decisions contain a detailed reasoning on aspects of law and facts. The decision also contains detailed information on remedies, including the deadline of 10 days to submit the appeal. Confidentiality is guaranteed and the standard of the interview facilities is good: these are well equipped to guarantee a qualitative interview. The number of staff (9 excluding the Head of Asylum Issues Division and Head of the Department) is sufficient if one takes into consideration the influx of the last months of 2014 (61 cases in November; 88 cases in December). However, there is still a backlog of around 635 cases (or 1174 persons). It’s important to reduce this backlog in an expedient manner. This could for example also include the possibility for expedited processing for clearly founded cases (e.g. Syrians). Given the fact that most of the applicants in Georgia originate from countries with armed conflicts, the recognition rate is quite low. In 2014, there were 1070 applications from Iraq, 79 from Syria and 419 from Ukraine, on a total number of 1792 applications that year. However, of the 361 decisions taken in 2014, only 29 cases received refugee status (8%) and only 104 cases humanitarian protection (29%). For Syria, no refugee statuses were granted in 2014 and 36 cases received humanitarian protection (71%). For Iraq, humanitarian protection was granted in 27% (61) of the cases treated and refugee status in 12% of the cases (28). 61% (138) of the decisions taken in Iraqi cases were rejections. Given the situation in Syria it is at least remarkable that none of the applicants would qualify for refugee status. Statistics also show that the international protection rate (Refugee Status and Humanitarian Status combined) for countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Iran was 0%.

Integration of refugees and beneficiaries of international protection, ensuring their capacity to self-sustain, to access public services and social rights and to integrate in Georgia, including access to travel documents foreseen by the legislation; As of January 2015, asylum seekers have access to the basic package of the universal healthcare system, giving them access to Outpatient care, surgical care, urgent medical care and critical medicine, child delivery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This is linked to the introduction of the temporary ID card. Refugees and humanitarian status holders already had access to this system since 21 February 2013. In 2014, at least 180 persons with a permanent residence permit have used the services of the State Specific Healthcare Program. According to the “Law on General Education” of Georgia, asylum applicants, refugees and humanitarian status holders have the same right to education as Georgian citizens. An agreement was reached with the local authorities of Tbilisi that asylum seekers will have access to preschool educational institutions. In February 2015, 242 children were enrolled in schools spread over Georgia. Within a joint MRA-UNHCR project, allowances are given to certain categories of vulnerable applicants (i.a. large families, single parents, children-at-risk, elderly, persons with medical needs). Asylum applicants have the right to work immediately after reception of the temporary ID card. Refugees and beneficiaries of international protection have access to the mainstream employment program that foresees inter alia in consultation and information services, vocational trainings An asylum applicant is provided with the temporary identification card by Public Service Development Agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). A temporary identity card is granted to asylum-seekers (and to applicants for the status of statelessness) as of 15 November 2014. This card is issued within 10 working days, has a validity of 1 year and is issued free of charge. In 2014 (15 November - 31 December) 357 temporary identity cards were granted, in 2015 (1 January - 26 February) 296. Refugees and beneficiaries of humanitarian status are provided with freedom of movement, within the territory of Georgia, but also outside the country. Travel documents for refugees exist and are granted in practice by the Civil Service Agency of the MoJ of Georgia. In 2013, 35 travel documents were granted to refugees, in 2014, 27. Legal provisions for the granting of travel documents to humanitarian status holders who do not have personal ID documents exist, but in practice such documents are not granted. Naturalisation is the most durable solution for refugees and stateless persons. The legislative framework to grant citizenship is in place: in 2009 26 refugees were granted Georgian citizenship, in 2010 176, in 2011 163, in 2012 114 and in 2014 27. Although the exact number is unclear, the great majority of these naturalisations were refugees originating from Chechnya. The numbers show that there were no naturalisations in 2013. In that year all applications were rejected and allegedly this was linked to internal security considerations. The new law on Georgian citizenship introduced Georgian language knowledge and knowledge of history as mandatory requirements for naturalisation. The introduction of Georgian language knowledge and knowledge of Georgian history as conditions for being granted naturalisation are as such not problematic, but it’s important that these requirements are reasonable and do not lead to exclusion of the most vulnerable refugees or of refugees with a different cultural background. 2.3. Block 3: Public Order and Security 2.3.1. Preventing and fighting organised crime, terrorism and corruption Implementation of the legislation, national strategy and action plan on preventing and fighting organised crime including effective coordination between the relevant authorities, as well as conducting effective investigation, prosecution and confiscation of proceeds of crime;

As of 2003 a successful wave of police reforms were carried out and led to a deep structural reorganisation of the MoI. The main aim of the structural reorganisation was to depoliticise the police force, ensure accountability for any wrongdoing and transparency of police work. The tabula rasa reform of Police, replaced a police system known for corruption, bureaucracy and wastefulness with a more efficient, well equipped and professional one, in a very short period of time. The adoption of strict legal standards against grafting, the raising of police salaries (higher than national average for the lowest ranks) along with mass dismissals, helped to eliminate much of the financial incentive to accept bribes. According to research data, citizen surveys and statistics the police forces of Georgia are deemed as trustful and carry out their duties in a transparent and effective way. The Interagency Coordinating Council for Combating Organised Crime was established on 13 June 2013. The Council is composed of representatives of all relevant ministries and agencies and invites representatives of International organisations and NGO's to attend the meetings as well. The Council has the overall interagency coordination function and has established four thematic working groups dealing with different important crime areas. The main tools of the Council for combating organised crime (OC) are the National Strategy and Action Plan which were adopted on 2013 and are currently in the process of elaboration and to be adopted by the Government in the course of 2015. The Council runs periodic reviews of the current legislative framework and proposes amendments when and if necessary. The basis of all the anti-OC actors is updated regularly, also taking into account human rights factors and the evolution of society and global challenges. A detailed Action Plan with timeframe and follow-up functions is in place and the Council receives reports a regular basis on the progress. National information flow is arranged by electronic e-flow software which is available to all police officers. Analysis and strategic development division at the HQ is in charge of analysing the information stored in e-flow and provides analysis on current crime situation covering the whole country. The software utilises also a mapping system. When a pre-trial investigation is launched, the police and prosecution use the electronic case management software to share and store all materials made and provided during the pre-investigation. All documents and written evidence are handled electronically on line. Based on this database, the prosecutor's office is capable to map the crime situation in the regions as well. Since 2013, 42 domestic joint investigation teams have been established. Prosecutors are responsible for leading the pre-trial investigations and the cooperation with the police is working well. The prosecutors are involved in the pre-trial investigation as soon as the criminal report is registered in a common database, e-enforcement.ge giving the prosecutor the possibility to lead the investigations also in practice. The interagency cooperation between all Law Enforcement agencies has been arranged according to different interagency MoUs, Joint Orders or relevant instructions. One of the comprehensive inter-agency cooperation mechanisms is the MoU on Law-Enforcement Cooperation, signatories to which are: MoI, MoJ, Prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Finance, Financial Monitoring Service (FIU). Good examples of the inter agency cooperation are combined working groups and task forces. Georgia has sufficient legislation and a program on witness protection and at the moment there are several persons under the program's protection. The fight against OC, mainly against the "Thieves in Law" organisation has been effective and fruitful since the adoption of the Law on “Organised Crime and Racketeering” in 2005. According to the Criminal Code of Georgia definitions being a "Thief in Law" and being member of Thieves in Law community ("criminal circle") are recognised as types of organised crime. Article 223/1 of the Criminal Code – punishes membership of "criminal circle" and sanctions prison sentence of 5-10 years, with or without fine, as well as confiscation of illegal property. Since 2006, 293 persons have been convicted for membership of "Thieves in Law" organisation and an additional 45 for being "Thieves in Law" – overall 338 persons. Several real estate and cars as well as other property has been seized and confiscated. Many of the seized houses are currently serving as governmental estates, mainly as police stations. The total value of seized assets years 2006-2014 is GEL 54 million. Moreover the prevention of OC in the Penitentiary Institutions by monitoring the activities of personnel and convicted has made it possible to prevent the recruitments of new members by crime authorities. All the concluded activities with the purpose of raising awareness on the issues related to "Thieves in Law" and other issues related to organised crime have led to excellent results. The MoI Central Criminal Police Department developed profiles on all known "Thieves in Law". Currently 348 "Thieves in Law" are registered in the police database. Confiscated assets, data on investigations and prosecutions, criminal personal details and modus operandi are collected and available according to law requirements. Currently there are 6 members of "Thieves in Law" serving their terms in prison in Georgia while the others known are abroad mainly in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the EU. Half of them still have Georgian citizenship. Georgia is putting special efforts on cooperating with EU Member States to help tackle the activities of these EU resident "Thieves in Law". Several EU Member States have already been affected with the phenomena and, as an example, some 400 Georgians were arrested in Sweden and around 70 in Denmark year in 2014, because of committing different types of property crimes (shop lifting, burglaries etc.). Many of those arrested have applied for asylum when arriving in the country. The actions on crime prevention and especially the results achieved should be evaluated and made use of when drafting and amending the new strategy on organised crime, also taking into consideration the possible emergence of new organised crime groups.

Implementation of legislation, national strategy and action plan on addressing trafficking in human beings, including effective coordination between state agencies, effective protection of victims of trafficking, in particular children, as well as effective measures to prosecute human traffickers and users of services of trafficking victims; provision of adequate infrastructures and funds ensuring decent reception and protection of the rights and dignity of trafficking victims, and supporting their social and professional reintegration; The Criminal Code is complemented by the Law of Georgia on Combating Human Trafficking, implemented in 2006. This law determines the organisational and legal grounds for preventing and combating human trafficking, the competencies and obligations of the state agencies, public officials and legal entities and rules of coordination of their activities in the measures applied against human trafficking as well as the legal status and rights of the victims of human trafficking and the guarantees of their social and legal protection. The law was updated in May 2014 to extend the definition further and to reflect the 2012 Council of Europe's Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) recommendations related to protection and assistance for child victims. The National Action Plan (NAP) for 2015-2016 was elaborated by the Inter-Agency Coordination Council on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (THB Council). The THB Council is the central coordinating mechanism for the fight against trafficking of human beings (THB) with key objectives of elaboration and implementation of the NAP, development of specific proposals regarding issues of THB, coordination between governmental agencies working on THB issues and cooperation with NGOs and international organisations among others. This structure comprises a permanent high-level representation and represents a significant commitment by the Georgian government to a multi-agency approach. Additionally the THB Council has an integral role in the identification and granting of victim status to identified victims of trafficking. This ongoing task is undertaken by the Permanent Working Group, established in 2006 and which is considered to be the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). The Permanent Group is regulated under the Law on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (Article 11) and the Decree of the Government (11.04.2014) on VOT Identification Standards and Rules. The Permanent Group is thereby the authorised entity for examining the situation of a suspected VOT and granting the status of victim of trafficking to a person within the 48 hours. The NRM ensures that all suspected and identified victims of trafficking are dealt with according to a prescribed standard. It offers protection and assistance to all victims of trafficking regardless of whether they cooperate with law enforcement or not. It covers procedures from the point of first contact until the point the victim is provided with residence permit, reintegrated within Georgia, repatriated or otherwise returned to a city or country of safety. In 2015 6 permanent residents' permits were secured. Claims for asylum are also possible for VOTs and legal assistance is made available. The State Fund for Protection of and Assistance to (Statutory) Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings was established in 2006 and is funded by the State budget. It exists within the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs under the supervision of a Director appointed by Presidential decree. The State Fund is responsible for the two victim shelters and the financing of victim protection, assistance and rehabilitation measures. The payment of compensation to victims of trafficking of 1.000 GEL is also the responsibility of the State Fund. Of the total of 60 victims dealt with by the State Fund between 2011-2014, 51 were Georgian nationals and 9 other nationalities, 23 were housed in a shelter, 18 were provided with medical assistance, 24 with psychological assistance, 38 were provided with legal aid and 42received compensation. There were 11 accompanying minors during this period. In 2013, the Ministry of Health planned to abolish the State Fund. External pressure stopped these plans but the State Fund’s role has been further expanded. It is now responsible for victims of trafficking and domestic violence but also two elderly care homes, five homes for the disabled and one childcare home. The budget has been increased to over 8 million GEL and staff increased to 615. There is a commitment to providing the financial and human resources for victim care but there is a need to review how these resources are allocated. In addition to the two shelters in Tbilisi and Batumi providing support and safety to victims of human trafficking there are three shelters in Tbilisi, Gori and Kutaisi providing service to victims of domestic violence. The funding for the two shelters provided for trafficking victims is increasing: Tbilisi shelter - received in 2013: 112,353 GEL, while in 2014: 125,907 GEL. The Batumi shelter received 2013: 90,010 GEL, while in 2014: 140,430 GEL. The financial resources and mechanisms made available by the government to respond to funding requirements appear to be sufficient but there is concern about the use of funding with regard to the operation of the shelters, generally ensuring best value for money and ensuring the highest quality, individualised packages of support for VOTs. The figures of victims accommodated within the shelters are as follows. In 2014: there were 5 adult VOTs and 2 dependants accommodated in the shelters. In 2013: 4 adults, 1 minor and 1 dependant. In 2012: 7 adults and 6 dependants. To date only one minor VOT has been identified and assisted within Georgia. This was in 2013. It involved a case of trafficking for sexual exploitation of a young girl by her Georgian mother. It is estimated that 1200 children are involved in street 'work'. The figures for the service are - 2013 – 78 children, 2014 – 350 children, 2015 – 380 children. Ethnicity as follows - 126 Georgian, 92 Azerbaijani Roma, 3 Ukrainian, 58 Moldovan Roma, 17 Armenian, 89 undefined. A Labour Inspectorate does not currently exist; however, the Georgian authorities announced that a Labour Conditions Inspection Department is to be established within the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs. 25-30 labour inspectors are to be appointed with the role of raising awareness of current labour safety mechanisms, assessing labour conditions and identifying discrimination. Training for new staff will include THB and forced labour. Although the numbers of prosecutions have increased year on year since 2012 the level is still low. The figures for the same periods are as follows: in 2013: 11 investigations, 5 prosecutions, 4 cases sent to court, 2 convictions, 10 statutory victims, 2 convicted traffickers. In 2014: 13 investigations, 7 prosecutions, 4 cases sent to court, 4 convictions, 7 statutory victims, 6 convicted traffickers. In 2015, from 1 January to 16. March 2015: 5 investigations took place, 1 prosecution, 1 case sent to court, 2 convictions, 3 statutory victims, 2 convicted traffickers. THB for forced labour continues to be much less visible with fewer investigations, prosecutions and convictions. The figures for the same periods are as follows: in 2013 - 3 investigations, 0 prosecutions, 0 cases sent to court, 0 convictions, 0 statutory victims, 0 convicted traffickers; in 2014: 4 investigations, 0 prosecutions, 0 cases sent to court, 0 convictions, 0 statutory victims, 0 convicted traffickers. In 2015, from 1 January to 16 March 2015: 1 investigation, 0 prosecutions, 0 cases sent to court, 0 convictions, 1 statutory victim, 0 convicted traffickers.

Georgia has signed and ratified the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings which entered into force on 1 February 2008. The Convention aims to prevent trafficking in human beings, protect victims of trafficking, prosecute traffickers, and promote co-ordination of national actions and international co-operation. It is the EU’s benchmark international law and core to the aims of this Convention is the human rights, victim centred approach. Effective implementation of the legal framework and national strategy and action plan on preventing and fighting corruption; To facilitate the development of state anti-corruption policy and the coordinated fight against corruption, the Anti-Corruption Council (ACC) was established in 2008. Since 2013, it has become accountable to the Government of Georgia. In recent years, the membership of the ACC was expanded several times (last time in 4 February 2014), involving new state agencies, civil society organisations, international agencies and for the business representatives. Currently, the Anti-Corruption Council consists of 47 members, of which 27 are high-level governmental representatives, 2 members are from the Parliament and 1 from the judiciary; 17 observers represent local and international NGOs, international organisations, donors and the business associations. The Council is headed by the Minister of Justice. The revision of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy adopted in 2010 and the elaboration of new Action Plan (2015-2016) was initiated by the ACC in January 2013. Both governmental and non-governmental sectors acknowledge the transparency and the inclusiveness of the process. The new strategy and action plan were adopted on 4 February 2015. The main goals of the Anti-Corruption Strategy is to develop a unified anti-corruption policy for preventing and combatting corruption; to boost public trust by increasing transparency and accountability of public entities; to enhance civil society and establish a transparent and accountable governance. The working process was guided by 13 strategic priorities of the fight against corruption, identified as a result of intensive activity undertaken by the anti-corruption working groups. The Action Plan and the strategy would benefit from a further refinement of the measures, including a focus on measures to improve performance in the area of combating of corruption. Prioritisation should be made between various measures included in the action plan. The list of indicators should be revised to ensure the measurement of the actual impact rather than the mere fulfilment of measures. Ensuring the independence and efficient functioning (including analytical capacity) of anti-corruption bodies, including the Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency Coordination Council; ensuring effective measures for addressing corruption in areas/sectors identified as being most vulnerable (risk assessments); ensuring and maintaining a convincing track-record of corruption cases (from prosecutions to final court decisions), including corruption at high-levels, as well as of detection and sanctioning of conflicts of interest and unjustified wealth; Several bodies are competent for investigating corruption offences. The Ministry of Justice, the Anticorruption Agency within the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Financial Investigation Service in the Ministry of Finance have competence over investigation of the staff of the respective ministries when they detect corruption offences. The Prosecution Service may take over cases for investigation in case there are doubts regarding the proper investigation by the body that detected the crime or can start directly the investigations for corruption offences that were not detected by the specialised bodies. A memorandum of understanding was signed and is in operation between these entities. The Ministry of Justice has a specialised investigation service competent to investigate crimes committed by the employees of the ministry and of the subordinated structure. The Financial Investigation Service has competence over corruption crimes in the private sector: bribery in the private sector, abuse of position or function in the public sectors and misuse or embezzlement in the public sector. It is staffed with 610 persons, out of which 400 have general investigative functions, not specialised for corruption offences. The vast majority of corruption crimes in the public sector fall within the competence of the Anticorruption Agency of the Ministry of Internal Affairs which was established at the end of 2012. The Agency is responsible for detecting corruption and launching investigations, for collection of criminal intelligence and the use of special investigation measures, including wiretapping and obtaining of metadata. The Agency investigates the cases of conflicts of interest in the public service. The Anticorruption Agency is staffed with 256 employees for a ministry with 41.346 employees and has a budget of approximately 266 million euro. Trainings are periodically organised, including a three month legal training for criminal intelligence activities and inception training is available. Approximately 80 employees of the Agency were trained in 2014. For senior public officials, including ministers and members of the Parliament, the competence for investigation of corruption stays with the Prosecution Service. The high profile of these cases justify this decision and it is up to the prosecutors to decide if they need additional assistance in a specific case and to which institution they should turn for help.

The amendments to the structure of the prosecution service on 30 May 2013, which transfer the powers of the Minister of Justice to the chief prosecutor, are welcomed developments, as the Ministry of Justice can no longer interfere in individual cases. However, there are concerns regarding the autonomy of the Public Prosecution, particularly with regard to high-level corruption investigations. Particular steps should be taken to ensure that decisions concerning the appointment and dismissal of the Chief Prosecutor are taken in an open and transparent way, free of undue political influence. Work is in progress to establish a prosecutorial council, which will have as a primary responsibility to propose by majority of 2/3 of its members a candidate for the chief prosecutor’s office to the government, which then will present the candidate to the Parliament. From 30 January 2015, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor has a specialised Anti-Corruption Unit. The Unit will investigate and prosecute the most serious cases of crimes under UNCAC as envisaged by the 7 July 2013, Decree N34 of the Minister of Justice. The unit will be staffed with supervising prosecutors and investigators of high profile cases. At present the unit has 7 investigators and 2 prosecutors and in the future they are planning to employ more. It provides for general competence of the unit to investigate a number of corruption crimes (1641, 182 § 2 (d), 220, 221, 332, 333, 337-341 of The Criminal Code of Georgia). However, the unit is not limited to high-level public officials, nor is the amount of bribe and value of damage considered as a threshold for material competence. Under those circumstances, provisions should be ensured that the resources and competences of the unit are directed to ensure that high-scale investigations are operationally ensured. The issue of enhancing the independence of individual judges needs to be addressed. High-level corruption is not an ordinary crime: it may involve some of the most powerful individuals in a society who control important aspects of public life and sometimes even business and media. To obtain results in combating high-level corruption a balance between political decision and merit based selection process for the Chief Prosecutor, but more importantly independent and competent judges able to perform a proper review of prosecution acts. Though the principle of life tenure was introduced it is still unclear what will happen with the existing judges (for newly selected judges, the High Council of Judges has developed objective criteria and a transparent process). Before obtaining life tenure, a three-year probation period is envisaged. However, the three-year probation period is considered as excessively long and raises concerns over the independence of the judges. Judges appointed for a limited duration of time (most of them for 10 years) that is soon to expire will have to apply like any other newcomer to the judiciary for a position and if selected, only after the three-year probation, they can be appointed for life. Although pre-trial arrests are decreasing, the issue remains sensitive. Pre-trial arrest can last for nine months and since the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for periodic judicial review of detention, the burden of initiating a review of detention is shifted onto defence, which has according to international organisations an impact in practice on the automatic prolongation of detention up to the legal limit of nine months. A draft amendment introducing automatic and periodic judicial review of detention warrant has been adopted by the government mid-April 2015 and has been submitted to the parliament. The draft will address also the duty of the courts to substantiate their decisions on pre-trial detention. Defendants in pre-trial arrest – particularly if towards the end of pre-trial arrest term for one investigation new cases against the same person are started - are more likely to consent to signing of a plea bargaining agreement even when the incriminating evidence against him/ her are not strong enough. Amendments adopted by the Parliament to reform the plea bargaining system on 24 July 2014 to increase the transparency of the process and judges' oversight role of its fairness are a step in the right direction and offer the premises for improvements in practice in this field; particularly in light of massive allegations of plea bargain abuse before 2012. The Government adopted the Civil Service Reform Concept on November 2014. It aims at establishing a politically neutral, open and effective civil service, a professional and carrier-based system, as well as a fair remuneration and classification system. The Civil Service Bureau (CSB) has presented a detailed action plan regarding the implementation of its tasks with clear deadlines and responsible persons. Furthermore, according to the Georgian authorities, it is planned to have job descriptions for all central state agencies by the end of 2015. In addition, the role of the CSB has been increased in the civil service human resources selection process. Two new departments (Civil Service Institutional Set-up and Practice Generalisation Department and Civil Service Human Resources Department) were created to tackle the implementation of reform and the top management of CSB was expanded by adding position of another deputy director. Additional safeguards should be included in the law to ensure the independence of the Bureau. With regard to the protection of whistle-blowers, while detailed provisions on whistleblowing exist in the law on conflict of interest and corruption in public service, no examples of whistleblowing exist until now. The Civil Service Bureau has planned an extensive awareness program with the aim of helping civil servant to better understand their rights. A safe environment should be created in order to ensure the possibility for whistle-blowers to report the crime and ensure that whistle-blowers will not suffer detrimental consequences as a result of reporting. Asset declarations by public officials can be a valuable tool in combating corruption. More than 5000 senior officials submit declarations of assets and they are published online on www.declaration.gov.ge. This publication mechanism that exists since 1998 and became entirely online driven in February 2010 is a very good transparency practice which allows everybody to have insight into the declared wealth of senior officials. The next step is to set-up a verification mechanism that allows for in-depth checks and provides for sanctions to be applied in case problems are identified. The Georgian authorities reported that on 4 February 2015, the Anti-Corruption Council created a special Working Group mandated to elaborate a monitoring mechanism concept. The Working Group will present the draft amendments to the Anticorruption Council in June 2015. Once the Council approves the draft amendments, it will be submitted to the Government for their approval. While publishing declarations of wealth is essential to ensure transparency in the public life, systematic check of these statements is equally important. Apart from accuracy checks, verification of assets disclosure forms could reveal unjustified enrichment, conflicts of interests or incompatibilities. Distinct sanctions should be included in the law for each of these cases allowing for fair and proportional treatment. At present there is reliance on NGOs that they will make best use of the available information to check the accuracy of wealth statements. Public procurement is perceived as a sensitive area for corruption. The Georgian procurement system has undergone significant reform over the last years. Since 2010, the so-called “paper based tenders” were fully replaced by the electronic procurement system. Though there is a very transparent electronic procurement system, not all tenders have to follow the transparent route. The Government may decide to exempt itself from the use of the procurement process and use a direct contracting procedure. In 2012 the value of direct contracting, mostly for construction contracts was around 45% and in 2013, around 39% of the total amount spent on public procurement respectively. In 2014 the share of contracts concluded as a result of an open electronic tenders through eProcurement amounted to 68% of the total value of public contracts and, accordingly, the percentage of simplified procurement went down to 32%. This is a positive trend which needs to continue, particularly in the light of earlier criticism by international anticorruption watchdogs.

The competence for monitoring political finances belongs to the State Audit Office of Georgia. The State Audit Office was created in 2012 and replaced the Chamber of Control. According to the Georgian authorities the SAO received in 2013-2014 2706 declarations related to political funding. In 2013 the State Audit Office received 56 annual declarations and 118 election reports. In 2014 the State Audit Office received 57 annual declarations and 2475 election reports. After perceived politicisation of the SAO (as assessed by ODIHR) in 2012, the SAO resumed its functioning with renewed neutrality. Development of effective ethical codes accompanied by sanctions applicable to public officials (elected and appointed) and notably regarding elected officials at central and local level, law enforcement and judiciary; ensuring appropriate capacity, specialisation and training of law enforcement and judiciary to deal with corruption cases in an efficient manner; As regards the development of effective ethical codes accompanied by sanctions applicable to public officials, although a separate ethics code is not being developed, the new Law on Civil Service based on the Civil Service Reform Concept will determine comprehensive provisions on types of disciplinary infringements and sanctions, as well as classification of infringements into minor, relatively minor or gross violations, taking into consideration the specific details of the civil service. Additionally, guidelines on ethics for civil servants and a curriculum for trainers are being developed. After the completion of the workshop, the newly recognised trainers will conduct training for public servants on ethics. Implementation of the legislation for the prevention of money-laundering and financing of terrorism, including on reporting obligations; implementation of relevant legislation on search, freezing, seizure and confiscation of assets of criminals (including of the provisions addressing cross-border aspects); Georgian anti-money laundering (AML) and counter terrorist financing (CFT) legislation has gradually evolved during the last decade and the necessary structures and legal provisions are mostly in place. The Georgian legal and institutional system is subject to periodic and thorough examination by external actors, most notably the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (Moneyval). The recommendations by Moneyval have significantly contributed to identifying and overcoming the deficiencies. Georgian authorities seem to have addressed most of the recommendations contained in the last Moneyval report (dating back to 3 July 2012), nevertheless, Georgia is still subject to the follow-up process. The implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing adopted in March 2014 seems to be satisfactory. Inter-agency cooperation is working under the umbrella of the relevant Inter-Agency Council. Georgia has set up an administrative-type Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the Financial Monitoring Service (FMS). When it comes to criminal investigation, money-laundering cases are forwarded to the Prosecution Service, while the Counter Terrorist Centre of the MoI carries out criminal investigation in terrorist financing cases. The FMS was created in 2003 and became operational from the 1st of January 2004. The FMS is a so-called legal entity of public law. It is operating at the facilities and under the technical support of the National Bank of Georgia. Recently, the right to appoint the Head of FMS was transferred to the Government from the President due to constitutional changes. The FMS is an independent body in its activities, not subordinated to any other body and/or official. It is required to submit a report on performed activities to the Government of Georgia once a year. The functional and financial independence is guaranteed by law. The annual budget is EUR 880.000 for 2015 (EUR 15.000 increase compared to 2014). FMS has a staff of 32 persons (compared to 31 reported in 2014), however, currently 6 posts were reported as vacant (compared to 7 reported in 2014). FMS staff shows professionalism, the necessary material preconditions for effective operation seem to be in place. The workflow has been largely automatised since 2012. Except for lawyers, all suspicious transaction reports (STRs) are sent electronically (and even for lawyers, the written STRs are forwarded to FMS in encrypted, electronic format by the Georgian Bar Association). The analytical software has recently been renewed. The FMS claims that by the help of the available IT tools they can handle the volume of STRs without any problem. FMS closely cooperates with all relevant ministries and agencies and has access to the necessary databases. The dissemination towards the Prosecution Service does not take place on-line. The number of suspicious transaction reports (STRs) was 3593 in 2012, 5778 in 2013 and 2497 in 2014 (resulting in 83 investigations submitted in 2014, compared to 55 in 2013 and 12 in 2012). This indicates an improvement of the reporting culture, just as in analyst work. The FIU is actively carrying out international cooperation, both incoming and outgoing requests are taking place in practice (27 outgoing and 25 incoming request were reported for 2014). The FMS indicated good cooperation with European counterparts.

The number of prosecutions and convictions relating to money laundering are quite low compared to the number of cases disseminated by the FMS (0 cases prosecuted out of 12 reports in 2012, 11 prosecutions with 5 convictions out of 55 in 2013 and 7 prosecutions with 11 convictions out of 83 in 2014). Georgian authorities claim that the reasons behind are the high number of still ongoing cases sometimes subject to international cooperation and the fact that in some cases, several reports are related to the same criminal activity. An area of particular concern is the control of cross-border cash movements where there seems to be little progress compared to the shortcomings identified in 2014 and the envisaged legislative amendments do not seem to remedy those issues either (i.e. sanctions). The Georgian criminal justice system as regards search, freezing, seizure and confiscation of criminal assets meets the European standards, nevertheless, the level of practical implementation of the existing legal possibilities may be improved. The statistics Georgian authorities have provided concerning the use of freezing, seizing and confiscation measures indicate that the amount actually and finally confiscated is much lower than the amount frozen or seized, even if the presence of still ongoing procedures may be an explanation for that to some extent. The overall (although not final) statistics for 2014 indicate assets frozen in the value of EUR 49 261 911 (out of which EUR 13 813 306 frozen in 10 money-laundering cases) and assets confiscated in the value of EUR 14 539 695 (out of which EUR 644 334 confiscated in 9 money-laundering cases). These figures raise some concerns as regards the consequent application of asset recovery measures in cases other than those particularly related to economic crime, although Georgian authorities confirmed the widespread use of financial investigation in criminal proceedings, especially in cases related to organised crime. Taking into account the geographical location, the difficulties caused by the lack of Georgian state control over the breakaway regions and the obvious proximity of jihadist groups in the Northern Caucasus region of Russia on the one hand, and in Syria on the other, the verified involvement of some Georgian nationals in ISIS with some indications of supporters networks present in Georgia itself, Georgian authorities (who are under any circumstances well aware of all these factors) are encouraged to closely monitor this issue and raise awareness among all actors concerned. Implementation of the national anti-drug strategy and action plan, ensuring adequate working of the Inter-Agency Coordination Council on Combating Drug Abuse, making the information on drug seizures and persons involved accessible at border crossing points, and further developing cooperation and information exchange with relevant international bodies in the drug field; establishing cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); Because of its location bridging Asia and Europe, Georgia is a transit corridor for drugs produced elsewhere. Georgian authorities are aware that their territory is used as a transit for drug smuggling towards Europa mainly via mainly the Black Sea ports of Ukraine, but also to some extent those of Romania and Bulgaria, the source being in Afghanistan and the initial transit route via Armenia and Azerbaijan or Turkey. The national drug strategy and the action plan for 2014-2015 were adopted by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Council on Combating Drug Abuse on 4 December 2013. The Council is composed of Ministries and judicial authorities. The Council also involves NGOs in the elaboration of strategies and action plans. Actions undertaken by the different agencies are reported to the Secretariat of Inter-Agency Coordinating Council. A National Drug Monitoring Centre will start operating in mid-2015, which will be composed by the representatives from the relevant state agencies, NGOs and academia. The centre will carry out research activities to support the Council to make evidence based decisions. The centre will serve as EMCDDA focal point in Georgia and will provide annual country reports. On 15 March 2014 new legislative amendments entered into force that criminalised the illicit traffic in some psychoactive substances being used as main substance for cooking home-made drugs. As a result, the use of so called “crocodile” (home-made drug) has decreased by approximately 99% over the last months. A package of legislative amendments related to new psychoactive substances entered into force on 1 May 2014. Currently a Working Group is drafting amendments to the law that would set the amounts that define "small quantity" of possession for substances that are widespread in Georgia and to modify the list of controlled substances in line with international standards. An issue of concern are the low thresholds for the criminalisation of own use, as it raises the question of whether addicted or overdosed users have a realistic and a non-discriminatory possibility for access to medical treatments. The effectiveness of the new laws is evidenced by the achieved outcomes - in comparison with the previous year, in 2014 the illicit traffic of new psychoactive substances has decreased by over 90%. The control at border crossing points has been strengthened by new and sufficient equipment and multi-agency working groups. As a result of these measures in July 2014, officers of the MoI arrested a truck, while crossing the Georgian border, with up to 3 tons of liquid heroin, containing 589 kg of heroin, more than 2 kg of codeine and 12 kilograms of morphine.

In the area of prevention, since March 2014 the MoI is conducting a wide-scale anti-drug campaign in order to increase awareness concerning the abuse of drugs and psychotropic substances and to promote healthy lifestyle among the population. Within the framework of the campaign, the Minister of Internal Affairs and other representatives of the Ministry, together with physician-narcologists, organised a number of meetings with the students of higher educational institutions and pupils of public schools. A broad media-campaign has been carried out. Harmful habits (including drug abuse) are reflected in the National Educational Plan in subjects related to nature sciences, social sciences and sport. There are around 40.000 drugs users in Georgia most of them being injecting drugs users. Poly-substance users and home-made drug "cooking" are rising problems, but regular updates made to the legislation have put psychotropic drugs under prescription and have decreased the problem of "cooking". Another positive development is that ambulance doctors are not anymore obliged to report overdoses to the police. In 2014, the police performed urine tests on 50864 persons, out of which 36859 tested negative and 14005 tested positive for drugs. Being a first time user, the punishment is a fine while the second time will lead to criminal proceedings. The decision on conducting the test and the extraction of the samples is made when a police officer has a reasonable ground to believe, that a person is under drug influence. The tests are performed without judiciary oversight. The overall approach on drugs gives the impression that the main focus of the drug policy is on the users rather than on the drug dealers and distributors. In the area of treatment and rehabilitation, the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs has implemented protocols and treatment standards for toxic psychosis, caused inter alia by psychoactive substances in order to increase effectiveness of detoxification treatment. An updated drug addiction state program was approved by the Government of Georgia in December 2014 with a budget of GEL 4388500. The drug-addiction state program was amended with a focus on increasing the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of program resources. A methadone detoxification program for opioid-addicts is available for every prisoner. In case of the consent of the opioid-addict, they are provided with services in two penitentiary institutions, one in Tbilisi and one in Kutaisi. In 2014, 453 prisoners received methadone detoxification service. There is a concern regarding the sustainability of the opiate treatment program, mainly issues of financing and accessibility. The drugs users should have direct and when possible, immediate access to the program and should not be imprisoned while waiting for the start of the treatment. In the area of harm reduction, the Georgian Harm Reduction Network ensures the exchange and supply of safe injecting instruments, disseminating means for safe sex, means for treating veins, disinfection means and naloxone. In 2014 it provided services to 37895 persons, most of them injecting drugs users, and distributed 7389 units of Naloxone, 3300 injection syringes and 300000 condoms. Since 11 August 2014, ambulance doctors are not obliged to report police on cases of drug consumption in urgent situations (overdosing). Additionally, treatment of overdosing is now funded from the state budget for individuals infected by HIV and for those who are under the poverty line. On the other hand, as the autopsy is not compulsory in Georgia, there is lack of statistics on deaths caused by drugs overdose. In 2014 representatives of Georgia attended international conferences organised by EMCDDA and there was exchange of high-level visits between Georgia and EMCDDA. As a result, parties agreed to enhance existing cooperation and in December 2014, in response to the request of the Minister of Justice of Georgia/Head of the Inter-agency Council the EMCDDA’s Management Board gave the mandate to the Director of the EMCDDA to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding between the EMCDDA and Georgia. The first draft of MoU was provided to the Georgian side in February 2015 and is under examination. On 15-17 April, 2015 Georgia hosted an EMCDDA regional conference for the EaP states on New Psychoactive Substances and Early Warning Systems. Sound implementation of relevant UN and Council of Europe Conventions, as well as GRECO recommendations in the above mentioned areas; The implementation of this benchmark has been evaluated in the other sections of this report. Provision of sufficient financial and human resources, including adequate training programmes, to ensure effective implementation of all the measures mentioned above; The implementation of this benchmark has been evaluated in the other sections of this report.

2.3.2. Judicial co-operation in criminal matters Sound implementation of international conventions concerning judicial assistance, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and protection of children (in particular Council of Europe Conventions); The central authority is entrusted to receive and process the incoming/outgoing requests; this facilitates the optimisation of the use of resources and improves the consistency in managing the related legal and factual issues. This authority is staffed by qualified professionals in adequate number who are rationally distributed in the different areas of international co-operation. The channels and means of communication of the incoming/outgoing requests of international co-operation are being improved; they are similar to those which are used by most countries, including EU Member States. The central authority shows a good capacity to collect and process the data on the flow of the various incoming/outgoing requests of international co-operation. The judiciary retains a crucial role in any international co-operation related decision where the fundamental rights of individuals are at stake. Ensuring a high level of effectiveness of judicial co-operation in criminal matters of judges and prosecutors, including on extradition matters, with the EU Member States and third countries; The flow of incoming/outgoing requests of international co-operation is significant. The figures show that throughout 2013-2014 this flow is growing in the areas of mutual legal assistance, extradition and transfer of sentenced persons. The timeframe in which the incoming requests of international co-operation are executed prima facie is reasonable; in any case this average time is no longer than that which several countries, including EU MS, take to grant co-operation. With reference to 2013 statistics (the latest available) the degree of acceptance of the incoming requests of mutual legal assistance and extradition is fairly high; in the meantime no case of refusal shows any apparent anomaly; both elements can be taken as indicators of the openness of Georgian system to grant international co-operation. No case is known where the competent authorities, by granting or refusing the co-operation, seriously harmed the general interests of justice or the fundamental rights of individuals. In 2014 the overall number of requests was 1712, including 1637 incoming and 75 outgoing requests. Georgia granted assistance further to 568 incoming requests whilst it refused 300 of these; 769 are still pending. Foreign countries granted assistance to 38 outgoing requests whilst they refused to 3 of them; 34 requests are still pending.

The flow of incoming and outgoing requests involved mostly Turkey (83%), the Commonwealth of Independent States (11%) and the European Union Member States (4,5%). EU Member States forwarded 57 requests to Georgia which granted assistance to 35 whilst it refused to 11 of these; 11 requests are still pending. Georgia forwarded 20 requests to EU MS which granted assistance to 6 whilst they refused to 1 of these; 13 requests are still pending. The majority of incoming requests were related to a number of criminal offences of high/medium seriousness such as smuggling, theft, forgery of documents, bodily harm, irregular immigration, pimping, fraud, corruption, drug dealing/trafficking, armed robbery, murder, smuggling of immigrants, trafficking in human beings. As regards extraditions in 2014, the overall number of requests of extradition was 70, including 34 incoming and 36 outgoing requests. Of the 34 incoming requests, Georgia accepted 16 whilst it rejected one and postponed 3; 14 requests are still pending. The rejected request concerned a Georgian national in the absence of reciprocity and the majority of the pending requests have been delayed because of asylum proceedings. As regards the 36 outgoing requests, foreign countries accepted 7 whilst they rejected 4 and postponed one; 24 requests are still pending. As regards transfers of sentenced persons, there were 41 requested transfers to Georgia in 2014, most of them from Russia and Turkey. Two requests were from Austria and one from Spain. In accordance with the procedures in the EUROJUST decision, conclusion of an agreement or working arrangement with EUROJUST, including on the exchange of information in common cases and the processing of personal data; Since January 2015, Georgia is on the priority list of countries with which Eurojust is negotiating a cooperation agreement. A condition for such an agreement is a robust regime of data protection rules and Eurojust has launched its data protection assessment. The preliminary findings are positive as to the recent amendments introduced in the law on data protection, which address the issue of the applicability of the law to the judicial sector and the strengthened powers of the Personal Data Protection Inspector. 2.3.3. Law enforcement co-operation Ensuring a high level of operational and special investigative capacity of law enforcement services and its consistent and efficient use to tackle cross-border crime; The Criminal Procedural Law provides LEAs and Prosecutors with a set of tools compliant with International and European standards. The Procedural Code envisages interrogations, identifications, searches, seizures, confiscation, inspections, investigative experiments, exhumation as well as covert investigative actions (inter alia wiretapping). Covert investigative actions, which require court order and which are envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code are the following: wiretapping, withdrawal and fixation of information from communication channel, control over mail-telegraph messages (except diplomatic mail), covert video-audio recording, recording videos or photos and electronic surveillance by technical means. According to the Georgian legislation, controlled deliveries and undercover operations fall under criminal intelligence activities and are envisaged by the Law of Georgia on Criminal Intelligence Activity. In order to conduct these measures no court order is required.

According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the MoI Operative-Technical Department is the only authorised body to implement covert investigative activities (wiretapping, eavesdropping and etc) at a technical level in order to minimise the risk of illegal interceptions and easily identify alleged perpetrator. After the wiretapping is ensured technically, the actual listening to the wiretapping is carried out by the operative personnel of the requesting agency. The MoI Operative-Technical Department provides technical support for investigative as well as for national security agencies in this regard. Georgian LEAs demonstrated the capability of their investigators to use special investigative measures. Investigations and prosecutions carried out by means of undercover cooperation and wiretapping seem to be recurring. Controlled delivery methods have not been used yet, but controlled purchases did occur. For instance, a case on counterfeit currency smuggling has been solved through the deployment of two MoI undercover agents in Sarpi, thanks to a multiagency investigation and the use of controlled purchase. Ensuring a high level of effectiveness of law enforcement co-operation among relevant national agencies - especially border guards, police, customs officers -, as well as cooperation with the judicial authorities; The relevant public actors responsible for preventing and tackling organised crime, drug trafficking and law enforcement co-operation, have at their disposal a well-equipped toolbox (legislation, regulations, policies, expertise and special investigative measures). Upper echelons as well as lower rank personnel (especially investigators and prosecutors) follow European and international best practices. The work of the Interagency Coordinating Council for Combating Organised Crime and the provisions of the National Strategy on combatting crime have ensured a high level of cooperation between every law-enforcement agency and with the prosecution, for example through joint investigations, strong communication and confidence between prosecutors and investigators, and a clear awareness of respective agencies' tasks. In all high-profile cases a joint prosecutor-investigator team is established. The most frequent cases can concern drug smuggling, money laundering, skimming, counterfeit currency, weapon smuggling and civil asset recovery procedure. The e-flow and info-flow systems ensure a secure, digital, paperless communications among all law-enforcement and prosecution bodies. Additionally, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between MoI, MoJ, Ministry of Finance, Chief Prosecutor’s Office and Financial Monitoring Service on Inter-Agency Cooperation on Law Enforcement issues was signed by the heads of aforementioned agencies and entered into force on 16 May 2013. The MoU regulates the cooperation between law-enforcement agencies in the area of fighting national and transnational crimes and provided for the establishment of a Working Group. In order to facilitate the exchange of information, the parties exchange and regularly update contact points and agree on the use of secure encrypted e-mail; the memorandum also regulates the creation of ad hoc joint investigative groups on the basis of the request from one of the parties. The Central Criminal Police Department of the MoI has an Analysis and Strategic Division composed of a Unit for Data Processing and Information Supply, an Analysis Unit and a Unit for Strategic Development. The structure was established in order to study new modi operandi and tools of criminals, face new types of offences and fill-in gaps on development of strategic policing, ensure data collection, crime analysis and the production of knowledge tools to be submitted to the policy makers and to be disseminated to the police community in order to facilitate strategic planning. Nevertheless, even if Georgian LEAs are provided with modern automated risk systems, electronic databases and information exchange tools, it seems that they do not draw up a formal, all-encompassing knowledge product to be considered as a threat assessment or, at least, a situation report on crime with the purpose to identify new criminal trends. Currently, there is no Intelligence Led policing (ILP) model to be used as a National Intelligence Model (NIM) and hence there are no handling codes, dissemination rules and source of information standards. With databases, crime maps and the data storage systems at their disposals, Georgian LEAs should be very close to achieve a good ground for analysing crime in a proactive way in order to identify most relevant threats and set up their priorities through an independent, coherent, logic and analytical way. A certain risk exists for criminal investments as well as criminal infiltration in public contracts and the legal economy. Strengthened bilateral and multilateral operational law enforcement cooperation agreements or working arrangements, namely with INTERPOL, including by sharing on time relevant information and conducting joint investigations and operations with competent law enforcement authorities of EU Member States and third countries, in line with data protection requirements and through the appropriate channels; The International Relation Department is responsible for non-operative international police cooperation through the Bilateral and Multilateral Cooperation Unit (BMCU) established in 2012, such as trainings, seminars, workshops, study visits, elaboration of best practices and joint cooperation programs with partners.

The International Criminal Cooperation Centre has been established in 2012 under the umbrella of the Central Criminal Police Department of the MoI. It is in charge for the implementation of relevant provisions of the Law on International Law Enforcement Cooperation and international (universal, multilateral and bilateral) agreements concerning international operative police cooperation. Since December 2014 it also includes Regional Cooperation Unit responsible for the cooperation within GUAM, BSEC and SELEC, hence uniting all operative international cooperation units under one Centre. The International Relations Department and International Criminal Cooperation Centre of the MoI ensure good levels of international operative cooperation through bilateral and multilateral understandings and agreements. The establishing of a Personal Data Protection Inspector Office and its new competences on home affairs issue should improve partners’ trust in the Georgian authorities. The active participation in the Millennium OICP INTERPOL Project and the latest letters to some Member States in order to arrange meetings on operative cooperation are good examples of Georgian readiness and commitment. The Georgian Authorities cooperate with their international partners within the INTERPOL Project Millennium, aimed to tackle the Transnational Eurasian Organised Crime (TEOC). Working groups on OC ("Thieves in Law" and "criminal circles") have been established in 2014 with Austrian and German LEAs. Georgia is planning to request 14 other EU Member States to establish bilateral working groups as well. The established framework for international cooperation supports all the needs for cooperation. However there is always room and need to enhance the awareness inside Georgian LEAs of possibilities as well as the readiness to use them. Conclusion of an operational cooperation agreement with EUROPOL ensuring an adequate level of data protection; In July 2014, Europol initiated the process of preparation for negotiations for the conclusion of an operational cooperation agreement with Georgia. In September 2014 a detailed questionnaire on personal data protection was submitted to the Georgian side, and then followed by an additional questionnaire sent in November 2014. Based on the answers provided by Georgia, Europol data protection experts will visit Georgia by mid-2015 in order to assess the personal data protection regime of Georgia. Following the mission, an assessment report will be drafted, based on which Europol will take a decision on commencement of negotiations on a draft operational cooperation agreement. In this field further improvements in data protection (handling code, evaluation of sources and information, dissemination rules) will help to achieve a positive decision by Europol in order to sign an operational agreement. The prompt reply to the questionnaires submitted by Europol should be evaluated at this stage as a positive step. 2.3.4. Data protection Implementation of the legislation on the protection of personal data both in the public and private sectors; The necessary basic arrangements are in place for securing compliance with the data protection law. The arrangements for the appointment of the Personal Data Protection Inspector ('Inspector') were amended in August 2014 to strengthen the Inspector’s independence and give the decision on the selection of the Inspector to the Parliament rather than to the Government. The Inspector is appointed for the relatively short period of three years and may be reappointed for only one further consecutive term. The data protection law specifies that the Inspector’s duties are incompatible with membership of any state or local self-government bodies or any post within state service. The Inspector may engage in no remunerative work, except scientific, educational or artistic activity. The data protection la