The ruling Georgian Dream party plans to punish children aged 10 to 14 who are deemed to be in conflict with the law and, under the label of “rehabilitation,” place them in special closed institutions that they will not be allowed to leave without permission.
Children’s rights defenders are protesting the initiative, calling it repressive. They argue that under Georgian law, a child under the age of 14 cannot legally commit a criminal offense, as criminal liability does not exist for this age group. Through this initiative, however, Georgian Dream’s parliament is effectively creating a mechanism to punish children under criminal law.
The initiative contradicts the Child Rights Code of Georgia, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Batumelebi spoke with Tamar Gabodze, head of the NGO Partnership for Human Rights, who has defended children’s rights in court for many years.
Ms. Gabodze, we want to clearly explain to the public what Georgian Dream intends to do to children through this initiative.
A legislative initiative has been announced according to which children aged 10 to 14, whom the prosecution believes have committed a crime, will be subjected to certain programs, which also include transferring the child to a closed institution.
This initiative is problematic in itself, because a child under 14 cannot commit a crime, as the age of criminal responsibility is 14.
Children would be subjected to this responsibility based on the “reasonable suspicion” standard, solely on the basis of a prosecutor’s final decision that, in their view, the child committed a crime.
For children aged 14 and over, and for adults, the reasonable suspicion standard is not sufficient a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and until then a person is presumed innocent.
In the case of children, will only the prosecutor decide, and will the child not have a lawyer?
Nothing like that is specified in this initiative. Yes, under this proposal, a child is considered guilty based solely on the prosecutor’s final decision, and under the reasonable suspicion standard, which is an extremely minimal standard in criminal law. On this basis, they decide to punish children.
They call this a law on the rehabilitation and assistance of children, but rehabilitation and assistance are already obligations of the state. The state is obliged to help every child, support their resocialization, identify their needs, and work with them individually.
So there is nothing new here. But when you set the age of responsibility at 10, and especially when you call such a facility a “rehabilitation home,” this becomes a serious problem. It does not matter what you call an institution where children are forcibly placed, removed from their families, taken away from their familiar environment, and transferred to compulsory accommodation. This cannot be called a home.
A home is where children live with their families, not a place where a child is forcibly confined. In this case, it is a deprivation-of-liberty facility. It does not matter what color the walls are or whether there are toys inside. It is still a prison.
A prison for a 10-year-old child is unthinkable and unacceptable.
Is it known how long children would be placed in these institutions?
Six months is being discussed, but what is also alarming is that, by a prosecutor’s decision, this period may be extended until the child reaches adulthood.
This could mean confinement from ages 10 to 18, meaning a child could spend their entire childhood in a closed space for something they are accused of doing because it was deemed undesirable.
This cannot be called a crime, because a child under 14 cannot commit a crime, especially when no one is able to defend the child’s rights. In reality, this amounts to an alternative criminal-law mechanism.
Does this mean children are also deprived of the right to defense?
That is how it appears. A child may be removed from their family. But a child can only be removed from a family if there is danger to the child within that family. The state cannot protect a child through any other measure.
When a child cannot leave an institution without permission, this is detention.
Are there any institutions today where children in conflict with the law could be rehabilitated with full respect for their rights?
It has been said that such “homes” will be built, but no matter the infrastructure, design, equipment, or environment, removing a child from their family and forcing them to live in an institution constitutes a restriction of liberty. This cannot be called a home; it is a prison.
Is this similar to the Soviet-era “corrective” institutions for children?
It could be something like that. This constitutes ill-treatment and torture of children.
Whenever children are placed together in closed institutions, there is always a risk of violations of children’s rights.
Children who live in institutions often report ill-treatment, frequently violence, and rights violations. A child should only be removed from a family in strict accordance with the Child Rights Code and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
For the past year, Georgian Dream has introduced a series of repressive laws directed against human rights. Do you see this initiative as part of that broader repression?
Yes. This initiative directly contradicts the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Child Rights Code. Georgia has national legislation aligned with the Convention; the standards and norms are essentially identical. Both allow removing a child from a family only when there is a threat to the child within that family.
Otherwise, it is unlawful. This new legislative initiative contradicts national legislation, international treaties, and guiding principles on children’s rights.
It also contradicts the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code, which clearly state that there is no criminal responsibility for children under 14. In direct opposition to these codes, an alternative form of responsibility for children is being introduced.
Children certainly need help when they struggle with difficult circumstances. The state’s duty is to support, protect, and assist children, not to lock them up. A child should not be separated from their family environment, school environment, or have their best interests violated.
Is there a list of “crimes” for which children could be confined?
Crimes are defined by the Criminal Code. Under it, stealing bread is a crime, and so is stealing chocolate. Accordingly, they will rely on this code, where any secret taking of movable property constitutes a criminal offense.
We call them minors. Why are they being punished under laws created for adults?
The Juvenile Justice Code provides mitigating circumstances. For example, when sentencing minors, lighter penalties are applied, and when a child comes into conflict with the law for the first time, diversion should be used, and criminal responsibility should not be imposed.
This new legislative initiative turns the child’s best interests upside down, undermines genuine obligations of rehabilitation and resocialization, and simply restricts the liberty of 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old children.
On what basis would a prosecutor decide whether a child stays for six months or one year, if no clear criteria exist?
Children will not be placed in institutions in every case. Decisions will be made based on specific circumstances. But a child cannot be accused of an official crime, can they? In most cases, the accusations involve taking household items or food products, and the entire initiative is built around this.
What can parents do in such cases? Do they have the right to defend their child?
Under this law, if a parent opposes the application of this measure to their child, they may be punished administratively, including possible administrative detention.
What can you, as children’s rights defenders, do to oppose this?
Within our mandate, we will oppose anything that harms children. All professionals working on children’s rights and with children in general including psychologists and experts from various fields, must assess this initiative and its potential harmful impact on children.
In some cases, children may indeed be in difficult situations and need help. That does not mean they should be punished, stigmatized, or labeled as criminals.
In every case, the state must investigate why this is happening, where the child needs help, what circumstances are negatively affecting the child, and address those circumstances not remove the child.