On December 15, a package of legislative amendments adopted by MPs of Georgian Dream was made public. Among other issues, the amendments concern the creation of a unified information database of people with mental health problems, as well as users of narcotic substances and alcohol. We believe that these changes disregard human rights–based approaches, establish discriminatory policies based on health status, and violate the principle of confidentiality of personal data. Given its content, the changes will, on the one hand, lead to even greater stigmatization and exclusion of persons with mental health problems, and, on the other hand, increase the risks of the state instrumentalizing information about mental health for political purposes.

The legislative amendments package was initiated by the Government of Georgia back in 2024 and envisages amendments to 15 laws.[1] A few days ago, on December 9, Parliament adopted it at the third reading. According to the explanatory note, the stated aim of the amendments was the absence of a comprehensive information database and the difficulties caused by the lack of relevant data.

The amendments provide that by March 1, 2026, the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia (hereinafter – “the Ministry”) will create a unified information database of “persons with mental health problems, alcoholism, drug addiction, and toxicomania”. Information will be entered into the database by relevant public and private medical institutions. In cases provided for by law, this information will be accessible to relevant state bodies. The criteria for entering data into the database will be defined by the Ministry at a later stage. It is highly likely that the Ministry will also define the categories of persons to whom these rules will apply.

The primary justification for creating the database, as stated in the legislative amendments, is ensuring public safety. According to the government, a challenge exists in determining whether a person’s health condition complies with the requirements established by Georgian legislation in processes such as issuing a firearms license, granting the right to carry service-issued weapons, granting a driver’s license, and other similar procedures. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the inclusion of a person’s information in this database will also result in the suspension of already issued permits (e.g., firearms license).

The changes have already drawn responses from mental health and addiction professionals, social workers, psychologists, and community representatives. They have assessed the initiative negatively, stating that beyond the announced restrictions, the legislative changes will encourage stigmatization, create significant barriers to accessing services, and become a mechanism of harassment and punishment.

An analysis of the legislative amendments clearly shows that their content contradicts both international standards and the fundamental principles of mental health care:

• The amendments disregard human rights–based approaches - The legislative changes group people blanketly based on their health conditions rather than their individual needs and impose blanket restrictions on their enjoyment of rights. This contradicts international standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). For example, Articles 8, 12, and 22 of the Convention emphasize equality before the law, prohibit blanket deprivation of rights, require the protection of confidentiality of health-related information, and oblige states to combat stereotypes and stigma against persons with disabilities. Moreover, the law itself does not define the intensity of the interference; therefore, it is currently unknown based on what criteria and for what duration individuals may be included in the database. This creates a basis for gross and disproportionate interference with human rights and increases the risk of arbitrariness by the executive branch. Additionally, the amendments use terminology that is far removed from a human rights–based approach, referring to users of various substances as “persons suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, and/or toxicomania,” which reinforces stigmatizing attitudes. The adopted changes treat these individuals not as equal citizens, but as “risk-bearing” subjects, which is extremely problematic.
• The necessity of the amendments is not sufficiently substantiated - Neither the draft law nor its explanatory note provides arguments justifying the necessity of establishing such a registry. For example, no statistical data are presented that would even partially justify the changes, nor is there any discussion of attempts to use less rights-restrictive mechanisms (such as effective oversight of the issuance of health certificates, the so-called “Form 100,” the shortcomings of which were cited as one of the reasons for creating the registry).
• The amendments are likely to have counterproductive effects - Given their content, the changes will likely discourage people from seeking mental health or other services, in order to reduce the risk of being entered into the database and subjected to further stigmatization. Restrictions on the use of a driver’s license will be particularly problematic for these individuals, as driving may be their only source of income. While they may formally retain certain legal rights, there will be a significant risk of deterioration in their condition, as even the already deficient support system - largely oriented toward objectification, hospitalization, and institutionalization - will simply no longer reach these people.
• The amendments represent a serious regression in the protection of confidentiality - The approved package of legislative amendments significantly worsens the human rights situation of hundreds of citizens of our country. Prior to the amendments, the Law “On Mental Health” provided for the protection of confidentiality with regard to mental health issues. In particular, under the law, confidential information about a person’s mental condition was accessible only to individuals directly involved in their treatment and medical research. Disclosure of this information to a third party was possible with the consent of the patient or their legal representative, or on the basis of a court decision. In cases where there was a threat to the life and/or health of the patient or a third person, a breach of confidentiality was permitted, and the information could be provided to the patient’s legal representative, and in their absence, to the patient’s relative. The protection and confidentiality of health-related data are also required by the Law of Georgia “On Personal Data Protection”. Under this law, health data belong to a special category of personal data, which must be processed lawfully, fairly, transparently, purposefully, and securely, with strict respect for confidentiality. The still-operating Personal Data Protection Service has emphasized the special need to protect such data. Existing legislation prohibits the transfer of such information without the patient’s consent, even to family members, and obliges healthcare personnel to maintain confidentiality even during consultations. Health-related data are also recognized as a special category of data by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized the importance of health-related data, clarifying that they fall within the scope of the right to private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Importantly, when creating such databases and personalized systems, not only must judicial oversight be possible, but the criteria used by courts in exercising their supervisory powers must also be clearly defined, including the retention period for personal data.
• The package was developed through a non-inclusive process - According to the explanatory note, experts and thematic organizations were not involved in the drafting process, nor was there a review of other countries’ experiences in implementing similar regulations. This directly contradicts one of the core principles of the CRPD, which requires the involvement and active participation of the community in all decision-making processes, including the development, implementation, and monitoring of legislative frameworks.

One of the greatest risks posed by the law is the political instrumentalization of mental health and addiction issues. Namely, amendments to the Law “On Police” authorize the police to obtain information from the database when placing a person in a temporary detention isolator. According to the explanatory note, the purpose of this change is to take into account the needs of detainees. In reality, however, a norm that grants police the authority to request such information without clear safeguards could be used against opposition-minded activists detained by the police. It is particularly noteworthy that a similar law has been adopted in the Russian Federation. As in Georgia, a special registry containing information on individuals’ mental health conditions will come into force in Russia on March 1, 2026, and the justifications for its creation are similar to those cited in Georgia.

Unfortunately, despite years of advocacy aimed at establishing and implementing human rights-based approaches, the legislative framework and practice are deteriorating significantly. Instead of encouraging access to support services - as Parliament itself emphasized a few years ago - and ensuring a sense of safety for service users, with confidentiality as a key component, the system turns certain health conditions into sources of stigma and further obstructs access to essential services. Moreover, the adopted changes clearly increase the risk of pressure and harassment against activists and political opponents, turning mental health into one of the main tools of political battle.

The Social Justice Center will monitor the process of adoption and the content of the regulations related to the unified register by the Ministry, as well as the practical implementation of the legislation, and will provide the public with information on the risks and rights violations identified in this area.

Share