We, the signatory organizations respond to the recent developments in the village of Buknari and call on the government and parliament to recognize the systemic challenges of the state policy on freedom of religion and its severe social effects and to launch fundamental reforms in this area, in a timely manner, including the abolition of the State Agency for Religious Affairs and the prompt establishment of a democratic and inclusive reform process in this area.

It is important that the goal of de-escalating and reconciling the conflict was achieved in the village of Buknari with the readiness of the local Christian and Muslim communities and the support of state agencies. However, we believe that it is essential that government agencies study the systemic legal, political and social causes of such religious persecution, harassment, conflict and alienation and respond to it with positive interventions and reforms at the legislative and institutional as well as macro and micro social levels.

Religious harassment of the Georgian Muslim community in the village of Buknari is not the first and only case. A chain of such religious conflicts was revealed in previous years in the villages of Tsikhisdziri (2011), Nigvziani (2012), Tsintskaro (2013), Samtatskaro (2013), Chela (2013), Kobuleti (2014), Mokhe (2014) and Adigeni (2016). It is worrisome that government agencies did not have a proper legal and political response to these conflicts. In some cases, the situation has been eased as a result of the complete disregard for the religious rights and needs of the Muslim community (for example, in Samtatskaro, Jame could not be opened in a private house purchased by a local community, the Kobuleti Muslim Boarding School is still closed, the historic Mokhe Mosque has not been granted status despite the work of a special commission). There has been no effective legal response to almost any of the incidents, and no one has been held accountable for religious persecution and violence, including in cases of apparent police brutality against local Muslim countrymen (for example, in the villages of Chela and Mokhe). Beyond the problem of responding to violations of human rights, in no case have government agencies studied the systemic causes of such conflicts and pursued long-term transformational policies that would promote a solidary, equal, and multicultural social environment in conflict-affected communities.

It is significant that the state had a relatively active response to the religious harassment identified in Buknari. Contrary to previous experiences, statements on freedom of religion and equality were made by high-ranking state officials, the on-site mediation process, although it was flawed, started on time and a legal response from the police also materialized. However, given the problematic visions and sentiments within the dominant religious community, as well as the ideology of ethno-religious nationalism prevailing in our environment, we consider it fundamentally important for the state to pursue a long-term transformational policy in the Buknari community as well as in communities experiencing religious / ethnic conflict or at such risk.

It is also important to note that Buknari case showcased the sharply ineffective role of the LEPL State Agency for Religious Affairs, the exclusive government agency under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister, and the severe consequences of its policies over the years. Although it is in the capacity of the Agency to facilitate the resolution of religious disputes, the Agency was involved in resolving the conflicts identified in the village of Buknari and their involvement in the mediation process was not visible, which should be explained by sharp criticism and distrust of the agency. Moreover, the statements made by the head of the Agency in the media, once again, show that he openly ignores the real challenges and needs of religious communities. At the same time, special attention should be paid to the criticism voiced by the Muslim community towards the Administration of All Muslims of Georgia during the ongoing negotiations on the conflict in the village of Buknari, which is the result of a policy based on control of non-dominant religious organizations by the Agency and the government, as a whole. The signatory organizations hereby acknowledge our personal respect for the heads and other staff of the Mufti Division.

Over the years, religious organizations, human rights actors, including the Public Defender, point to a number of systemic challenges to religious freedom that exist at the level of legislation, administrative policy and institutional arrangement, as well as at the micro-social / community level. These challenges relate to discriminatory provisions in the legislation (for example, discriminatory provisions concerning the funding of religious organizations, the State Property Law, the Foresty Code), years of neglect and disregard of the needs and rights of religious minorities (e.g. absence of a law and policy on the return of property confiscated during the Soviet period, the problem of protection and preservation of historical heritage sites) non-secular and anti-equality content expressed in political language, discriminatory administrative practices (eg, obstacles to the construction of religious buildings, discrimination and proselytism in public schools), ineffective response and prevention of crimes motivated by religious intolerance.

Since the establishment of the State Agency for Religious Affairs in 2014, none of these important issues have been resolved. On the contrary, we have consistently observed sharply regressive and anti-human rights initiatives by the agency. Although there is a Human Rights Action Plan at the national level, as well as the trend of positive reforms in the systems of the Ministry of Interior and the Prosecutor's Office, as well as the Ministry of Education, fundamental problems in the area of ​​religious freedom remain unresolved.

In our observation, the process of change is substantially hampered by the problematic perspective of the government on the field of religious freedom and its institutional arrangement, where the State Agency for Religious Affairs is considered as governmental exclusive actor in this field. We believe that in the presence of this agency and its policies, a positive policy change in the field of freedom of religion and the necessary democratic communication with government agencies is unattainable, because this agency 1. has a problematic mandate and vague competencies that allow it to work arbitrarily and undemocratically; 2. has vision based largely on security and hierarchization concerning policies related to religious freedom; 3. has experience of working against human rights; 4. has low trust from religious and public organizations and human rights actors. It is noteworthy that this organization has been sharply criticized by international organizations (FCNM [1], ECRI [2]) and authoritative expert circles (Oslo Coalition for Freedom of Religion or Faith [3], report of the international expert, Maggie Nicholson [4] submitted to the government).

Deep distrust and criticism towards this Agency was expressed by religious organizations and human rights actors in the very first days of its establishment, when we saw the risks of creating a controlling "religion ministry" and listened to the regressive initiatives and statements made by the head of this Agency. Sadly, this criticism and crisis of confidence has never been taken seriously by the government, and since then, not only a reform process, but a free, democratic communication with the state, on this issue, has been suspended.

In view of the above, we, the signatory organizations call on the Government and Parliament of Georgia, in the light of yet another crisis in the village of Buknari, to express their high interest in the state policy on freedom of religion and its grave legal and social consequences, and:

1. Change the existing perspective of working with religious organizations and communities and align it with the standards of equality, religious neutrality and religious freedom, instead of security, control and hierarchization of religious groups. In this regard, it is essential to end the practice of controlling and interfering in the autonomy of individual religious organizations, which lead to negative practices of mistrust and informal organization;
2. Develop a coherent plan for religious freedom policy reform based on the recommendations of local and international actors, as well as democratic consultations with the Council of Religions under the Public Defender and human rights actors;
3. Abolish the State Agency for Religious Affairs and elaborate new modes of communication and policy coordination between religious and public organizations, which shall be based on critical analysis of established negative experiences and democratic consultations with the relevant actors.

We, the signatory organizations express readiness to continue communicating with the Government and Parliament of Georgia on the above issues.

• Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center
• Evangelical-Baptist Church
• Georgian Muslims Union
• Supreme Religious Administration of Georgia's All Muslims
• Evangelical Church
• Platform Salami
• Solidarity Platform

References:

1. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) indicates that religious minorities have expressed low confidence in the State Agency for Religious Affairs and at the same time they have shown high confidence in the Council for Religious Affairs under the auspices of Public Defender, which unites 33 religious organizations and creates for them a framework of horizontal and independent organization;
2. According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), its recommendation calling on the Government of Georgia to strengthen communication between the State Agency for Religious Affairs and the Public Defender has not been implemented and the Agency has not taken any serious steps to cooperate with the Council. The Commission emphasizes that, instead of co-operation, tension can be observed between the two bodies and there is a clear misalignment between their positions on freedom of religion. This was revealed in the process of drafting constitutional amendments in 2017, when there was an initiative to restrict freedom of religion for national security purposes. The State Agency for Religious Affairs did not oppose the initiative, which was an important signal for religious groups and human rights organizations to consider the agency as a tool designed to control religious organizations;
3. According to the Oslo Coalition, an interview they recorded with the State Agency for Religious Affairs confirmed the important concerns they had prior to the meeting: its mandate is not clear; its responsibilities and powers are not clear; it does not have procedural guidelines for carrying out important activities; it has no mechanisms for transparency and accountability. Thus, it seems that the Agency, which is a governmental body, views its mission as not to ensure the freedom of religion for all citizens, but to protect the financial and material interests of the Orthodox Church;
4. Maggie Nicholson's report states that the agency was established in 2014 as the main body responsible for religious freedom issues, however, this agency enjoys little trust. The expert notes that instead of being recognized as the agency for the protection of religious freedom, it is seen as a control mechanism for religious organizations, which has been repeatedly stressed by various actors;

Share