Recent developments have once again placed surrogacy practices in Georgia at the center of public scandal. International and local media outlets have reported on the existence of a so-called “black market” for surrogacy in Georgia. Notably, similar information had circulated in previous months, and an investigation was even initiated against one company. However, it has become evident that the surrogacy business in Georgia may be grounded in alleged practices of trafficking and systemic violence, necessitating a comprehensive state-led investigation and the urgent establishment of an appropriate legislative framework.

According to media reports, dozens of alleged victims state that they were deceived into traveling to Georgia for the purpose of bearing children for infertile couples, only to later become victims of physical violence. Moreover, the women suspect that their eggs were extracted without their consent during what were presented as routine medical examinations. Women brought to Georgia from Thailand have shared horrifying testimonies in the media, including accounts of physical threats and abuse, describing their experiences as treatment tantamount to torture.

Another grave case related to surrogacy became known to the public in February 2025. Women from several countries, including Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, reported severe mistreatment by a particular clinic. According to their accounts, the clinic failed to pay the promised compensation; many women were left completely alone without daily allowances, food, or basic necessities; and numerous incidents of violence and threats were documented—particularly after the women began speaking publicly in the media. Following media coverage, an investigation into the company was launched under trafficking charges. Additionally, in May 2025, the Interagency Coordination Council for the Implementation of Anti-Trafficking Measures granted trafficking victim status to two surrogate mothers connected to this case.

Similarly, during the same period, media outlets reported on Thai women brought to Georgia by a Chinese company. In this case as well, women spoke about the alleged theft of their eggs. Some of those who managed to return to Thailand stated that they were threatened by a “Chinese criminal group,” which warned them that if they attempted to escape, their fingers would be cut off or they would be detained by the police due to a lack of documents.

Georgia is among the few countries where surrogacy is fully legal, including commercial surrogacy and surrogacy for foreign nationals. Due to the unregulated and low-cost environment, Georgia has become a regional hub for surrogacy. As a result, the overwhelming majority of couples using surrogacy services in Georgia are foreign nationals—from Europe, China, Israel, Turkey, and the United States, with increasing numbers from Australia and Canada. Demand for surrogacy in Georgia rose significantly after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, which had previously been a major destination for infertile couples.

Between 2019 and 2024, 4,674 children were born through surrogacy in Georgia. The annual breakdown is as follows:

• 2019 – 601 children
• 2020 – 817 children
• 2021 – 310 children
• 2022 – 833 children
• 2023 – 1,172 children
• 2024 – 941 children

Legislative Framework

Georgia does not have a special law regulating assisted reproductive technologies (ART), including surrogacy. Although the concept of surrogacy has existed in Georgian legislation since 1997, it is regulated through scattered normative acts and ministerial orders. Under the current framework, the following principles can be identified:

• Surrogacy is legal in Georgia, including in its commercial form;
• Legal parenthood is based on genetic connection rather than childbirth;
• A surrogate mother is not and cannot become the legal parent of the child;
• The contract is the central element of the legal process;
• Birth registration is conducted administratively, without court involvement.

At the same time, legislation leaves unregulated a wide range of critical issues related to complex ART procedures, including: authorization of medical institutions to conduct such practices; qualifications of embryologists and physicians; mandatory clinical guidelines to minimize negligence or error; and—most importantly—effective oversight mechanisms to prevent unethical, dishonest, or unlawful activities by medical institutions, even under the existing minimal regulatory framework.

Due to the deregulation of surrogacy, the government decided two years ago to tighten regulation. On June 19, 2023, the government introduced a legislative initiative addressing several reproductive health issues, including surrogacy and in vitro fertilization.

The initiative proposed banning surrogacy for foreign couples, limiting access exclusively to Georgian citizens. It also sought to regulate surrogate compensation based on the “principle of altruism,” under which surrogate mothers would receive only compensation related to inconvenience, medical examinations, and childbirth.

The proposed amendments also included changes to the Criminal Code, making assisted reproductive activities carried out without the informed consent of the donor, gestational surrogate, or beneficiary punishable by four to six years of imprisonment.

The law was scheduled to enter into force on January 1, 2024, but its implementation remains suspended to this day.

According to the explanatory note of the draft law, 19 institutions in Georgia are currently authorized to conduct medically assisted reproduction procedures. However, there is no unified registry of ART procedures, and despite the wide range of services provided, information on outcomes is scarce. Moreover, the principle of altruistic surrogacy and tissue/cell donation is not established at the legislative level, allowing commercial interests to dominate the field.

The draft law also envisaged the creation of a competent regulatory body responsible for monitoring, supervision, inspection, and enforcement of the law and its by-laws. As noted, despite being introduced under an expedited procedure, the draft law remains stalled.

In 2023, then–Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili announced plans to ban surrogacy for foreign couples. Additionally, starting in 2024, amendments to a government decree excluded coverage of childbirth and caesarean section costs for surrogate mothers from the Universal Healthcare Program.

In 2019, the Public Defender of Georgia assessed the national legislative framework on sexual and reproductive health. The published assessment emphasized that surrogacy is perceived by the state not as a medical practice but as a social phenomenon, despite the fact that surrogacy is unequivocally linked to the physical and mental health of women and children and therefore must be examined within the framework of reproductive health and reproductive rights.

According to the Public Defender, the absence of surrogacy-related regulation in the country poses significant risks to women who are or wish to become surrogate mothers. In the absence of regulation, there is a heightened risk that disputes arising between private parties will not be resolved in favor of the more vulnerable party. In such circumstances, surrogate mothers—who often turn to surrogacy due to financial need—are placed in a particularly precarious position, as they lack specific legal and financial mechanisms for self-protection.

The lack of regulation adversely affects not only the legal status of surrogate mothers but also their health. In addition, there is no adequate assessment of the health condition of potential surrogate mothers, which increases the risk of fatal outcomes. Medical institutions are subject to only minimal requirements with respect to women seeking to become surrogates.

In many cases, agreements concluded with surrogate mothers contain elements of criminal offenses, including human trafficking. However, for example, in the case involving surrogate women recruited by the company Kinderly, the investigation is currently proceeding only under the qualification of property damage (Article 185 of the Criminal Code), which fails to reflect the gravity of the alleged conduct. If the investigation continues under this qualification alone, there is a substantial risk that appropriate sanctions will not be imposed on company representatives.

The surrogacy contract itself also remains outside the scope of effective regulation, despite the fact that it often constitutes a key guarantee for the protection of surrogate women.

References to surrogacy contracts in Georgian legislation are found only in Article 19 of the Order “On Approval of the Rules for Civil Acts Registration.” Under this provision, for the registration of intended parents as the legal parents of a child born through surrogacy, the Public Service Development Agency (hereinafter “the Agency”) must be presented with a notarized contract concluded between the parties involved in surrogacy prior to extracorporeal fertilization. The legislation regulates only the parties to the contract, its form, and the timeframe for its conclusion, while leaving its essential terms entirely unregulated.

Given the significance of the surrogacy contract—not only for protecting and balancing the interests of the parties but, first and foremost, in light of the best interests of the child born as a result of the contract—Georgian legislation must establish mandatory requirements concerning the essential terms of such agreements. These should include, inter alia, the rights and obligations of the parties; conditions for early termination of the contract; and the legal consequences of a party’s death, divorce of the intended parents, or disputes between them.

A number of issues related to surrogacy cannot be resolved solely within the framework of party autonomy and require legislative regulation. These include, for example, the surrogate mother’s right to lawful abortion and the prohibition on unilateral termination of the contract by either the surrogate mother or the intended parents after embryo transfer. Notably, these issues remain outside the scope of regulation even under the above-mentioned legislative initiative.

Furthermore, Georgian legislation lacks effective mechanisms to control dishonest, unethical, or unlawful practices by medical institutions. In the absence of a regulatory oversight system, individuals are not protected from uncontrolled and potentially illegal transactions.[1]

Human Rights Analysis

The factual and legal circumstances described above require not only clear legal regulation but also immediate and systematic investigation. From a human rights perspective, these practices may involve multiple violations, including the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the prohibition of forced or compulsory labor, and violations of the right to private life and bodily autonomy.

Physical violence, threats, forced isolation, and especially medical interventions carried out without informed consent may constitute ill-treatment—and in severe cases, torture—triggering the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations and provide protection. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly emphasized the centrality of informed consent in the context of reproductive health and fertility control.[2] Forced abortion, sterilization, or other forms of reproductive control have been found to violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and constitute forms of gender-based violence.[3]

The ECtHR has also clearly established that human trafficking falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention, imposing positive obligations on states to prevent, protect, and punish. Reproductive decisions, control over one’s body, health information, use of biological material, and identity issues fall within the core of Article 8 (right to private life).[4] In surrogacy-related cases, the Court has emphasized the importance of legal certainty and stability of a child’s identity and legal status(even if the context is to recognize parentage by other states).[5]

Furthermore, the Oviedo Convention of the Council of Europe establishes that any medical intervention is permissible only with free and informed consent, which must be documented and may be withdrawn at any time. The extraction of biological material without consent or through deception goes beyond medical services and constitutes violent and exploitative practices, triggering the highest standards of criminal and human rights protection.

International definitions of trafficking are not limited to sexual or labor exploitation; they hinge on abuse of vulnerability, deception, coercion, and the purpose of exploitation. These risks are particularly acute in the surrogacy sector when combined with transnational recruitment, language barriers, lack of legal assistance, financial dependence, control over housing and documents, unregulated intermediaries, weak clinical oversight, and the absence of registries and monitoring mechanisms.

In such circumstances, the state’s obligations do not end with a single investigation. According to ECtHR jurisprudence, positive obligations require systemic prevention measures, including effective regulation, licensing, inspection, control of advertising and intermediaries, and mechanisms for victim identification.[6]

Calls to Action:

In light of the above, the Social Justice Center calls on:

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office

To conduct prompt, effective investigations using appropriate legal qualifications, including offenses of ill-treatment and human trafficking;

The Legislative and Executive Authorities

To establish a comprehensive legislative and institutional framework regulating surrogacy, and to implement robust monitoring mechanisms essential for preventing trafficking, systemic violence, and violations of women’s health, labor, property, and personal rights within the surrogacy process.

Share