The invocation of the OSCE Vienna Mechanism by 38 participating states regarding recent developments in Georgia highlights growing international concern over the deteriorating human rights situation in the country, especially following government’s decision of its withdrawal from the EU membership process. This move outlines the pressing concerns related to the treatment of peaceful protestors, journalists, and opposition figures in Georgia. This paper examines the background of these concerns, the significance of the Vienna Mechanism invocation, and the potential responses from the Georgian government.

The Role of the Vienna Mechanism

The Vienna Mechanism, a tool established by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1989, allows participating states to raise concerns over human rights violations and request clarification or action from the state in question. It sets forth procedures for raising questions relating to human rights abuses and promoting bilateral discussions aimed at resolving the issues. 

The mechanism underscores the importance of international cooperation in ensuring that human rights violations are addressed, even when they occur within a state’s borders. The invocation of the Vienna Mechanism against Georgia is a clear signal that the actions of the Georgian government are seen as contrary to its commitments under OSCE frameworks, particularly regarding freedom of assembly, expression, and political participation.

Background to the Invocation

The invocation of Vienna Mechanism comes in response to reports of widespread human rights abuses in Georgia, particularly during the protests following the Prime Minister’s decision of withdrawal from the EU membership process. These protests have seen arrests, police violence, and harassment of media professionals.

The OSCE's concerns are centered on several key issues, including the disproportionate use of force against demonstrators, arbitrary detentions, interference with media freedoms, and violence against opposition politicians and journalists. The OSCE states have also expressed alarm at the apparent impunity enjoyed by law enforcement officials who perpetrate these violations. The letter to the Georgian authorities emphasizes the failure of the government to investigate human rights violations, urging Georgia to comply with its human dimension commitments under the OSCE framework. The Troika “call on the Georgian authorities to guarantee the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression for the people in Georgia.”

OSCE's Call for Engagement and Accountability

The letter from the OSCE member states clearly sets forth specific demands for the Georgian government, which include:

1. Investigating Violations of the Right to Freedom of Assembly: The OSCE asks for concrete actions to address the violations of the right to peaceful assembly and to investigate cases of ‘arbitrary detention, including individuals who were not part of the protests.
2. Ensuring Accountability for Human Rights Violations: The OSCE calls for investigations into inhumane treatment, and violence against peaceful protestors. It stresses the importance of holding law enforcement accountable for their actions.
3. Ensuring Freedom of Media and Civil Society: The OSCE emphasizes the need to protect the freedom of journalists and media professionals to report without fear of violence or reprisal. 
4. Safeguarding Political Plurality: The OSCE urges Georgia to protect opposition parties from threats and violence, and to ensure that political plurality is maintained and guaranteed.

Possible Responses from the Georgian Government

As of February 2025, the Georgian government has not publicly responded to the invocation of the Vienna Mechanism. Given the absence of a public response from the government, it remains unclear how the country intends to address the concerns raised by the OSCE member states. The lack of response may have implications for Georgia's international relations and its commitments under the OSCE framework.

In light of these concerns, Georgia had several options in terms of how it can respond: 

1.Provide a Written Response 

• Option: The Georgian government could opt to provide a detailed written response as requested.
• Response Strategy: This could include addressing the specific concerns raised in the Vienna Mechanism letter, such as the use of excessive force against peaceful protests, arbitrary detentions, mistreatment of journalists, and failure to investigate law enforcement abuses. The government could outline the steps already taken or planned to address these violations, including investigations, policy changes, and legal reforms aimed at upholding human rights.
• Rationale: This would demonstrate the government’s commitment to engaging in the dialogue with OSCE states, showing transparency and accountability in addressing human rights concerns. By providing concrete actions and timelines for reforms, Georgia could also seek to improve its image in the international community and strengthen its democratic principles.
   

2. Engage in Bilateral Meetings 

• Option: The Georgian government could agree to engage in bilateral meetings with the participating states that raised the concerns.
• Response Strategy: During the meetings, Georgia could present its position on the matters raised, provide additional context for the incidents mentioned in the Vienna Mechanism letter, and highlight any corrective measures already taken or in progress. This approach could also allow for direct diplomatic engagement, fostering a constructive environment for addressing concerns while showing a willingness to cooperate with the OSCE.
• Rationale: By agreeing to bilateral meetings, the Georgian government demonstrates a proactive stance in addressing international concerns. These discussions could help resolve misunderstandings, facilitate dialogue, and lead to collaborative solutions. It would also show a commitment to transparency and open communication.
   

3. Combination of Written Response and Bilateral Meetings

• Option: The Georgian government could combine both approaches: submitting a written response to the OSCE concerns within the four-week timeframe, followed by bilateral meetings to discuss the specifics further.
• Response Strategy: This could be an effective way to ensure both timely and thorough responses to the concerns. The written response could include preliminary actions taken, while the bilateral meetings would provide an opportunity for further clarification, negotiation, and exchange of information.
• Rationale: This combined approach would allow Georgia to demonstrate both formal commitment and diplomatic flexibility, ensuring that its response is both comprehensive and engaging. It also sets a constructive tone by showing openness to continued dialogue while addressing the concerns raised by the OSCE states.
   

4. No Response (Failure to Engage)

• Option: The Georgian government could choose not to respond to the invocation of the OSCE Vienna Mechanism at all, neither providing a written response nor engaging in bilateral meetings.
• Response Strategy: This option would involve ignoring the formal request for engagement and failing to respond to the specific concerns raised by the OSCE participating states. The government could avoid acknowledging the concerns or taking any immediate action to address them.
• Rationale: Choosing not to respond could be a political statement by the Georgian government, perhaps to assert its sovereignty and refusal to engage with international mechanisms it perceives as external interference. This approach could signal a stance of non-cooperation with international actors on human rights matters, especially if Georgia believes that the concerns raised by the OSCE are not in line with its national interests or political agenda.

It is clear that the Georgian government chose not to respond, and the deadlines for a response (10 days after the invocation of the mechanism), as outlined by the procedural guidelines passed. No official statement was made.This decision may have significant political implications:

• Deterioration of Diplomatic Relations: Failure to respond could lead to further diplomatic isolation, with increasing criticism from the international community, including OSCE members, human rights organizations, and Western partners.
• Damage to Georgia's European Aspirations: This lack of response could undermine Georgia's aspirations for closer ties with the European Union and NATO, as it would be perceived as a lack of commitment to democratic values, rule of law, and respect for human rights—key pillars for these organizations.
• Increased Internal and External Pressure: The Georgian government's failure to respond may prompt stronger international calls for actions. It could also lead to internal protests or calls for reform within Georgia, as civil society and opposition groups might perceive the government’s silence as an indication of its unwillingness to address human rights abuses.
• Exacerbating Domestic Issues: Ignoring international concerns could exacerbate domestic unrest, particularly if citizens or opposition parties view this as a disregard for the need for accountability, justice, and reform. It may fuel ongoing protests and further destabilize the political environment.
   

Alternative response – GYLA

Despite the fact that the Georgian government has refrained from engaging in any communication concerning the Vienna mechanism, the alternative report submitted by the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) provides a comprehensive analysis and response to the mechanism. The report focuses on human rights violations in Georgia, particularly the excessive use of force against peaceful protesters, arbitrary detentions, mistreatment by law enforcement, and harassment of opposition figures, journalists, and media actors. GYLA emphasizes the need for robust measures to protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political pluralism. It also urges international attention and action, urging the Georgian authorities to address these violations and ensure accountability for those responsible.

What can be expected?

In the event that a state, such as Georgia, does not respond to the invocation of the OSCE Vienna Mechanism, several actions and procedures are available to the OSCE and its participating states, depending on the severity and context of the situation. The OSCE’s response options include both diplomatic and procedural measures designed to encourage compliance and accountability. The important procedure that OSCE can use is Invocation of the Moscow Mechanism. Additionally, in December 2024, four opposition groups—Coalition for Change, Strong Georgia, Unity-UNM, and Gakharia for Georgia— and in January 2025 GYLA Chairwoman Nona Kurdovanidze at a press conference called for the activation of the “Moscow Mechanism.”

• Enhanced Investigative Measures: If the Vienna Mechanism fails to elicit a response, OSCE participating states may invoke the Moscow Mechanism. This mechanism allows for the establishment of an ad hoc mission of independent experts to investigate the situation more deeply, regardless of the state’s consent. The mission could involve gathering evidence, conducting interviews, and reporting on human rights violations or other concerns. 
• Independent Expert Involvement: Experts from participating states could be assigned to assist in the investigation and resolution of the human rights issues in question, without needing the state’s cooperation. This could further pressure the government to respond, as failure to engage may raise questions of accountability at the international level.
   

Conclusion

In conclusion, the invocation of the OSCE Vienna Mechanism in relation to the deteriorating human rights situation in Georgia marks a critical moment in international diplomacy and human rights advocacy. As the concerns raised by the OSCE highlight significant violations of political freedoms, media independence, and the right to peaceful assembly, the Georgian government's response—or lack thereof—has profound implications for the country's international standing and its aspirations for European integration. While the Georgian government has yet to publicly address the invocation, it faces multiple avenues for engagement, from providing a formal written response to diplomatic meetings. Regardless of its choice, the outcome of this situation will likely affect Georgia's relationships with key international partners and its domestic political stability. In the absence of a cooperative response, the OSCE has other mechanisms, such as the Moscow Mechanism, which could escalate the issue and lead to further scrutiny. Ultimately, the international community, along with domestic actors like the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, will continue to monitor the situation closely, hoping for a resolution that upholds the fundamental principles of human rights and democratic governance.

About the Author:

Mariam Matcharashvili is an International Relations Specialist from Geogia with a focus on foreign and security policy analysis; political dynamics in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.