Activists and opposition leaders have accused Georgia’s Public Defender, Levan Ioseliani, of jeopardizing the safety of human trafficking and violence victims by allegedly revealing the location of a crisis center during an interview on Public Television on January 26. The disclosure has sparked widespread condemnation, prompting the removal of the interview from digital platforms. However, Ioseliani dismissed the backlash as an “artificial uproar.”
Public Defender Denies Wrongdoing Amid Uproar
In his response, Ioseliani defended his statements, claiming they had been misinterpreted. “The good thing is that now they are talking about crisis centers,” he remarked, emphasizing his longstanding advocacy for improving these institutions.
He denied revealing any sensitive details, stating, “I did not provide any data about the location of crisis centers. It’s all a matter of interpretation.” Critics, however, argue that even vague information can be exploited, especially when dealing with dangerous criminal networks.
Activists and Experts Highlight the Risks
Nino Lapiashvili, Director of the Institute of European Studies at Tbilisi State University, called the situation a serious breach of confidentiality. Drawing from her experience as a coordinator for Georgia’s anti-human trafficking program, she explained the potentially fatal consequences of such disclosures.
“Even the slightest hint of the whereabouts of victims can embolden transnational organized crime to track down and eliminate witnesses,” Lapiashvili said. She recalled intense negotiations during her tenure to ensure access to victim databases was restricted to the highest-ranking officials, emphasizing how critical these safeguards are in combating human trafficking.
In her pointed criticism, Lapiashvili accused Ioseliani of undermining years of effort to protect victims, stating, “What criminals couldn’t achieve in 2006-2007 was accomplished yesterday by the so-called ombudsman.”
Opposition’s Reaction and Media Response
The incident has further strained public trust in Georgia’s Ombudsman’s Office. Critics argue that Ioseliani’s remarks reflect a deeper issue of eroding institutional credibility. Opposition representatives have called for an investigation into the matter, with some questioning Ioseliani’s fitness for the role.
Following the uproar, Public Television swiftly removed the interview from all its digital platforms. However, activists argue that the damage may already be done.
Broader Implications for Anti-Trafficking Efforts
Georgia has long been recognized for its strong stance against human trafficking, achieving Tier 1 status in the U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report during the late 2000s. This status reflects a country’s commitment to preventing trafficking, prosecuting offenders, and protecting victims.
The latest controversy could jeopardize these efforts, experts warn. Transparency and trust are essential for the success of anti-trafficking programs. Lapses in confidentiality risk not only victims’ safety but also Georgia’s standing as a leader in combating transnational organized crime.
Balancing Awareness with Responsibility
Ioseliani’s comments have reignited debates about how best to raise awareness of victims’ needs without compromising their safety. While highlighting the challenges faced by crisis centers is essential, critics argue that public officials must tread carefully when discussing sensitive issues.
Georgia’s government faces a critical test in addressing this controversy. The response will not only shape public perception of the Ombudsman’s Office but also send a message to international partners about the country’s commitment to human rights and victim protection.
