Archil Talakvadze: Until now no arguments have been presented against the law - how should a simple requirement to submit a declaration once a year in the case of external financing be against human rights?

We are familiar with the reports of all international organizations and we say once again that until now no arguments have been presented against the law, except for the general assessments that we heard and still hear today - how should a simple request to submit a declaration once a year in the case of external financing contradict human rights! - Vice-Speaker of the Parliament Archil Talakvadze said regarding the OSCE/ODIHR report on the "Transparency of Foreign Influence" law.

Talakvadze states that the law adopted by the Parliament of Georgia serves to protect the country's democracy from any external interference.

"How should a simple requirement to submit a declaration once a year in the case of external financing be against human rights, while for years businesses and government officials have been submitting much more detailed declarations.

The main conclusion is that the law we adopted will introduce a transparency registry in Georgia, which is similar to 15 EU states, the USA, Australia, Israel have stricter regulations in this area, and Canada has started working on similar legislation.

There is an EU report that states that eight out of every ten EU citizens surveyed consider it a serious problem that external interference and foreign influence in their country's democracy is happening or could happen. If this problem exists in the European Union, it also exists in Georgia - even more so in Georgia, because we are in a much more difficult geopolitical situation and here the risks are much higher," said Archil Talakvadze.

For information, the legal analysis by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights states that Georgia's law on transparency of foreign influence does not comply with democratic standards and human rights. The analysis also highlights important differences between the law adopted in Georgia and the laws in the US (FARA) and Australia, which are fundamentally different in purpose and scope.