I don’t know how she understands the cautious recommendations. She practically copied everything that our political radicals said - what was the point at all, she wrote it down directly and sent this report, - this is how the Chairman of the European Integration Committee Levan Makhashvili assessed the statement made by the Moscow Mechanism expert in an exclusive interview with InterpressNews, according to whom the cautious tone of the report clearly shows that on various issues it relied on the explanations presented by the government.

According to Makhashvili, the expert does not even understand the meaning of the word “productive,” because if she had productive meetings, then the government’s position should have been reflected in the report, “which she did not do.”

"I don’t know how she understands the cautious recommendations. She practically copied everything that our political radicals said, so I can't agree with how cautious she is. She made quite rigid, radical assessments. I don't even know how correctly this person understands the word productive - if she had productive meetings, then the government’s position should have been reflected in the report. There is a whole range of information and documents that we provided, nothing is reflected, so everything is clear.

The point of her arrival should have been to actually study the current situation and reflect the positions of all sides. We saw a one-sided, extremely one-sided report and, among other things, our Prime Minister also made an assessment of this, stated our position. why did she came at all? She could write it down and send. Where there is logical recommendation, our positions are also clear on this, that, for example, inviting the OSCE/ODIHR to the parliamentary elections, as always, we intend to do so in the future. Of course, we do need this person’s recommendation for this, but 90% of the remaining recommendations are completely out of touch with reality, and we will find it difficult to take these so-called recommendations into account. On the other hand, whether it is the OSCE or other organizations, including those named by her, if they have an interest in Georgia regarding past or future processes, we are ready to cooperate with great pleasure, but on the basis of respect for constitutional rules and mutual respect in general,” Makhashvili said.

For information, in an interview with InterpressNews, the Moscow Mechanism expert Patrycja Grzebyk stated that she is not employed by the Polish government and that she prepared the report for the OSCE, not for Poland, of which she is a citizen.

In addition, she responded to criticism related to the preparation of a large-scale report in a short period of time.

“The 14-day working period is defined by the Moscow Mechanism, and Georgia was fully informed about this. I admit that this is an extremely short time. As soon as I was informed (on February 3) that I had been appointed rapporteur, I began collecting and reading all relevant reports (of international organizations, civil society, submissions by Georgia within the Vienna Mechanism), but it was only after my mission officially began and I was informed by OSCE/ODIHR that the time allocated for appointing a second expert for Georgia had expired, that on February 11 I was able to start contacting stakeholders in Georgia. I sent my first letter to the Permanent Representation of Georgia to the OSCE and international organizations in Vienna (at 7:44 Warsaw time), and then began reaching out to other stakeholders, including representatives of civil society organizations. At the same time, I asked a former doctoral student of mine, who is now a Doctor of Law, to assist me in completing my task. During the following two weeks, I woke up at 5:00 a.m. to conduct interviews, analyze documents sent to me, and write the report together with Dr. Grzeszkowiak, properly incorporating into the report the testimonies I collected or those sent to me daily within the mission. I only pointed to issues that were fairly documented and repeatedly appeared in both oral and written testimonies.

Of course, the report was written before my arrival in Georgia, but only after the mission had officially started. During my visit to Georgia, I used all my time to meet with various representatives, and all my interlocutors saw how detailed my notes were, so that I could immediately refer to them in the report. Being aware that the mandate was very broad, I tried to highlight the most important issues while also indicating other possible avenues that the state could use for further investigation. In summary, I consider the Georgian government’s criticism - that the report was prepared in advance - to be an ‘unconventional compliment’ to my work. The report was not prepared in advance. It was written under extremely limited time conditions, as provided by the Moscow Mechanism procedure. I did everything possible to prepare the most comprehensive report within such a short time,” the expert stated.