Untitled

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008
istration, as common courts did not exercise
control over administration and respectively
the latter was left without any supervision.
Ombudsman is defined as entrusted independent
person who is authorized by a Parliament
to protect rights of individual citizens
and exercise parliamentary control over state
officials, however he/she does not possess a
right to alter decisions made by them.
Since 1919 the similar bodies were introduced
and incorporated into the legal control
system in a number of countries throughout
the world. Before 1919 the ombudsman institution
did not exist anywhere but Sweden. In
that year the institute was introduced in Finland.
In a Rule of Law state tremendous importance
is attached to organs carrying into effect
legal and institutional guarantees for human
rights protection – constitutional court and
institution of ombudsman. After World War II
the world community reached the conclusion
that facts of human rights violation were hampering
establishment of legal order throughout
the world, and this led to the process of
searching and creating both – international,
as well as national mechanisms of human
rights protection. By now in a diverse group of
states institutions of constitutional control and
ombudsman are being widely disseminated.
There are more than 100 diversities of
ombudsman institution in over 80 countries of
the contemporary world, though each of them
takes care of protection of human rights and
freedoms in a respective state. The institute
was launched in Denmark and Norway in 1953;
however, in Norway it functioned as a martial
ombudsman’s institution until 1963.
In 1952 representatives of New Zealand –
the Prosecutor General and a Deputy Minister
of Justice of the country – attending an UN
organized seminar on ombudsman institution
were flabbergasted after listening to the report
of the first ombudsman of Denmark Stefan
Gurvich in Ceylon and a law introducing
an institution of ombudsman followed, which
was adopted on 7 September, 1962.
Whyatt Report, produced by the England
section of the International Justice Commission
working on the crisis in the administrative
court system also recommended introduction
of ombudsman institution in Great Britain.
Despite having many opponents in the state
bureaucracy as well as lacking the support of
the Prime Minister MacMillan’s Conservative
Government, Wilson, who included the issue
into his pre-election campaign program, won
the elections and Law on Parliamentary Representative
was adopted in three years time,
in 1967.
At the edge of 1960-70s the institution was
being introduced into a number of US states,
in 1973 – in France, in 1976 – in Portugal, in
1981 – in Spain, in 1982 – in the Netherlands,
in 1988 – in Poland, in 1995 – in Georgia. 1
In international practice ombudsman is
often called different names. In particular, it is
called Mediator in France, Provedor for Justice
– in Portugal, Public Defender, like in
Georgia – in Spain, Commissioner – in Poland,
etc. Despite such a variety of names the term
“ombudsman” has maintained its particular
position, as of international denominator of this
mechanism of human rights protection.
The experience proves that ombudsman
institution is mostly demanded in cases when
different institutions fail to exercise functions
of controlling state authorities and additional
protection of citizens’ rights from arbitrariness
of an administration is considered necessary.
Creation of ombudsman institution is closely
linked with both – the theory of separation
of powers, as well as contemporary development
of society and broadening the scope of
state and administrative activities. The latter is
a cause of expansion of disagreement between
state-administrative bodies and citizens. This
is supported by a constant increase of number
of people employed in state apparatus, great
number of legal acts and regulations, information
deficit over executive branch of the
government in parliament, overloading administrative
courts with proceedings, etc. In such
a situation a citizen is constantly under the
pressure of administrative and other bureaucratic
institutions that causes citizen’s displeasure
and distrust towards a state.
Based on all the above mentioned it can
be concluded that proliferation of ombudsman
institution and its inclusion into political-legal
systems of a number of countries is preconditioned
with the state entering into all social
spheres of life of a society, broadening state’s
administrative functions, through state regulations,
which strengthen a role of legislative
184