recommendation issued by the Public Defender in previous years. In particular, we were informed from the Ministry that the district inspectors-investigators and the chief district inspectors-investigators were using police body cameras while on duty, however, according to the letter, the Kakheti Police Department units did not use cameras while on duty due to the technical issues..261 Accordingly, the Public Defender considered the above-mentioned recommendation implemented in 2018 and called on the Ministry to continue the process of gradually equipping the staff of the territorial bodies with police body cameras of improved capacities, including determining its mandatory use and deadlines for keeping records. In a letter sent in response of the 2019 report, the Ministry again acknowledged the content of the recommendation and said that work was underway to improve the technological capabilities of the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including equipping police with police body cameras, which was welcomed by the Public Defender.262 In view of all the above, the Public Defender does not understand the response sent by the Ministry in 2020, where it is stated that the Ministry considers it inappropriate to impose an obligation to carry police body cameras for the employees of the territorial bodies. Part of the reasoning of the Ministry is that the employees of the territorial bodies are constantly engaged in investigative actions, covert investigative actions and operative activities, in which the use of body cameras may harm the interests of the investigation, because there is a certain risk for both law enforcement and the public. In particular, in such a case, the record may contain information about the identities of the persons involved in the operation, details of the operation/security, methods/tactics of the operation, etc. The Public Defender clarifies that the use of improved technical capabilities with body cameras and the obligation to videotape the communication with citizens should be imposed on the employees of territorial bodies in such cases as: interviewing persons; identification of persons; search and check; special search and check, restriction of movement of a person or vehicle or of actual possession of an item263 (Including the entire process of arresting and transporting a person). The Public Defender requested with its recommended that a sub-law should have defined the obligation of video recording of patrol inspectors' communication with citizens and the procedure and terms of storage of video footage. The Ministry has not been agreeing with this recommendation for years. The response sent by the Ministry in 2019 stated that the Patrol Police Inspector carries out video surveillance with a body video camera in a standard situation, and due to specific circumstances there may be a need for immediate response and delay may prevent the Patrol Inspector from acting against an offence, which is why they did not consider is reasonable to define obligation of video recording by legislation. The Public Defender explained to the Ministry that in determining the obligation of patrol inspectors to videotape communication with citizens, it is possible to indicate exceptional cases, such as an immediate Letter MIA 8 18 02975975 of December 10, 2018. According to the letter, the units of the Kakheti Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs cannot use the ბოდყ cameras during their official duties due to technical defects. 262 In the 2019 report of the National Preventive Mechanism, p. 92, available at the following address: https://www.ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2020033122424787329.pdf [Last visited: 05.01.21]. 263 The Law on the Police, Article 18, subparagraphs “a”, “b”, “d”, “e”, “h”. 261 85