response to a crime/offense by a patrol inspector, provided that the patrol inspector has an obligation to substantiate that s/he did not have an opportunity to carry out video recording. In a response sent in 2020, the ministry presented a new reasoning. In particular, the response received from the Ministry states that the continuous video recording and the display of sensitive information on the record may lead to interference in the protected rights of persons. The response also notes that there is no uniform practice with the police on the obligation to videotape their communication with citizens, and that no law of any country stipulates the obligation to record every time the police communicates with a citizen, which depends on a number of circumstances. The Public Defender clarifies that the recommendation does not imply the constant activation of body cameras in all cases, however, it is important to impose an obligation to record video in such cases as: interviewing a person; person identification; search and inspection; special search and inspection, restriction of movement of a person or vehicle or of actual possession of an item264 (Including during the entire process of arresting and transporting a person). As for the reflection of sensitive information as a result of video surveillance and interference in the field of human rights, the problems in this regard are not connected to the obligation to use body cameras logistically well-set and regulated by clear procedures, but the vicious practice of video recordings by the police with their private mobile phones. Therefore, it is important for the Ministry to examine the correctness of such practices in the context of personal data protection. In its own response, the Ministry, in the context of one of the recommendations, itself speaks about the US Department of Justice's explanation that body cameras are typically used in the context of community-oriented policing and traffic regulation. For years, the priority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been to create a community-oriented police that will be accountable to the citizens. Consequently, the introduction of the use of body cameras plays an important role in this process. Important in the context of imposing the obligation of video surveillance on police officers is the decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which stated that from July 2021 the investigative bodies will be obliged to conduct continuous video recording during the search for an illegal item to exclude illegal action by the police.265 According to the information received from the interviews with lawyers by the special preventive group, against the background of the fact that there is no legal obligation for patrol inspectors to use body cameras, there are cases when small partial recordings of police communication with citizens (which do not show the whole picture but only the part in favor of police officers) is attached to the case as evidence. In order to establish the objective truth of the case, it is important to make a complete record and submit it to the investigating agencies and the court as neutral evidence. The Public Defender made a recommendation to provide a continuous audio-video recording of the interrogation of a detainee in several police stations on a pilot basis. The Ministry has not been agreeing with this recommendation for years. The response sent by the Ministry in 2019 stated that the The law on the Police, Article 18, subparagraphs “a”, “b”, “d”, “h”. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia, Case N2/2/1276, 25 December 2020. 264 265 86