On 1 November 2018, the Public Defender of Georgia completed the examination of applications against Z.D., which concerned alleged sexual harassment. The Public Defender found sexual harassment in 3 out of 5 applications studied by her Office and issued relevant recommendations; case proceedings were terminated in 2 cases due to the lack of evidence.

In April and May 2018, the Public Defender was addressed by five women independently with the request of establishing sexual harassment commited by Z.D. In order to obtain comprehensive information, representatives of the Public Defender personally met with the parties, conducted correspondence, talked with third parties and requested information from them in writing. The exchange of communication presented by the parties ended on 10 October 2018.

As a result of thoroughly examinaning the applications, sexual harassment was established in relation to three applicants. The lack of evidence was observed in the cases, but the presented positions and, in some cases, the copies of written communication, proved relationship between the parties. In aadition, based on the explanations of third parties and written communications, it was found that the applicants cut off contact with Z.D. after his undesirable behavior.

The behavior of Z.D. and the common characteristics of circumstances gave rise to an assumption of sexual harassment in relation to all three applicants, while the arguments and evidence adduced by the defendant were not enough to neutralize the assumption.

The Public Defender notes that the applications were filed with her Office after she nominated Z.D.’s candidacy to the Board of Trustees of the Public Broadcaster. However, even if the processes against Z.D. were part of campaign, this does not rule out the cases of sexual harassment and therefore, the truth of the applicants' narrative cannot be questioned by the respondent party’s attempt to manipulate the abovementioned.

In addition, the Public Defender could not see any grounds for suspecting that the applicants deliberately misinterpreted Z.D.’s verbal form of sexual behaviour and specific phrases, since the applicants are not related to each other and have different personal and professional profiles. All three of them had objective expectations of establishing business relations with Z.D. All three of them told their friends about the unwanted sexual behavior and none of them had any contact with Z.D. after meeting him once.

As for the other two applicants, no sexual harassment could be established due to the lack of evidence. In particular, it was not clear when they cut off contact with Z.D. or when they expressed that the respondent’s behavior was undesirable for them.

When considering the above applications, the Public Defender was guided by the standard of international human rights law, according to which, the harasser ought to have known that specific sexual behavior would be unacceptable for the victim. This approach establishes subjective and objective tests. The subjective component is the harasser’s attitude to the acceptance of his behavior and the objective component focuses on how the specific behavior would be accepted, within reasonablility, by the third person.

The Public Defender also relied on a reasonable woman standard, which takes into consideration the different perceptions of sexual harassment by women and men. This standard considers sexual harassment from the woman's perspective and represents a gender-sensitive approach.