GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 21 Index had increased Georgia’s score from 1.8 in 2003 to 4.1, thus ranking it 66th out of 174 countries (see paragraphs 69-73 above). 83. The Government emphasised that all those positive results in the fight against corruption could never have been achieved without the mechanism of administrative confiscation which had been applied in the applicants’ case. They briefly described the nature of that legal mechanism. In particular, administrative confiscation did not constitute a part of criminal proceedings and was not of a punitive nature but, on the contrary, was of a civil-law, compensatory nature, being aimed at remedying the pecuniary damage caused either to private individuals or to the State (see paragraphs 49-54 above). The Government stated that such a procedure – confiscation of the property in question in the absence of a final criminal conviction, with the burden of proof being shifted onto the respondent – was in full conformity with the relevant international standards. In fact, it was the Council of Europe bodies and the OECD who had been the first to insist that Georgia should introduce such a measure (see paragraphs 66-70 above). 84. Observing that the proceedings for confiscation of the applicants’ property had strictly followed the judicial procedure laid down for that purpose by Article 37 § 1 of the CCP and Articles 21 §§ 4 to 11 of the CAP, the Government submitted that the resulting confiscation had been lawful. Those legal provisions were readily accessible to the public and their legal consequences were clear and foreseeable to the public at large, including the applicants. Furthermore, it could not be said that the legislative amendments in question had suddenly introduced revolutionary methods in the fight against corruption in February 2004, as seven years prior to those amendments there had already existed a law providing for the principles of prevention, exposure and eradication of corruption and the need to hold corrupt officials criminally, administratively and disciplinarily liable for their illicit deeds, namely the 1997 Act on Conflict of Interests and Corruption in the Public Service (see paragraphs 44-48 above). The Government then argued, by reference to the Court’s judgments in the cases of AGOSI (cited above, § 51) and Raimondo (cited above, § 29), that confiscation should be considered as a measure to control the use of property. 85. The Government firmly maintained that the introduction of the procedure of administrative confiscation served the public interest of the eradication of corruption in the public service. As to the implication of “relatives” and “connected persons”, that particular aspect was intended as a response to the well-known and widespread practice whereby corrupt public officials would hide the proceeds of their illicit deeds by fictitiously registering those proceeds in the names of their friends or relatives. In doing so, corrupt officials attempted to avoid financial accountability before the public, meaning that the legal obligation to submit financial declarations in their own names, as initially provided for by the 1997 Act on Conflict of