On October 13, 2025, the Georgian Dream initiated a new draft law ¹ introducing criminal sanctions against individuals previously subject to administrative penalties. Under the proposal, if such a person commits an administrative offense under Parts 9 or 10 of Article 174¹ of the Code of Administrative Offenses, they will be held liable under the Criminal Code. ²

According to GYLA, with these proposed amendments, the Georgian Dream continues its authoritarian lawmaking by seeking to criminalize freedom of assembly.

Criminalization of participation in the rally

The right to peaceful assembly, together with freedom of expression and freedom of association, constitutes a cornerstone of any functioning democratic system. ³ When assessing interference with this right, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are essential factors.  ⁴ Sanctions of a criminal nature require significant justification, given their potential chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights. ⁵ The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that peaceful demonstrations should not, in principle, be subject to the threat of criminal sanctions,  ⁶ particularly when such sanctions involve deprivation of liberty. ⁷ Accordingly, legal provisions that entail imprisonment for non-violent conduct during a demonstration must be examined with particular care to ensure that the interference is proportionate, pursuing a legitimate aim and meeting the requirements of expediency, necessity, and proportionality.

According to the explanatory note, “[...] administrative legal liability, as a measure of state response, in individual cases cannot create a deterrent effect against those individuals who systematically ignore the established norms of public order. It should be emphasized that artificially blocking the carriageway during an assembly or demonstration, if this is not necessitated by the number of participants, as well as intentionally creating obstacles to the movement of people or transport, goes beyond the legitimate scope of freedom of expression and creates significant risks to public safety. Repeated commission of the above actions poses a threat to the life and health of others, as it makes it impossible for ambulance, fire, and other emergency services to respond promptly, which necessitates the establishment of a proportionate measure of liability.”⁸

It follows from this reasoning that, according to the explanatory note, the motive behind the legislative amendments is the perception that the Code of Administrative Offenses cannot effectively restrict the ongoing daily protests on Rustaveli Avenue.

However, any act that poses a threat to human life or property, or causes damage to property, is already punishable under the Criminal Code. Therefore, the purpose of the initiated amendment appears to be the imposition of a blanket restriction intended to exert a punitive effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly.

The proposed amendments represent an assertion of power by the Georgian Dream, framing a specific action, namely, participation in a protest, as a reprehensible act, and even as a crime. In doing so, the government effectively divides the population into demonstrators, portrayed as criminals, and everyone else.

The problem of accelerated lawmaking and legal techniques

The current process is transformed into authoritarian lawmaking not only by the disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights, but also by the lawmaking process itself. These amendments directed against freedom of assembly are also considered in an expedited manner. According to Georgian legislation, the expedited consideration and adoption of draft laws implies their approval during 1 week of plenary sessions. However, it is not just a procedural detail of the lawmaking process. Both the quantitative and substantive indicators of the consideration of legislative initiatives in this manner are essential indicators of the quality of democracy. In-depth discussion of planned legislative regulations, high public involvement in it, and the ability of the public to influence the content of laws directly reflect on their legitimacy and quality. The inappropriate use of exceptional procedures in the lawmaking process significantly harms the rule of law and the principles of legal security. ⁹ This problem is much greater given that the new changes fundamentally restrict basic human rights.

With this legislative change, as well as recently adopted/amended legislative acts, ¹⁰ the Georgian Dream is reinforcing “statutory Lawlessness,”¹¹ thereby undermining the principle of a legal state. 

The nature of the Code of Administrative Offenses incompatible with the right to a fair trial

Since 1984, Georgia has been operating under the Code of Administrative Offenses, a Soviet-era law fundamentally incompatible with modern human rights standards. The principles embedded in the Code conflict with the Constitution of Georgia and with international human rights norms. Although the Code imposes severe penalties for certain offenses, including administrative imprisonment, it provides significantly fewer procedural safeguards than those guaranteed to individuals accused of criminal offenses. Notably, the Code fails to uphold the presumption of innocence, does not require judges to apply the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, and establishes expedited procedures that make effective legal representation virtually impossible. As a result, the continued application of the current Code of Administrative Offenses leads to daily violations of fundamental human rights and breaches of Georgia’s international obligations. ¹² International organizations have repeatedly called for comprehensive reform of this Code, and local human rights groups, including GYLA, ¹³ have been actively advocating for its replacement with legislation that meets constitutional and international human rights standards.

It should also be noted that in cases concerning administrative offenses—particularly those involving participants in demonstrations and offenses under the Code of Administrative Offenses that may entail criminal sanctions—systemic problems frequently arise, undermining the right to a fair trial. These shortcomings include expedited proceedings and violations of the principle of adversarial process, failure to meet the standard of reasoned judgments, inconsistencies in the determination of sanctions, improper allocation of the burden of proof, and breaches of the presumption of innocence, among others. ¹⁴

Given the fundamentally flawed nature of the Code and the frequent violations of the right to a fair trial under its provisions, applying criminal sanctions to individuals punished under this Code is entirely unacceptable. GYLA continues to monitor and analyze this authoritarian legislative process and periodically publishes detailed assessments.

1 Draft law: "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia" https://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/31310 , [13.10.2025].

2 According to the amendments made to the Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 174, Parts 9 or 10, increase sanctions for possessing prohibited items at a protest rally and blocking a road.

3 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly SECOND EDITION, OSCE/ODIHR 2010, p. 9.

4 Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], 2015, § 146.

5 Rai and Evans v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2009.

6 Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, 2011, § 43.

7 Gün and Others v. Turkey, 2013, § 83.

8 See: Explanatory note on the draft law of Georgia in georgian “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia” https://info.parliament.ge/file/1/BillReviewContent/400557, [13.10.2025].

9 GYLA, Accelerated adoption of laws, 2022, p. 38.

10 See: GYLA report "Laws against speech", 2025. See GYLA report "abusive lawmaking in Georgia", 2025.

11 L. Gu See GYLA report “Application of the Standards of the European Court of Human Rights in the Consideration of Cases of Offenses”. 2025 G.V 5 - 6.

12 Human Rights Committee Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Georgia, 2022, გვ 6.

13 See: GYLA publication “Reform of the Code of Administrative Offenses”. Available in Geo https://admin.gyla.ge/uploads_script/publications/pdf/%E1%83%90%E1%83%93%E1%83%9B%E1%83%98%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1%E1%83%A2%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%AA%E1%83%98%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%20%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%97%E1%83%90%E1%83%9A%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%A6%E1%83%95%E1%83%94%E1%83%95%E1%83%90%E1%83%97%E1%83%90%20%E1%83%99%E1%83%9D%E1%83%93%E1%83%94%E1%83%A5%E1%83%A1%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1%20%E1%83%A0%E1%83%94%E1%83%A4%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A0%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90.pdf

14 See: GYLA report “Human Rights Crisis in Georgia after the 2024 Parliamentary Elections” 2025, pp. 98 - 104.