On 8 December 2024, Irakli Kobakhidze stated that it was planned to adopt a law that would “prohibit the covering of faces through various means by participants of the demonstrations, including counter-demonstrations.”[1] According to him, the purpose of the law is to prevent violence.[2]

Firstly, it should be noted that the vast majority of the demonstrators participating in the ongoing protests are peaceful.[3] This is confirmed by the assessments of the OSCE[4] and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights[5]. While the criminal, masked groups, referred to by Irakli Kobakhidze as participants of the “counter-demonstration” [6],  are people having ties with the Government, and acting with the consent/support of the Government, which is also suggested by the inaction of the police during their violent actions.[7] This is also confirmed by the international human rights organization, Amnesty International, in their assessments.[8]

With regards to the banning of masks: the mentioned initiative, which was adopted through its third reading on 13 December, represents another step taken against human rights, with a purpose to simplify application of repressive measures against the participants of the peaceful protest. According to the amendments, covering the face with a mask or any other means will be considered an administrative offence, punishable by a fine of 2 000 GEL.

Taking into consideration the retaliation of the participants of the demonstrations, [9] the attack on them by criminal groups, the unlawful arrests by the law enforcement officers, including, their forced transportation from their homes and offices, and threats against public servants,[10] it is natural that the participants of the peaceful protest are trying to cover their identity while being at the demonstrations in order to avoid unlawful, repressive retaliation, as well as, protect themselves from chemical irritants, whose composition has not been yet disclosed by the MIA, and which is used by the MIA unlawfully and disproportionately. 

Given these circumstances, a blanket ban on wearing masks during the assemblies and demonstrations violates the freedom of assembly, as well as, freedom of expression, and contradicts the Constitution of Georgia and International Human Rights Treaties applicable for Georgia.

As for the detailed analysis of the amendments, it is noteworthy that the Venice Commission, regarding to similar legal regulations in Russia, stated that a blanket ban on wearing any kind of mask at a peaceful assembly represents a disproportionate restriction of freedom of assembly.[11] According to the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, there shall be no blanket or routine restrictions on the wearing of masks.[12] 

§  The wearing of masks and face coverings at assemblies for expressive purposes is a form of expression and communication protected by the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.[13]

§  Wearing the masks can be connected with other legitimate aims, for example, it can serve as a protection for further retaliation.[14]

§  The wearing of masks at an assembly should not be prohibited where there is no demonstrable evidence of imminent violence.[15]

§  An individual should not be required to remove a mask unless his/her conduct creates probable cause for arrest.[16]

According to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, such restriction is often used in order to target specific groups and unjustly restrict their freedom to assembly.[17] According to the Special Rapporteur, there may be legitimate and non-criminal reasons for wearing a mask during a demonstration, including fear of retribution on the basis for their participation in the demonstration.[18]

Such blanket prohibition contradicts the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ibragimova v. Russia found a violation of Article 10 (Freedom of expression) read in light of Article 11 (Freedom of assembly), as the national authorities imposed blanket administrative responsibility on an individual for wearing mask while organizing a solo demonstration, without considering the specific circumstances of the case.[19] Therefore, the legislative amendments clearly contradict international standards.

This initiative is particularly cynical, as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in violation of international standards[20], fails to ensure that members of the special task forces have distinctive insignia, resulting in their impunity and perpetuating the violence.

Hence, it is clear that through this amendment, the “Georgian Dream” attempts to make people further vulnerable to the very terror it aims to establish, in order to suppress legitimate and peaceful protest.