On 11 December 2024, on the 14^th day of the pro-European protests, and in the context when human rights are widespreadly violated, at the self-proclaimed Parliament, the “Georgian Dream” initiated undemocratic and repressive legislative amendments to the several laws. The authors requested the consideration of these amendments through an expedited or simplified manner and already voted for in the first reading. It is expected that the Parliament will pass them in the second and third readings before the end of the Autumn session.

1.       Amendments to the Election Code

The “Georgian Dream” is once again attempting to reshape the Election Legislation in a manner it to serve narrow party interests, with the aim of creating an unfair advantage in the 2025 local self-governmental elections.

According to the amendments, the majoritarian component within the local councils would increase, taking it closer to the 2017 level. This is taking place in the context of the annulment of the 40% electoral threshold for electing majoritarian leaders within the councils, as well as the elimination of the possibility for a second-round election, which had been decided by one-party decision in the spring of 2024. The candidate receiving the most valid votes in a majoritarian electoral district will be considered elected as a member of the council.

As a result of the amendments, since 2025, the ratio between the members of the council (Sakrebulo) elected through the proportional and majoritarian systems within the self-government cities (excluding Tbilisi) would be determined as 3/2 (instead of 4/1), and in Tbilisi – 1/1 (instead of 4/1).^[1] In the remaining municipalities, the number of council members elected through the proportional system will be 15, while the remaining would be the majoritarian members based on the relative majority (instead of 2/1) will be elected without the electoral threshold and, accordingly, the possibility of second-round elections. In addition, the threshold for electing members under the proportional system increased to 4% (instead of 3%, and in Tbilisi – instead of 2.5%).

Overall, the Election legislation is only partially returning to the 2017 version, which itself is a step backward, however, in reality we are facing a significant deterioration. As a result of the amendments, the legislative framework does not ensure the proportional reflection of the voters’ will during the allocation of seats, and will significantly increase the number of lost votes. The person with the most support will gain an undue advantage, allowing their candidate to secure the seat of majoritarian seat in the Sakrebulo, despite the negative attitude of the majority of voters.

2.       Amendments to the Law on Public Service[2]

The legislative amendments weaken the mechanisms to protect public servants’ rights and increase the risk of politicization within the public service.

-        According to the current law in force, in the case of the reorganisation of the public institution, as a result of the reduction in the number of posts, a servant may be transferred to an equal or a lower position. This right is abolished with the new amendments.

-         The change of functions or addition of new functions within a structural unit will be added as a basis for reorganization. Employees are given one month’s notice prior to their dismissal, and new staff are selected through a competition.

-         The judicial oversight of competition outcomes has been weakened. Specifically, if a court satisfies a lawsuit, the dismissed individual cannot be reinstated and will only receive lost earnings/three-month compensation.

-       The head of institution will have the right to change their assessments, which increases the risks of the of politicization. The amendments intensify the existing[3] pressure[4] on public servants and further undermine the safeguards in place to protect their rights.

3.       Amendments to the Law on Police[5]

The amendments of the Law “on Police” introduce the possibility of appointing individuals to police ranks without a competition. The specific procedures and conditions for such appointments will be determined by an order of the Minister.

-        According to the explanatory note, these amendments aim to address the specific needs of paramilitary police units, where individuals with military ranks currently serve. Starting on 1 January 2025, military service will only remain under the auspices of the Ministry of Defense, which, by definition, requires the establishment of special rules for filling certain positions.

-       Despite the above-mentioned information, the draft law does not limit this amendment to the paramilitary units and grants the Minister broad authoroty to apply the non-competitive appointment process to any structural unit. This creates risk that this provision will be used for the purposes of the politicization of the police.

These amendments are being taken amid an increase in the state’s use of violent police forces. Recent developments, [6] including the use of torture and inhuman treatment by police to suppress peaceful protests,[7] have escalated to alarming levels. [8]  

These amendments may be used to simplify the staffing of the police with personnel aligned with the government’s violent policy.

4.       Amendments to Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations[9]

The legislative amendments to the Law “on Assemblies and Demonstrations” impose a ban on the use of masks and certain technical equipment by the participants of the protest. This contradicts the international standards of the freedom of assembly and expression. Particularly:  

The draft law envisages a blanket ban on wearing a mask, which, according to the international standards, is a disproportionate restriction. Namely, as per the assessments of the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, wearing masks during the demonstrations can aso be considered a form of communication and blanket[10] restriction violates human rights.[11] Wearing the masks can be connected with other legitimate aims, for example, it can serve as a protection for further retaliation.[12] The wearing of a mask should not be prohibited, unless there is an evidence of imminent violence.[13] A person shall not be required to take off the mask, unless their conduct creates a potential ground for arrest.[14]

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 to unjustly restrict their freeodm to assembly.[15] 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.[16]

Such blanket prohibition contradicts the case-lw 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.[17] 

Therefore, this initiative clearly contradicts the intenrational standards. In addition, it is noteworthy that the Government is attempting to suppress peaceful protests with an organized violence. The authorities are resorting to serious human rights violations, including torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, to suppress the protest.[18] Taking into considertion of the retalioation of the pariticpatns of the demonstrations, 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,[19] it is natural that the participants of the peaceful protets are trying to cover their identity while being at the demonstrations in order to avoid unlawful, repressive retaliation.  It is important to note that ongoing protests are peaceful,[20] while the criminal, masked groups, referred to by Irakli Kobakhidze as participants of the “counter-demosntration”[21],  are likely connected 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.[22]

This initiative is particularly cynical, as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in violation of international standards[23], fails to ensure that members of the special task forces are equipped with identification marks, resulting in their impunity and perpetuating the violence.

As a result, it is clear that thorugh the announced restriction, the government is attempting to make people further vulnerable to the terror, that it is trying to establish in order to suppress legitimate and peaceful protest.

In addition to the ban on covering the face, participants of the assembly will also be prohibited from bringing “devices emitting laser or sharp emission, the use of which could interfere with the operations of state representatives and/or disrupt the proper functioning of their technical equipment”. During the ongoing protests, the MIA is routinely conducting unlawful search and confiscating legal items of individuals, such as gas masks and masks.[24] As a result, it is anticipated that the Ministry of Internal Affairs will exploit this restriction to justify illegal searches and apply it disproportionately, particularly against individuals possessing laser or light-emitting devices, who, in reality, cannot interfere with the activities of state representatives or the functioning their technical equipment.

Under the amendments proposed in the Administrative Offences Code, a fine for this violation will be 2000 GEL.

5.       Amendments to the Administrative Offences Code[25]

The Administrative Offences Code significantly raises the penalties for offences typically used by the police against protest participants. The new regulations include:

The fine for Blocking a road 1000 GEL  and suspension of the right to drive for 1 year;[26]

The increase of fine for Defacement of the appearance of the City from 50 GEL to 1000 GEL and for the repeated offence – 2000 GEL;[27]

The increase of fines for Violating the rules for organising or holding assemblies or demonstrations from 500 GEL to 5000 GEL, and for organizers – fine of 15 000 GEL or administrative arrest;[28]

A fine of 2000 GEL and the confiscation of equipment for the illegal wearing of the uniform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.[29]

The context of Article 173 of the same Code (Non-compliance with a lawful order or demand of a law-enforcement officer) is incorporated into the provision of failure of a parent or legal guardian to fulfill their duties regarding a child’s upbringing, education, or other responsibilities. It is important to note that police frequently employ Article 173 when arresting demonstrators without valid grounds.

The amendments also broaden[30] the grounds under which a person can be arrested, and their belongings or documents seized.

It is evident that the disproportionate increase of penalties concerning assemblies, demonstrations and protest-related activities reflects an attempt by the Government to intimidate the population. Specifically, in the circumstances when Administrative Offences Code is employed against the participants of protest, and the judiciary does not perform its duties and considers contradictory statements of policemen as credible without appeal, it is foreseeable that these sanctions will be utilized not to uphold law and order, but to suppress the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

6.       Amendments to the Law on the Special State Protection Service

Pursuant to the amendments to the Law on the Special State Protection Service, the continuation and maintenance of state protection for the President, the Prime Minister and the Chairperson of the Parliament of Georgia are dependent upon the establishment of a violation of Article 48 of the Constitution of Georgia by the Constitutional Court. These amendments make clear the personification of the regulatory norms, even though their intended addressees are individuals other than the President. Taking into account that the Constitutional Court of Georgia found violation of Article 48 by the President Salome Zourabichvili and Georgian Dream party was unable to secure the necessary votes to terminate her term of office, this should be perceived as a punitive mechanism and imposes restrictions on the institution.