Since November 28, 2024, Georgia has been gripped by large-scale legitimate protests. Protests have been held daily in Tbilisi. The legitimate protests are caused by the suspension of negotiations on accession to the European Union by the Georgian Dream. In addition, these protests are also a continuation of protests related to the elections and, in general, against the democratic backsliding and sharp deterioration of the human rights situation in the country, which were held at various times in 2024.[1]

More than 30 citizens have been arrested under criminal law in connection with the aforementioned protests. Additionally, no law enforcement officers responsible for brutal crimes against protest participants have been held criminally accountable so far.

Despite repeated appeals by GYLA to the Special Investigation Service, cases of police violence—including those during the protests in March 2023 and April-May 2024—remain uninvestigated. This lack of accountability has fostered a culture of impunity.

At the same time, the use of criminal law instruments against activists is increasing, one of the goals of which is to suppress dissent. Activists are charged with crimes such as participation in group violence[2] (Part 2 of Article 225 of the Criminal Code), preparation of an explosion[3] (Articles 18, 229 of the Criminal Code), encroachment on the health of a police officer in connection with his official activities[4] (Part 2 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code), and others.

Below is a review of the problematic issues highlighted in the ongoing trials of the protesters from December 6 to December 9, 2024:

1. Imprisonment as a Preventive Measure Without Taking into Account the Individual Circumstances of the Accused

For the past four days, the Tbilisi City Court has been considering the cases of those detained during the protests. GYLA representatives attended the first court hearings of 24 accused. In all cases, the court satisfied the prosecutor’s request to use the most severe preventive measure—imprisonment—without taking into account the circumstances of the accused, such as the individual characteristics of the accused, their personality, activity, age, health, family and property status, and other circumstances.[5]

Among the detainees were individuals under the age of 21, students, and people from socially vulnerable families. Some were the sole breadwinners or caregivers of family members with health problems. The majority of them had no previous convictions and/or had not committed any administrative offenses. 

The prosecution’s justification for using detention was based on generalized risks, such as the risk of absconding, destruction of evidence, or committing a new crime. 

It is important to note that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must also justify the use of the most severe preventive measure, detention. It is noteworthy in this section that at one of the trials, the judge asked the defendant: did he confess to the crime he had committed? And if he did not confess, how did he explain that he was chosen out of the hundreds of thousands of people at the rally? The judge's questioning of this kind puts the accused in a position of justification, while the Code of Criminal Procedure places the burden of proof not on the accused, but on the prosecution. In contrast, in most cases, the judge was less interested in asking the prosecution critical questions in the substantiation of the motion. 

The court also sentenced opposition politician Aleko Elisashvili to imprisonment, whom the prosecution alleges to have committed a less serious crime (persecution, violence, or threat of violence). When using imprisonment as a preventive measure against active opposition politicians, it is important that the prosecution, and subsequently the court, substantiate the necessity of using imprisonment in such a way that there are no doubts in society that the politician is being neutralized by imprisonment.

2. Cases of mistreatment

Several detained demonstrators reported incidents of ill-treatment during their arrest, transportation, or detention. For example:

·         Aleko Elisashvili testified that he was put in a car and beaten during his arrest.

·         Saba Svitaridze[6] described in detail his experiences of torture and inhumane treatment. According to Skhvitaridze, he was arrested by the police on Zestaponi Road, was not given the reason for his arrest, nor was he given the opportunity to contact a lawyer, was then handed over to an unknown operational group near Gori, and was taken to the police department in Digomi. In Digomi, on the fifth floor of the department building, he was physically assaulted and beaten by four masked men, and then on the eighth floor of the same building, a person wearing a patrol uniform and wearing a mask assaulted him again, along with other individuals.

·         Revaz Kiknadze stated that he was being forced to confess to the crime and blame others under psychological pressure and verbal abuse, which would lead to a loyal attitude towards him from the system.

The information provided to the court by the defendants, along with other experiences, reinforces the fact that torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of individuals is systemic and widespread.

However, it appears that the judges were reluctant to address these violations. For instance, Judge Nana Shamatava inquired whether the violence occurred during criminal or administrative detention. The lawyers clarified that the violence was recorded during administrative detention, though the administrative and criminal detentions were continuous. Specifically, the defendants were initially detained for 48 hours under administrative law and later returned to the isolator under criminal law without proper procedural guarantees. Many defendants also reported restrictions on their right to defense.

From the judge's perspective, since the defendants were not directly subjected to violence during criminal detention, this issue was not considered within the scope of the trial. This self-restrictive approach, particularly when law enforcement agencies blur the line between administrative and criminal detention, is inconsistent with the law and reflects the judge's indifference.

Moreover, none of the defendants have pleaded guilty to the charges, and it is worth noting that the investigative actions (such as searches and personal searches) conducted on most of them did not result in the seizure of any illegal items.

3. Absence of a “reasonable presumption” standard

The lawyers consistently emphasized the lack of evidence that would meet the standard of reasonable suspicion required for criminal charges. Specifically:

• Regarding the charges under Article 225 (Organization, Leadership, and Participation in Group Violence), the lawyers argued that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any coordination or collective action among the accused. In most cases, the defendants were charged with isolated acts that occurred at different times and places, without evidence of mutual knowledge or intent to act together.
• The prosecution accused individuals of committing acts such as throwing objects (e.g., sticks, bottles, cardboard sticks, and unidentified heavy objects) but failed to link these actions to joint and collective violence. Moreover, the prosecution did not establish specific harm resulting from these actions.

One of the defense lawyers pointed out that similar actions had been addressed within the framework of administrative violations in previous cases, where the court had recognized the accused as administrative offenders. This raised the question of how the prosecution distinguished these actions from administrative violations. For example, when throwing a stone or stick, the lawyer questioned where the line was drawn between an administrative violation and a criminal act.

The charges under Article 225 of the Georgian Criminal Code are significant not only because they challenge the reasonable suspicion standard with respect to the individual defendants but also because they raise concerns about the potential misuse of legal mechanisms to restrict freedom of expression. The risk is that such charges could lead to the persecution of protest participants and undermine their right to engage in peaceful protest.

4. Other challenges

In addition to the legal challenges, significant technical issues were identified in the monitoring of criminal court hearings. These issues included limited access to information about scheduled hearings, which partially violated the principle of publicity. Hearings were often set during non-working hours, making it difficult to contact court administration and obtain relevant details about the proceedings.

For years, the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) has advocated for improved access to information about first appearance hearings via the court's website. Despite these calls, there has been insufficient attention to the principle of publicity in this area by the court.

Furthermore, during one of the hearings, despite the large number of attendees, the judge opted not to use a larger hall, which would have allowed more people to attend. The hall was notably filled with police officers, who were stationed in rows, creating a security atmosphere that could have been avoided by utilizing a larger space.

GYLA continues to monitor pre-trial and substantive hearings in ongoing cases, highlighting concerns about transparency and the accessibility of the judicial process.