TI-Georgia: Charges Against Eight Protesters Politically Motivated, Evidence Inadmissible

TI-Georgia has released a detailed report concluding that the criminal case against eight detained pro-EU protesters is politically motivated, lacks credible evidence, and is part of a broader disinformation campaign orchestrated by the ruling Georgian Dream party. The study is based on 14 volumes of case materials provided by the defendants’ legal representatives.

The report studied the case of Vasil Kadzelashvili, Vepkhia Kasradze, Zviad Tsetskhladze, Irakli Miminoshvili, Giorgi Gorgadze, Nikoloz Javakhishvili, Tornike Goshadze, and Insaf Aliyev who are charged under Article 225, Sections 1 and 2 of Georgia’s Criminal Code, which pertains to organizing, leading (4-6 years in prison), or participating (2-5 years in prison) in group violence. The eight defendants are being tried as a group. “Based on the evidence in our possession, we can conclude that all eight defendants are innocent,” the TI-Georgia says. “There is no totality of coherent, clear, and convincing evidence in the criminal case materials that would confirm the guilt of any of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt,” the watchdog says.

The study stresses that the prosecution’s case does not demonstrate the elements of the alleged crime. It is based on inadmissible evidence and fails to establish the existence of an organized group or a causal link between the defendants and any violence during the November- December 2024 protests, the study adds.

Political Motives

According to the watchdog, the charges appear intended to punish protest participants and intimidate student and youth movements across the country. The report claims the case is part of a broader disinformation campaign involving the ruling party, state propaganda, law enforcement, and the judiciary.

It argues that the investigation against the protesters was launched based on an unsubstantiated report by David Kurdovanidze, head of the Wanted Persons Division at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Kurdovanidze’s report accused three defendants – Kasradze, Kadzelashvili, and Tsetskhladze – of organizing violent acts, inciting rebellion, instructing protesters to disobey police, and teaching them how to create explosive devices.

TI-Georgia said the report echoed narratives promoted by Georgian Dream officials “from political platforms for months ahead of elections” and included a list of 48 individuals who claimed that they were “in contact with the organizers” and carried out their instructions without citing any sources.

Legal Concerns and Vague Charges

TI-Georgia expressed concern over the general nature of the indictments and the failure to establish the individual roles of the accused. For example, the charge against Miminoshvili alleges that he threw stones during a protest but provides no evidence of whom he endangered, what harm was caused, or whether he was acting in coordination with others. The watchdog also criticized the reliance on covert audio and video recordings, which it believes were obtained unlawfully – likely by State Security or Ministry of Internal Affairs “agents.”

It argues that when the materials are collected unlawfully, “its subsequent publication or submission to law enforcement does not suddenly make it lawful evidence.”

TI-Georgia also questioned the legitimacy of personal and property searches, many of which were either court-authorized or justified under “urgent necessity.” However, the organization cited European Court of Human Rights findings that in Georgia, “there is no effective and genuine judicial review regarding intrusions into constitutional rights, such as the inviolability of private and family life.”

It pointed to December 5’s example, when Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili approved 21 prosecutorial motions in a single day, which raises concerns about the thoroughness of judicial review.

Lack of Evidence of Group Violence

TI-Georgia said the charges under Article 225 require proof of prior coordination, leadership, and shared criminal intent – elements absent in the case. The organization cited Supreme Court precedent to argue that neither the alleged organizers nor participants meet the legal definition required for the charges.

Moreover, TI-Georgia said that in 22 out of 31 injured officers, “the resulting physical pain cannot be attributed to any of the accused” because the defendants “were either not present at the relevant time and place or were present but accused of committing different actions.”

While police officers were reportedly injured during the protests, TI-Georgia said the prosecution failed to connect any specific harm to any of the accused, including under Article 126, which is the result-based criminal provision.

“Based on the above, the charge of organizing and leading group violence against three of the protest participants, as well as the charge of participating in such actions for five others, is unfounded due to the absence of the elements of the crime under Article 225 of the Criminal Code,” the watchdog argued.

The organization also gathered and published, as part of the report, information on the judges, prosecutors, and employees of the MIA involved “in the fabricated case against the accused” protesters.

For more detailed information, read the full report here.

Also Read:

• Liveblog: Resistance | Commission Probing UNM-Era Alleged Crimes Refers Opposition Politician Giorgi Vashadze to Prosecutor
• 26/02/2025 – TI Georgia: New Restrictive Legislation Aims to Destroy Critical TV Channels
• 31/01/2025 – TI-Georgia Report Alleges Fabricated Charges and Political Persecution of Activist

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)