1. Legislative Amendments Implemented in One Day Against the Freedom of Assembly and Expression

As is known to the public, since November 28, 2024, continuous protest rallies have been taking place in Tbilisi, near the Parliament of Georgia..

From January 30, 2025, civil activists actively spread information via social media about the intention to block the highway in front of the “Tbilisi Mall” shopping center in Tbilisi on February 2, 2025, and to express protest in this form. After this idea and call received support from many citizens and public groups, the “Georgian Dream” party, through an urgent procedure and within a single day, amended a bylaw (and not a proper legislative amendment, which must go through three readings in Parliament) and criminalized the blocking of the Tbilisi-Senaki-Leselidze highway in Tbilisi (including the section in front of “Tbilisi Mall”), with the goal of obstructing and restricting the announced protest.

Specifically, on January 31, 2025, under Government Decree №28 of Georgia, an amendment was made to Government Decree №361 of October 23, 2024, “On the Approval of the List of Strategic and/or Special Importance Facilities.” The amendment expanded the list of strategic and/or special importance facilities, adding the Tbilisi-Senaki-Leselidze highway in Tbilisi, including the section in front of “Tbilisi Mall.” The decree entered into force upon publication. With this amendment to the bylaw (the government decree), the “Georgian Dream” party declared the blockage of the Tbilisi-Senaki-Leselidze highway in Tbilisi (including the section in front of “Tbilisi Mall”) a crime under Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, through an urgent procedure, within one day.

2. Preparations by Investigative Authorities for Initiating Prosecution Against Protest Organizers

Immediately after the legislative amendment, investigative bodies (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutor’s Office) began preparations to initiate criminal prosecution against the protest organizers.

On February 1, 2025, the Second Division of the Main Investigation Department of the Tbilisi Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated a criminal investigation into Case №010010225001 under Article 225, Part 1 (organizing or leading mass riot) and Article 226 (organizing group action) of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

On February 2, 2025, Prosecutor Roin Khintibidze requalified the case, and the investigation continued under three articles: Article 225, Part 1 (organizing or leading mass riot), Article 226 (organizing group action), and Article 222, Part 2, subparagraph “a” (seizure or blockage of a strategic or special importance facility).

According to the prosecutor’s aforementioned decision (regarding requalification), the basis for initiating the criminal investigation into Case №010010225001 was a report by Vasil Gvinivashvili, Head of the Third Division of the Main Investigation Department of the Tbilisi Police Department (the report itself is not included in the criminal case file), which stated that a certain group of individuals (Ilia Glonti, Kristina Botkoveli, Isako Devizde, Sandro Chitanava, Nino Kekelidze) were organizing the gathering of citizens on Aghmashenebeli Alley and blocking entry and exit roads in gross violation of public order, aiming to disrupt traffic and the operation of various facilities. According to this same document, they would not comply with lawful orders of law enforcement officers and there would be violence, property damage, use of various items as weapons, resistance and assault on public officials.

3. Unlawful Arrests of Protest Participants

On February 2, 2025, during a protest rally held near the “Tbilisi Mall” shopping center located on Aghmashenebeli Alley in Tbilisi, employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrested 8 participants in an administrative manner. All of them were re-arrested on February 4, 2025 - this time under criminal law.

These individuals were illegally detained by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including being held for longer than legally permitted.

According to Article 13 of the Constitution of Georgia, the detention period cannot exceed 72 hours.

According to Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Georgia, a person arrested under administrative law must be presented before a court at the first opportunity, but no later than 24 hours. This period may be extended once, for no more than 24 hours, to obtain evidence. In such a case, the arresting officer must justify the extension in writing.

According to Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, the detention period must not exceed 72 hours. The detainee must be served with a charge decision no later than 48 hours after arrest. If not, the detainee must be released immediately. Article 196 of the same code states that the prosecutor must submit a motion to the magistrate judge within 48 hours from detention for the application of a preventive measure. If this is not done, the detainee must be released immediately.

Furthermore, Article 171 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia allows for arrest without a court order if: a) the person is caught committing the crime or immediately thereafter; b) the person is seen at the crime scene and immediate prosecution is being pursued; c) there is visible evidence of the crime on the person or their clothing; d) the person fled the scene but was later recognized by an eyewitness; e) the person may flee; f) the person is wanted; g) the possibility arises under Georgia’s Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters.

The present criminal case began, as mentioned above, with the administrative arrest of the accused. Specifically, between 18:05 and 19:00 on February 2, 2025, on Aghmashenebeli Alley in Tbilisi near “Tbilisi Mall,” eight individuals were arrested by Ministry of Internal Affairs employees at the protest rally:

• Seven were arrested under Articles 166 (petty hooliganism) and 173 (disobedience to a lawful order of a law enforcement officer) of the Code of Administrative Offenses: Irakli Tabatadze, Vasil Eliava, Aleksandre Gogoladze, Dimitri Bidzinashvili, Nikoloz Kumsiashvili, Irakli Tsignadze, Nikoloz Kutubidze. All arrest protocols cite the same reason: “On February 2, 2025, during the protest near ‘Tbilisi Mall’ on Aghmashenebeli Alley, sweared and used obscene language indiscriminately, violated public order, was on the roadway, and did not comply with the police’s lawful order to cease these actions.”
• One, Giorgi Ugulava, was arrested under only Article 173. The arrest protocol states that on February 2, 2025, near “Tbilisi Mall,” during the rally, some citizens walked the main roadway attempting to obstruct traffic, and G. Ugulava was particularly active, refusing to obey police orders, and was thus arrested.

Besides police testimonies, there is no other evidence of the offenses/crimes in either the administrative or subsequent criminal case. The video footage attached to the case only shows the moments of arrest.

All 8 were released from administrative detention after 15:00 on February 4, 2025. Therefore, they were held in administrative detention for more than 24 hours. The case contains no written document from the Ministry of Internal Affairs justifying the necessity of extending the 24-hour detention period.

On February 4, 2025, the Ministry of Internal Affairs formally released all eight from administrative detention and immediately re-arrested them between 15:47 and 16:58 either in the administrative building of the Tbilisi Police Department (Tbilisi, K. Chaladze N1) or in the yard of the temporary detention facility (Tbilisi, Avchala Street N7), now under criminal law on charges under Article 19 and Article 222, Part 2, subparagraph “a” of the Criminal Code of Georgia (attempt to block a strategic or special importance facility).

The re-arrest under criminal law of all eight individuals was carried out without a court order, which is illegal, as there was no urgent necessity for arrest. This is particularly true given that nearly all investigative actions in this case were carried out on February 3 - i.e., one day before the arrest. Therefore, the investigation was already aware of the suspected offenses committed by the accused. Hence, the authorities had enough time to obtain court authorization (courts consider arrest motions within 24 hours). At the very least, the investigative agency could have decided on urgent arrest under criminal law on February 3, since all necessary evidence was already available. Yet, it took no such decision.

4. Identical Formulation of Charges and Grounds for Administrative Detention

On February 5, 2025, the detainees were charged under Article 222, Part 2, subparagraph “a” of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The indictments (which are identical for all eight accused) claim that the accused disobeyed multiple warnings by law enforcement and attempted to block a strategic object - an international highway segment - which they were prevented from doing due to timely police intervention.

The formulation of the charges in the indictments corresponds exactly to the circumstances stated in the administrative arrest protocols (e.g., “was on the roadway and disobeyed lawful police order to cease action,” “entered central road and tried to obstruct traffic”).

Thus, by the time of the administrative arrests on February 2, the Ministry of Internal Affairs already knew the very facts for which the same individuals were re-arrested two days later under criminal law.

Therefore, if the Ministry of Internal Affairs considered the road blockage and obstruction of traffic an established fact on February 2, it should have arrested these individuals under criminal law immediately - not administratively. Especially considering that the Ministry was aware of the planned road blockage before February 2, as it had already launched an investigation on February 1.

This further confirms the state’s real intention - to artificially and deliberately prolong the detention period of those arrested.

5. Incorrect Legal Qualification of the Case

All defendants are accused of committing the crime in a group. Besides general police statements, there is no evidence in the case proving coordinated or agreed joint action by the accused.

No evidence shows they facilitated or assisted each other in committing the alleged crime. The case does not show that they jointly planned any action. There is also no evidence they stood together, gave instructions or advice to each other, or acted as members of a group. Furthermore, they were arrested at different times - between 18:05 and 19:00 - making coordinated group action unlikely.

The wording of the charges is identical for all defendants. The individual role of each in the alleged group offense is not specified.

The tendency to qualify individual acts of civil protest as group violence, even when group characteristics are absent, is becoming a harmful tradition under the “Georgian Dream” government. This issue was highlighted in two previously published blogs.

6. Unlawful Imposition of Preventive Measures on the Accused

The court issued a ruling on the imposition of preventive measures against the accused on February 5, 2025, after 21:00 – after the 72-hour period from administrative detention had expired. The accused were subjected to detention bail as a preventive measure (D. Bidzinashvili, I. Tabatadze, I. Tsignadze, A. Gogoladze, and G. Ugulava – bail in the amount of 5000 GEL, Nikoloz Kumsishvili – 4000 GEL, and V. Eliava and N. Kutubidze – 3500 GEL each).

On February 2, 2024, in the case of direct detention of the accused through criminal procedure, the prosecutor was required to file a motion to the court for the imposition of a preventive measure within 48 hours from their detention, and the court had to impose the preventive measure within 24 hours from the motion submission.

In this case, the accused were first unlawfully detained under administrative procedure for the purpose of artificially extending their detention period, and then also unlawfully detained under criminal procedure. Apart from the fact that in neither case was there any evidence-based justification for detention, the general 72-hour detention period established by the Constitution of Georgia, the Code of Administrative Offenses of Georgia, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia was violated (the court issued the decision on the imposition of preventive measures after 72 hours from the administrative detention), including the timeframes for presenting the detainees before the court. This conduct by law enforcement agencies must be assessed as intentional unlawful detention, which entails criminal liability under Article 147 of the Criminal Code of Georgia and constitutes a crime subject to investigation by the Prosecutor's Office.

7. Suspicious Facebook Profile

Following the launch of the investigation, the criminal case file includes a second report dated February 3, 2025, by Vasil Gvinishvili, the head of the third division of the main investigative department of the Tbilisi Police Department, which states that the eight individuals administratively detained participated in blocking the road near the "Tbilisi Mall" shopping center. The report also mentions that footage of one of the detainees, Irakli Tsignadze, blocking the road was posted on social media Facebook.

First, it should be noted that neither the report nor the subsequent witness interview of the report’s author clarifies how Vasil Gvinishvili came to know the identity and culpability of the individuals involved in the road blockade. Furthermore, the video referred to in Vasil Gvinishvili’s report (which is an 8-second clip taken from a segment by TV company "Formula" showing only scenes of detention) was uploaded by user Anuki Chikhladze on February 3, 2025, at 16:27 (one hour before Gvinishvili's questioning).

It is notable that the Facebook user Anuki Chikhladze had only two activities before February 3: 1) December 7, 2024 (a video likely showing protesters damaging a camera), and 2) December 5, 2024 (a video showing a protester throwing a stick). There is reasonable suspicion regarding the authenticity of this user. 

It is highly likely that this account was created by police specifically for such cases to obtain evidence quickly, without court oversight. The mentioned video was attached as evidence by means of viewing (i.e., the investigative body, the prosecutor’s office, avoided submitting a motion to the court, obtaining a ruling, and officially requesting information from TV company "Formula"). It is highly probable that this user has been used in other criminal cases as well to attach evidence.

Such manipulations have also been observed in other artificially fabricated cases against participants of civil protests (see cited blogs above).

8. Identical Testimonies from Police Witnesses

Most of the interrogated police officers provide identical information to the investigation – their statements are identical in content, punctuation, and word spacing.

It creates the impression that a specific investigator who questioned several individuals used a single interview protocol, introducing only minor changes (start and end times of the interview, personal details of the interviewee, reordering a few words), while the case-relevant information remained the same.

This harmful practice has become a tradition in Georgia’s law enforcement system (see, for example, our blog on the case of Saba Skhvitartidze).

9. Unlawful Personal Searches of the Accused

The motions submitted by the prosecutors for recognizing the personal searches of the accused as lawful, as well as the rulings issued by the court, are unsubstantiated.

According to Article 93(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a prosecutor’s motion must be reasoned – it must specifically state the grounds for the request. Article 112(3) requires that the court's ruling on a search or seizure specify the probable object, item, substance, or other item to be found and its identifying characteristics. Article 112(5) stipulates that if a delay may result in the destruction of significant factual data or make it impossible to obtain such data, the investigative action may be carried out urgently without a court order. In such a case, the prosecutor must submit a motion to the court requesting recognition of the action as lawful and provide supporting evidence. Similarly, under Article 135(2), every seized object must be described in detail in the search/seizure protocol.

The evidence in this case shows that there was no urgent necessity to conduct personal searches on the accused and that many items seized during the searches had no investigative value.

It should be noted that the accused were administratively detained for two days. As previously mentioned, nearly all investigative actions in this criminal case were conducted on February 3, i.e., one day before the searches. Therefore, the investigation had sufficient time to obtain a court warrant for the searches (the court reviews search motions within 24 hours). In all cases, the justification for urgent searches was a general statement that a delay could lead to destruction of important factual data or make its acquisition impossible. No specific circumstances were cited to support these conclusions (this too is a widespread harmful practice in law enforcement; see, for example, searches against “Daitove” members and drug planting cases).

It is also unclear why certain items seized during the criminal searches were necessary and how they related to the alleged crimes. Specifically, items such as underwear, socks, belts, shoelaces, ID cards, passports, cigarettes, a wooden cross, wallets, and plastic cards were seized along with other objects.

10. Rapid Coordination Between Investigative Bodies and the Court

On February 3, 2025, the investigative body (Ministry of Internal Affairs) contacted the director of the Strategic Communications Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs – Lana Ovsyanikova – requesting information about audio-video recordings of the area near Aghmashenebeli Alley and adjacent territories. In response, the agency was informed the same day that the materials were stored at 10 Guluas St., Tbilisi.

That same day, Prosecutor Roin Khintibidze submitted a motion to the Tbilisi City Court requesting a ruling to obtain recordings from the Ministry’s Strategic Communications Department. The motion was registered on 03.02.2025 at 17:05. It was granted the same day by Judge Tamar Makharoblidze, based on which Investigator Zaur Zurashvili obtained the materials between 20:38–20:55 that same evening.

Thus, within 55 minutes, the court managed to carry out the following: the registered motion was forwarded to the judge, Judge Tamar Makharoblidze reviewed the motion and the case materials, issued/wrote the ruling, and delivered it to the investigator (although the court operates only until 18:00).

11. Video Recordings

The investigation obtained video material from the Strategic Communications Department capturing the protest action near "Tbilisi Mall" in Tbilisi on February 2, 2025, between 14:00 and 23:00. This footage, filmed by Strategic Communications Department employees, shows the arrest of Irakli Tabatadze. In the video, he is apprehended by two individuals wearing black clothes and masks. However, according to the administrative case files and the statement of patrol officer Shotiko Khatidze, it was Shotiko Khatidze who carried out the arrest. The footage raises strong suspicion that Irakli Tabatadze was actually arrested by members of the Special Tasks Unit, who then handed him over to the patrol police. Therefore, the administrative detention report contains false information, and Shotiko Khatidze is providing the investigation with incorrect information.

12. Prosecutor and Judges:

Prosecutors involved in the given criminal case:

• Roin Khintibidze;
• Irakli Kvavadze;
• Ana Lekiashvili;
• Natia Kartvelishvili.

Judges who granted the prosecutor’s unlawful and unsubstantiated motions related to search and seizure:

• Tamar Makharoblidze;
• Eka Barbakadze.

Judge who reviewed the issue of imposing the preventive measure:

• Davit Kurtanidze.