The verdicts of the Tbilisi City Court by which Russian citizens — Anton Chechin, Anastasia Zinovkina, and Artyom Gribul — participants in pro-European rallies, were sentenced to 8.5 years in prison on charges of “possession and purchase of narcotic substances,” are a clear manifestation of Russian influence and politicized justice.

On August 6, 2025, the Tbilisi City Court found Giorgi Akhobadze not guilty and acquitted him of the charges brought by the Prosecutor’s Office — illegal purchase and possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances — and released him from the courtroom. Had he been convicted, Akhobadze would have faced 8 to 20 years or even life imprisonment.

The public welcomed the verdict with great enthusiasm, since Giorgi Akhobadze was well known as an opponent of Ivanishvili’s regime and one of the active participants in the ongoing pro-European protests in Georgia that began in late November 2024. From the very beginning, there was a widespread belief that Akhobadze was innocent and that the police had actually “planted” the drugs on him. We expressed the same opinion in our previous article, which provided an in-depth analysis of Akhobadze’s and other similar cases.

Later, two other Georgian participants in the protests — Tedo Abramov and Nika Katsia — were also found not guilty of similar charges.

On the basis of these three acquittals, Georgia’s democratic society developed a fully legitimate and well-founded expectation that acquittals would also be delivered in the cases of three other participants in the civil protests — Russian citizens Anton Chechin, Anastasia Zinovkina and Artyom Gribul, since they too had been prosecuted under similar charges. There were also serious grounds to suspect that they, too, had become victims of drug “planting.”

However, to everyone’s surprise, the courts found all three Russian citizens guilty and sentenced each of them to 8.5 years of imprisonment.

Below is an analysis and comparison of, on the one hand, Akhobadze’s acquittal, and on the other hand, the convictions of Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul.

As a preliminary conclusion, we can say that — just like dozens of other participants in the civil protests — these Russian citizens have also become victims of distorted justice under the Murusidze–Chinchaladze judiciary, which has been captured by Ivanishvili. Any impartial and objective court would have acquitted these three individuals and released them from the courtroom, just as it did in the cases of Akhobadze, Katsia, and Abramov.

1. Planting of Drugs as a Systemic Crime and Administrative Ill-Practice in the Operations of Law Enforcement Agencies

As we indicated in our earlier article, drug planting has long been an administrative ill-practice with deep-rooted foundations within the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs over decades. This practice is evidenced by seven cases that have attracted the attention of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Strasbourg Court recognized the Georgian state as violating various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the European Court, these cases repeatedly exhibit the same types of procedural violations:

· Investigations begin based on so-called “operative information” provided by a confidential source, without verifying its reliability or even its actual existence;

·  Searches of a person, residence, vehicle, or other property are conducted not on the basis of a prior court order, but are later “legitimized” after the fact;

·  Testimonies regarding the searches and seizures are provided only by police officers or their associates, who have a vested interest in ensuring a conviction;

·  Searches are conducted without neutral witnesses or the use of video recording, which would convince an objective observer of the legality of the investigative action;

·  Judicial oversight of searches and seizures is extremely formal and ineffective; court decisions to legitimize such searches are issued without oral hearings, disregarding principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties.

This harmful practice is further reflected in the Constitutional Court of Georgia’s decision in the Keburia case, whose rulings, although not fully implemented by law enforcement or judicial authorities, are widely used by practicing lawyers, experts, and the media as a benchmark when questions arise about the legality of drug possession and acquisition charges in specific cases.

2. Court Acquittal in the Case of Giorgi Akhobadze

(a) Key Court Findings

In the acquittal of Giorgi Akhobadze on August 6, 2025, Judge Romeo Tkeshelashvili of the Tbilisi City Court determined:

“In accordance with Article 31, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution of Georgia (a conviction must rely solely on irrefutable evidence, and any doubt not established by law shall be resolved in favor of the accused), Article 269, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (a conviction may not be based on assumptions), Article 13, Paragraph 2 and Article 82, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (a conviction must rely solely on a totality of coherent, clear, and convincing evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), the accused shall not be held liable for a crime until the existence of each element of the offense is established by a sufficient and convincing body of evidence... The criminal act must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, excluding any reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the crime by the accused (Constitutional Court of Georgia Decision No. 1/1/548, January 22, 2015, “Citizen Zurab Mikadze v. Parliament of Georgia,” paragraphs 41–43).” (Akhobadze Judgment p. 4.22)

“Thus, in accordance with the Constitution of Georgia and the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, the court concluded that there is no sufficient totality of coordinated, clear, and convincing evidence proving Giorgi Akhobadze’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore he must be acquitted of the charges brought against him.” (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.28)

(b) Legal Basis of the Acquittal

(i) Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code

The court relied on Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (CPC) (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.16), which provides:

“If a search or seizure is conducted on the basis of information from an anonymous tip or from a confidential operative-informant (as defined by Georgian law), according to the procedures established in Article 112, Paragraphs 1 or 5 of this Code, and an illegal item, object, or substance is seized, such a seizure may only form the basis for a conviction if the possession of the illegal item, object, or substance by the person is also confirmed by other evidence in addition to testimony of the investigator conducting the action, testimony of investigators participating in the action, testimony of persons with operative-investigative functions involved in the action, and the official record of the investigative action.
 This rule does not apply when obtaining or presenting other evidence is objectively impossible.”

We will discuss below the compatibility of this provision with the standards set by the Constitutional Court.

(ii) Constitutional Court of Georgia, Decision of December 25, 2020

The court also cited the Constitutional Court of Georgia’s decision of December 25, 2020, in the case “Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia”, noting:

“The Constitutional Court of Georgia, in its decision No. 2/2/1276 of December 25, 2020, in the case ‘Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia,’ explained that: ‘Naturally, considering the complexity of investigative actions, it may not always be possible to confirm a search with neutral evidence in all cases. However, it must be established that the authorized person took reasonable measures to secure neutral evidence. A clear example is when an investigation reveals that the presence of a neutral witness during the search of a person or their property was objectively possible, yet the police failed to ensure it. Moreover, modern technological progress makes it possible to record the search on video to substantiate the prosecution’s position. A significant doubt about the reliability of evidence arises when, despite the real possibility of video recording under secure conditions, the police fail to utilize it.’” (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.18)

(c) Application of the Legal Grounds to the Facts of Akhobadze’s Case

After examining the factual circumstances of Akhobadze’s case in light of the above-mentioned legal principles — primarily through the lens of the Constitutional Court’s decision of December 25, 2020 — the court found that the prosecution’s position did not meet the standards established by the Constitutional Court. Specifically, the court noted:

“In this case, the prosecution alleged that during a personal search conducted near the Tamar Mepe Bridge on the right bank of the Mtkvari River in Tbilisi, a large quantity of the narcotic substance alpha-PVP (a-PVP) was seized from Giorgi Akhobadze’s pocket. To support this allegation, the prosecution presented only the testimonies of the police officers who conducted and participated in the search, as well as the official search protocol prepared by those same officers. Also submitted was a forensic biological examination report, which stated that Giorgi Akhobadze’s genetic profile was found on the packaging of the narcotic substance. The police officers explained that no technical means were used during the investigative action because there were neither sufficient human nor technical resources, as the search was carried out by three persons who had “divided roles” among themselves. In contrast, the defendant, Giorgi Akhobadze, denied committing the alleged crime and stated that the drugs were planted by the police. He also explained that no video recording was made during the search. According to him, the presence of his genetic profile on the evidence resulted from the forced collection of a saliva sample, which was then transferred onto the material. Under such circumstances, the court requires additional, neutral evidence to determine the truth and to reasonably accept or reject either party’s version of events.”

“The court takes into account the time elapsed between the receipt of operative information and the commencement of the personal search of the accused, as well as the fact that the search was conducted in a calm environment without resistance. Therefore, given the availability of video-recording means (including mobile phones), it is evident that the acquisition of evidence other than police testimony was objectively possible.
 The operative information did not require such urgent action as to prevent authorized officers from preparing adequately, obtaining technical means, and ensuring video recording of the search. It should be noted that ‘even in cases of urgent necessity, recording the search — at least on a mobile phone camera, which today is a common everyday item — does not pose insurmountable difficulties’ (Constitutional Court of Georgia, Decision No. 2/2/1276, Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia, December 25, 2020, para. II-109).” (Akhobadze Judgment, pp. 4.19–4.20).

Accordingly, the court found that in violation of the standards set by the Constitutional Court’s above decision, the police and the prosecution failed to present neutral evidence — such as testimony from neutral witnesses and a video recording of the search. The court noted that video recording was objectively possible, but was not performed. By disregarding these requirements, the investigators violated both the standards established by the Constitutional Court’s 2020 decision and the requirements of Article 13(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Therefore, the court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish Giorgi Akhobadze’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.23)

(d) Insufficiency of the Biological Expert Report

The court also found the biological expert report to be insufficient to convict Akhobadze. According to that report, traces of biological material found on the adhesive tape of the package seized during Akhobadze’s personal search matched the defendant’s genetic profile. The court stated:

“...In general, such an expert report could represent neutral and reliable evidence. However, at the same time, the court takes into account the defendant’s explanation regarding the origin of his biological material on the physical evidence. Accordingly, the court notes that in circumstances where the criminal case materials contain no direct, neutral evidence confirming the reliability of the personal search, and the prosecution failed to take appropriate measures to obtain video footage from cameras, the court cannot consider the biological expert report — which confirms that the genetic profile found on the swabs taken from the physical evidence belongs to the defendant — as neutral evidence proving the defendant’s guilt.” (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.21)

(e) The Court Did Not Dare to Endorse the Defense’s Argument About “Planted” Drugs

The court did not go so far as to endorse the defense’s position that the narcotic substance was planted on Giorgi Akhobadze by police officers (Akhobadze Judgment, p. 4.14). However, objectivity requires acknowledgment that — given the current political and judicial climate in the country — such an expectation from the court would be unrealistic. No judge can openly oppose the government’s repressive apparatus.

(f) General Evaluation of the Court’s Judgment in Akhobadze’s Case

The judgment in Akhobadze’s case became an important precedent, illustrating how the standards established by the Constitutional Court can function in practice when applied to specific criminal proceedings.

This very decision paved the way for similar acquittals in the cases of Katsia and Abramov.

3. The Conviction of Anton Chechin

In contrast to the court’s decision in Akhobadze’s case, the opposite verdict was delivered in the case of Anton Chechin. Judge Jvebe Natchkhebia of the same Tbilisi City Court found Anton Chechin guilty of the illegal purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of narcotic substances and sentenced him to eight years and six months of imprisonment.

The court concluded:

“The court notes that the evidence in the case — including the personal search and arrest reports; the testimonies of Giorgi Chikvaidze, Zurab Rusishvili, Archil Natsvlishvili, Emil Kuprava, Edgar Oganesyan, Thornike Makasarashvili, Bakar Lebanidze, Mirza Japaridze, and Shorena Tabatadze; the results of biological and chemical expert examinations; and the testimonies of the experts — unequivocally establish that Anton Chechin illegally possessed a narcotic substance for which he had no lawful authorization to acquire or store.” (Chechin Judgment, p. 3.2)

(a) Evidence Relied Upon by the Court

The court primarily relied on the testimonies of the three police officers who, according to Anton Chechin, were the very individuals who planted the drugs on him. In addition, the court relied on the testimony of an interpreter. Since Anton Chechin does not speak Georgian, he was “assisted” during his communication with the police by interpreter Shorena Tabatadze, who had been brought in by the police themselves. We will discuss the credibility of this interpreter in detail below.

What is strange, first and foremost, is that the court justified its trust in all four of them — the three police officers and the interpreter — solely on the basis that:

“All four were warned by the court about criminal liability for refusal to testify or for giving false testimony, as provided under Articles 370 and 371 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Each of them signed a written acknowledgment of this warning and testified under oath. Accordingly, they assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the information they provided to the court.”(Chechin Judgment, p. 2.41)

If we follow the court’s logic, then every witness who has been warned about criminal liability and sworn an oath is automatically reliable. Yet this is a routine legal procedure — every witness is warned about potential liability and takes an oath. Therefore, the court’s reference to these circumstances as proof of the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses is, at best, unsubstantiated.

However, the court’s presumed trust was extended only to the prosecution’s witnesses. In contrast, it adopted the opposite attitude toward the defense witnesses — namely, Anton Chechin himself and his wife — whose testimonies the court completely disregarded.

In assessing the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, the court stated:

“The evidence presented by the prosecution and examined during the hearing is consistent and convincing. It directly pertains to and is relevant for establishing the factual circumstances of significance to the case. No circumstances emerged that would cast doubt on the credibility or reliability of the witnesses’ testimonies. They were consistent and specific with respect to facts of essential importance to the criminal case and meet the criteria of reliability and credibility.”
 (Chechin Judgment, p. 2.39)

As for the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which the defense pointed out, the court declared:

“The minor discrepancies observed in several testimonies — relating to the time of receiving operative information, the time of arriving at the scene, the participants’ positions, or other such insignificant details — cannot serve as grounds to discredit them. It is possible that, several months later, the witnesses simply failed to recall certain details.” (ibid., p. 2.39)

(b) The Question of the Interpreter’s Credibility

As we noted in our earlier article, the credibility of the interpreter’s testimony was called into question because she repeated word-for-word the investigative version of the circumstances of Anton Chechin’s personal search and the alleged “seizure” of the narcotic substance from him.

The court paid no attention to this crucial circumstance. Nor did it believe Chechin’s statement that, at the moment of his arrest, the interpreter was not present at the scene and that she arrived there only 15 minutes later. The interpreter lied, according to Chechin, when she stated that she had been present from the very moment of the arrest.

Furthermore, as was also mentioned in the above-referenced article, the defense examined the section of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ (MIA) official website containing information on the Ministry’s procurements. It was established that the translation company “Intellect Market” LLC, where interpreter Shorena Tabatadze is employed, has been systematically providing translation services to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Specifically, between 2017 and 2023, the MIA and its structural subdivisions regularly received interpretation and translation services from “Intellect Market” LLC. These services were provided on the basis of electronic tenders, and the source of funding for each of the above years was the state budget. The review showed that, during 2017–2023, this company received 1,500,000 GEL from the state budget.

In response, the court merely stated that:

“No serious argument has been presented to the court that would call into question the interpreter’s objectivity. The defense’s position that Shorena Tabatadze frequently participates in investigative/procedural activities and is therefore close to detectives/investigators, and consequently would not be objective, cannot serve to discredit her testimony.” (Chechin Judgment, p. 2.41)

The court also referred to Article 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, which provides that an interpreter may not participate in criminal proceedings if they are substantially dependent on any participant in the proceedings. It unconditionally accepted the interpreter’s statement that her remuneration was paid by the translation bureau “Intellect Market”, and not by any employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. (Chechin Judgment, p. 2.47)

Such reasoning by the court is problematic on two levels. First, the defense questioned the interpreter’s credibility as a “factual witness,” not as an interpreter performing linguistic duties.
 Second, given the long-standing and large-scale business relationship between Shorena Tabatadze’s translation bureau and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the court could and should have considered the interpreter’s indirect dependence on the MIA.

(c) Failure to Comply with the Constitutional Court Standard

It is particularly noteworthy how the court contradicted the standard established by the Constitutional Court concerning the necessity of neutral evidence, including video recordings — an issue we discussed above.

Regarding this matter, the court stated:

“The court notes that, in this case, due to the accused’s resistance (according to the eyewitness testimonies, Zurab Rusishvili, who was sitting behind the wheel, was trying to restrain Anton Chechin’s hands; Giorgi Chikvaidze, sitting in the rear seat next to the accused, was conducting the search; and Archil Natsvlishvili, sitting in the front passenger seat next to the driver, was filling out the search report — which made it impossible to record the search on video), it is true that the police officers did not record the course of the investigative action on video; however, an interpreter participated in the process, who had no procedural interest (and according to the case materials, no biased attitude toward the defense or prosecution was established). By her testimony, she reinforced the statements of the law enforcement officers.” (Chechin Judgment, p. 2.43)

From the words quoted above, it is clear that the court uncritically accepted and fully endorsed every single “explanation” given by the police officers whom Anton Chechin accused of planting drugs on him from the very moment of his arrest and search.

In Chechin’s case, the court easily believed what the judge in Akhobadze’s case refused to believe. No matter how hard the police officers tried in Akhobadze’s case to convince the judge that each of them had their own specific “role” and therefore the search could not be recorded on video, the judge in that case did not believe something that no impartial and reasonable observer would have believed either.

It gives a strong impression that the police deliberately avoided filming the video so as not to reveal the fact of planting drugs.

In both the Akhobadze and Chechin cases, it truly stretches credibility to claim that three police officers were unable to organize and conduct a search in such a way that one of them could record it on a mobile phone.

4. The Conviction of Zinovkina and Gribul

The conviction of Anastasia Zinovkina and Artyom Gribul closely resembles the conviction of Anton Chechin. It was delivered by another judge of the Tbilisi City Court — Judge Nino Galustashvili.

Here too, the conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of police officers and interpreters, about whom the judge wrote in the verdict that these testimonies “meet the standard of reliability, are mutually consistent, and contain no material contradictions that would call their credibility into question.” (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.11; see also p. 4.5)

This supposed “standard of reliability and consistency” was also “found” by the judge in the testimony of one particular police officer, Irakli Mukhatgverdeli, about whom Anastasia Zinovkina testified in court that during the search he was “touching her body inappropriately,” which “was not a search,” since she knows what a proper search is — it is a completely different procedure, like the one performed before entering the courtroom (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.40). Zinovkina further stated that Mukhatgverdeli even threatened to rape her (ibid.).

Despite this, Judge Galustashvili — who unconditionally trusted Mukhatgverdeli along with the other police witnesses — did not take into account the fact that Mukhatgverdeli was no longer a police officer because he himself had been charged with hooliganism for an incident that occurred on May 24, 2025, when, while driving a car in Tbilisi, he fired several shots from his personal firearm toward the opposite traffic lane.

When the defense pointed out that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory, Judge Galustashvili replied that:

“Minor discrepancies, to which the defense referred in its closing statement — such as the time of receiving the operational information, the time of arriving at the scene, or other insignificant circumstances — cannot serve to discredit their testimonies. It is possible that, after several months, the witnesses could not recall some details, but this does not mean they provided false information to the court.” (original style preserved)
 (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.12)

Like Judge Natchkebia in the Chechin case, Judge Galustashvili justified the credibility of the police witnesses by referring to Articles 370 and 371 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, noting that each witness signed a statement of warning and testified under oath (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.13).

As in the Chechin judgment, the court in this case also placed special emphasis on the testimonies of the interpreters. Since there were two defendants, two interpreters were sent to the scene — Anayida Safaryan and the same Shorena Tabatadze, who had also been present at the scene during Chechin’s arrest and search.

It is noteworthy that, according to Anayida Safaryan’s testimony, at the moment she received the call asking her to go to the place of Zinovkina and Gribul’s arrest and search, both she and Shorena Tabatadze happened to be with investigator Bakar Lebanidze (Judgment, p. 3.8). And Bakar Lebanidze is one of the very police officers whom Zinovkina and Gribul accuse of planting drugs on them.

Despite these circumstances, the court stated regarding the interpreters that their testimonies “fully correspond to the information provided to the court by other participants in the investigative action” and that “no serious argument was presented in court that would call the objectivity of the interpreter into question.” According to the court, the defense’s position — that Shorena Tabatadze and Anayida Safaryan were present at the scene with the investigator, making them close to the investigator and therefore not objective — cannot serve to discredit the witnesses’ testimony. (style preserved) (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.13)

In this case too, the searches were not video-recorded. The police again claimed that everyone was “doing their own job” and that “recording was physically impossible.” (Zinovkina–Gribul Judgment, p. 3.6)

5. The Interpreter as the Only Distinguishing Factor between the Cases of Georgian and Three Russian Defendants

A comparative analysis of the judgments in Akhobadze, Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul shows that the only distinguishing factor between Akhobadze’s case (a Georgian defendant) and those of Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul (Russian defendants) is that there was no interpreter in the Georgian case, whereas interpreters were present in the Russian cases.

Indeed, the interpreters’ testimonies became the single additional piece of evidence in the Chechin and Zinovkina–Gribul cases that, together with the testimonies of police officers and the search protocol, the Tbilisi City Court relied upon to issue convictions.

This is particularly alarming because the defense in both Chechin and Zinovkina–Gribul cases questioned the credibility of the interpreters, yet the judges paid insufficient attention to this argument.

6. The Insufficiency of the Interpreter’s Testimony as the Main Basis for Conviction under the Constitutional Court Standard

As noted above, the Constitutional Court standard requires that, in cases concerning the alleged illegal acquisition and possession of narcotics, a conviction must be based not only on the testimony of police officers and the search protocol, but also on neutral evidence — specifically, the testimony of a neutral witness and video recording of the search.

In the Chechin and Zinovkina–Gribul cases, a “neutral witness” was found in the form of the interpreters (although their neutrality is itself highly questionable), but no video recordings exist.

The fact that the court issued convictions against the Russian defendants without such video evidence not only violates the principle of a fair trial, but also directly contradicts the standard established by the Constitutional Court.

7. The Legislature’s Non-Compliance with the Constitutional Court Decision

The illegal convictions in the Chechin and Zinovkina–Gribul cases also highlight another problem: the legislature’s failure to properly implement the Constitutional Court’s decisions.

Specifically, in the “Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia” case, the operative part of the Constitutional Court decision states that the following is unconstitutional:

“The normative content of the second sentence of Article 13(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, which allows the use of an illegally seized item as evidence when the accused’s possession of the seized item is proven only by the testimony of law enforcement officers, and at the same time, law enforcement officers could, but did not take appropriate measures to obtain neutral evidences confirming the reliability of the search, is unconstitutional in light of Article 31(7) of the Constitution of Georgia.” (Operative part, p. 1(a))

In the quoted text from the resolution, the Constitutional Court uses the plural — “neutral evidences” — emphasizing that multiple independent sources of neutral evidence are required.

Article 25, paragraphs 1–4 of the Organic Law of Georgia on the Constitutional Court reads:

“1. The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, and non-compliance with it is punishable by law.
 2. A legal act or part thereof declared unconstitutional loses its force from the moment the corresponding decision of the Constitutional Court is published, unless the decision sets another, later date for the loss of force of the act or part thereof.
 3. After publication, the act of the Constitutional Court must be implemented immediately, unless another term is set by that act.
 4. Following a declaration of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, no legal act may be adopted or issued that contains the same content as the provision(s) declared unconstitutional.”

According to Article 381 of the Criminal Code, it is a crime to fail to execute a final judgment or other court decision [including a Constitutional Court decision] or to obstruct its execution.

Following the Constitutional Court’s 25 December 2020 decision in the Giorgi Keburia v. Parliament of Georgia case, on 28 June 2021, the Parliament amended Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, adding paragraph 3, which states:

“If a search or seizure was carried out on the basis of information provided by an anonymous tip or a secret agent/informant as defined by Georgian law on operational-investigative activity, according to the procedure established in Article 112(1) or (5) of this Code, and an illegal object, item, or substance was seized, such evidence may serve as a basis for a conviction only if the possession of the illegal object, item, or substance is confirmed by another evidence in addition to the testimony of the investigator who conducted the action, the testimony of investigators involved in the action, the testimony of persons performing operational-investigative functions, and the corresponding search protocol. This rule does not apply when it is objectively impossible to obtain or present another evidence.” (Emphasis added)

As we can see, the words “another evidence” are used in the singular, which fundamentally contradicts the Constitutional Court’s decision that cases involving acquisition and possession of narcotics require the collection of neutral evidences (plural).

Therefore, by using the singular instead of the plural, the Parliament grossly violated the guidance of the Constitutional Court, which in turn means that the cited version of Article 13(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is unconstitutional.

It is likely that this unconstitutional provision was what the judges of the Tbilisi City Court, Natchkhebia and Galustashvili, had in mind when they based the convictions of Chechin and Zinovkina–Gribul solely on one “neutral piece of evidence” — the interpreters’ testimony.

8. Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul – Victims of Discrimination

In Georgia, as a civil law system country, the doctrine of binding precedent does not exist. On the other hand, there is a legitimate objective to establish a uniform judicial practice, which is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Georgia. However, ensuring this uniformity requires the attention not only of the Supreme Court but also of all lower courts.

Essentially, under the same factual circumstances, radically different decisions by the same court contradict both the goal of forming a uniform judicial practice and the principle of equality before the law and prohibition of discrimination, which is enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Constitution of Georgia and reinforced by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No. 12.

From the foregoing, Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul were not only denied the right to a fair trial but also became victims of unfounded differential treatment, i.e., discrimination.

9. Probable Motive for the Conviction of the Three Russian Citizens

As noted in our previous article, Anton Chechin participated in protest actions against Putin while in Russia, including demonstrations against the war in Ukraine. He supported Alexei Navalnyy, the Russian opposition leader killed in prison by the Putin regime. During his time in Russia, he was detained several times for participating in protests against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, he, together with 22 other demonstrators, filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, which recognized violations of Chechin’s rights and ordered the Russian Federation to pay compensation in his favor.

Similarly, Anastasia Zinovkina and Artyom Gribul opposed the Putin regime and Russia’s aggressive war in Ukraine. Artyom Gribul moved from Russia to Armenia and then to Georgia specifically to avoid participation in Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine.

Therefore, there is a reasonable suspicion that the pro-Russian Georgian regime, by issuing the convictions of Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul, sent another congratulatory message to Putin’s government or even carried out an order received from Moscow.

10. Lack of Response to the Allegations of Ill-Treatment

During both the investigation and the court proceedings, Anton Chechin stated that he was subjected to physical abuse during his arrest, search, and subsequent transfer to the police station. As usual, the court did not believe the defendant’s statements and, furthermore, entirely avoided accountability, referring to an investigation by a Special Investigative Service that no longer exists:

“According to both Georgian legislation and the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, the state bears full responsibility for the safety, health, and proper treatment of any person who is detained or otherwise deprived of liberty. It is the state’s duty, in the event of such allegations, to conduct an appropriate investigation and determine whether the detainee was subjected to improper or other forms of ill-treatment. In the present case, the arrest report for Anton Chechin, as well as the testimonies of persons involved in his personal search, including a neutral witness — the interpreter — indicate that the defendant attempted to resist and did not allow law enforcement officers to search him. It is also noted that the police applied proportional force, which involved physically restraining Chechin (his hands were held). All involved parties categorically deny any other violent acts. The defendant, Anton Chechin, presents a different account. According to him, the police exceeded their authority during the arrest, subjected him to physical and verbal abuse, and continued unlawful actions against him within the police administrative building. Furthermore, he alleges that abuse occurred while he was in the penitentiary institution. Following these statements, the Special Investigative Service initiated an investigation. At the time of the court’s decision, the investigative body had not issued a conclusive determination. Therefore, the court lacks the legal means to definitively affirm or reject the defendant’s claims regarding the conduct of law enforcement officers in the context of this criminal case, since this requires additional investigation, and the final decision on these matters falls within the competence of the investigative authorities.” (Chechin Judgment, p. 2.51)

It should also be noted that Anton Chechin suffers from a serious health problem: he has a tumor of unknown origin in the brain that requires surgical intervention. To date, the state has not taken adequate measures to address his medical needs.

As previously mentioned, Anastasia Zinovkina testified in court that during her search, police officer Irakli Mukhatgverdeli unusually placed his hands on her body, which she described as “not a proper search”, and that Mukhatgverdeli threatened her with sexual assault. During his own arrest, Artyom Gribul was threatened with a fist. (Zinovkina-Gribul Judgment, p. 3.41)

Unlike Judge Natchkhebia, who at least addressed Anton Chechin’s allegations of improper treatment, though without taking effective measures, Judge Galustashvili did not address at all the above statements by Gribul or, most egregiously, Zinovkina.

This complete indifference on the part of the relevant authorities also extends to Zinovkina’s allegations of inhuman treatment by prison staff. In response to these abuses, Artyom Gribul initiated a hunger strike.

Conclusion:

1.  The acquittal of Giorgi Akhobadze, Nika Katsia, and Tedo Abramov created the impression in society that justice had been restored. These cases were initiated with political motives — Akhobadze, Katsia, and Abramov were active participants in the pro-European protest movement and opponents of the government.

2. In these cases, the court issued acquittals on the basis that the prosecution failed to present neutral and convincing evidence — there were no videos of the searches and no neutral witnesses, and the charges were based solely on the testimonies of the police officers who allegedly planted drugs on the defendants.

3. In these cases, the court referenced the Constitutional Court’s decision in the Keburia case, which stated that to verify the reliability of a search, it is necessary to obtain neutral evidence — video recordings and testimonies from neutral witnesses.

4. In the cases of Anton Chechin, Anastasia Zinovkina, and Artyom Gribul, despite similar factual circumstances, the courts issued convictions, sentencing all of them to 8.5 years in prison.

5. In these cases, the courts relied solely on the testimonies of police officers and interpreters, whose objectivity was questioned by the defense, because the interpreters’ hiring agencies were financially connected to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the interpreters were in close contact with the police witnesses.

6. In the Chechin and Zinovkina-Gribul cases, the courts refused to comply with the Constitutional Court’s standard — they did not request video recordings or neutral evidence, while the police explanation that “video recording was impossible” was accepted without objection.

7. The presence of an interpreter became the only distinguishing feature between the cases of Georgian and Russian defendants — in Akhobadze’s case, there was no interpreter, while in the Russian cases, the interpreters’ testimonies became the main basis for the conviction.

8. The Constitutional Court’s decision was only partially implemented by the legislature — in Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the word “evidences” was changed to the singular form (“evidence”), which lowered the standard for the amount of evidence required and created an unconstitutional basis for similar convictions.

General conclusion: Russian citizens — Chechin, Zinovkina, and Gribul — as well as dozens of other protest participants, became victims of politicized, biased justice hijacked by Ivanishvili. Their convictions violate both the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the principles of a fair trial and equality before the law.

Persons involved in the cases:

Judges:

Jvebe Natchkebia

Nino Galustashvili

Ministry of Internal Affairs Officers:

Levan Tabidze

Aleksi Koberidze

Revaz Zirakashvili

Giorgi Khargelia

Giorgi Gureshidze

Giorgi Lobzhanidze

Grigol Kachkachishvili

Paata Mchedlishvili

Lasha Tavadze

Emil Kuprava

Mirza Japaridze

Lasha Kharkhelauri

Giorgi Rosofidze

Archil Natsvlishvili

Edgar Oganesiani

Giorgi Chikvaidze

Zurab Rusishvili

Jemal Mirazashvili

Irakli Mukhatgverdeli

Tamar Dzneladze

Bakar Lebanidze

Prosecutors:

Shmagi Gobejishvili

Nugzar Chitadze

Interpreters:

Shorena Tabatadze

Anayda Safarian