Methodology

This report evaluates the activities carried out by the Parliament of “Georgian Dream” during the reporting period (25 November 2024 – 21 October 2025). The report is based on information available on the Parliament’s official website, as well as information found in public sources.

1. Key Findings

The first sitting of Parliament was held in gross violation of the Constitution:

• The first sitting of Parliament was not convened by the President, although only the President has this authority;
• Parliament recognized the mandates of its members even though the legality of their election had been appealed in the Constitutional Court.

One-party Parliament:

• After the 2024 elections, four opposition parties won mandates. Three refused the mandates, and one party (“For Georgia – Gakharia”) formally retained its mandates but did not participate in the work. Later, in October 2025, they joined parliamentary activities;
• MPs elected through the ruling party list left the majority and created “People’s Power” and “European Socialists.” In this way, a formal but not real opposition was created.

Parliamentary oversight mechanisms were abolished:

• The new Rules of Procedure abolished the Minister’s Hour and the thematic inquiry mechanism;
• During the reporting period, no committee summoned any official for a hearing;
• Only 4 parliamentary questions were submitted by MPs.

“Georgian Dream” created a temporary investigative commission to abolish opposition parties:

“Georgian Dream” created a temporary investigative commission that was used to retaliate against political opponents. The commission’s conclusion became the basis for a constitutional lawsuit aimed at abolishing opposition parties and eliminating political pluralism. It is noteworthy that the artificially created “opposition” faction made it possible for this commission to be formed.

Committees lost important functions:

Committees no longer consider issues such as: the creation of temporary commissions, expressing confidence in the government, electing the president, impeachment, and other significant matters.

Important structural units of Parliament were abolished:

• The Standing Council on the Rights of the Child and the Gender Equality Council were abolished;
• Through reorganization, the Parliamentary Research Center was abolished.

Parliament became a closed and non-transparent institution:

• The Open Governance Council was abolished;
• Parliament and committees are no longer required to submit annual action plans;
• Minutes of working group meetings and detailed information about meetings are no longer published on the website;
• Legislative proposals are no longer discussed in committees — they are sent only to MPs.

Through adopted laws, Parliament effectively abolished constitutional rights:

With the laws adopted by Parliament, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and media freedom guarantees were effectively abolished; passive electoral rights were restricted.

Parliament finally refused cooperation with civil society and adopted laws aimed at abolishing NGOs:

• Parliament adopted numerous laws aimed at abolishing NGOs and prohibiting the receipt of grants without government permission;
• Provisions in legislation guaranteeing civil society participation in public decision-making were abolished.

 

II. Major Events

2.1. Parliament without Opposition

“Georgian Dream” held the first session of Parliament in gross violation of the Constitution, namely: 1. The sitting was not convened by the President, although only the President has this authority; 2. Parliament recognized the authority of its members even though the legality of their election had been appealed in the Constitutional Court, which deprived Parliament of the legal ability to recognize the mandates of newly elected members.

“Georgian Dream’s” Parliament convened on 25 November 2024 to recognize mandates. The President of Georgia did not convene the first sitting. At the same time, the constitutionality of the 26 October 2024 elections and thus the legality of electing 150 MPs was challenged in the Constitutional Court.

According to Article 38 of the Constitution of Georgia, the first sitting of Parliament is convened by the President. Under the same article, Parliament obtains full authority upon recognition of two-thirds of MPs (100 members). Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure states that the name of a person whose election has been appealed in the Constitutional Court shall not be included in the resolution on recognizing MP mandates.

NGOs called on Parliament not to recognize the mandates.

It should be noted that on 26 October 2024, according to ODIHR’s assessment, “the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission recorded multiple forms of pressure on voters, including intimidation, coercion, and vote-buying. These factors significantly hindered voters’ ability to make free and fear-free choices. Special pressure was exerted on opposition party representatives, local activists, economically vulnerable groups, and public sector employees, significantly restricting their freedom of choice.” The elections were criticized by numerous international organizations.

Observer organizations and political parties filed hundreds of lawsuits in common courts requesting annulment of results in individual precincts and districts. The announcement of results sparked mass public protests, which continue to this day.

As is known, following the 26 October 2024 elections, four opposition parties won seats, of which three refused mandates and left Parliament, while one - “Gakharia for Georgia” - formally retained mandates but did not participate in activities. Later, in October 2025, they broke the united opposition strategy and joined parliamentary work, causing sharp criticism from opposition forces outside Parliament.

Before “Gakharia for Georgia” entered Parliament, “Georgian Dream” artificially created so-called “opposition” structures by pulling several MPs elected through its list out of the majority and forming one pseudo-opposition faction (“People’s Power”) and one pseudo-opposition group (“European Socialists”).

In 2024, for the first time, the President was elected under the new system. On 14 December 2024, in a vote held inside the Parliament building, delegates indirectly elected the only candidate nominated by “Georgian Dream” - former footballer and former MP Mikheil Kavelashvili. The opposition did not participate in the voting.

2.2. Attack on Civil Society and the Transformation of Parliament into a Closed Institution

Parliament’s work in the direction of transparency and openness had been deteriorating year after year. After the 2024 parliamentary elections, Parliament turned into a one-party institution, with no opponents participating in decision-making processes. On 1 April 2025, members of Georgian Dream supported a legislative amendment that abolished the mandatory participation of non-governmental organizations in public decision-making processes. The package includes amendments to 14 different legislative acts.

According to the explanatory note of the draft bill, “Recent developments, including global events surrounding USAID, have revealed that the participation of non-governmental organizations in public decision-making processes hinders the effective functioning of state governance.” Additionally: “A large part of non-governmental organizations is funded from abroad and therefore serves the interests of donor states and organizations. Their actions in decision-making processes are based not on the interests of the local population but on the political and economic agendas of external forces.”

Among other restrictions, based on this legislative package: NGOs no longer have the right to nominate candidates to the Prosecutorial Council, the Disciplinary Board of Judges, and the High Council of Justice; Representatives of civil society organizations are no longer authorized to participate in selection commissions created by the Prime Minister to select the heads of the Special Investigation Service, the Personal Data Protection Service, and the Anti-Corruption Bureau; They are also excluded from the selection process of candidates for the Central Election Commission, the Board of Trustees of the Public Broadcaster, and other bodies.

Parliament adopted numerous laws aimed at abolishing NGOs and prohibiting the receipt of grants without government approval. These laws are discussed in later chapters of the report.

Civil society became the target of Georgian Dream in every direction. The adoption of repressive laws brought many organizations to the brink of dissolution. All of this was accompanied by hostile statements about international partners and false accusations. Members of civil society were repeatedly subjected to verbal and physical attacks.

On the night of 14–15 January 2025, in the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel in Batumi, a group consisting of representatives of Georgian Dream verbally and physically assaulted Zviad Koridze — the head of Transparency International Georgia’s regional offices, a well-known journalist, and a civic activist.

Zviad Koridze was on a work trip in Batumi observing the court hearing of political prisoner and journalist Mzia Amaghlobeli.

The attackers were led by Dimitri Samkharadze — one of the most notorious figures in Ivanishvili’s circle, the regional secretary of Georgian Dream and a member of Parliament. He is known for unethical behavior in Parliament.

Also involved in the attack were: Giorgi Manvelidze — former chair of the Georgian Dream parliamentary faction of the Supreme Council of Adjara and then deputy minister of finance and economy of Adjara; Gocha Samkharadze — presumably a relative of Dimitri Samkharadze and a driver accompanying the group; and several other individuals.

The identities of the attackers once again demonstrate that leaders of Georgian Dream were personally involved in attacks on civil society and people with critical opinions, including direct participation in physical retaliation.

The attack by Georgian Dream on civil society had an organized character.

Within the investigation launched on charges of sabotage, the bank accounts of 7 NGOs and solidarity funds were frozen, and numerous NGO leaders and members were summoned for questioning. In its statement, the Prosecutor’s Office claimed that “the coordinated provision of special means to violent protesters for actions against law enforcement was financed, among others, by non-governmental organizations.”

In September 2025, the Anti-Corruption Bureau launched monitoring of more than 80 NGOs, following the April amendments to the Law on Grants. These amendments violate freedom of association and aim to discredit and intimidate government critics. Later the scope of monitoring expanded and now includes more than 100 NGOs, including those working on women’s rights, children’s rights, and the rights of persons with disabilities.

The persecution of NGOs triggered numerous reactions from international actors.

 

III. Anti-Democratic Laws

3.1. Laws Aimed at Restricting Media and Freedom of Expression

The one-party Parliament of “Georgian Dream” introduced numerous amendments restricting freedom of speech and expression and significantly worsening the media environment:

• Extending the Article on Hooliganism to Social Media

On 6 February 2025, amendments were introduced to Article 166(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, extending the definition of “minor hooliganism” to include “insults and abusive language in a public space.” Under the previous version of the article, the offence could be committed only in “public places.”

The distinction between the terms may be interpreted to mean that an individual could now be punished not only for using abusive language, engaging in physically offensive conduct, or other actions disturbing public order or citizens’ peace in a physical public setting, but also for such conduct in virtual public spaces, such as social media platforms. Comparable legislation is found only in non-democratic states such as Russia and Belarus.

The extension of prohibitions to such conduct is unjustified. While disorderly behaviour in a physical environment can indeed disturb public order and peace, it is unclear how the same effect could result from the use of insults or offensive language in online environments. Regulation of expression in virtual space in this manner represents a disproportionate restriction incompatible with democratic standards of freedom of expression.

 

• Content-based regulation of speech and limiting journalists’ protections

On 26 June 2025, members of Georgian Dream adopted amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, which directly contradict freedom of opinion guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia, fundamental international principles, and eliminate important guarantees of free expression:

• A journalist may now be held liable for failing to disclose a source of information, which until now was protected as a matter of professional secrecy;
• The rule was abolished according to which, if there was doubt about the legality of restricting free expression and that doubt could not be resolved by law, the doubt had to be interpreted in favor of free expression;
• The rule prohibiting restrictions on speech concerning matters whose knowledge is essential in a democratic society - even when such matters touch upon someone’s private life or personal data - was abolished;
• In defamation cases, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant. The plaintiff is freed from the obligation to prove that the disseminated facts are false. The plaintiff also no longer needs to prove that they suffered damages. If a person believes that their reputation was harmed by a statement, they may bring a claim;
• Content-based regulation of speech was introduced, including for insults in public space, which now includes social media. Accordingly, the state is empowered to assess and regulate what a person says or disseminates publicly and to restrict expression based on the content of ideas or phrases;
• The rule enabling partial or conditional exemption from liability (“qualified privilege”) - when a person took reasonable steps to verify facts, sought to correct errors, or acted in the public interest- was abolished;
• If the court believes that publishing a correction or retraction is insufficient to compensate harm caused by defamation, the defendant may be required to pay material and/or non-material (moral) damages.

 

• Restrictive amendments to broadcasting legislation

On 1 April 2025, Georgian Dream supported two packages of amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, which clearly contradict freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and international human rights law.

The objectives of the first package: To block critical broadcasters from receiving funding from international donors. Given the small size of the advertising market and other factors, critical broadcasters cannot survive on advertising revenue alone.

The objectives of the second package To expand and strengthen the Communications Commission’s administrative control over independent broadcasters.

As a result of the adopted changes:

• The role of media self-regulation is reduced almost to the point of elimination. Issues such as accuracy and impartiality of information will largely be examined by the Communications Commission;
• Broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding (money or other material benefits) from a “foreign power.”This includes not only financial aid but also equipment, training, media development programs, etc.
• Only funding through commercial advertising, teleshopping, sponsorship, or product placement is allowed;
• Foreign powers may not purchase broadcaster services, finance or co-finance program production or broadcasting;
• “Foreign power” is defined extremely broadly — any natural or legal person, state body, or organization associated with a foreign country;
• In case of violation, the Commission may impose a fine of 0.5%, 1%, or 3% of the broadcaster’s annual revenue, or suspend or revoke its license;
• Broadcasters are prohibited from expressing supportive or opposing positions toward political parties, public or religious organizations, or interest groups within news programs;
• Editorial freedom is compromised, as the Commission can interfere with content, leading to censorship or self-censorship;
• Broadcasters must present “all relevant alternative opinions” in their programs - an undefined standard enabling arbitrary interpretation and pressure.
• In conclusion, the amendments initiated by Georgian Dream unambiguously contradict international standards in the field of freedom of expression and will further worsen the situation of critical media in Georgia. Their primary aim is to weaken or destroy independent broadcasters by restricting financial resources and imposing content control.

3.2. Laws Aimed at Abolishing Freedom of Assembly

From December 2024 to the present, Georgian Dream amended legislation regulating assemblies and demonstrations four times.

Each amendment made the law more repressive, aiming both to punish demonstrators and to intimidate them preventively.

Amendments of 13 December 2024 and 6 February 2025 changes to the Administrative Offences Code and the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations introduced:

• The “preventive detention” mechanism — allowing detention to prevent repeated administrative offences even if no new offence has been committed;
• Fines for blocking roads increased by 10x and 20x;
• Prohibition of using masks or covering the face at rallies; prohibition of using laser or other bright light devices; prohibition of placing stages or similar structures; prohibition of holding assemblies indoors without the owner’s consent;
• Verbal insult, humiliation, or abusive behavior toward a political official or public servant became punishable by a 6,000 GEL fine or 60 days of imprisonment;
• Insulting a law enforcement officer is punishable by 15 to 60 days of imprisonment;
• Even “spontaneous” assemblies require notification of authorities.

On 2 July 2025, amendments were made to the Administrative Offenses Code, introducing administrative detention for failure to pay fines.

• Failure to pay fines imposed for blocking roads may lead to up to 15 days of administrative imprisonment, up to 20 days if the organizer is responsible;
• Failure to pay fines for disobeying police, petty hooliganism, or insulting political figures is punishable by at least 30 days of imprisonment.

Amendments of 16 October 2025 fines were abolished and replaced with immediate administrative imprisonment for a first offence and criminal liability for repeated offences; Offences include: covering one’s face at a rally; placing temporary structures (e.g., tents); partially or fully blocking traffic when the assembly could be held otherwise; obstructing movement of people and vehicles. Punishment: 15 to 60 days of administrative imprisonment; 1 to 4 years of criminal imprisonment for repeat offences.

Amnesty International and the Venice Commission sharply criticized the amendments as “new draconian laws used by the authorities to suppress dissent.”

3.3. Laws Aimed at Banning Political Parties and Political Activity

Georgian Dream amended the Organic Law on Political Unions of Citizens twice. The purpose was to eliminate opposition parties.

On 13 May 2025, an amendment to the Organic Law of Georgia on Political Associations of Citizens was adopted, according to which, in addition to the existing authority of the Constitutional Court to prohibit a political party whose aims are “the overthrow or violent change of the constitutional order of Georgia, violation of the country’s independence, infringement of territorial integrity, or which engages in war or violence propaganda, incites national, regional, religious, or social strife, creates or has created armed formations” — powers that the Court already possessed — it is now also authorized to prohibit a party “whose declared objective and/or the essence of its activities (including the personal composition and/or the party list submitted to the respective election commission) substantially repeats the declared objective and/or the essence of the activities (including the personal composition) of a party prohibited by the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the basis of paragraph one of this article.”

On 16 October 2025, further amendments were introduced to the same law. The amendment provides not only for the banning of political parties but also for the indefinite deprivation of political rights for individuals associated with such parties. Under these changes, any person declared an “associated person” of a banned party is prohibited from founding or leading a political party, being a member of a political party, running as a candidate in parliamentary or municipal elections, holding public office, or making political donations. The amendments stipulate that if a political party is declared unconstitutional, this will automatically result in the termination of the mandates of members of Parliament or municipal councils elected through that party’s list, as well as the annulment of the party list itself. The legislative amendments restrict constitutionally guaranteed political rights, endanger the principle of democratic public order expressed by the citizens of Georgia in the Constitution, and contradict and undermine democratic governance, political pluralism, equality, and the prohibition of discrimination as established by Article 3 of the Constitution of Georgia.

3.4. Repressive Laws Against NGOs

• FARA — Another Attack on Civil Society

On 1 April 2025, Georgian Dream adopted the “Foreign Agents Registration Act.” Any person failing to register as an agent faces up to 5 years of imprisonment.

The word “agent” is again used — just like in the original 2022 “Russian law” proposed by “People’s Power.”

The so-called FARA is a continuation of the Russian-style legislative cycle whose first version was introduced in 2023 and the second in 2024, both aiming to abolish NGOs.

• Grants banned without government permission

Georgian Dream initiated and adopted amendments to the Law on Grants, according to which Georgia’s partner countries and international organizations may not provide funding to Georgian citizens without the prior consent of the Georgian government.

Government approval is required for: issuing a grant; receiving a grant; changing the grant’s purpose.

“Grant” also includes technical assistance such as technology, expertise, knowledge, training, or other support.

Monitoring compliance is carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which was given virtually unlimited powers.

Receiving a prohibited grant leads to: a fine of double the value of the grant; liability may apply for 6 years after receiving the grant.

This initiative by “Georgian Dream” is a continuation of its strategy to dismantle the system of support for Georgia’s civil society and the public, especially after it failed to achieve this goal through the adoption of “Russian laws,” persecution, and the freezing of civil solidarity funds.

The requirement in the Law of Georgia on Grants—that a donor may award a grant only with the prior consent of the Government of Georgia or an authorized person/body designated by the Government—constitutes interference in the freedom of association.

It is also noteworthy that members of “Georgian Dream” have already pre-identified organizations they deem undesirable and to which they will refuse consent for receiving grants.

On 27 May, “Georgian Dream” initiated additional amendments to the law, specifically stipulating that the restrictions will not apply to grants issued under the EU’s research and innovation programme Horizon Europe, the EU’s Erasmus+ programme, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), or grants issued under the Creative Europe programme between Georgia and the European Union.

3.5. Deterioration of Public Servants’ Rights and Abolition of Key Public Institutions

• Deterioration of Public Servants’ Rights

“Georgian Dream” amended the Law on Public Service four times, significantly worsening the legal status of public servants and effectively abolishing all achievements of the public service reform implemented over the years.

The first set of amendments was adopted in December 2024 through an accelerated procedure after only five days of review; the second stage - also via an accelerated process - was adopted on 6 February 2025; the third package was approved on 20 February; and the fourth stage of amendments on 1 April.

Under the adopted changes, the rules for appointing individuals to positions in the public service were altered. Specifically, mid-level officials - current heads and deputy heads of departments and divisions - are no longer considered permanently appointed civil servants. From now on, they are treated as individuals employed under administrative contracts, and the head of the agency/minister may dismiss them at any time and for any reason with one month’s prior notice. Furthermore, when a new head of an agency or a new minister is appointed, all persons holding the above-mentioned positions automatically lose their posts. This means that every new minister will appoint department heads and their deputies at their own discretion. Loyalty to the respective political leadership, rather than qualifications, will determine appointments. This change serves to intimidate public servants and sends a direct message that if they remain critical of the government, they may lose their jobs at any moment, and civil service guarantees will no longer protect them.

The amendments also restore the practice of appointing public servants without a competitive process. New heads/ministers are granted the authority to appoint individuals to various managerial positions (e.g., department head, deputy head, division head, deputy, etc.) under contract, without competition, for the duration of their term in office. This increases the risk of nepotism and undermines the independence and professional standards of the public service.

Another amendment concerns the performance evaluation system for public servants. Specifically, instead of once per year, civil servants will now be evaluated twice yearly, and after two negative evaluations, they will be dismissed within one year instead of two. Additionally, the head of the institution may change a civil servant’s direct supervisor’s evaluation, which may serve as grounds either for dismissal or for a 20% salary reduction. The purpose of this amendment, too, is to ensure that if a new agency head wishes to remove undesirable employees, the positive evaluation issued by a direct supervisor will no longer prevent the dismissal of a qualified but unwanted staff member.

It is also noteworthy that a civil servant dismissed due to reorganization will no longer be reinstated even if they win a court case; instead, they will be placed in a reserve pool. Thus, even if public servants are unlawfully dismissed - which becomes extremely easy under the described amendments - and they prove this in court, they will still be unable to correct the injustice or restore the status quo.

If the court rules that the dismissal of a civil servant due to reorganization was unlawful, the dismissed person will no longer have the right to claim reinstatement, and under the amendments adopted on 1 April 2025, they will receive compensation for only one month of lost wages.

Public servants may engage in scientific, pedagogical, or creative activities only with the written consent of the head of the relevant institution or an authorized person/body defined by law.

The latest wave of “purges” and repressive amendments in the public service has affected the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to the initiative of “Georgian Dream,” the grounds for terminating early the foreign posting of a diplomat or consular officer assigned through rotation have been expanded to include a new norm: a posted staff member may be recalled early if they violate the general rules of ethics and conduct approved by the minister, which “may lead to damage to the country’s interests and/or image, or constitute an action contrary to the main directions of foreign policy defined by Parliament or the interests of the ministry.”

• Abolishment of important public institutions

Parallel to the Adoption of These Legislative Amendments, Parliament Abolished Multiple Legal Entities of Public Law (LEPLs)

On 1 April 2025, the Public Service Bureau was abolished. Notably, one of the most extreme forms of repression recently used against protesting public servants was directed precisely at the institution whose core mandate was to establish and maintain a dignified, professional, and politically neutral environment within the public service. The Public Service Bureau had been one of the most important institutions for Georgia’s European integration process. It is also significant that the illegitimate government adopted this harmful decision behind the public’s back and without any rational justification.

In addition, the LEPL Information Center on NATO and the European Union was dissolved. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a reorganization is underway and the institution will be transferred under the Ministry.

The dissolution was preceded by a reduction in staff at Georgian embassies in NATO member states, including the United States, Germany, Spain, Moldova, and Poland.

Members of “Georgian Dream” supported amendments to the Law on General Education, under which, from 1 September 2025, the LEPL Educational and Scientific Infrastructure Development Agency was abolished.

As a result of amendments to the Law on the Planning and Coordination of National Security Policy, the Office of the National Security Council was abolished from 1 September 2025.

“Georgian Dream” also supported changes whereby the Intelligence Service became a state sub-agency — the National Intelligence Agency — under the State Security Service. Its head will be appointed and dismissed by the Head of the State Security Service. These amendments entered into force on 1 July 2025, and employees of the former Intelligence Service had their employment contracts terminated.

Another initiative of “Georgian Dream” abolished the Special Investigation Service, merging it with the Prosecutor’s Office. Ensuring the service’s effectiveness, institutional independence, and impartiality was one of the nine conditions outlined by the European Commission in relation to EU candidate status.

A central direction in the ruling party’s attempt to suppress the ongoing wave of public protests has been the establishment of complete partisan control over the public service. To this end, “Georgian Dream” adopted laws that enable repression and simultaneously initiated the dismissal of public servants who publicly protested the deviation from the country’s European path.

On 6 February 2025, through amendments to the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the ruling majority abolished the Parliamentary Research Center, leaving 21 public employees without work. The dissolution of the Center was directly linked to the active involvement of its staff in civic protests.

It is also noteworthy that on 3 April, Speaker Shalva Papuashvili announced the reorganization of 11 structural units of the Parliament, supposedly aimed at ensuring “systematic and efficient management” of the Parliamentary Administration.

3.6. Amendments Aimed at Restricting Access to Judicial Acts and Undermining Judicial Independence

On 2 July 2025, the ruling party “Georgian Dream” introduced amendments to the Law of Georgia “On Common Courts,” representing a declared attempt by the governing authorities to establish total control over the legal system and dismantle the public oversight mechanisms over the judiciary.

Courtrooms have been closed to the media and the public. The decision on audio-visual recording of hearings will now be determined by the High Council of Justice.

Access to judicial decisions has also been restricted. Judicial acts will become publicly available only after the final decision enters into legal force, meaning that a decision will not be accessible to the public until it has been appealed and reviewed by all instances.

Courts are authorized to seize personal belongings of individuals entering court premises, including mobile phones, computers, and any photo, film, video, and/or audio equipment.

The composition of the High Council of Justice has been modified: the number of judge-members has increased, while the number of non-judge members has decreased - 12 judges and 3 non-judge members. These changes will further strengthen the so-called judicial clan. Moreover, transparency of the Council has deteriorated, as it will no longer be required to publish a range of public information, including session protocols, data concerning judicial candidates, and other materials.

The guarantees of individual judicial independence have been significantly weakened, and mechanisms of control over judges strengthened: a judge may not participate in public events or trainings without prior authorization from the Council. The duration of secondment has been increased from 2 years to 3 years, with the possibility of an additional 2-year extension.

These amendments represent a dangerous regression in terms of transparency and independence of the judicial system, transforming a judiciary - already subject to serious concerns regarding its independence - into an even more closed institution. Closing court hearings and restricting access to judicial decisions substantially diminishes public oversight mechanisms over the courts.

The amendments curtail judicial independence. Regulation of judges’ participation in trainings and public events through the Council’s authorization requirements, along with extended and extendable secondment periods, serve to consolidate influence over judges and establish institutional control over their personal autonomy.

3.7. Repressive Criminal Law Amendments -  Anonymous Witnesses, Travel Bans, Property Seizures

• Anonymous Witness

On 2 July 2025, the ruling party “Georgian Dream” introduced amendments to the Criminal Code enabling the identity of a witness to remain undisclosed. Specifically, the identity of a participant in operative-investigative measures or covert investigative activities may be kept confidential indefinitely. Anonymous witnesses may be questioned remotely in a manner that prevents the defence from identifying or recognizing them.

Through these amendments, a court decision may effectively rely on evidence that the defence is unable to examine, without knowledge of the witness’s identity, fundamentally violating the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.

• Restrictions on Leaving the Country, Confiscation of Property from Related Persons, and Limitation of Family Support to Convicted Individuals

On 3 September 2025, “Georgian Dream” adopted additional amendments to the Criminal Code, under which a victim may seek compensation not only from the perpetrator of a crime but also from their close relatives and associated persons.

The amendments also introduced a prohibition on leaving Georgia as a form of “social protection measure”: 6 years for less serious crimes, 12 years for serious crimes, and 16 years for especially serious crimes.

A convicted individual is prohibited from receiving assistance exceeding a small financial amount (double the subsistence minimum). This includes housing, transportation, or any material support. Anyone providing such assistance - including family members, relatives, or friends - is subject to criminal liability of up to five years’ imprisonment.

These amendments are incompatible with the principles of the rule of law. Confiscation of assets not only from the convicted person but also from close relatives and associated persons contradicts the principle of individual responsibility.

Defining a ban on leaving the country as a social protection measure contradicts democratic values and human rights principles and threatens the constitutional right to freedom of movement, particularly given that such restrictions may be applied even in cases involving non-custodial or suspended sentences.

The legislative initiative was preceded by the abduction and arrest of Giorgi Bachiashvili by security services, following allegations by Bidzina Ivanishvili of large-scale embezzlement and money laundering. After the bill’s introduction, representatives of “Georgian Dream” stated publicly that the changes would apply retroactively to Bachiashvili.

The prohibition on providing assistance to convicted persons and the criminalization of such assistance to family members fundamentally violates basic human rights and principles of humanitarian treatment.

 

IV. Parliamentary Oversight

4.1. Abolition of Parliamentary Oversight through Amendments to the Rules of Procedure

On 13 May 2025, MPs of Georgian Dream supported a new draft of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which effectively abolished parliamentary oversight and public participation in the work of the legislature. The councils responsible for women’s and children’s rights were also abolished.

With the new Rules of Procedure, Parliament effectively abandoned its main function - oversight of the government. In practice, Georgian Dream had already stopped using the available mechanisms: the Minister’s Hour, thematic inquiries, councils and committees were functioning only formally and did not ensure real oversight.

According to the new Rules of Procedure:

• Important parliamentary oversight mechanisms were abolished, including the Minister’s Hour and the thematic inquiry instrument. Their abolition serves the political comfort of the ruling party. The explanatory note claims that an increased number of interpellations would compensate for the elimination of the Minister’s Hour, although the two mechanisms are substantively different and cannot substitute each other;
• Important committee functions were abolished. Committees will no longer consider: the election of public officials, the establishment of investigative and other temporary commissions, votes of confidence in the government, election of the president, impeachment procedures, and other key matters;
• Women’s and children’s rights are no longer a parliamentary priority, The Standing Council on the Rights of the Child and the Standing Gender Equality Council were abolished. Although these bodies had become largely formal in recent years, instead of strengthening them, Georgian Dream eliminated them entirely;
• Parliament’s transparency and accountability deteriorated further: the Open Governance Council was abolished; Parliament and committees are no longer required to submit annual action plans; committees no longer must publish detailed information on working groups, including meeting minutes; legislative proposals are no longer considered by committees and instead are emailed to all MPs, who have one month to convert them into legislative initiatives if they choose;
• Political expression for MPs was restricted, and opposition rights were further limited. A boycott may be declared not for an entire plenary session but only for a specific agenda item -  meaning absence will still be recorded as skipping the session. Invited persons at committee or plenary sessions must refrain from expressing personal opinion about developments. Even though Georgian Dream’s Parliament does not include any real opposition, the ruling party still chose to further restrict any potential oversight tools: factions lost the right to demand a committee session from the Bureau chair; creation of temporary commissions requires signatures of one-third of MPs instead of one-quarter, making it significantly more difficult.

4.2. The Temporary Investigative Commission as a Tool for Eliminating Opponents

According to Parliament’s resolution of 5 February 2025, a temporary investigative commission was created: “To study the activities of the regime and political office holders of the regime active between 2003–2012.” On 1 April 2025, Parliament amended the resolution and expanded the title to: “To study the activities of the regime active between 2003–2012, the political office holders of this regime, and the activities of current and former office holders united in political parties from 2003 to the present.”

The commission was created in gross violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure because to form it, MPs elected through the Georgian Dream party list were formally removed from the GD faction and inserted into artificially created pseudo-opposition factions, giving the illusion of opposition representation.

The 10-member commission included: 5 seats for the Georgian Dream majority, 2 seats for “People’s Power,” 1 seat for “European Socialists,” 2 seats allocated to “Gakharia for Georgia,” which remained vacant because that party refused to work in Parliament at the time.

The creation of the commission violated both the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. Under the Rules, a temporary investigative commission may be created only when there is a specific suspicion of wrongdoing by a public official or state body. But this commission’s mandate extended far beyond that and focused on investigating political parties and their members — which is legally impermissible because political parties are not state bodies. Additionally, the commission’s mandate covered the period from 2003 to the present, violating the principles of specificity and temporal proportionality.

The explanatory notes to both resolutions were filled with political evaluations but did not identify any specific illegal act or corruption that would pose a current threat to Georgia’s security, sovereignty, territorial integrity, political or economic interests, or relate to improper spending of public funds.

The illegal expansion of the mandate is also reflected in the commission’s published report, which includes extensive descriptions of cases of torture, inhuman treatment, murder, violence, racketeering, etc. It is undisputed that such crimes require serious investigation, but: these are matters for law enforcement, not Parliament; many of these cases have already been investigated and individuals have been held responsible. Therefore, it is unclear what the parliamentary commission was supposed to investigate.

On 3 September 2025, Parliament approved a resolution adopting the commission’s conclusions, effectively copying the commission’s document word-for-word.

The commission’s conclusions are attached as the sole piece of evidence to the constitutional lawsuit submitted by Georgian Dream MPs, seeking to declare unconstitutional and ban the following three main opposition parties: “Unity – United National Movement”, “Coalition for Change — Gvaramia, Melia, Girchi: More Freedom”, “Strong Georgia — Lelo, For the People, For Freedom!”

If the lawsuit is upheld, political pluralism in Georgia will be abolished and at least 700,000 voters -  who, according to even the unreliable official numbers, voted for these parties in 2024-  will be left without political representation.

4.3. Use of Other Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms

In Georgian Dream’s Parliament, parliamentary oversight is effectively abolished both legally and in practice.

The Minister’s Hour and the thematic inquiry mechanism were abolished. The remaining mechanisms were not used at all.

During the reporting period: no committee summoned any public official, no faction requested mandatory attendance of officials, no official requested to be heard at a committee.

According to the parliamentary website, only four parliamentary questions were submitted during the reporting period (25.11.24–21.10.25):

Date	Author	Addressee	Subject
20.12.2024	Tengiz Sharmanashvili	Samkharauli Bureau	On the progress of a specific forensic examination
13.02.2025	Givi Mikanadze	Ministry of Justice	On crimes committed by minors
31.03.2025	Aleksandre Dalakishvili	Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture	Request for information related to the draft law on atmospheric air protection
07.10.2025	Irakli Shatakishvili	National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission	On determining and eliminating the causes of drinking water outages in Rustavi Municipality