What Are the Charges Against the Detainees?
On December 6, 2024, charges were filed against protest participants Jano Archaya, Ruslan Sivakov, Luka Jabua, Andro Chichinadze, Guram Mirtskhulava, and Onise Tskhadadze under Article 225, Part 2, of the Criminal Code of Georgia for committing the offense of "participation in group violence."

Who Are the Defendants?
All six defendants—Jano Archaya, Ruslan Sivakov, Luka Jabua, Andro Chichinadze, Guram Mirtskhulava, and Onise Tskhadadze—were active participants in the protests.

Some of them are well-known in society, frequently appearing in the media and calling for participation in the protests:

• Andro Chichinadze is a popular actor and enjoys a significant social media following, with nearly 5,000 followers on Instagram. His public appeals have the potential to influence public opinion, especially among Generation Z.
• Onise Tskhadadze, a comedian, stand-up performer, and digital creator, has 35,000 followers on Facebook and also has the ability to shape public opinion through his appeals. He is known for his humorous short posts and frequently shared information about ongoing protests on social media.

The Prosecutor’s Position
According to the prosecution, the six individuals actively participated in the "violent actions of a group" organized by others on November 28, 29, and December 1, 2024. Specifically, they allegedly threw "heavy objects," "sticks," or "bottles" in the direction of law enforcement officers stationed near the Parliament building to maintain public order, thereby "endangering the lives and health of law enforcement officers and others nearby."

How Did the Prosecutor Justify the Need for Pretrial Detention?
On December 6, 2024, the General Prosecutor's Office of Georgia petitioned Tbilisi City Court to impose pretrial detention on all six defendants as a preventive measure. The prosecution claimed that there were both factual and formal grounds for such a measure.

As factual grounds, the prosecution cited the "totality of evidence" that allegedly proved the defendants’ having committed the crime in question. As formal grounds, the prosecution referenced the risks of the defendants absconding, destroying important case information, or committing new offenses, as well as the fact that the charges involve a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Under Georgian law, pretrial detention is justified only if there is reasonable suspicion that the defendant may abscond, fail to appear in court, destroy evidence, or commit new offenses. Detention is impermissible if the objectives of the preventive measure can be achieved by less severe means. The prosecutor must justify the necessity of detention and the insufficiency of less restrictive alternatives with specific evidence.

In this case, the prosecution failed to present any evidence that would convince an objective observer of the reality of these risks, relying instead on general and abstract arguments.

The Judge’s Role: Serving the Prosecution and the Ruling Party
The preventive measure was reviewed by Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili. Despite the lack of evidence, on December 7, 2024, the judge granted the prosecution’s petition and ordered pretrial detention for all six defendants.

Pretrial Detention as a Tool for Political Retaliation
The use of pretrial detention, particularly in politically motivated cases, has long been a persistent problem in Georgia. Courts rarely impose non-custodial preventive measures in such cases, and when they do, it is usually at the initiative of the prosecution rather than the courts. Genuine judicial review in this area is practically nonexistent.

Georgia has lost numerous cases before the European Court of Human Rights due to the unlawful use of pretrial detention. The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly established that a "reasonable suspicion" is not sufficient grounds to impose pretrial detention on an individual who has a right to be presumed innocent. While reasonable suspicion is a prerequisite for initial arrest, courts must rely on additional "relevant and sufficient" grounds to justify continued detention. These grounds include risks such as absconding, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or re-offending. Such risks must be properly substantiated and cannot be based on abstract, general, or stereotypical reasoning (see, for example, Merabishvili v. Georgia, no, 72508/13, [GC] 28/11/2017, § 222; Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, 13/01/2009, §§ 73, 76). Any period of detention on remand, whatever its length, requires appropriate motivation by the competent national authorities which are obliged to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (Patsuria v. Georgia, 30779/04, 06/11/2007, § 62). 

Issues with the Justification for Detention
The court can impose pretrial detention only if the objectives of the preventive measure cannot be achieved by less restrictive means. In this case:

1. The prosecution presented no evidence to substantiate the alleged risks.
2. The court failed to demonstrate how the defendants could "continue criminal activities" despite ongoing criminal proceedings and the awareness that such actions would only worsen their situation.
3. The court did not explain how the defendants could obstruct or destroy evidence.
4. The court failed to consider the defendants’ personal circumstances, such as their professional status, family ties, financial condition, or lack of prior convictions.

Regarding Ruslan Sivakov, the court also cited a "risk of absconding" due to his Ukrainian citizenship and lack of ties to Georgia. However, it did not explain why measures such as confiscating his passport could not mitigate this risk. For the other five defendants, Georgian citizens with strong ties to the country, the court did not find a risk of absconding but still relied on abstract reasoning to impose detention.

Our Conclusion
An objective observer would conclude that the pretrial detention of the defendants by Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili was an execution of political orders, demonstrating once again that the justice system under the Georgian Dream party is being used to punish protesters to set an example for others.

Andro Chichinadze and Onise Tskhadadze are being punished for their political views and active participation in protests, particularly given their popularity and influence on society.

As for Ruslan Sivakov, first of all, there is suspicion that he may not be a Ukrainian citizen. However, even if he is, his persecution appears to serve the government’s anti-Ukrainian narrative. During the protests, government propaganda actively promoted the narrative of alleged Ukrainian involvement in violence.

The court's decision also aims to instill fear in society, suggesting that participation in protests could lead to similar unjust and unlawful prosecution.

Transparency International Georgia will continue monitoring this case and provide updates on the legality and adherence to international standards of decisions made in the subsequent stages of the criminal process.