The fight against drug-related crimes is one of the top priorities of criminal justice policy in every country. Every state has a legitimate right to employ strict legal mechanisms to combat this dangerous crime.

However, it is a different matter when, under the pretext of fighting drug-related crimes, the ruling regime is in fact pursuing other objectives—such as suppressing legitimate civil protests and persecuting political opponents and civil activists by fabricating criminal cases related to drug purchase and possession. In such cases, the true goal is not combating drug crimes but rather discrediting the protest movement, exacting revenge on political opponents and activists, instilling fear in society, and ultimately ensuring the survival of the regime.

During the civil protests of November-December 2024, a total of 43 activists were prosecuted on various fabricated grounds. Most of them were accused of committing offenses such as "organizing, leading, or participating in group violence" (Article 225 of the Criminal Code) or "assaulting a police officer" (Article 353¹ of the same Code).

However, four specific cases—those of Giorgi Akhobadze, Nikoloz Katsia, Anton Chechin, and Tedo Abramov—stand out, as these civil protest participants were charged with the illegal purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of narcotic or new psychoactive substances (Article 260, Section 6, Subparagraph "a" of the Criminal Code). This charge carries a penalty of imprisonment ranging from 8 to 20 years or even life imprisonment.

The present review describes three out of these four cases based on criminal case materials. These cases have been analyzed in the context of the illegal practices that have prevailed for decades in Georgia’s law enforcement and justice systems in the fight against drug-related crimes. These practices have repeatedly been condemned by both the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Georgia, yet they remain an unresolved issue for Georgian citizens who continue to fall victim to such unlawful actions.

A. Description of Cases Involving Civil Protest Participants Illegally Accused of Drug Crimes

1. The Case of Giorgi Akhobadze

a) What We Know About Giorgi Akhobadze?

Giorgi Akhobadze, 43 years old, is a Anesthesiologist-Intensivist by profession. Since the protests against the "Russian Law," he had been assisting demonstrators with medical advice until his arrest. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, he actively participated in pro-European demonstrations and openly expressed his political views on social media.

A petition titled "Freedom for Dr. Giorgi Akhobadze", published on Manifest.ge, has gathered over 6,600 signatures to date. The petition states: "Giorgi’s tireless activism, both at protests and on social media, attracted the attention of the unjust regime. However, he is not someone who would be silenced by fear while fighting for the country's future. Giorgi stands in solidarity with all those arrested and imprisoned who, like him, are political prisoners of the regime and are fighting for the country's survival."

He also had a terminally ill mother whom he was caring for. However, he was denied the chance to be with her in her final moments, as she passed away shortly after his arrest.

b) Charges against Giorgi Akhobadze

Giorgi Akhobadze is charged under Article 260, Section 6, Subparagraph "a" of the Criminal Code—illegal purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of narcotic substances. He asserts that the drugs allegedly found in his possession were neither purchased nor stored by him and that they were planted by police officers.

c) Specific Circumstances of Giorgi Akhobadze’s Case

According to case materials, on December 8, 2024, late at night, Giorgi Akhobadze was driving home with a friend from a protest held on Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi. While driving along the right bank of the Mtkvari River near Tamar Mepe Bridge, his vehicle was stopped by the police.

He was presented with an on-the-spot search warrant hastily drafted by Investigator Levan Tabidze, titled "Authorization for Emergency Personal Search." Based on this warrant, he was subjected to a personal search.

The warrant cited "emergency necessity" as the justification for the search, referencing a legal provision that states: "Delays may result in the destruction of important factual evidence or make it impossible to obtain such evidence."

However, the investigator did not attempt to substantiate the actual existence of these circumstances. Instead, he merely underlined the pre-printed justifications in the form, using them as a basis for conducting the search.

According to the personal search report, which was compiled between 01:20 and 01:35 on December 8, 2024, police officers allegedly retrieved four packages of an "unknown substance" wrapped in adhesive tape from the front left pocket of Giorgi Akhobadze’s trousers. The report states that no technical means were used during the search. The document was signed by Investigator Levan Tabidze and detectives Aleksi Koberidze and Revaz Zirakashvili. Giorgi Akhobadze refused to sign the report. Shortly after, he was arrested and taken to the police station.

The official justification for stopping Giorgi Akhobadze that night and conducting a personal search was based on a report prepared on December 7, 2024, by Detective Giorgi Khargelia of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ (MIA) Central Criminal Police Department. The report, addressed to his superior, Giorgi Gureshidze, claimed that "operational information" had been received indicating that Akhobadze, "an active drug user who regularly purchases and possesses illegal narcotics," would be traveling in his Toyota vehicle with a companion between 01:00 and 02:00 on December 8, 2024, along the right bank of the Mtkvari River in the direction of Marshal Gelovani Avenue while allegedly carrying illegal drugs. The report further stated that the source of this information had been cooperating with law enforcement for several years and was considered "reliable, as all previously provided information had been verified."

On the same day, December 7, 2024, between 20:28 and 20:45, Detective Giorgi Khargelia was interrogated by Investigator Giorgi Lobzhanidze of the Central Criminal Police Department. During questioning, Khargelia confirmed the details mentioned in his report.

According to the chemical analysis report issued by the MIA’s Forensic-Criminalistics Department on December 8, 2024, the substance "retrieved" from Giorgi Akhobadze’s pocket—four packages—contained 3.73133 grams of the narcotic α-PVP.

Additionally, a forensic biological (genetic) examination was conducted by the National Forensics Bureau on December 31, 2024, based on an order issued by Senior Investigator Grigol Kachkachishvili of the MIA’s Central Criminal Police Department. The conclusion stated that the genetic profile found on the adhesive tape fragment of the package allegedly taken from Giorgi Akhobadze’s pocket matched his saliva sample.

However, Akhobadze’s defense attorney argued that the DNA-containing biological material was artificially transferred onto the adhesive tape by the police. The lawyer stated:
 "The four packages were wrapped in medical adhesive tape (Leukoplast). During the forensic examination, Giorgi Akhobadze’s DNA was found not on the packages themselves but on the adhesive surface of the Leukoplast. Giorgi recalls that during the search, the police forcibly swabbed his throat with their fingers. Moreover, at the pretrial detention facility, he was stripped and had his armpits inspected."

On December 9, 2024, Tbilisi City Court Judge Arsen Kalatozishvili reviewed and approved, without an oral hearing, the prosecution’s request—submitted by Prosecutor Shmagi Gobejishvili from the General Prosecutor’s Office—to "legitimize" the emergency personal search of Giorgi Akhobadze.

On December 17, 2024, Tbilisi Court of Appeals Judge Spartak Pavliashvili rejected the defense’s appeal and upheld Judge Kalatozishvili’s December 9 ruling.

Later that same day, December 9, 2024, Prosecutor Shmagi Gobejishvili officially charged Giorgi Akhobadze with the illegal purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of narcotic substances.

On December 10, 2024, Judge Lela Maridashvili of the Tbilisi City Court granted the motion of Prosecutor Shmagi Gobejishvili and ruled that Giorgi Akhobadze should be subjected to pretrial detention as a preventive measure. Needless to say that the need for remand detention was not properly justified. By a ruling dated December 17, 2024, Judge Davit Mamiseishvili of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals declared inadmissible the appeal filed by the defense against Judge Lela Maridashvili's December 10, 2024, ruling.

2. The Case of Nikoloz Katsia

a) What We Know About Nikoloz Katsia

Nikoloz Katsia, 42 years old, is a journalist by profession; however, he has not worked as a reporter for many years. Recently, he had been collaborating with the political party "Coalition for Change" and was involved in planning their election campaigns.

According to Katsia himself, he regularly filmed, edited, and uploaded various video clips on his TikTok and YouTube channels, where he had more than twenty thousand subscribers. These videos, as it appears, were well-received by viewers.

Nikoloz Katsia had never been known to use drugs, let alone purchase or possess them.

On the evening of December 7, 2024, he was at home when he saw on television how regime-organized “Titushki” (hired thugs) attacked and brutally assaulted his colleagues—TV Pirveli journalist Maka Chikhladze and cameraman Giorgi Shetsiruli. After this, Nikoloz Katsia decided to join a protest rally. He sent SMS messages to several of his acquaintances about this decision and ordered a Yandex taxi.

When Katsia stepped out of his home, the taxi he had ordered was already waiting for him at the entrance. He got into the right rear seat of the car. Just as the vehicle was about to move, the left rear door suddenly opened, and an unknown person sat next to him. Katsia initially thought the person had entered the car by mistake. However, the right rear door then also opened abruptly, and another unknown individual jumped on top of him. Meanwhile, a third person entered the front passenger seat. All three were dressed in civilian clothing.

Katsia initially thought he was being attacked by criminals, but he soon realized that the individuals were police officers. The officers forcibly removed Katsia from the taxi and placed him into a Toyota RAV-4, where they conducted an alleged "search and seizure investigative procedure." However, as described below, the police officers documented the events in a completely different manner.

According to Katsia, during his arrest, the officers mocked him and used vulgar language. Due to stress, he began stammering—a condition he had never experienced before. The officers ridiculed him for this as well, saying: "You’re a real bastard, you’re a messed-up guy."

For some time, Nikoloz Katsia was also mistreated in the penitentiary facility. Specifically, he was not provided with food, and other inmates used the money from his personal bank account. This fact was also confirmed by a report from the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia.

b) The Charges against Nikoloz Katsia

Like Giorgi Akhobadze, Nikoloz Katsia is charged under Article 260, Part 6(a) of the Criminal Code—illegal purchase and possession of an especially large amount of narcotic substances. Like Akhobadze, Katsia maintains that the drugs allegedly seized from him were neither purchased nor possessed by him and that they were planted on him by police officers.

c) Specific Circumstances of Nikoloz Katsia’s Case

As in the case of Giorgi Akhobadze, the basis for launching an investigation into Nikoloz Katsia was so-called "operational information," the source of which remains unknown. In a report dated December 7, 2024, Paata Mchedlishvili, a detective from the MIA’s Central Criminal Department, informed his superior, Lasha Tavadze, that, according to operational information he had received, Nikoloz Katsia, residing at the address specified in the report, was an active drug user and engaged in its illegal purchase and possession. The report further stated that at that moment, Nikoloz Katsia was in Tbilisi, near 45 Ipolite Vartagava Street, and was in possession of an illegally acquired narcotic substance.

Later that same evening, between 20:35 and 20:50, investigator Emil Kuprava questioned Paata Mchedlishvili, who confirmed the "information" stated in the report. Regarding the source of this so-called operational information, Mchedlishvili stated: "I have known the individual providing me with this information for years, and they have repeatedly supplied me with crime-related details, which have always been confirmed."

That same evening, on December 7, 2024, Mirza Jafaridze, a senior investigator of the MIA’s Central Criminal Police Department, issued a resolution on conducting a "personal search in case of urgent necessity." According to a note in the resolution, he presented this document to Nikoloz Katsia, who "for unclear reasons" refused to sign it.

As in similar cases, the resolution cited as a legal justification the standard clause that "delaying the search could lead to the destruction of factual data significant to the investigation or make it impossible to obtain such data." However, as in previous instances, the investigator made no actual attempt to substantiate these circumstances. Instead, he simply marked a pre-printed checkbox in the resolution’s form to indicate the "grounds" for conducting the search.

Following this, between 22:58 and 23:18 that evening, a personal search of Nikoloz Katsia was conducted. According to the search protocol, "a transparent zip-lock bag containing eight (8) white-colored solid substances of varying sizes, along with white powder residue, was found and seized from the left front pocket of Katsia's jacket." The protocol also states that no technical devices were used during the search. It further alleges that Katsia "attempted to resist, started struggling, and was therefore placed in a police vehicle. Despite this, he continued to resist the personal search, which was ultimately conducted under conditions of resistance." Further down in the document, the investigator notes: "After the substances were removed during the search, Katsia calmed down, ceased resistance, reviewed the protocol, and signed both the protocol and the packaging containing the seized substances."

The search protocol was signed by Investigator Mirza Jafaridze and police officers Lasha Kharkhelauri and Giorgi Rosopidze. The protocol also bears the signature of Nikoloz Katsia, along with what appears to be a handwritten note from him stating: "I was not beaten, I have no complaints."

Later, in a testimony given to his lawyer, Katsia explained that the reason for this note and his signature on the protocol was that the police had deceived him, promising to release him if he signed "some document for formality’s sake."

Between 23:21 and 23:39 on December 7, 2024, the investigator drafted an official detention report for Nikoloz Katsia.

On December 9, 2024, Judge Irakli Khuskivadze of the Tbilisi City Court reviewed and approved, without an oral hearing, the motion filed by General Prosecutor’s Office prosecutor Nugzar Chitadze, recognizing the "urgent necessity" of Katsia’s personal search as lawful.

On December 8, 2024, in accordance with a resolution issued by Archil Natsvlishvili, a senior investigator of the MIA's Central Criminal Police Department, the MIA’s Forensic-Criminalistics Department conducted a chemical examination. According to the forensic report, the substance "seized" from Nikoloz Katsia contained cocaine (base) in the amount of 14.0384 grams.

On December 9, 2024, Prosecutor Nugzar Chitadze issued an indictment against Nikoloz Katsia, charging him with the illegal purchase and possession of an especially large quantity of narcotic substances.

On the same day, Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili of the Tbilisi City Court granted Prosecutor Nugzar Chitadze’s motion and ruled that pretrial detention should be imposed on Nikoloz Katsia as a preventive measure. Again, the need for remand detention was not properly justified.

A biological (genetic) forensic examination was scheduled for the case, but as of now, its results are unknown to "Transparency International Georgia."

The defense filed multiple motions to obtain evidence. These motions included requests for a drug test on Nikoloz Katsia, forensic analysis of particles on his clothing, retrieval of surveillance camera footage from specific locations, and extraction of data from a key witness’s phone. However, none of these motions were granted, using various formal pretexts. This constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of adversarial trial and equality of arms, as declared in the Georgian Constitution (see Article 62, paragraph 5) and the Criminal Procedure Code (see Articles 9 and 25).

A particularly noteworthy motion by Katsia’s lawyer was the request to have the taxi driver and his substitute from that day testify before a magistrate judge. Their testimony could have provided crucial evidence regarding the actual circumstances of Katsia’s arrest, which would have directly contradicted the official version presented in the investigation documents while aligning with Katsia’s own account. However, this motion, submitted twice by Katsia’s lawyer, was also denied by Tbilisi City Court judges Mzia Garshaulishvili and Irakli Khuskivadze.

3. Anton Chechins' Case

a) What We Know About Anton Chechin

Anton Chechin is 26 years old and is a Russian citizen by birth. He fled Putin's regime and moved to Georgia, believing that he would find a peaceful and safe life there. After moving to Georgia, he married a Georgian citizen and lived with her until his arrest.

During his time in Russia, Anton Chechin participated in protests against Putin, including demonstrations against the war in Ukraine. "He personally experienced the consequences of the Russian regime. He was involved in the activities of various opposition parties, and Navalny was mentioned; he was a supporter of him," said his lawyer, Giorgi Chkheidze.

He was arrested multiple times in Russia for participating in protests against Putin and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Along with 22 other protesters, he filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that Anton Chechin's rights had been violated and ordered the Russian Federation to pay compensation in his favor.

After arriving in Georgia, Anton Chechin continued to actively participate in protests. In the spring, for his involvement in protests against the "Foreign Agents’ Law," the regime's court, under Ivanishvili's government, declared him an administrative offender and fined him. He also participated in civil protests in November-December 2024. On November 18, 2024, he was arrested again and was threatened with negative consequences if he did not stop participating in the protests.

The criminal prosecution against him seems to be nothing more than the enforcement of this threat. Anton Chechin has never had any connection to drugs. Not only does he not consume drugs, but he also doesn't smoke or drink alcohol.

b) The Charges against Anton Chechin

Similar to Giorgi Akhobadze and Nikoloz Katsia, Anton Chechin is accused under part 6, subparagraph “a” of Article 260 of the Criminal Code of unlawfully purchasing and storing narcotic substances in especially large quantities. Anton Chechin claims that the narcotic substance allegedly found in his possession was neither purchased nor stored by him, and that it was "planted" on him by police officers.

c) Specific Circumstances of Anton Chechin's Case

Just like in the case of Giorgi Akhobadze and Nikoloz Katsia, the initiation of the investigation against Anton Chechin was based on the so-called "operational information" provided by a "confidential source." In a report compiled on the morning of December 3, 2024, Detective Edgar Oganesyan from the MIA's Central Criminal Department informed his superior, Lasha Tavhadze (who also appears in the Nikoloz Katsia case), that according to the aforementioned operational information, Anton Chechin was an active drug user and involved in the illegal purchase and storage of narcotics. The report also mentioned that Nikoloz Katsia was at that time in Tbilisi, near his residence, and was in possession of illegally acquired narcotics.

The author of the report, Edgar Oganesyan, was questioned as a witness by Investigator Emil Kuprava (also involved in the Nikoloz Katsia case). The interview took place between 09:49 am and 09:56 am on December 3, 2024. He confirmed the circumstances mentioned in the report and stated that the "source" of the operational information was a confidential contact who had reliably provided information about various crimes over the years.

Later that same morning, on December 3, 2024, Investigator Archil Natsvlishvili (also involved in the Nikoloz Katsia case) issued an order for a personal search due to "urgent necessity." The "urgent necessity" cited in the order was that any delay could lead to the destruction of crucial evidence or make it impossible to obtain necessary information. However, there was no attempt to substantiate the actual existence of these circumstances. The order simply check-marked the legal grounds for the search in the form.

According to the investigation materials, Investigator Archil Natsvlishvili, Detectives Giorgi Chikvaidze and Zurab Rusishvili, and Translator Shorena Tabatadze went to Anton Chechin's address. When Anton Chechin left his building to go to work, police officers approached him, identified themselves, and presented him with the order for the personal search through the translator. According to the report, Anton Chechin refused to sign the order "for unclear reasons."

Following this, a personal search was conducted. The search protocol states that the search started at 10:00 am and ended at 10:20 am. Comparing this with the interview protocol of Detective Edgar Oganesyan, which notes the interrogation occurred from 09:49 am to 09:56 am, it seems that Investigator Archil Natsvlishvili had only 4 minutes between the end of the interview and the start of the search. Based on the above, it follows that in the mentioned 4 minutes, investigator Archil Natsvlishvili managed to: familiarize himself with the interview report of Oganesyan, collect and review official sources of information regarding Anton Chechin, draft a warrant on conducting a personal search in case of urgent necessity, contact two detectives and an interpreter, gather them together, travel to Anton Chechin’s residential address, approach Anton Chechin as he was leaving his home, introduce himself, inform him of the resolution through the interpreter, and record in the warrant that Anton Chechin refused to sign it. It is evident that carrying out such a series of actions, which would have required at least 1-2 hours, was impossible for investigator Natsvlishvili to accomplish.

However, an additional circumstance must be considered. A surveillance camera is installed at the entrance of Anton Chechin’s residential building, monitoring the entrance and its surroundings. Upon reviewing the footage from this camera, the defense established that: a) the time displayed on the video recording corresponds to real time; b) on December 3, 2024, Anton Chechin left his residential building at 09:46 am, and just a few seconds later, he was stopped by police officers and placed into a vehicle. Therefore, the restriction of Anton Chechin’s freedom of movement, his placement in the vehicle, and the commencement of his personal search occurred no later than 1-2 minutes from the indicated time, meaning at the latest—by 09:48 am. This means that Chechin’s personal search actually began not at 10:00 am, as falsely stated in the personal search report, but earlier—before Edgar Oganesyan’s interview was completed and before the investigative body had a legal basis to conduct Anton Chechin’s personal search.

According to the search protocol, Anton Chechin allegedly resisted the search physically. The protocol states that during the search, a polyethylene bag with a zip tie, containing a white powdery substance, was found in the left outer pocket of his jacket. The protocol also indicates that no technical means were used during the search. The protocol was signed by the investigator, detectives, and the translator, though Anton Chechin refused to sign.

Subsequently, Anton Chechin was arrested and taken to the MIA's Central Criminal Police Department. According to the chemical analysis report issued by the MIA’s Forensic and Criminalistic Department on December 3, 2024, the substance found in the package contained the narcotic α-PVP, weighing 4.3369 grams.

A biological (genetic) expert examination was also ordered, though its results are not yet available to "Transparency International Georgia."

On December 3, 2024, without a hearing, Judge Nana Shamatava of the Tbilisi City Court reviewed and accepted the prosecutor's request, confirming the legality of the personal search conducted on Anton Chechin under "urgent necessity."

On December 4, 2024, Prosecutor Nugzar Chitadze (also involved in the Nikoloz Katsia case) issued a ruling against Anton Chechin. He was accused of unlawfully acquiring and storing narcotics in large quantities.

On December 5, 2024, Judge Irakli Khuskivadze of the Tbilisi City Court granted the prosecutor's request and ordered Anton Chechin's detention as a preventive measure. In this case too, the need for remand detention was not justified.

As a witness in the case, Detective Zurab Rusishvili was questioned. Strangely, Translator Shorena Tabatadze was also questioned as a witness and repeated verbatim the investigation's version of events regarding the personal search and the alleged discovery of narcotics. This raises concerns about the reliability of her testimony.

Moreover, using an interpreter to confirm or refute significant factual circumstances in a case is a highly questionable action from the perspective of the legality of investigative procedures since an interpreter has a specific role in criminal proceedings. The interpreter’s function is limited to translating testimony and/or documents accurately and completely. No other participant in the proceedings is allowed to perform the interpreter’s duties, as other participants may have an interest in the content of the translation. Accordingly, we believe that an interpreter cannot be assigned the duties of another participant in the proceedings, including that of a witness.

Finally, there is another circumstance in the case that undermines the credibility of the interpreter, Shorena Tabatadze’s testimony. The defense examined the section of the MIA’s website that provides information on the ministry’s procurements. It was established that the translation company LLC "Intellect Market", where interpreter Shorena Tabatadze is employed, has been systematically providing translation services to the MIA. Specifically, between 2017 and 2023, the MIA and its structural subdivisions received interpretation and translation services from LLC "Intellect Market." During these years, the services were provided based on electronic tenders, and the source of funding each year was the state budget. The examination revealed that between 2017 and 2023, the company received 1,500,000 GEL from the state budget.

The defense, in accordance with procedural law, filed a motion before the court requesting that the interpreter’s questioning record, along with other evidence presented by the prosecution in court, be deemed inadmissible. However, the court did not grant this motion.

B. General Assessment of the Cases of Individuals Involved in Civil Protests Wrongly Accused of Narcotic Offenses

In Georgia, the harmful and criminal practice of "planting" drugs remains an insurmountable issue for decades. This is well-known by everyone, especially those individuals, their family members, relatives, and friends who have become victims of this disgraceful and brutal practice.

At the very least, this practice is evidenced by seven cases that became the subject of the European Court of Human Rights. Who knows how many more cases might have been considered by the Strasbourg Court had other potential applicants, like the complainants in these seven cases, had the necessary resources, courage, and patience to submit their complaints to the European Court.

This harmful practice is also evidenced by the decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the Keburia case, whose conclusions, although not implemented by law enforcement and judicial bodies, continue to be an important benchmark for practicing lawyers, experts, and the media when the legality of accusations related to narcotic possession arises in a given case.

1. European Court of Human Rights' Decisions on the Criminal Practice of "Planting" Narcotics in Georgia

a) Kobiashvili Case

In the case "Kobiashvili v. Georgia," which concerned a person who claimed that narcotics were "planted" on him, the European Court of Human Rights set several very important precedent standards. Specifically:

(i) Search Based on "Operational Information" and Without a Pretrial Court Order

·   The complainant's personal search was carried out based on "operational information" which suggested that the complainant was under the influence of narcotics. The existence of such "operational information" was never proven throughout the process, as no such information was found in the criminal case materials.

·   The personal search was conducted without a pretrial court order, based solely on an order issued by the head of the police department. The order itself, without any reference to the specific facts, consisted only of a pre-prepared text.

·   Additionally, the order was unfounded because it did not indicate the urgent circumstances that would have justified the need for a search without a pretrial court order.

·   The police officers involved could not provide a clear explanation for the necessity of the search. As a result, the circumstances leading up to the urgent search remained unclear (Kobiashvili v. Georgia, Application no. 36416/06, 14 March 2019, §61).

·   Based on these circumstances, the court concluded that the manner in which the search was conducted cast doubt on the reliability and authenticity of the evidence obtained (ibid., §65).

(ii) Post-Facto Legal Recognition of the Search without Proper Review

Regarding the post-facto judicial recognition of the search's legality, the European Court found that this procedure was inaccessible to the complainant, as no judicial hearing was conducted according to the principle of adversarial proceedings. Under the applicable law at the time, there was no possibility of challenging the court's ruling on the legality of the search. However, the European Court concluded that judicial oversight mechanisms for verifying the legality of the search were already insufficient, as the judge could not assess whether there was a justified suspicion or whether the search was urgent and necessary without a pretrial court order (ibid., §§67-68).

(iii) Lack of Other Objective and Reliable Evidence

In the European Court's view, when the source of some evidence in a case is questionable, it becomes even more necessary for the evidence to be corroborated by other reliable evidence. The case included two witnesses who were present during the search, whose testimonies were deemed unreliable due to various reasons. As for the police officers, the European Court considered them to be part of the investigation's source and part of the agency that initiated the case, and therefore had an interest in the outcome of the case. This interest was particularly apparent in the complainant's statement that the officers had intentionally planted the narcotics on him. Despite this, their testimony was automatically accepted as objective by the domestic courts, whereas, for example, the testimonies of the complainant’s friends were dismissed as subjective and unreliable (ibid., §72).

(iv) Conclusion

Based on the above circumstances, the European Court concluded that the overall proceedings in the Kobiashvili case were unfair and violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ibid., §73).

b) Megrelishvili Case

Following the Kobiashvili case, the European Court examined the case "Megrelishvili v. Georgia," applying the principles established in the Kobiashvili precedent.

The Court found that, while the case differed slightly from Kobiashvili’s, the search in this case was also based on "operational information" that was not subject to proper judicial oversight. Similarly, the search was carried out without a pretrial court order, under the so-called "urgent necessity" conditions. The existence of such "urgent necessity" was not adequately justified. Unlike in the Kobiashvili case, no witnesses were called to the search, even though the complainant’s spouse specifically requested this (Megrelishvili v. Georgia, Application no. 30364/09, 7 May 2020, §33).

Regarding the post-search judicial recognition of its legality, the European Court had already found its inadequacy and insufficiency in the Kobiashvili case. Although, unlike Kobiashvili, legislative changes between the two decisions gave the complainant the right to appeal the first-instance court’s ruling, the State failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this legal protection mechanism before the European Court (ibid., §35).

Finally, the other evidence in the case, including the testimonies of the police officers, could not support the allegations, as, similar to the Kobiashvili case, the officers had an interest in the case's final outcome (ibid., §38).

The Court’s final conclusion was the same as in the Kobiashvili case: the proceedings were unfair and violated the complainant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ibid., §39).

c) Other Similar Cases

In accordance with the Kobiashvili precedent, the European Court examined and issued similar decisions in five additional cases. These are:

• Application no. 21074/09, Bakradze v. Georgia, 10/12/2020
• Application no. 41674/10, Tlashadze and Kakashvili v. Georgia, 25/03/2021
• Application no. 57255/10, Kalandia v. Georgia, 22/04/2021
• Application no. 43854/12, Shubitidze v. Georgia, 17/06/2021
• Application no. 42371/08, Tortladze v. Georgia, 18/03/2021

d) Oversight by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Above Cases

According to Article 46(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the final decision of the European Court is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees its implementation.

Regarding the implementation of the European Court’s decisions in the cases of Megrelishvili, Bakradze, Tlashadze, Kakashvili, Kalandia, Shubitidze, and Tortladze, the Committee of Ministers issued decision CM/ResDH(2024)301, under which it will continue to oversee the implementation of general measures for the execution of these decisions within the framework of the oversight of the Georgian cases of Kartvelishvili and Rostomashvili.

The Ministry of Justice of Georgia has attempted to assure the CoE Committee of Ministers that the government has taken effective general measures to fight the practice of drug “planting.” In this regard it has referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision in the Keburia case.

2. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case of Kebiuria

In its decision made on December 25, 2020, in the case "Giorgi Kebiuria v. the Parliament of Georgia" (Decision No. 2/2/1276), the Constitutional Court of Georgia established highly important legal standards.

(i) Constitutionality of Using the Testimony of a Law Enforcement Officer Based on Information from an Operative Source or Anonymous Person in a Convicting Verdict

According to the Constitutional Court, the testimony of a police officer based on information from an operative source – a confidential informant – is a form of indirect testimony, which creates equal risks for the state's obligation to issue a convicting verdict based on uncertain evidence (Decision II-90). Additionally, using such testimony in a convicting verdict clearly places the defense at a disadvantage. As stated, the defense does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the person providing the operative information, challenge the reliability and credibility of the person whose testimony the court relies on for the convicting verdict. The lack of such an opportunity clearly creates the risk that a convicting verdict may be issued based on uncertain evidence (Decision II-91).

Given the above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the normative content of the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits the use of a law enforcement officer’s testimony, based on information provided by an operative source, as evidence in a convicting verdict, contradicts the Constitution of Georgia (Decision II-92).

(ii) Constitutionality of Using Physical Evidence Seized During a Search Based on Information from an Operative Source or Anonymous Person as the Basis for a Convicting Verdict

In the Court’s view, if one assumes that the police actually planted the object, the accused should have legal means to prove their innocence in a situation where all police witnesses to the search give the same testimony, and there is no other evidence to confirm or contradict the finding of the object in the possession of the accused (Decision II-104).

The Court stated that when it is clear that the police could have obtained evidence supporting the reliability of the search and failed to do so, the degree of trust in their actions significantly decreases (Decision II-106). While it may not always be possible to provide neutral evidence of the search, it must be proven that the police took reasonable steps to obtain such evidence. A clear example of this is when it is discovered that there was objectively the possibility of a neutral witness attending the search process, and the police did not ensure this. Moreover, modern technological advances allow for video recording of the search process, which could strengthen the prosecution’s position. The failure to use video recording in circumstances where there was a real possibility to do so raises significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence (Decision II-107). The difficulty of recording a search is not insurmountable, even using a mobile phone camera, which is now a commonly used device (Decision II-108).

Finally, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code that allows the use of illegally seized items as evidence in a convicting verdict when the only confirmation of the item’s presence in the accused’s possession comes from the testimonies of law enforcement officers, and they failed to take proper measures to obtain neutral evidence supporting the search’s reliability (Decision II-110).

Conclusion

The three criminal cases described above, in which investigations and criminal prosecutions are ongoing against individuals involved in civil protests, clearly indicate that the practice of "planting" drugs remains widespread in Georgia. Moreover, this practice is being used against civil protesters to discredit the entire protest movement, punish activists as examples, intimidate society, and, ultimately, to maintain the regime’s de facto power.

As we have seen, despite Georgia losing multiple cases at the Strasbourg Court over the issue of drug planting, and the efforts of the Constitutional Court to address the problem, this harmful tradition continues in the exact same forms that each generation of law enforcement has established over decades.

Despite the precedential standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Georgia, the following practice persists:

• Investigation is initiated based on "operative information" provided by a so-called "confidential source," the credibility and actual existence of which are not verified;
• Personal, residential, vehicle, or other property searches are conducted not based on a court order but on the "legal acknowledgment" of the search after the fact;
• Testimonies about the search and seizure are only provided by police officers and other individuals close to them who have an interest in the case being resolved in favor of the prosecution;
• Searches are carried out without neutral witnesses present or the use of video recording technology, which could convince an objective observer of the legality of the investigation; remarkably, in the cases of Akhobadze and Katsia, neutral witnesses—one being the defendant's companion in one case and the taxi driver in the other—were present at the scene, but they were not allowed to observe the search;
• Judicial oversight of the search and seizure process is extremely formal and ineffective, with the court issuing a ruling about the search’s legality without a hearing, disregarding the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

Moreover, as is often the case with other protest participants, the necessity of applying pre-trial detention as a preventive measure was not properly justified in these cases either. Also, the defense suffered violations of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms as the motions for obtaining evidence were unjustifiably denied.

Individuals responsible for fabricating and falsely accusing civil activists:

(a)  Central Criminal Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs:

• Levan Tabidze
• Alexi Koberidze
• Revaz Ziraqashvili
• Giorgi Khargelia
• Giorgi Gureshize
• Giorgi Lobzhanidze
• Grigol Kachkachvili
• Paata Mchedlishvili
• Lasha Tavdade
• Emil Kuprava
• Mirza Jafaridze
• Lasha Kharkhelauri
• Giorgi Rosofidze
• Archil Natsvlishvili
• Edgar Oganesiani
• Giorgi Chikvaidze
• Zurab Rusishvili

(b)  Prosecutors:

• Shmagi Gobejishvili
• Nugzar Chitadze

(c)   Judges:

• Arsen Kalatozishvili
• Spartak Pavliashvili
• Lela Maridashvili
• Irakli Khuskivadze
• Tamar Mchedlishvili
• Mzia Garshaulishvili
• Nana Shamathava