1. Introduction

The Georgian Dream party has introduced another legislative package that violates human rights. The package includes measures such as the expulsion of foreign nationals from Georgia, bans on re-entry into the country, stricter asylum procedures and new criminal penalties in the Criminal Code. Eighteen laws are set to be reformed, which will result in substantial modifications to key legal frameworks, including the Law on International Protection, the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons, the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code. According to the Georgian Parliament's website, the final vote on the proposed legislative changes is scheduled for 30 May. In line with the established practice of the illegitimate Georgian Dream parliament, the package is being adopted unilaterally by a single party without consultation with civil society organisations or the political opposition. Notably, Georgian Dream did not consult the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the legislative package. This is despite the agency's core mandate to assist the Georgian government in enhancing refugee status determination procedures, ensuring that national legislation aligns with international standards and monitoring the country's adherence to its international obligations to protect refugees and stateless persons. The Parliament has also disregarded recommendations from the Public Defender and civil society organisations (CSOs) aimed at addressing shortcomings in the asylum application process and improving the social protection of migrants overall.Conversely, “Georgian Dream” has adopted repressive measures against foreign nationals with critical views and has substantively weakened the current legal framework.

Following the protests in November and December 2024, the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated the systematic expulsion of foreign nationals from Georgia. On 4 January 2025, the department reported that 25 foreign nationals had been expelled from Georgia for participating in local protests. ^[1] On 5 February 2025, Mamuka Mdinaradze disclosed plans to toughen Georgia’s migration policy alongside other repressive legislative initiatives. ^[2]

During last year's November–December protests, dozens of foreign nationals were detained, many of whom reported being subjected to violence and beatings at the hands of the police. Although many of those detained were legally residing in Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Migration Department sought their removal solely on the grounds of their participation in the demonstrations.^[3]

Since January 2025, at least dozens of confirmed incidents have occurred in which individuals—especially journalists and human rights defenders arriving from European countries—faced problems when attempting to cross the Georgian border. Beyond these groups, Russian anti-Putin activists, as well as Belarusian and Azerbaijani journalists and activists, have consistently encountered obstacles entering Georgia in recent years. The Ministry of Internal Affairs typically refers to subparagraph “i” of paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Law of Georgia on the Legal Status of Aliens and Stateless Persons, which allows refusal of re-entry in unspecified “other cases” defined by the legislation. Under this article, the administrative body holds broad and largely unrestrained authority to decide—at its own discretion—on the admission of foreign nationals to Georgia.

According to official statistics from the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, refugee status was denied to 1,418 individuals in 2024, while humanitarian status was granted to just 104 people, 91 of whom were Ukrainian, and refugee status to only 11 people. In 2023, 472 people were denied status, while 166 were granted humanitarian protection and 16 were recognised as refugees. In terms of deportations, 165 foreign nationals were expelled in 2022, 190 in 2023 and 363 in 2024. Notably, Azerbaijani nationals constituted the largest share of deportees. The data also shows a downward trend in the granting of legal status to foreigners, alongside a corresponding increase in refusals and deportations in recent years.

In 2024, the UN Refugee Agency published a report on the legal and humanitarian situation of Ukrainian refugees in Georgia. The report concluded that the government has failed to take effective and proactive measures to support Ukrainian refugees, resulting in a protracted and extreme state of vulnerability for many. The UNHCR 2024 report underscores that the situation has considerably worsened in comparison to 2023, as over 60% of Ukrainian refugees lack adequate access to food, clothing, footwear, and hygiene products.

As outlined in the explanatory note[4]  to the legislative package initiated by the ruling party, 'Georgian Dream', the stricter migration policy is justified on the basis of aligning with EU asylum directives and preventing violations of the law. However, analysis of the amendments reveals a significant deterioration in the rights of foreign nationals, and more critically suggests that the changes are a repressive response to foreign activists participating in ongoing protests in Tbilisi and other cities. It is also important to note that Georgia made a number of commitments as part of its action plan during the visa liberalisation process. These included an obligation to enhance the legislative framework and decision-making procedures for asylum seekers, and to establish a structural unit for Country of Origin Information (COI). This unit would be responsible for thoroughly assessing conditions in the country of origin prior to making status determinations. The right to a fair trial and legal assistance was also expected to be guaranteed throughout this process. In its assessment of Georgia’s visa liberalisation action plan, the European Commission found that these obligations had only been partially fulfilled. According to the Commission’s 2015 progress report, decisions on asylum applications in Georgia were of low quality and lacked individualisation and proper justification, frequently relying on template-based reasoning. While the state did conduct and analyse updated COI — a critical element in the decision-making process — the application and interpretation of protection standards remained inconsistent. The Commission also criticised weak appeal mechanisms, inadequate legal assistance and poor conditions in temporary housing facilities, including issues with hygiene, healthcare access, psychological support and integration. Furthermore, the report noted that Georgia had a significantly lower rate of positive asylum decisions.

The government’s neglect of visa liberalization obligations contributes to the further deterioration of the legal environment, unequivocally worsening the legal standing of migrants.

2. Brief summary of initiated legislative amendments

The legislative package introduces harsh and repressive standards that remove key legal safeguards from foreigners, including their fundamental right to access justice and legal protection. The legislative amendments introduce the following new procedures and restrictions:

• The Criminal Code introduces a new form of punishment: expelling a foreign national from Georgia and banning them from re-entering the country for a specified period.
• For petty crimes, a foreign national may be barred from re-entering Georgia for two to ten years; for serious or particularly serious offences, the ban may range from five to twenty years.
• The Code of Administrative Offences introduces a new form of administrative penalty: the expulsion of a foreign national from Georgia and a ban on their re-entry into the country.
• Foreign nationals may face expulsion from Georgia and a ban on re-entry lasting up to three years as an administrative penalty for disobeying law enforcement orders, committing petty hooliganism, verbally insulting a public or political figure, or violating the law when organising or participating in public gatherings.
• Fines for immigration-related offences will also increase significantly. Foreign nationals who overstay their permitted period of stay in Georgia by up to three months will face a fine of 1,000 GEL and a six-month ban on re-entering the country. Illegal stays exceeding one year could result in a fine of 3,000 GEL and a three-year re-entry ban.
• The procedure for expelling foreign nationals residing illegally in Georgia is being significantly simplified.
• A foreign national who has been sentenced to expulsion from Georgia and given a re-entry ban for a specified period, or who is the subject of a court-ordered expulsion, may be punished by renewed expulsion and a further re-entry ban, or imprisoned for between one and six years, if they obstruct the enforcement of the court’s decision. Such obstruction may include the deliberate destruction of a travel document or evasion of the procedure required to obtain one in its absence, or any other form of avoidance of enforcement.
• An accelerated asylum procedure will be introduced for foreign nationals who fail to apply for asylum within one month of entering the country.
• A new mechanism will allow asylum claims to be assessed at the state border without permitting the foreign national to enter Georgian territory if their entry is deemed to pose a threat to national security.
• The timeframes for reviewing and appealing asylum decisions will be significantly reduced.
• A new approach to the electronic delivery of asylum-related decisions will be introduced.
• The issuance of residence permits in Georgia will be restricted for foreign nationals who are under review for possible expulsion or who are already subject to an expulsion decision.
• The authority responsible for conducting the asylum procedure will be granted the right to proceed without the participation of a lawyer or legal representative if their involvement is deemed to hinder the progress of the procedure.

3. Detailed Legal Assessment of the Proposed Legislative Amendments

3.1. Amendments to the Law on International Protection that significantly deteriorates the legal standing and conditions of asylum seekers

• The Introduction of the Admissibility Procedure and Its Impact on the Principle of Non-Refoulement

According to the draft law, all applications for international protection must undergo an admissibility procedure. Specifically, before any decision is made on the merits of the claim, each application will undergo preliminary screening, with certain applications potentially being excluded at this initial stage. An application will be deemed inadmissible if: (b) there is an option of a safe third country for the foreign national or stateless person; or (c) the applicant has been convicted by a Georgian court of committing a serious or particularly serious crime.

The draft law also provides for the possibility of appealing the decision within seven calendar days of its delivery to the applicant at the city court. The city court's decision can then be appealed to the appellate court within five calendar days of its issuance. However, once a decision has been made to declare an application inadmissible — and even while that decision is under review in the city court — the principle of non-refoulement no longer applies. This means that deportation or extradition from Georgia becomes legally permissible upon delivery of the decision to the applicant.

Furthermore, the existing minimum 10- to 30-day window for deportation procedures is abolished, making it possible for the individual to be expelled from the country^[5] on the very same day the decision is delivered. These changes, in effect, permit the removal of a person from Georgian territory solely based on an administrative body’s discretion, without effective judicial oversight.

According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), while states retain discretion in shaping their immigration policy, the Court has criticised national courts for issuing deportation orders without properly examining the evidence or ensuring that proof substantiating the relevant facts exists, particularly in cases requiring judicial review.^[6]

Removing an individual from Georgia before the conclusion of a judicial review, particularly before a ruling has been issued by the first-instance court, creates multiple procedural difficulties. Notably, under current legislation, a deported person must bear the financial burden of returning to Georgia to seek legal redress. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the state can provide the technical and procedural conditions necessary for the individual to fully participate in the court process. 

• Border Screening of Asylum Applications and Challenges related to Inadequate Infrastructure

The draft law introduces a new procedure for processing applications for international protection at the border. Under this system, if a foreign national or stateless person applies for protection at the Georgian border or in a transit zone under Georgian control, their application will be reviewed there. The entire process, including judicial oversight, must be completed within 28 days. If the review is not concluded within this timeframe, the individual will be granted entry to Georgian territory. However, individuals deemed to pose a threat to national security or who have committed serious public order violations may be detained.

It is important to note that no designated long-term holding facilities currently exist at Georgia’s state border for individuals who may be required to remain there for a long period of time. Despite repeated recommendations from the Public Defender in its annual reports, particularly regarding conditions at the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Temporary Accommodation Centre in Tbilisi, detention conditions for migrants often still fail to meet the required standard. Against this backdrop, it remains unclear whether the relevant authorities are capable of ensuring adequate conditions for individuals who may be held at the border for the full 28 days. ^[7]   

According to the Public Defender's 2023–2024 report, a key issue is the ongoing lack of appropriate equipment and interpretation tools to facilitate daily communication within the Temporary Accommodation Centre. Interpreter services are not consistently available to detainees, which complicates interactions with staff and access to medical care. In practice, alternatives to placement in the centre are almost never applied. From 1 January to 1 August 2023, the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs submitted 53 motions to the court requesting the placement of foreign nationals and stateless persons in the centre, all of which were granted. Likewise, every motion submitted to extend the standard three-month placement period was approved. In the absence of structured, meaningful activities, detainees have limited access to means of communicating with the outside world. No organised programmes are offered, even to minors. Furthermore, the Migration Department's Temporary Accommodation Centres struggle to address basic issues essential to safeguarding detainees from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Public Defender's 2024 report urges the Migration Department to develop conflict prevention and management guidelines for these centres, eliminate the practice of prolonged placement in strict supervision rooms and maintain a registry documenting the exact times of placement and removal from such rooms. The report also recommends adopting a standardised injury documentation form to be completed by escort physicians in cases where the returnee alleges or the physician suspects torture or ill-treatment. Clear procedures should be established for notifying the relevant investigative bodies.

According to existing regulations, a foreign national may be placed in a strict supervision room at the Migration Department's Temporary Accommodation Center for up to 10 days for violating internal rules. During this period, the individual may be subject to additional restrictions, including being prohibited from meeting with persons of their choice, using the telephone, accessing recreational areas, or sending and receiving packages. Consequently, a foreign national or stateless person may be completely cut off from the outside world. The Public Defender considers imposing restrictions on communication with the outside world as a form of disciplinary punishment to be unacceptable.

The Public Defender has also raised concerns about the difficulties that individuals in the Temporary Accommodation Center face when receiving visitors. Access to an internet-connected computer is limited to one hour per day. For years, the Public Defender has recommended extending this time, particularly given the absence of organised activities and the limited opportunities for detainees to maintain regular contact with their families. Visits are only permitted on Tuesdays and Fridays between 10:00 and 13:00, and are restricted to 20 minutes — a timeframe that is insufficient, particularly for visitors who travel long distances and come infrequently. The continued failure to implement these recommendations raises legitimate concerns about the ability of the relevant authorities to accommodate individuals at the border and ensure adequate conditions. Furthermore, by allowing legal counsel to be excluded and eliminating procedural safeguards, the asylum authority is granted the power to conduct the asylum procedure without the involvement of a lawyer or legal representative. Under Georgian legislation, this is permitted if the participation of legal counsel is deemed to obstruct the procedure, including during judicial proceedings. However, the law does not define what constitutes an 'obstruction', which creates space for broad and potentially arbitrary interpretation.

It is deeply concerning that a representative of the administrative body can remove a lawyer from asylum proceedings and continue the case without their involvement, thereby violating the foreign national’s right to legal representation. According to the 2024 report by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), legal assistance is a fundamental component of the asylum procedure, essential to ensuring the protection of applicants’ rights and the transparency of the process.

The draft law further clarifies the role of legal counsel in asylum procedures, stating that the lawyer’s participation is not mandatory, both during the administrative phase and judicial proceedings, in order to eliminate ambiguity. Furthermore, if a lawyer does participate in the litigation process, they may do so remotely via technical means. Failure to appear at an interview, hearing or court session without a valid excuse will not prevent the interview, hearing or judicial review from continuing.

• Broadening the criteria for expidited processing and application of the safe country concept

The proposed draft law broadens the grounds for expedited consideration of an application. In particular, an application will be reviewed in this manner if the following conditions are met: 1. The applicant has provided the Ministry with information about their country of origin that is clearly inconsistent, contradictory or false, or that raises doubts. 2. It is probable that the applicant has deceitfully destroyed or disposed of identification or travel documents that could have been used to verify their identity or citizenship. 3. The alien or stateless person requested international protection for an unjustifiable reason within 30 days of entering Georgia, unless the request was based on a significant change in circumstances in their country of origin or their country of origin was deemed safe. If an alien or stateless person cannot provide evidence to suggest that their country of origin is not secure for them when their personal circumstances are considered, the relevant authorities presume it to be a safe country, as stipulated by law. In practice, however, the Migration Department does not conduct comprehensive or objective assessments of the human rights situation in the country of origin when collecting country-of-origin information. Instead, it frequently relies on outdated and inadequate information. International organisations have expressed concerns regarding democratic deficiencies in authoritarian states, including Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Consequently, the department's conclusions often fail to reflect these assessments adequately. Similarly, the courts often accept the department's country assessments unquestioningly, failing to evaluate the objectivity of the applicant's submitted evidence.

The concept of humanitarian status was removed from the law and replaced with the term 'subsidiary protection'.

Of particular concern is the fact that, under the accelerated procedure and given the specific grounds for its application, an individual is not considered an asylum seeker if the Ministry denies them international protection and they subsequently appeal this decision in court. In such cases, the principle of non-refoulement does not apply and deportation or extradition can be enforced as soon as the decision is issued. Furthermore, they are denied the right to petition the court to suspend enforcement and prevent removal until the merits of their case have been examined by the first-instance court.

Review of relevant international legal standards

The UN Guiding Principles on Border Management are pertinent in the context of the right to a fair administrative procedure. According to these principles, international human rights law requires states to respect, safeguard, and fulfill human rights in good faith during the border management process. In line with these same principles, the right to due process applies to all people in areas where states have jurisdiction or effective control, including international borders. Due process includes the right to an individual examination, the right to a judicial and effective remedy, and the right to appeal decisions that affect an individual’s human rights. ^[8] This is also affirmed by the UN’s Recommended Principles on Human Rights at International Borders, which state that all migrants—regardless of their legal status—must be guaranteed the right to due process in any area where the state exercises jurisdiction or effective control. This right includes individual case examination, access to judicial protection and effective remedies, and the right to appeal. ^[9] Under these guiding principles, states are obligated to establish entry procedures at the border that respect human rights norms, including providing those denied entry with both verbal and written explanations of the reasons for their expulsion, along with information about their right to appeal the decision to a court or an independent and effective authority. ^[10]

Furthermore, the use of expedited asylum procedures, the non-mandatory participation of legal counsel and restrictions on appeals and judicial oversight pose a concrete risk of violating the fundamental right to non-refoulement of asylum seekers — particularly in cases where returning them may expose them to a high risk of danger, including torture or inhuman treatment. In this regard, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is consistent and firmly upholds the right of foreign nationals not to be removed to a country where there is a real risk of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture). The Court requires the state to conduct a thorough risk assessment of the conditions in the country to which the individual is to be expelled (F.G. v. Sweden, 2016). Using expedited procedures without any judicial oversight significantly increases the likelihood that administrative authorities will violate the principle of non-refoulement.

The law also defines the concept of a 'safe third country' as a state that is neither the home country nor the country of origin of the alien or stateless person, but with which they have sufficient connections to warrant their lawful entry.

Under Article 17, Part 2 of the Law, automatic grounds for refusing to grant refugee status have been added in cases where a person has been convicted of not only a particularly serious crime, but also an intentional serious crime or a domestic violence-related offence.

To mitigate the risk of absconding during the voluntary departure period, an alien may be required to: a) Report to the authorised body of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia or the relevant territorial police body at least twice a week. b) Submit a financial guarantee of at least 3,000 GEL.c) Surrender their travel documents to the authorised entity of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia.

Notably, the law grants the relevant authorities the power to search a foreign national’s residence without judicial oversight if there is reason to believe that they have concealed their travel documents. In such cases, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and/or the relevant territorial police entity may enter and search the residence with the written consent of the owner or co-owner, in order to locate the travel document.

Following the initiation of deportation proceedings, or after a deportation decision has been made by the competent authority, a foreign national who submits an application for international protection, or a repeated application, which is deemed admissible, may be detained and placed in a Temporary Accommodation Centre, if there is reasonable suspicion that the asylum request was made solely to delay removal or evade deportation.

3.2. Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Imposition of Repressive Measures Without Adequate Procedural Safeguards

Article 24 of the Code of Administrative Offences has been amended to include expulsion from Georgia and prohibition of re-entry as administrative penalties for foreign nationals. These sanctions may be imposed either independently or in addition to other penalties.

The court determines the expulsion of a foreign national from Georgia by considering an application from the relevant administrative body. The court may impose expulsion as an administrative penalty if it deems it inappropriate for the offender to remain in Georgia, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the offender's personality traits. If a foreign national or stateless person commits an administrative offence outlined in this Code, a prohibition on their re-entry into Georgia will be imposed as an administrative penalty. The administrative penalty of restricting a foreign national's re-entry into Georgia may be imposed for a period not exceeding five years, while expulsion from the country may be imposed for a period not exceeding three years. Notably, expulsion from Georgia and re-entry bans have been introduced as penalties for offences that are often used in practice against protest participants. These include disobeying law enforcement orders, violating regulations on organising or participating in public gatherings, and verbally insulting a public-political figure.

The draft law's provision stating that 'a foreign national may be subject to expulsion from Georgia and a ban on re-entry for up to three years for committing an administrative offence' clearly indicates that these penalties are intended to be applied jointly.

Until now, the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs would appeal to the court by submitting a State Security Service assessment in deportation cases, including those involving foreign nationals detained during protests. This document, which formed the basis for the deportation request, was not made available to the individual in question. However, the new legal changes streamline this process by enabling the Ministry to impose deportation as a sanction directly, and simultaneously deport the individual from Georgia and impose a re-entry ban in a single proceeding. Although the court must still assess whether an individual's presence in Georgia poses a threat to national security, the absence of clearly defined criteria for such assessments remains problematic. This legal uncertainty allows for broad judicial discretion in applying sanctions based on imprecise norms. Furthermore, unless the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the judiciary reconsider their existing approach of relying primarily on State Security Service conclusions, this practice will continue to undermine the rights of foreign nationals and heighten the risk of serious violations under the weight of punitive measures.

Review of relevant international legal standards

In a 2006 case against Bulgaria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that invoking national security as a legitimate aim requires detailed, context-specific justification. The Court emphasised that the state must demonstrate the extent to which, and the context in which, the applicant poses a threat to national security. In this case, it found that the Romanian authorities had not initiated any criminal proceedings against the applicant for actions targeting national security and that the decision to expel the applicant was based solely on a vague assertion that they represented a threat to public order. ^[11]

In the context of balancing national security interests with the protection of individual rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department is particularly significant. In interpreting the Free Movement Directive, the Court emphasised that Member States must strike a balance between protecting national security and ensuring individuals have an effective means of defending themselves. According to the Court, this obligation stems from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The national courts of the Member States are required to maintain this equilibrium, as the Court of Justice of the European Union observed. Those institutions must ensure that the individual in question had direct knowledge of the facts underlying the decision rendered against them. This standard is also endorsed by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, which emphasises the importance of asylum seekers having access to decisions made against them. Without this access, the right to protection for asylum seekers cannot be effectively guaranteed.^[12]

Although the European Convention on Human Rights does not grant foreign nationals the right to enter or reside in a country, Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No. 7 requires that any expulsion decision concerning foreign nationals must comply with minimum procedural safeguards. The European Court of Human Rights has explicitly stated that Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 7 to the Convention obliges states to issue expulsion decisions in accordance with the law, meaning they must be grounded in domestic legislation, be sufficiently reasoned, allow for appeal, and ensure the individual can present their case before a competent authority. Compliance with the law entails not only the existence of a legal basis in national legislation but also the legal standards: it must be accessible, foreseeable, and provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference with the rights guaranteed under the Convention. Arbitrariness undermines the rule of law and is as unacceptable in the realm of procedural rights as it is in the context of substantive rights. The Court further emphasizes that the requirement for legal standards—deriving directly from the rule of law—applies to all Convention provisions that reinforce procedural guarantees. Therefore, even if an expulsion decision is formally based on national law, it may still violate Article 1 of Additional Protocol No. 7 if the underlying legal provisions fail to meet the Convention’s standards.^[14]

Furthermore, individuals facing deportation are entitled to legal assistance and, if necessary, an interpreter. They are also entitled to challenge the deportation decision before it is enforced, and the appeal has a suspensive effect. According to European human rights law, states must consider the individual's health status prior to issuing a deportation order, as established in Paposhvili v. Belgium (2016).

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that in a democratic society, the principles of legality and the rule of law require any measure affecting fundamental rights to be subject to adversarial proceedings before an independent authority. This applies even when a respondent state justifies the expulsion of a foreign national on national security grounds. During such proceedings, the grounds and pertinent evidence that support the decision must be examined, which may necessitate the restricted use of classified information. The individual must have the right to challenge the assertion by the executive that national security interests are at stake. Although significant weight is granted to the executive authority’s assessment of what constitutes a threat to national security, an independent body must be competent to intervene in cases where this concept is not reasonably based on the facts of the case, or where the interpretation of 'national security' is unlawful, irrational or arbitrary. Without such safeguards, the police and other state authorities could infringe upon Convention-protected rights at their discretion. ^[15]

The European Court of Human Rights, in Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, clarified that a foreigner facing expulsion cannot effectively dispute the state’s national security claims or submit a reasoned objection to their removal without being informed of the key factual grounds upon which the authorities based their conclusion that the individual constitutes a threat. The court further held that foreign nationals must be granted access to the content of the documents and information the state authorities rely on when making a deportation decision.^[17]  It clarified that the individual must be informed in writing of the substantive grounds and factual circumstances underlying the expulsion and, where necessary, must be granted access to classified information—subject to appropriate safeguards—to enable them to effectively challenge the allegations and defend their rights. ^[18]

In deportation cases where domestic courts classify the grounds for removal as national security information, thereby denying the affected individuals access to the reasoning and factual basis for the interference with their rights, the European Court of Human Rights has clarified the following: “Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention guarantees the right of a foreign national, in the event of expulsion from the host country, to have the deportation measures and their underlying reasons subjected to adversarial proceedings. Within which, if necessary, a mechanism must be in place allowing access to classified information, subject to adequate procedural safeguards”. ^[19] Accordingly, as demonstrated by the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, procedural safeguards in deportation proceedings involving foreign nationals include the requirement that the grounds for expulsion be clearly defined, that the individual be informed of those grounds, and that they be guaranteed effective participation in the process, along with access to an adequate appeals mechanism. The Court has consistently held that even when the authorities invoke national security interests to justify expulsion, such claims must be supported by concrete and specific reasoning and may not rely on vague or abstract references.

Of particular concern is the fact that these legislative changes, within the current judicial system and administrative proceedings, serve as a tool for the state to deport foreign nationals lawfully residing in Georgia. The package of amendments clearly signals to the many foreign activists still in the country that they may be forced to leave and migrate again if they criticise the 'Georgian Dream' or participate in politically motivated protests.

 3.3. Criminal Code Reforms and the Expansion of Harsh Punitive Measures: Deportation and Prohibition of Re-Entry 

The Criminal Code has also been amended to introduce a new punitive measure: the expulsion of a foreign national from Georgia, accompanied by a prohibition on re-entering the country for a specified period. This sanction may be applied as either a principal or supplementary penalty. Expulsion and prohibition of re-entry refer to the enforced removal of a foreign national or stateless person with legal status in Georgia against their will following the commission of an offence under the Special Part of the Criminal Code. A foreign national may be expelled from Georgia and prohibited from re-entering for the following reasons:

(a) For less serious offences, for a period of two to ten years.

(b) For serious or exceptionally serious offences, for a period of five to twenty years, or indefinitely. Depending on the circumstances of the case and the offender's characteristics, the court may impose this punishment if it deems their continued presence in Georgia to be unreasonable.

The Criminal Code has also been amended to include a new article establishing liability for obstructing the enforcement of a court decision ordering the expulsion of a foreign national from Georgia. In particular, a foreign national who has been sentenced to expulsion and has a re-entry prohibition for a specified period, or who is subject to a court decision ordering expulsion, may be held criminally liable for obstructing the execution of that decision. Obstruction of enforcement may involve deliberately destroying a travel document, refusing to participate in the necessary procedures to obtain a replacement, or taking any other action intended to circumvent enforcement. The penalty for such conduct is expulsion and a re-entry ban for a defined period, or imprisonment for a term ranging from one to six years.

Of particular concern is the possibility that, as a result of the amendments, an individual may be prohibited from entering Georgia for 2 to 10 years, regardless of whether the offences were minor or unintentional. Furthermore, the wide sentencing range, which allows a judge to impose a re-entry ban of between two and ten years or five and twenty years, grants the judiciary excessively broad discretion. This lack of clear limitations creates a high risk of arbitrary decision-making and potential abuse of power.

4. Conclusion

The proposed legislative amendments further deteriorate the human rights situation in Georgia, violating multiple international human rights standards and obligations. As previously stated, the minimum standards that Georgia was required to uphold under the visa liberalisation process include access to a fair trial and legal assistance for asylum-seeking foreigners, the protection of the principle of non-refoulement, and the guarantee of timely legal proceedings. Furthermore, the proposed legislative amendments contradict the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which sets out minimum standards that states must uphold in relation to asylum seekers. These include access to a fair trial, legal assistance and the right to appeal. The Convention also sets out obligations to ensure access to a range of social rights, including housing, food, and social protection. Furthermore, the proposed legislative amendments increase the risk of violating the principle of non-refoulement, which conflicts with the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The fact that such serious risks to an absolute right are being introduced through legislation indicates that the 'Georgian Dream' has no intention of ensuring the procedural guarantees required by the principle of non-refoulement, particularly the obligation to conduct a meaningful Country of Origin assessment before making an informed expulsion decision.

The legislative changes are a clear indication that the policy and attitude towards foreigners living in Georgia will become even more repressive and strict. This is particularly concerning given the already vulnerable social situation and the lack of a strategy or policy to defend these individuals. The Georgian Dream government is reinforcing a hostile discourse on migration, opting for repressive measures despite the fact that many migrants and foreign nationals in Georgia are seeking refuge from war or persecution under authoritarian regimes, including those in neighbouring countries. However, the 'Georgian Dream' party has maintained a favourable stance towards these states for years and is now seeking to preserve that alignment — even at the cost of violating the principle of non-refoulement — through legislative measures that further consolidate such support.

Clearly, these legislative changes must be evaluated within the broader context of the legislative trajectory recently pursued by the 'Georgian Dream' party.

Against this backdrop, activists who originally sought refuge in Georgia after escaping authoritarian regimes in Russia, Azerbaijan and elsewhere are at serious risk of expulsion should they publicly oppose the political regime or engage in political demonstrations. Furthermore, the tightening of international protection procedures effectively prevents activists, journalists, human rights defenders and other individuals with critical views from seeking asylum in Georgia.

Share