The Social Justice Center presents a nuanced analysis of the court ruling on the use of imprisonment as a preventive measure against Mzia Amaghlobeli and urges the Kutaisi Court of Appeals to change the unfounded decision of the first instance, which contradicts fundamental human rights and represents an attempt to reverse and manipulate the existing legal framework.

Introduction

On January 14, 2025, Judge Nino Sakhelashvili imposed imprisonment as a preventive measure against Mzia Amaghlobeli. Judge Nino Sakhelashvili justified the use of imprisonment against Mzia Amaghlobeli based on the charge presented by the prosecutor under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code (assaulting a police officer) and the severity of the potential sentence (imprisonment from 4 to 7 years), citing the risks of flight, commission of new crimes, and tampering with evidence.

The judge failed to produce any relevant evidence that would directly substantiate these risks. The court only cited the ongoing administrative offense case against Mzia Amaghlobeli as an additional circumstance. However, responsibility for this offense had not yet been established, and therefore, in light of the presumption of innocence, this constituted an irrelevant factor.

Furthermore, the court completely ignored a significant factor in the decision to impose imprisonment – Mzia Amaghlobeli’s extensive journalistic career and her reputation, while it did not shy away from describig her character as "extremely negative" based on an as-yet unestablished charge. The court also disregarded the "chilling effect" that Mzia Amaghlobeli’s detention would cause on journalistic work.

The present review critically analyzes the justification provided by Judge Nino Sakhelashvili for the imposition of imprisonment and demonstrates the extent to which it lacks reasonableness, legislative standards, and not only ignores but also substantially contradicts human rights standards.

Reasonable Doubt About the Commission of the Crime

In her ruling, Nino Sakhelashvili does not discuss at all whether slapping in the face qualifies as an assault on a police officer (under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code) is in accordance with national legislation. The practice of the Tbilisi City Court, when interpreting the elements of this crime, emphasizes the intent of the person to attack a police officer in connection with the officer's official duties. [1] Clearly, the aim of this crime is to protect a legal good — the lawful exercise of a police officer’s authority. In this case, the act of slapping did not obstruct the officer’s exercise of his authority, and the qualification is clearly unsubstantiated.

The qualification of the aforementioned act falls under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, or under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (violence) in the most formalist interpretation. However, in this case, the investigation would struggle to prove the standard of causing physical pain to the victim, which is an essential element of this crime. Furthermore, based on Article 7 of the Criminal Code, such actions cannot subject a person to criminal liability, as the act does not constitute a crime. Even though it formally includes the elements of an offense under this Code, due to its minor significance, it has not caused harm that would necessitate criminal responsibility for the perpetrator, nor has it created a threat of such harm.

It should be noted that Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code, under which Mzia Amaghlobeli is accused of committing the alleged crime, is quite problematic from a legal perspective. It has an indefinite content and provides investigative bodies with broad discretion for interpretation (it should also be noted that this article was added to the Criminal Code in July 2011, following the mass dispersal of protesters and subsequent repressions on May 26, 2011). This article establishes liability for assaulting a police officer or other representatives of the authorities, yet it fails to define the concept of assault, its intensity, or methods, thereby allowing any form of physical insult, violence, or resistance motivated by an occupational position to be categorized under this crime. The elements of the crime under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code are not clearly established in a foreseeable manner, which, in practice, opens the door to varying interpretations and potential misuse.

Therefore, under the conditions of a good-faith interpretation, the court could not have considered the act of slapping as an aggressive, premeditated, planned, and motivated action that would constitute a criminal offense — an assault on a police officer. [2]

The obligation to assess the reasonableness of qualifying the committed act as a crime under the law fell on the judge, in accordance with Article 5 of the European Convention, which requires the existence of reasonable doubt about the commission of a crime as a prerequisite for detention. [3] The European Court, including in cases involving journalists, specifies that when assessing the arbitrariness of detention, it must be determined whether there is a reasonable basis for qualifying the committed act as a criminal offense under national law. [4]

Moreover, as the European Court points out, when assessing reasonable doubt regarding the commission of a crime, it is important to consider, among other factors, the chilling effect caused by the detention of a person known for criticizing the authorities, which requires evaluating reasonable doubt against a higher standard than usual. [5] In cases involving the detention of journalists, the court specifically focuses on the "chilling effect" that may be created for the plaintiff and the broader media environment. [6]

Reversal of the Presumption of Innocence and Freedom

Nino Sakhelashvili disregarded the presumption of innocence freedom at every stage of her reasoning. She first incorrectly equates the act of slapping with the crime of assaulting a police officer, and then justifies the necessity of using imprisonment as a preventive measure by referring to Mzia Amaghlobeli’s "extremely negative" personality, unhealthy attitude, and unpredictable behavior. Nino Sakhelashvili also violates the presumption of innocence by citing as the sole additional circumstance justifying imprisonment the ongoing administrative offense case against Mzia Amaghlobeli, for which responsibility had not yet been established at the time.

Based on the presumption of innocence and the presumption of freedom, the European Court considers the prescription of imprisonment based on general and abstract arguments, without taking the opposing position into account, [7]to be inadmissible. Consequently, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. [8] In the context of arrests during anti-government protests, in cases against Armenia and Ukraine, the European Court evaluated the use of imprisonment solely based on the severity of the crime and the punishment, deeming it an arbitrary restriction of freedom. [9] Moreover, according to the European Court, the mere existence of relevant evidence regarding the risks of flight, evidence tampering, or the likelihood of committing a new crime cannot automatically justify the deprivation of liberty, especially if the evidence only indicates a slight increase in these risks. [10]

Furthermore, the European Court considers the risk of committing a new crime in relation to criminal responsibility only if it has been established by a legally binding decision. Moreover, according to the European Court’s standard, prior criminal responsibility does not automatically indicate a risk of reoffending, and the relevance of this factor must be critically assessed in each individual case. [11] It is worth noting that the Tbilisi Court of Appeals also adheres to this standard in its decision issued in 2017. [12]

In contrast to these standards, in her decision to impose imprisonment, Nino Sakhelashvili limited herself to describing the "slapping" episode and the circumstances surrounding it, which she considered sufficient grounds to draw conclusions about Mzia Amaghlobeli's personality and the potential risks she posed.

Risk of Flight

Nino Sakhelashvili's claim that the act of slapping a police officer publicly, shortly after being released, indicates a risk of flight is completely illogical. On the contrary, Mzia Amaghlobeli's decision to carry out such an act in the spotlight of police officers and the public at large, at the very least, suggests that she is not avoiding potential responsibility, more specifically, retribution by the state apparatus. This argument contradicts the judge's own expectation that the defendant will participate in protest gatherings and act similarly in interactions with police officers, thereby attempting to justify the risk of reoffending.

Risk of Committing a New Crime

As for the risk of committing a new crime, Judge Nino Sakhelashvili justifies this by pointing to the fact that an administrative offense case was already underway against Mzia Amaghlobeli before the slap occurred, which did not have a deterrent effect on her. However, at that time, Mzia Amaghlobeli had not been recognized as an offender, and therefore, based on the presumption of innocence, using this fact against her is inadmissible.

In contrast to the European Court standards discussed above, Nino Sakhelashvili did not examine all relevant circumstances. For example, she did not investigate the fact of improper treatment by the police during Mzia Amaghlobeli's administrative detention and in the subsequent period, which may have triggered the act of slapping by Amaghlobeli. As the court was aware, Mzia Amaghlobeli had been previously detained by the police for placing a protest sticker on the wall, along with other activists. The arrest of female activists on the spot was carried out in an aggressive and rough manner, although they were released by the police a few hours later. After their release, the female activists remained near the police station and demanded the release of other detainees, at which point the police unexpectedly began to forcibly remove and detain peaceful protesters who were standing near the station, including relatives of the editor of Batumelebi, Ether Turadze. According to eyewitnesses’ account, Mzia Amaghlobeli and Ether Turadze protested the police’s illegal and arbitrary behavior on the spot. At that time, the chief of police insulted Mzia Amaghlobeli by swearing and using obscene langague against her. Mzia Amaghlobeli's reaction was an immediate response to this verbal insult.

It is noteworthy that on December 16, 2024, during one of the protest rallies, the head of the Adjara Police Department, Grigol Beselia, and the chief of Batumi Police, Irakli Dgebuadze, threatened to arrest the editor of Batumelebi, Ether Turadze.

Additionally, it should be noted that according to the information provided by Mzia Amaglobeli to the Special Investigative Service, after her arrest on January 11, she became a victim of improper treatment by Irakli Dgebuadze, the chief of Batumi Police. Specifically, Mzia Amaglobeli states that Irakli Dgebuadze verbally insulted her, spat in her face, and denied her access to water and bathroom for a certain period of time. [13]

The alleged instance of improper treatment would undoubtedly attract the attention of a conscientious judge, especially because Mzia Amaglobeli's actions directly followed her release from detention— in other words, being under the supervision of law enforcement officers and subsequently subjected to degrading communication by a police officer. This circumstance was particularly significant considering that Mzia Amaglobeli had never previously exhibited similar behavior toward police officers, despite having extensive experience working in stressful conditions surrounded by law enforcement personnel. 

Risk of Evidence Destruction and Witness Tampering

The justification for the risk of evidence destruction and witness tampering based on the fact that Mzia Amaghlobeli personally knows the witnesses, especially under the conditions where the basis of the charge presented by the prosecution — the slap — is recorded in video footage, cannot withstand any criticism.

The "formal" citation of the standards violated by the decision

Finally, the "manipulation" of the law is most strikingly evident in Judge Nino Sakhelashvili's review of national and international standards. Specifically, the judge cites the minimal legal reasoning requirements of the Georgian Criminal Procedure Code and the European Court's principles, which she herself ignores just a few paragraphs later. Moreover, in some cases, the judge misrepresents the European Court's standards. For example, according to Judge Sakhelashvili, the European Court does not permit long detention solely based on the severity of the prescribed punishment for a crime. However, in reality, according to the European Court's standard, even short-term detention is not allowed based solely on the alleged nature of the crime and the circumstances of its commission. [14] The judge also references the European Court's similar standard regarding the risk of flight, which cannot be substantiated by merely pointing to the anticipated severity of the punishment, yet this is exactly how she justifies the necessity of detention for Mzia Amaghlobeli. [15] Nino Sakhelashvili makes formal references to the standards of the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the presumption of liberty, all of which she also violates when imposing detention on Mzia Amaghlobeli. The judge also discusses the standard of the Criminal Procedure Code, which concerns the justification for the insufficiency of less restrictive preventive measures, despite the fact that she does not mention any specific alternative measures, including the 100,000 GEL bail proposed by the defense, [16] much less justify its inadmissibility.

Summary

Judge Nino Sakhelashvili's ruling is entirely lacking in reasonableness, legal standards, and human rights principles; moreover, it is even contradictory.

Judge Sakhelashvili's ruling contains a series of significant legal flaws:

• The issue of legal qualification

The established factual circumstance—slapping—does not meet the elements of the crime of assaulting a police officer. Therefore, without additional evidence, there is no reasonable suspicion standard for the commission of this crime.

• The inconsistency in the reasoning of the ruling and the assessment of risks

The reasoning presented in the ruling regarding the risks of flight and committing a new crime is logically contradictory – the judge discusses the risks of fleeing and the risk of committing a new crime by attending protest rallies simultaneously.

• Violation of procedural guarantees

The judge did not take into account the presumption of innocence and the fundamental right to liberty. The use of detention as an extreme measure was based solely on the arguments presented by the prosecution.

• The judge ignored the arguments presented by the defense

The ruling does not adequately assess the defendant’s professional reputation, her long-standing journalistic career, or the alternative preventive measure proposed—bail.

• The impact on freedom of the press

The judge failed to consider the potential impact of the decision on the freedom of press and the "chilling effect" that the arrest of a journalist might have.

Such misuse of the judicial system aims to strengthen the repressive apparatus and weaken democratic institutions. This process is carried out through deliberate manipulation of the existing legal framework, ultimately serving to restrict democratic processes and solidify authoritarian rule.

Therefore, it is clear that the ruling does not meet the standards of a reasoned judicial decision and requires review and modification by a higher instance court.

It should also be noted that the case of Mzia Amaglobeli's imprisonment, which serves as an example of restricting media freedom and undermining judicial institutions, reflects the weakening of democratic institutions, the repressive limitation of political discourse, and the disregard for international human rights standards. This case is not only a legal issue but, from a political analysis perspective, suggests that the authorities are using mechanisms of power to stifle dissenting opinions and weaken civil society. The situation demonstrates that the judicial system is being used as an instrument against critical media. Furthermore, the decision made in Mzia Amaglobeli's case sets a precedent for the "chilling effect," which directly threatens media independence and hampers the safe functioning of the media in the country.

Share