The Social Justice Center expresses serious concern regarding the ongoing pattern of convictions targeting opposition politicians and believes that the imposition of prison sentences on political leaders serves the purpose of eradicating opposition forces and silencing dissent, marking a troubling advance toward authoritarian rule.

On June 23, 2025, three political leaders were sentenced to prison for failing to appear before the temporary investigative commission established by the Parliament of Georgia. Judge Jvabe Nachkebia sentenced Zurab Japaridze, leader of the political party "Girchi More Freedom," to 7 months in prison. On the same day, Judge Zviad Sharadze delivered a verdict in the criminal case against Mamuka Khazaradze and Badri Japaridze, leaders of the political party "Lelo," sentencing both politicians to 8 months of imprisonment. On June 24, 2025, Giorgi Vashadze, leader of the political party "Strategy Aghmashenebeli," was also sentenced to 7 months in prison by Judge Nino Galustashvili. Criminal proceedings are also underway against politicians Nika Melia, Nika Gvaramia, and Irakli Okruashvili. Verdicts in these cases are expected in the coming days, these cases are also likely to result in prison sentences.

In each of the above cases, the Prosecutor’s Office has brought charges against the politicians for failing to appear before a Parliamentary Commission initiated by Georgian Dream to examine the actions of the former government that was in power between 2003–2012. We assert that non-appearance before a temporary Investigative Commission of Parliament does not amount to a criminal offense but rather constitutes an administrative violation. Imprisoning political leaders on these grounds is therefore illegal and represents an act of political arbitrariness.

The Social Justice Center finds the legislative framework governing non-appearance before Parliamentary Commission to be contradictory and unpredictable, undermining core principles of criminal justice. Specifically, Article 349 of Georgia’s Criminal Code and Article 173³ of the Code of Administrative Offenses both address the failure to comply with the legal demands of a temporary parliamentary investigative commission, yet they are virtually identical in essence. This legal overlap means that the same action can be prosecuted as both a criminal and an administrative offense, leaving no objective basis to foresee the legal consequences. This lack of clarity renders the provision unconstitutional.
We therefore believe that the criminal investigations launched against politicians under this provision are not driven by a legitimate public interest, but rather aim to suppress their political engagement.

Furthermore, sentencing the politicians the harshest punitive measure, imprisonment, is unjustified. The judge could have opted for a less restrictive measure, such as a fine, since Article 349 of the Criminal Code allows for either a fine or imprisonment of up to one year.
Furthermore, under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code, a more severe punishment may only be imposed if a lesser sanction fails to meet the sentencing objectives.

At the same time, according to paragraph 3 of the same article, when determining the sentence, the judge must consider the motive and purpose of the offense, the nature and degree of the violation, as well as the manner, means, and detrimental consequences of the act. The sentencing must also take into account the offender’s background and other personal characteristics. In this case, the refusal of the politicians to appear before the investigative commission was an expression of their political stance, and it is irrelevant to discuss its criminal-legal significance. It is also evident that their actions did not cause any harm, and there is no justification for what unlawful consequences, if any, resulted from their conduct. All of the individuals involved have been active in Georgian politics for decades and have held high-level state and political positions at various times. Consequently, the decision to administer the most severe form of punishment is indicative of an unjustifiably repressive stance toward them.

Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights is in direct opposition to the intent and essence of the ongoing political repression. It is clear that the application of these norms does not serve the purposes of justice, but rather the exclusion, intimidation, and isolation of opposition political actors from the political process, despite the fact that the investigations and punishments are formally founded on legal grounds. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently maintained that states are prohibited from employing legal mechanisms to eradicate political pluralism. Regrettably, this practice has become systemic in our country.

The comprehensive examination of the ongoing criminal cases against politicians demonstrates that all branches of state institutions (the judiciary, the prosecutor's office, and the police) are actively engaged in the consolidation of authoritarian power. These institutions operate under narrow party and political interests and have lost their institutional independence and political neutrality. The political misuse of the justice system is deeply troubling and reflects a severe case of state capture, where the judiciary no longer functions as a democratic power for checks and balances.

This new wave of political repression coincides with a profound restructuring of Georgia’s political system, as the authorities seek to completely purge the political space of organized opposition. The mass arrests of opposition leaders should be understood as part of a broader process that includes repression of civil society, aggressive actions against independent media, systematic violations of freedom of speech and expression, manipulation of the electoral system, and more.

It is evident that "Georgian Dream" is deliberately destroying the public political space and its opponents, thereby effectively eliminating the environment for political competition in Georgia and guiding the country toward complete authoritarianism. Instead of easing and normalizing the current crisis, “Georgian Dream” has embarked on an aggressive path of power consolidation that contradicts the sovereign agreement enshrined in the Constitution regarding building a democratic society guided by the rule-of-law principles, and is irreversibly deepening the country’s foreign political isolation.

From our standpoint, this is no longer solely a matter of individual politicians, rather a matter of democratic statehood. In a scenario in which the ruling political power acquires unrestricted control over people, resources, geopolitics, and the future, the abolition of political pluralism and competition renders the protection of fundamental rights and the safety of individuals practically impossible.

Share