The Social Justice Center assesses the legislative amendments adopted by "Georgian Dream" on December 13, 2024, which seriously undermine the state of freedom of assembly and expression, privacy, as well as personal freedom and security in the country. These changes aim to criminalize protests and uncontrollably expand police authority.

On December 13, "Georgian Dream" adopted a disturbing set of legislative amendments that disproportionately restrict fundamental human rights and freedoms in multiple areas. Some of these regulations will come into effect on February 1, 2025, while others will be enforced starting April 1, 2025. These amendments introduce new prohibitions and harsher sanctions, including restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. Furthermore, concerning searches and administrative detentions, an extreme regime of police arbitrariness has been established, granting law enforcement unchecked power to monitor and restrict citizens' freedoms.

These legislative amendments continue the repressive policy of punishing protests and infringing on citizens' freedoms, which "Georgian Dream" has been implementing against participants of organized, continuous, and large-scale protests since November 28. Such legislative changes clearly demonstrate Georgian Dream's overt intention to institutionalize authoritarian governance. Moreover, these amendments are not only unconstitutional but also contradict the principles of international human rights law.

• Fines Related to Organizing and Holding Assemblies

Under the amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 174¹, Part 4 is now formulated as follows:

"Violation of the norms stipulated by Articles 9, 11 (except for subparagraphs 'a¹' and 'a²' of paragraph 2 of Article 11), and 111 of the Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations will result in a fine of 5,000 GEL or administrative detention for up to 15 days. If the offender is an organizer, the fine will be 15,000 GEL or administrative detention for up to 15 days."

As a result, the monetary fine for violating various norms under the Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations has increased from 500 GEL to 5,000 GEL.[1] The alternative sanction—administrative detention for up to 15 days—has also been retained. The norms punishable by 5,000 GEL fines or 15 days of administrative detention include the following blanket prohibitions:

• Holding assemblies within a 20-meter radius of law enforcement buildings.
• Blocking entrances to buildings during an assembly or demonstration.
• Artificially blocking traffic lanes unless required by the number of assembly or demonstration participants.[2]

According to the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission's guidelines on the freedom of peaceful assembly, sanctions imposed for actions carried out during an assembly must meet the principle of proportionality. Disproportionately harsh sanctions may hinder the organization of assemblies, create a chilling effect, and discourage individuals from participating in assemblies. [3] Excessively severe sanctions can amount to an indirect violation of the freedom of assembly. The guidelines also state that violations related to the location, time, or route of assemblies should not be subject to excessive fines. [4]

Among the norms sanctioned by unreasonably increased fines are blanket prohibitions, which have already been problematic in legislation. According to the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission's assessments, blanket prohibitions involve the general ban on any assembly protected under the freedom of peaceful assembly in specific times, spaces, or locations[5]. Blanket prohibitions fail to consider that the freedom of assembly can be exercised in various ways and that each case is accompanied by specific circumstances requiring an individual approach and resolution. Norms establishing general restrictions on the time or place of assemblies, even if they later allow exceptions, disrupt the lawful balance between freedom and prohibition, turning prohibition into the rule and freedom into the exception. [6] Such prohibitions constitute an excessive interference with and violation of the freedom of peaceful assembly.[7]

The blanket prohibition on holding assemblies within a 20-meter radius of law enforcement buildings has been deemed an excessive and disproportionate interference with the freedom of assembly by the Venice Commission, emphasizing that such restrictions fail to account for the specific circumstances of each case. [8] Furthermore, the blanket prohibition on blocking building entrances during assemblies or demonstrations directly contradicts the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), under which the right to picketing falls within the scope of the freedom of assembly.[9]

• Tightened Administrative Liability for Inscriptions, Drawings, and Symbols

Article 150 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is formulated as follows:

1. Unauthorized creation of inscriptions, drawings, or symbols on building facades, shop windows, fences, columns, trees, or placing posters, slogans, or banners in undesignated areas, as well as leaving fences or buildings unpainted – shall result in a fine of 1,000 GEL.
2. Repeated commission of the same act – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
3. Unauthorized creation of inscriptions, drawings, or symbols on administrative building facades, as well as their adjacent areas, including pedestrian and vehicle pathways – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
4. Repeated violation of the act defined in Part 3 of this Article – shall result in a fine of 3,000 GEL, or, if the circumstances of the case and the offender's identity warrant, administrative detention for up to 15 days.
5. The act defined in Part 1 of this Article, if committed in a cultural heritage protection zone established by the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
6. Repeated commission of the act defined in Part 5 of this Article – shall result in a fine of 3,500 GEL.
7. Failure to remedy the violation defined in this Article within 10 days of being fined – shall result in a fine of 1,000 GEL.

Note: For the violation stipulated in Part 4 of this Article, the offender's right to carry a weapon shall be revoked for up to 3 years.

Article 150². Damage to the Appearance of Tbilisi Municipality

1. Unauthorized creation of inscriptions, drawings, or symbols on building facades, shop windows, fences, columns, trees, pedestrian walkways, or vehicle lanes, as well as placing posters, slogans, or banners in undesignated areas, and leaving fences or buildings unpainted – shall result in a fine of 1,000 GEL.
2. Repeated commission of the same act – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
3. Unauthorized creation of inscriptions, drawings, or symbols on the facades of administrative buildings, as well as in adjacent areas, including pedestrian and vehicle pathways – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
4. Repeated violation of the act defined in Part 3 of this Article – shall result in a fine of 3,000 GEL.
5. The act defined in Part 1 of this Article, if committed in a cultural heritage protection zone established by the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage – shall result in a fine of 2,000 GEL.
6. Repeated commission of the act defined in Part 5 of this Article – shall result in a fine of 3,500 GEL.
7. Failure to remedy the violation defined in this Article within 10 days of being fined – shall result in a fine of 1,000 GEL.

With these amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses, fines for unauthorized inscriptions, drawings, and symbols on building facades, shop windows, fences, and columns have been unreasonably increased. Previously, such actions were punishable by a fine of 50 GEL[10], but now they are subject to a fine of 1,000 GEL.[11]

Protest-related inscriptions or drawings on these surfaces often occur as part of peaceful assemblies. When considered alongside other sanctions targeting assembly rights, this excessive increase in fines should be viewed as part of a broader context of disproportionate penalties against freedom of expression and assembly.

• Prohibition of Masks for Assembly Participants

Under the amendments to the Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations, changes have been made to Article 11, Paragraph 2:

1. a) Subparagraph "a" is reformulated as follows:
   "Assembly or demonstration participants are prohibited from:
   a) Carrying firearms, explosives, flammable, radioactive substances, cold weapons, or pyrotechnics."
2. b) After Subparagraph "a," the following new subparagraphs "a¹" and "a²" are added:
   a¹) Carrying laser devices or bright light sources that could disrupt the operations of state institutions or interfere with technical equipment.
   a²) Covering their faces with masks or any other means.

The blanket prohibition on face coverings for assembly participants represents another problematic legislative measure aimed at restricting the freedom of peaceful assembly. [12] Non-compliance with this requirement is punishable by a 2,000 GEL fine. [13]

According to international human rights standards, any blanket or routine ban on face coverings constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to peaceful assembly[14]. The OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission highlight that face coverings during assemblies are a protected form of communication under the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.[15] Means of covering one’s face by participants of an assembly may be used to express specific views or religious beliefs, or to protect oneself from retaliation. Their restriction should only be possible in cases where there is clear evidence of imminent violence and/or a credible basis for the person's detention. Restrictions on face coverings should only apply where there is clear evidence of imminent violence or a credible basis for detention.[16]

The amendments also extend to health-related face coverings, such as protective masks or gas masks, which are often crucial for self-protection during protests where law enforcement uses excessive force. Furthermore, protesters frequently use face coverings to protect themselves from retaliation or repressive consequences following their participation in assemblies. At the same time, acts of violence against protesters by masked and unidentifiable individuals, who have credible connections to security structures, remain a significant concern. Under these conditions, the blanket prohibition on face coverings for assembly participants lacks any reasonable justification and fails to meet principles of necessity and proportionality.

• Prohibition of Laser Use

Another problematic amendment to the “Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations” is the prohibition for assembly or demonstration participants to possess laser devices or other bright light-emitting tools, whose use may “disrupt the operations of state authorities or interfere with the proper functioning of their technical equipment.” [17] This provision also has a general and blanket prohibition character. It does not consider that the use of laser devices could be part of freedom of expression – a form of communication to amplify protest messages.

• Arbitrary Expansion of Grounds for Search and Detention

With the legislative amendments adopted on December 13, 2024, police powers regarding administrative detention and personal searches have been expanded, granting them unrestricted mechanisms for arbitrary control and limitations on citizens' freedoms.

Article 244 of the Code of Administrative Offenses has been reformulated as follows: “A person may be detained, subjected to a personal search, their belongings may be searched, and their items and documents may be seized to ensure the offender's timely appearance in court, to prevent delays in proceedings, to prevent avoidance of participation in administrative proceedings, and to prevent repeated administrative offenses.”

These amendments are vague and ambiguous, granting law enforcement officers excessive discretionary powers to detain individuals without justification. Particularly concerning is the provision allowing detention to prevent repeated administrative offenses. The prevention of repeated violations is based solely on the subjective assessment of law enforcement officers, creating an arbitrary basis for detention.

Additionally, the regulation that allows personal searches, inspections of belongings, and confiscation of items and documents under similarly vague grounds is equally problematic and violates the right to privacy. Such intense measures must be proportionate and applied only in clearly defined and necessary circumstances. The amendments lack criteria to limit the use of these measures.

The unchecked powers granted by these changes increase the risk of abuse by law enforcement officers, which can be used specifically against peaceful protesters. Recent events show that courts routinely recognize detained individuals as offenders solely based on statements from Ministry of Internal Affairs representatives, without objective evidence evaluation. This indicates a lack of effective judicial oversight, which is essential for protecting and restoring citizens' rights.

The amendments to Article 244 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which permit detention, personal searches, inspections of belongings, and confiscation of items and documents, must be evaluated within the context of Georgia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The ICCPR, to which Georgia is a party, guarantees the protection of fundamental principles of liberty, security, and privacy. Article 9 of the ICCPR states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.”

The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment on Article 9 highlights that administrative detention inherently carries significant risks of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. In exceptional cases where immediate and unavoidable danger justifies detention, the burden of proof lies with the state to demonstrate that the person poses such a threat and that no alternative measures are sufficient. Detention must not exceed the time strictly necessary and must fully comply with Article 9 standards. Judicial review by an independent and impartial court must ensure the legality of detention. Detainees must have access to legal assistance, and the state is obligated to present evidence justifying detention.

The document also emphasizes that detention aimed at punishing individuals for exercising their rights to freedom of expression (Article 19) and freedom of assembly (Article 21) is inherently arbitrary.

As a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Georgia must adhere to its provisions and case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5(1) of the ECHR protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, requiring that detention must be lawful, non-arbitrary, and based on specific legal grounds. Article 8 protects the right to privacy, stipulating that any interference must be clearly defined in law, serve a legitimate aim, be necessary in a democratic society, and comply with the principle of proportionality.

In the case of Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, the ECtHR ruled that stop-and-search measures violate privacy rights when they involve stopping individuals in public spaces, encroaching on personal space, and creating risks of humiliation and intimidation.

While the state justified these measures on counterterrorism grounds, the court noted a lack of procedural guarantess, which increased the risk of abuse by law enforcement. Consequently, the court ruled a violation of Article 8, emphasizing that powers granted to police officers for stop-and-search operations without reasonable suspicion were arbitrary and unjustified.

Based on the ECtHR's interpretation, it is evident that the amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses directly contradict the requirements of the Convention and pose serious risks of arbitrary detention, disproportionate interference with privacy, and abuse of police powers.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia issued a statement regarding these changes, noting that "these changes comply with the standards of the European Court and the best practices of European countries." The Ministry's entire statement relies on the Grand Chamber's 2018 decision in the case "S., V. AND A. v. DENMARK" (nos. 35553/12, 36678/12, 36711/12).

It is noteworthy that the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not consider the context of the case and, by citing specific paragraphs, misleads the public about the actual essence of the case. Although the European Court did not find a violation of the relevant article of the Convention in this case, it thoroughly and critically assessed the factual circumstances of the case.

In this case, the applicants were detained under Article 5(3) of the Danish Police Act, which allows the police to detain a person to prevent a breach of public order or to avert any threat to individuals or public safety. According to domestic legislation, such detention should generally not exceed six hours and is justified only for the duration necessary to prevent the risk or threat (§138).

The European Court found that the applicants were detained because the police had sufficient grounds to believe that they were inciting other citizens to start a fight with Swedish football fans in central Copenhagen, creating a specific and imminent risk of public disorder.

The Court noted that there was no evidence in the case to suggest that the authorities acted in bad faith when applying the relevant legislation. On the contrary, according to the testimony of the Chief Inspector, the police's goal was to communicate with various groups to calm them down. After the initial fight (§153), the police decided to detain only those considered instigators. In this case, all three applicants were deemed instigators by the police.

The European Court found that the established facts and assessments in the case were neither unreasonable nor unfounded. The Court had no objective reasons or evidence to question or reject the national authorities' assessments (§155).

The Court concluded that the facts and assessments established by national courts allowed an objective observer to infer that, at the time of the applicants' detention, the police had grounds to believe that the applicants would incite a fight among football hooligans in central Copenhagen before or after the football match, potentially causing significant danger to peaceful football fans and third parties (§159).

The Court also considered the state's evidence sufficient to conclude that, had the applicants not been detained, they might have committed an offense (§161).

The Court further assessed whether the applicants' detention was necessary and whether the police could have used less restrictive measures. In this regard, the Court considered the circumstances of the case and the evidence showing that the police had indeed used less restrictive measures before detaining the applicants (e.g., positioning themselves to prevent Danish and Swedish football fans from encountering each other face-to-face, and then escorting the Danish football group to another street). The purpose of the applicants' detention was to calm the situation and prevent clashes between football fans. The Court found these actions effective, as they successfully prevented violence among football fans (§§165-166).

The European Court noted that all these elements indicated that the police detained only those individuals whom they assessed as posing a particular threat to public safety (§167). Consequently, the Strasbourg Court agreed with the national courts' conclusion that less restrictive measures could not have been considered sufficient to prevent further disorder in the given circumstances (§169).

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the national courts had struck a fair balance between the right to liberty and security (Article 5 of the Convention) and the prevention of the applicants organizing a hooligan fight (Paragraph 173).

It is therefore evident that the European Court thoroughly examined the individual circumstances of the case, the evidence, and the assessments made by domestic courts, and, based on this, did not find a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. Generalizing the outcome established by the European Court in this case and linking it to the proposed legislative changes is inadmissible and unfounded.

Therefore, the amendments made to Georgia's Code of Administrative Offenses pose a significant threat to fundamental human rights and contradict both the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and the principles of international law, which Georgia is internationally obligated to uphold.

The law's vague and undefined provisions fail to ensure procedural safeguards and do not establish clear control mechanisms, which will ultimately lead to arbitrary detentions of citizens and further violations of their rights. The amendments grant law enforcement agencies unlimited discretionary powers, increasing the risk of arbitrary restrictions on rights, especially during the exercise of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Particularly alarming is the fact that law enforcement officers have been granted the authority to act based on the motive of preventing repeated administrative offenses, which depends solely on their subjective assessment and creates a foundation for arbitrariness.

Conclusion

It is evident that the amendments, hastily adopted by the Georgian Dream party, do not align with constitutional principles and represent a significant deviation from international human rights standards.

It is essential to evaluate the above-mentioned legislative changes against the backdrop of the dire context in the country:

• Since November 28, law enforcement has unlawfully detained around 500 people. The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights has also called on the state to release unlawfully detained individuals.
• Participants in peaceful protests are being detained not directly during the protests but on streets and near their homes.
• Detainees are subjected to torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment, with the majority of them being physically assaulted.
• The inability to identify masked law enforcement officers fosters systemic impunity by the authorities.
• The right to a fair trial has been abolished for detained and imprisoned individuals. This is confirmed by significant procedural violations during hearings and the interim and final results of cases of individuals detained through administrative or criminal procedures. The existing judicial system fails to protect citizens' rights from police arbitrariness and repression. To date, in cases involving approximately 500 detained protesters, not a single administrative proceeding has been terminated by the courts, indicating a lack of judicial oversight.

Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that after illegal dispersals of assemblies, excessive police force against participants, brutal violence, including torture and inhumane treatment, and mass detentions, Georgian Dream has pursued legislative amendments that expand police authority and grant unlimited powers to interfere with citizens' freedom of assembly, expression, and privacy. This represents an attempt to entrench a police regime, placing Georgia among authoritarian regimes where basic civil and political rights are restricted at the legislative level and public protest is criminalized.

Particularly concerning is that these legislative changes are being implemented by Georgian Dream amidst a political crisis, where the legitimacy of the 2024 elections remains disputed both internationally and domestically, and the parliament consists of a single-party composition. This reality resembles the usurpation of legislative power and the abuse of political power for the purpose of punishing and controlling citizens.

In 2024, the consolidation of power by Georgian Dream has gone beyond capturing, subjugating, and controlling institutions and has now extended to infiltrating autonomous social spaces and encroaching on citizens' private freedoms and autonomy. This trend further strengthens the regime's authoritarian tendencies and makes it even more repressive, demanding strict assessment and response from the international community, including international human rights organizations.

The Social Justice Center will submit reports on these legislative amendments to various international organizations, including the Venice Commission and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The organization also plans to use legal mechanisms against repressive and authoritarian legislation.

Share