The Social Justice Center has submitted an Amicus Curiae to the Batumi City Court regarding the criminal case of Mzia Amaghlobeli, founder and director of the media platforms “Batumelebi” and “Netgazeti”. This document seeks to assist the court in reaching a fair decision by offering objective, academic, and theoretical insights into the substantive legal issues of the case under consideration.

The document examines the practice of the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding the qualification under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code and explores its distinction from Article 126. Additionally, it addresses the principle of applying criminal justice mechanisms as a last resort and excluding criminal liability for actions of minor significance.

The Amicus Curiae highlights that Mzia Amaghlobeli’s actions toward the head of Batumi Police, Irakli Dgebuadze, must be evaluated within the broader factual context that preceded them. According to publicly available information, before the incident, the police arbitrarily detained participants of a peaceful gathering, including Amaghlobeli, who was later released. Subsequently, police officers aggressively and arbitrarily detained young people known to Amaghlobeli at the protest site, which was accompanied by physical pressure, trampling, and tension toward the participants of the gathering. The court must assess whether Amaghlobeli’s actions were provoked by the police’s unlawful conduct. Furthermore, her spontaneous reaction to the illegality she witnessed and experienced at the hands of police, in turn, excludes the intention to attack a police officer.

According to the Supreme Court of Georgia, for an act to be qualified under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code, it must involve: 1. attack, as an especially violent and aggressive act; 2. direct intent; 3. a purpose related to the performance of a police officer’s official duties. In the case of Mzia Amaghlobeli, it is clear that none of these qualifying elements are present.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has classified the following actions not as an attack on a police officer but as violence under Article 126 of the Criminal Code:

• A group beating of police officers, including a female police officer,[1] resulted in a slap to the face, a kick to the thigh, as well as injuries to the right knee and left hand, causing the victim severe physical pain and minor injuries to the heath;[2]
• A strong punch to the eye area, accompanied by swearing, caused the victim to lose control, hit his face against a fence, and suffer physical pain;[3]
• A hit to the head, which caused the victim physical pain;[4]
• Aggressive behavior, verbal abuse, a strong hit to the nose with a hand, as well as multiple hits with a truncheon to the head and body of the victim police officer while attempting to escape, and an attempt to seize the police officer’s service weapon, during which the weapon accidentally discharged;[5]
• Hitting the body and face with hands and feet, along with verbal abuse and other aggressive actions, resulting in severe physical pain for the victim;[6]
• Swearing and punching the victim in the face and head, causing physical pain;[7]
• A hit to the face resulted in physical pain and minor injuries to the health of the police officer. According to the medical report, he complained of a headache, and a burning sensation in the area of his face and lips. There were traces of fingers in the form of redness on the left cheek, a small swelling on the lower lip, and small cracks on the inner surface.[8]

Accordingly, it is clear that the qualification of Mzia Amaghlobeli’s actions as an attack on a police officer appears to be unfounded.

The Amicus Curiae also addresses the qualification under Article 126 of the Criminal Code and draws the court’s attention to the fact that, in the case of Mzia Amaghlobeli, the key element of this crime - the perception of severe physical pain by the victim - is absent. Even a review of the video footage alone is sufficient to demonstrate that Mzia Amaghlobeli’s swung hand could not have caused such pain to a young, physically stronger man.

Accordingly, Mzia Amaghlobeli’s actions were not of sufficient intensity to warrant criminal punishment, especially considering that criminal justice mechanisms should be used only as a last resort. Article 7 of the current Criminal Code explicitly states that criminal liability should not be imposed for actions of minor importance.

In our assessment, Mzia Amaghlobeli’s actions had minimal impact on the police officer, and the clear power imbalance between the police officer and the woman further excludes the appropriateness of punishing her through such a mechanism. Therefore, Article 7 of the Criminal Code should apply in this case.

Our observations indicate that Mzia Amaghlobeli’s case presents significant procedural challenges. During the pre-trial hearing, the court ruled that nearly all of the evidence of the defense was inadmissible, while all of the prosecution’s motions were deemed admissible. This decision greatly complicates a thorough assessment of the material circumstances of the case.

The issue of conflict of interest is also particularly concerning: the head of the Batumi Police Department is considered the injured party, while, at the initial stage of the investigation, the case was handled by the Investigative Unit of the Adjara Police Department. The head of this Unit, who participated in the detention of Mzia Amaghlobeli, is the key witness, and all other witnesses are police officers from the Adjara Police Department. Furthermore, all investigative agencies fall under the authority of Grigol Beselia, the Director of the Adjara Police Department, who himself appears in the case. Notably, the defense has called for his criminal liability due to the illegal detention of Mzia Amaghlobeli. Unfortunately, the Prosecutor General’s Office did not grant this request and transferred the investigation to the Guria Police Department. However, the case remains under the supervision of the Adjara Prosecutor’s Office, which has been overseeing the process from the outset and maintains close operational ties with both the Adjara and Batumi Police Departments, as well as all their units. As a result, concerns regarding the objectivity and impartiality of the case remain significant.

At the same time, the Social Justice Center makes an important appeal to the court. The composition of the crime outlined in Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code is not clearly defined in a foreseeable manner, which, in practice, allows for inconsistent interpretations and unfair application. Therefore, the Social Justice Center has recommended that the court exercise its constitutional referral authority, as provided by Georgian legislation, and request the Constitutional Court to clarify the normative content of the article.

The Social Justice Center urges the court to consider the chilling effect this case may have on the media environment and journalists. The court needs to take into account the incident that occurred on December 16, 2024, when Grigol Beselia, the Director of the Adjara Police Department, and Irakli Dgebuadze, the Chief of Batumi Police, threatened to arrest the editor of “Batumelebi”, Eter Turadze, during a protest rally. This concern is further compounded by the fact that, after the arrest of Mzia Amaghlobeli, Irakli Dgebuadze subjected her to severe degrading treatment at the police station, which the defense is also demanding be investigated. These facts raise significant doubts about the potential interest of the local police in persecuting the director of “Batumelebi”.

Given the high public interest in this case, the court’s fair and reasoned deliberations can play a crucial role in achieving justice for Mzia Amaghlobeli. This includes protecting the rights of the director of a prominent media platform and a respected journalist, as well as reinforcing consistent practices in handling similar crimes.

Share