The Social Justice Center Responds to the pre-trial detention of Zurab Girchi  Japaridze and Considers Both the use of the preventive measure and the criminal charges in the case to be unfounded and politically motivated.

Today, a court hearing was held at the Tbilisi City Court for Zurab Girchi Japaridze, one of the leaders of the Coalition for Change. Judge Irakli Shvangiradze granted the prosecutor's motion and imposed pre-trial detention on Japaridze. It is worth noting that Judge Shvangiradze's name also appears in cases involving prisoners of conscience—he previously ordered the pre-trial detention of 11 demonstrators arrested on charges of group violence during pro-European protests.[1] Shvangiradze was appointed as a judge in December 2024.

Zurab Girchi Japaridze was summoned to the temporary investigative commission on the activities of the United National Movement on April 4. However, due to his non-recognition of the legitimacy of the one-party parliament and the commission it created, he did not appear for questioning. As a result of his non-appearance, the Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation under Article 349 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (failure to comply with the lawful request of a temporary investigative commission of the Parliament of Georgia).

The commission investigating the activities of the former government (2003–2012) was established by the ruling Georgian Dream party in February of this year.  The mandatory opposition quota in the commission was formally filled by MPs who had ostensibly left the Georgian Dream party, which from the outset cast serious doubt on the legitimacy and constitutionality of the commission.[2]  Given that Georgian Dream had campaigned on a promise to prosecute the United National Movement, it was clear from the beginning that the commission would serve as a mechanism for punishing opposition party members and conducting political retribution.

On April 16, Tbilisi City Court Judge Nana Shamatava imposed bail of 20,000 GEL as a preventive measure against Zurab Girchi Japaridze, granting him a one-month deadline for payment. At the hearing, the prosecution argued that Japaridze was not a law-abiding citizen, did not recognize the parliament or the government, and posed a risk of absconding or committing a new offense, thereby justifying the prescription of detention as a preventive measure.[3]

It is unequivocal that the imposition of pre-trial detention is both unfounded and unjustified—first and foremost because failing to appear before a temporary investigative commission does not constitute a criminal offense.[4] Article 349 of the Criminal Code, under which Japaridze and other opposition party representatives are being investigated, suffers from essential problems of foreseeability and is therefore unconstitutional. The definition of the offense under this article is identical to the definition of an administrative offense under Article 173³ of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In both cases, the offense consists of failing to comply with the lawful request of a commission. The name of the article, the protected legal interest, and the goal—upholding the rule of governance—are also identical. Consequently, there is no objective criterion to distinguish the administrative offense from a criminal act. Under such circumstances of overlap, the application of criminal measures violates fundamental human rights and basic procedural guarantees.

Beyond the groundlessness of the charges, the decision to tighten the preventive measure is also unjustified. Although the Criminal Procedure Code allows for the imposition of a stricter preventive measure if the accused fails to pay bail,[5] in the case of Zurab Girchi Japaridze, the very grounds for applying any preventive measure in the first place are absent. According to procedural law, a preventive measure is used to ensure that the accused does not evade court appearances, to prevent the commission of further offenses, and to guarantee the enforcement of a future judgment. Each of these risks must be substantiated by specific circumstances. The fact that Zurab Girchi Japaridze does not recognize the legitimacy of the Parliament has no connection to the above-mentioned legal grounds and clearly reflects the political interest in the case. Had Japaridze intended to obstruct the investigation or avoid questioning, he would not have appeared before a magistrate judge at all.

During the court hearing, Zurab Japaridze spoke about circumstances that clearly indicated the absence of grounds for applying any preventive measure. He pointed out that the idea of a risk of influencing witnesses was illogical from the start, since he did not even know who the witnesses in the case were. As for the risk of absconding, he noted that after being charged by the Prosecutor’s Office, he had to leave the country twice, but returned both times and appeared before the court. In contrast, the prosecution failed to present any specific circumstances that would justify the imposition of a preventive measure—let alone the harshest one, pre-trial detention.

The hearing took place in a tense environment. Throughout the proceedings, citizens were gathered outside the courthouse. Police detained three individuals today, including activists Albi Kordzaia and Salome Kenchiashvili.

Despite the evident high public interest in the case several days prior to the hearing—as reflected in the number of police officers mobilized in front of the courthouse—the court failed to hold the hearing in a larger courtroom. This decision restricted public access to the trial. According to publicly available information, larger courtrooms were available at the Tbilisi City Court, yet the judge denied the motion to change venues [6] and conducted the hearing in a room designed to accommodate only 15–20 people.  As a result, hundreds of individuals—including media representatives and members of the Coalition for Change—remained outside the courthouse. Such technical restrictions on the publicity and accessibility of court proceedings are not isolated incidents but have become a recurring trend, particularly in cases involving individuals detained during protest actions. It is also highly problematic that certain media representatives were prevented from performing their professional duties within the courthouse and from filming the proceedings. Journalists were only allowed to enter the hearing without their camera operators, which constitutes an unlawful restriction.[7] Court bailiffs did not provide the media with any explanation as to why they were denied access to the proceedings.

It is evident that the ruling party, Georgian Dream, is using all mechanisms at its disposal to intimidate and persecute the opposition and, more broadly, all critically-minded individuals. In doing so, it has completely departed from legal and constitutional frameworks. The use of criminal law for political purposes is a clear sign of disregard for fundamental rights and an indication of entrenched authoritarian consolidation.

Share