Georgian Democracy Initiative, on the basis of the criteria of the definition of “political prisoner” determined by Resolution No. 1900 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of October 3, 2012, has studied the criminal cases of high-ranking officials of the former Government of Georgia, as well as those of the high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense.
A significant part of the election pledges of the Georgian Dream coalition concerned bringing high officials of the United National Movement to justice, which started as soon as the coalition came into power. Accordingly, questions about the alleged political motives of the prosecution arose both in Georgia’s strategic partners and a part of the public. The partner states of Georgia and international organizations have expressed their concern about the cases under investigation on a number of occasions.
It was with the aforementioned questions in mind that the lawyers of our organization studied the materials of the criminal cases against Mikheil Saakashvili, Giorgi Ugulava, Ivane Merabishvili, Bachana Akhalaia, Tengiz Gunava, the high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense, and other persons. The examination of the cases aimed not at establishing the guilt or innocence of the defendants, but at identifying the violations and problems revealed in the proceedings which give rise to doubts about the existence of political motivation.
The examination of the cases has revealed that the investigation is often motivated by one aim only – to achieve the use of imprisonment as a measure of restraint. The analysis makes it clear that the rulings on the use of pre-trial detention are unsubstantiated. Bachana Akhalaia, Giorgi Ugulava, Ivane Merabishvili, Mikheil Saakashvili, Aleksandre Ninua, and the high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense were sentenced to imprisonment without taking into account their personal situation and on the basis of general, abstract deliberation of the court. Such an approach violates the requirements established by the Georgian legislation and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Especially conspicuous is the violation of the presumption of freedom in the case of Giorgi Ugulava. The first charge against Giorgi Ugulava was brought on February 22, 2013. He has been indicted for seven “criminal” episodes in five criminal cases, though the court has not yet delivered a verdict on any of these cases. Interestingly, the pre-trial detention of Giorgi Ugulava was due to end on April 2, 2015, though the Tbilisi City Court, on the basis of a motion of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, issued a ruling on imposing a new term of imprisonment due to aggravation of the charges, which once again reinforced the doubts about politically motivated justice against him.
There are facts in the criminal cases of Bachana Akhalaia, Aleksandre Ninua, Giorgi Oniani, and the high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense that give rise to serious doubts that the proceedings are being protracted on purpose.
In a large part of the cases, there are various reports on pressure on witnesses and changing of testimonies. It is also noteworthy that a large part of the persons who had agreed to testify against the former high-ranking officials were completely exempted from criminal responsibility, while those who changed their testimonies in favor of the latter had their existing charges aggravated or an investigation was launched against them.
In the cases against Mikheil Saakashvili, the witnesses for the prosecution are his political opponents, Nino Burjanadze and Irakli Okruashvili. It should be noted that N. Burjanadze was first interrogated after the adoption of the resolution on the indictment of Saakashvili, whereas her testimony is the only evidence against Saakashvili at the disposal of the prosecution.
In the cases against Giorgi Ugulava and Mikheil Saakashvili, the investigation often relies on circumstantial testimonies that are used as the basis of indictment. It is noteworthy that with the decision of January 22, 2015, the Constitutional Court found it unconstitutional to bring charges against a person on the basis of a circumstantial testimony, on the one hand, and to deliver a verdict of guilty on the basis of a circumstantial testimony, on the other hand.
The resolution on indictment in the so-called “City Park case” contains an indication that a normative act issued by Ugulava was unlawful and did not conform to the Budget Code of Georgia, whereas the said Code was adopted after the issuance of the normative act, on December 28, 2009, which goes beyond all legal logic. The Prosecutor’s Office is, in fact, accusing a person for violating the requirements of a law that was adopted ten months after he had taken the said action.
The court verdict against Bachana Akhalaia in the case of the so-called “Navtlugi special operation” also talks about pressure on the defense witnesses on the part of the prosecution. The incident of the alleged kidnapping of Shalva Tatukhashvili is also related to this case.
When adjudicating the cases of Ivane Merabishvil, the Chairman of the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, Malkhaz Gurieli, issued an unlawful order on appointing himself as a member of the Investigation Panel, after which he reviewed and refused to grant the appellate complaint regarding the use of imprisonment as a measure of restraint against Ivane Merabishvili. At the same time, the alleged pressure on Ivane Merabishvili by the then Chief Prosecutor of Georgia, Otar Partskhaladze, and the fact when he was taken out of the prison unlawfully are yet to be investigated.
Selective approach is also observable in the part of cases against Giorgi Ugulava, Ivane Merabishvili, Bachana Akhalaia, and Giorgi Oniani where the Prosecutor’s Office has made decisions on refusal to launch criminal proceedings against the alleged real immediate executors, while the charges against them remain in force.
Numerous gross violations of the procedural legislation in relation to the aforementioned persons could have been assessed as a violation of rights only if it had not been for the political context related to each of the cases.
See the full version of the report in English
