- The Ministry of Finance provides the definition of ‘grant’ in accordance with best international practices and in consultation with CSOs, and does not treat grant projects or other non-profit activities as economic activities;
- Law enforcement bodies carry out proper examination and transparent investigations and apply the relevant sanctions in cases where police officers have abused their power in the policing of assemblies, while at the same time the political leadership does not provide any assessment of police actions before the results of official investigations are known;
- The National Assembly establishes mechanisms for mandatory public consultation on draft legislation produced by National Assembly members and for CSO engagement in both the early stages of legal drafts and during the final revision of the drafts received by the government (including through engagement at the level of Standing Committees);
- The National Assembly makes the necessary legislative changes to expand the possibilities for CSOs to represent public interests in the courts on cases within the scope of their goals and ensures that they can use this right in practice through alleviating any excessive requirements and related bureaucratic procedures;
- The government ensures that the legislative framework on surveillance activities is developed in accordance with international law and in consultation with CSOs, while its provisions are followed in practice, with transparent and accountable measures in case of non-compliance;
- The state provides adequate protections for CSOs, including through: adopting anti-discrimination laws and establishing an anti-discrimination body, taking legislative and practical measures against SLAPPs in line with the Council of Europe’s recommendations adopted in April 2024; issuing public statements in support of CSOs that are targeted by third parties, and ensuring proper investigation of attacks against CSOs and activists within a reasonable timeframe; and
- The government (particularly the Ministry of Finance) and the National Assembly create a more favourable tax environment to improve CSOs’ possibilities to seek funding and in-kind support from diverse sources, including individual and business donations and direct entrepreneurship activities.
5.7
Law
Tooltip info. Law.
4.7
Practice
Tooltip info. Practice.
5.2
Overall
Tooltip info. Compared to previous year.
Freedom of peaceful assembly is protected by Armenian legislation in line with international standards. Everyone has the right to organise and/or participate in a peaceful assembly, and this right shall be adequately protected wherever the assembly takes place. The assembly organiser is required to send a notification to the local municipality if the assembly is planned to take place in an outdoor public space and the participation of over 100 people is expected. Spontaneous and urgent assemblies do not require prior notification. Simultaneous assemblies and counter assemblies are not restricted. The law obliges the police to facilitate an assembly when it is peaceful, regardless of the fulfilment of the notification requirement. The police can stop an assembly only in cases where there is no other way to prevent a disproportionate restriction on others’ fundamental rights or public interests.
In 2024, a significant legislative development in this area was the National Assembly’s adoption of a new law on Police Guards and respective amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly. This legislative package is expected to contribute to the improvement of the rights of assembly participants through mandating regular training of police guards, specifying the conditions of using special means, and providing shortened terms of assembly notification, among other provisions.
However, in practice, the state has failed to guarantee and protect freedom of assembly in numerous instances. Incidents of unlawful detention of citizens, brutal treatment and the alleged illegal use of stun grenades have been reported, while no meaningful sanctions were applied to police officers who violated the law. At the same time, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has refused to provide transparent information on the use of special means during an assembly that took place in June and classified information related to the availability, quantity and types of special means available to police.
As a result of the unprecedented violations of the law and police violence during assemblies in May-June 2024, both the practice score and the overall score in this area have deteriorated from 2023 (from 4.9 in 2023 to 4.7 in 2024 and from 5.3 in 2023 to 5.2 in 2024, respectively). The recommendations of the previous CSO Meter reports on excluding any unlawful or inconsistent approach in policing assemblies and calling the offending police officers to accountability have not been addressed and are therefore still relevant. In addition, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is recommended not to use special means during the protests without sufficient grounds based on the necessity and proportionality and declassify the data on the types and use of special means
Everyone can freely enjoy the right to freedom of peaceful assembly by organising and participating in assemblies.
According to the law, anyone has a right to organise and/or participate in a peaceful assembly, and these shall be adequately protected wherever they take place. Freedom of assembly is protected by the Constitution and may be restricted only by law for the protection of state security, the prevention of crime, the protection of public order, the protection of health, morals or the fundamental rights of others. The Law on Freedom of Assembly defines assembly as ‘a peaceful, unarmed, temporary presence of two or more persons at a place with the intention of forming or expressing a common opinion on matters of public interest.’ Limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly are set for certain positions such as judges, prosecutors, investigators, as well as people serving in the armed forces, national security, police and other military bodies: they should observe political neutrality and not participate in their uniforms as assembly participants. Spontaneous and urgent assemblies do not require prior notification. Simultaneous assemblies and counter assemblies are not restricted. In general, the legislation on peaceful assembly is compatible with international standards. There are no regulations on digital or online assemblies as a type of peaceful assembly. While this means that there are currently no restrictions imposed on these types of assembles, at the same time, there are no measures ensured for protecting participation in such assemblies.
There were numerous instances of prosecution of assembly participants and the application of disproportionate force by police in 2024. Throughout the year, a number of assemblies were held, mostly with the aim of opposing political decisions and calling for the prime minister’s resignation. The movement Tavush for the Homeland was formed in response to increasing security concerns related to the border delimitation process with Azerbaijan. A number of rallies and demonstrations were organised and took place in the border settlements of Tavush province and in Yerevan. Though largely peaceful, some protestors displayed violent behaviour. However, the police response was at times disproportionate and brutal. For instance, on some occasions, police officers detained large numbers of citizens and used disproportionate violence against some of the organisers, as well as against some peaceful protesters and journalists. In particular, violent actions were observed during the protests on 27 May 2024, with a total of 285 persons detained and later released. The violent treatment of assembly participants by police reached its peak on 12 June, when thousands of protesters gathered in front of the National Assembly building in Yerevan. After protesters started pushing the police chain and clashes took place between the police officers and protesters, the police used stun grenades, which resulted in injuries to both the protesters and media representatives. According to the monitoring data, 101 people suffered injuries, 57 of them from grenade fragments. A group of CSOs and Armenian human rights activists condemned the police for the use of physical force and violence against the participants, both at the assembly site and during their detention, and qualified the use of stun grenades as unnecessary and disproportionate, and therefore illegal. Another group of CSOs also criticised the police for not demonstrating proper professional skills and applying disproportionate force, using stun grenades in excessive quantity and in violation of regulations, while acknowledging that the movement leaders’ and opposition’s rhetoric throughout the preceding three months had 'incited extreme and violent actions’. Both of these groups demanded that criminal proceedings be brought on the use of police special means and extreme force against assembly participants and media representatives and that an independent and effective investigation be conducted.
Criminal proceedings have been commenced against participants of the 12 June assembly, including against 14 persons on the grounds of hooliganism and one person on the grounds of participating in ‘mass disorder’. However, no police officer is facing criminal charges as of November 2024.
The state facilitates and protects peaceful assemblies.
The notification process for holding a peaceful assembly prescribed by law is generally in line with international standards. For public assemblies taking place outdoors, the law requires that written notification be sent to the head of the LSGB in which the assembly is planned to be held, no sooner than thirty and no later than seven days prior to the assembly date. No notification is required for assemblies with one hundred or less participants, for urgent and spontaneous assemblies, or for online assemblies and assemblies taking place indoors or on private land. The aim of the notification requirement is to ensure that the state can take necessary measures for securing the natural and peaceful course of the assembly, as well as take necessary measures for protecting the constitutional rights of other persons and the interests of the public.
The notifications are considered within a maximum of five days from the moment of their registration and then sent to the police for an opinion. In cases where there is the intention to impose restrictions or to ban the assembly, the LSGB is obliged to organise hearings and notify the assembly organisers accordingly. The restrictions can be set in cases in which the time, place or method of the intended assembly may directly and disproportionately affect the fundamental rights or interests of other persons. In such cases, the authority may suggest that the organiser change the place, time, or method of the assembly. An assembly is banned if its purpose is a violent overthrow of the constitutional order, the incitement of national, racial, or religious hatred, or preaching violence or war. If no such decisions are taken within the set timeframe, the notification is considered to be accepted. The community head's decision on holding assemblies can be appealed in the administrative court at least seven days before the scheduled day of the assembly. The appeal should be reviewed within two calendar days.
In practice, some of the assemblies in 2024 were held without notification and organised as urgent or spontaneous assemblies. The actions of the troops policing the assemblies and other police groups (e.g. special mobile battalions) were sometimes inconsistent. For example, at one of the rallies, participants blocked traffic and the police representatives present at the rally site provided the protesters with time to clear the road. However, at the same time the special purpose battalion immediately began to apprehend both rally participants and ordinary pedestrians, including after they had left the roads. In other cases of rallies, the police apprehended peaceful protesters without any legal grounds, and/or held the apprehended persons in police departments for longer than is permitted by law.
In October 2024, the National Assembly adopted a legislative package on the Law on Police Guards, amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly and other related laws. The amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly, among other items, provide shorter terms for advance notification (no later than 72 hours prior to the assembly date instead of seven days) and dismiss the maximum duration for urgent and spontaneous assemblies, set as six hours in the original law. The Law on Police Guards, adopted in the same package (planned to enter into force in November 2025), defines the policing of assemblies and states that ensuring protection of the rights and legitimate interests of assembly participants is one of the main functions of the police guards. Further, the law obliges police guards to undergo capacity building and regular training in the respective areas of their activities, including policing assemblies. The Law also outlines the specific conditions under which physical force or special means can be used. Thus, the new Law and amendments will facilitate organising assemblies with notification and spontaneous or urgent assemblies, providing preconditions for mitigating the risk of inconsistent and disproportionate police actions.
There were no documented cases of limiting access to the internet, or the use of any other methods of restricting assembly organisers from distributing information about upcoming assemblies.
The state does not impose unnecessary burdens on organisers or participants in peaceful assemblies.
According to the law, the organiser of an assembly shall take necessary measures to ensure the normal course of the assembly through calling on assembly participants to refrain from violence, preventing violent actions, and separating peaceful participants from participants who want to use force. The organiser should also inform the participants about police requirements, for example in cases where the police require to clear the streets or to stop the assembly. The police are obliged to be present at an assembly as soon as they are informed about it and to remove persons who grossly violate the peaceful and normal course of the assembly from the assembly venue. There are no fees required from the state for holding an assembly or any other associated costs. The law does not hold assembly organisers liable for the actions of assembly participants.
No restrictions on communicating that an assembly is taking place (including through online means) or on the use of equipment during assemblies were reported by assembly organisers.
Law enforcement supports peaceful assemblies and is accountable for the actions of its representatives.
The law sets out clear regulations on the use of force, special means, and surveillance devices by the police. However, there are no specific regulations on the policing of assemblies. In cases where the notification requirement has not been fulfilled, the police shall announce by loudspeaker that the assembly is unlawful and that the participants may be held liable. In any case, the law obliges the police to facilitate an assembly when it is peaceful regardless of the fulfilment of the notification requirement. The police can stop an assembly only in cases where there is no other way to prevent a disproportionate restriction on others’ fundamental rights or public interests. To stop the assembly, the police are obliged to communicate the request to the organiser or, if there is no organiser (or the organiser does not execute this request), announce the request to stop the assembly at least twice by loudspeaker, setting a reasonable time and warning about the possibility of ‘special means’ being applied (such as tear gas, water cannon, stun grenades, etc.) if participants do not adhere to the request. In cases of mass disorder, the police are authorised to take immediate measures without prior notification.
The Law on Police sets out a ban on the use of special means by police to disperse peaceful assemblies which are held in violation of public order but without the use of weapons and on the inclusion in police armour of such types of special means that can cause severe damage to health or pose an unsubstantiated source of risk. The Law obliges police officers to wear a prescribed uniform with visible signs when carrying out duties related to the maintenance of public order. The Law also sets out regulations on the use of surveillance technologies to ensure proper notification on the use of such equipment and the protection of personal information. Warning signs must be visible about stationary video and photo equipment placed in public places. When using mobile equipment, police officers must transport it in a visible manner, except in cases when surveillance is being conducted for special investigative purposes. The resulting videos or photos may be used for specific narrow purposes, without disclosing or only minimally identifying other persons’ identities. Use of videos or photos by the police for other purposes (including publishing) is prohibited. The list of officers having access to the archive and the procedure for using the data is defined by the Order from the Chief of Police.
The lack of transparent investigations and sanctions applied against police officers who have acted unlawfully during assemblies is still a prominent issue. According to data provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as of September 2024, the Ministry has launched 24 internal investigations and brought 19 criminal proceedings in 2024 on the grounds of police violations during assemblies. However, the internal investigations were either terminated or completed without any consequences, thus no administrative sanctions were applied, while the criminal proceedings are still in process. Experts believe that lack of accountability for police violations in recent years has provided enabling grounds for the unprecedented violations of law and police violence which occurred during the assemblies of May-June 2024. According to reports on these assemblies, many participants were beaten by police officers both during their detention and then also at police stations and several protesters suffered injuries requiring medical assistance. Incidents of physical violence against journalists also took place during the rallies. A notable case of police violence in 2024 was the beating of an opposition member of parliament by a group of police officers. While this incident was filmed and published, only one police officer has been sanctioned with dismissal.
Despite the violent actions and excessive use of special means on 12 June, both the Prime Minister and the President of the National Assembly have expressed positive assessments of police actions, which, according to human rights CSOs, not only serves as direct instruction to police officers to continue this misconduct, but also affects the independence and impartiality of investigations into police actions. As of November 2024, no police officer has been charged for the violent clashes and the use of stun grenades on 12 June. A CSO enquiry to the Ministry of Internal Affairs about the type of grenade used during the 12 June assembly has been rejected on the grounds of the case being in a pre-trial investigation process. However, experts find the rejection unjustified as this information (available in police protocols) should be open to the public and is of high public importance. According to investigative media reports, the police used a ‘Zarya 3’ stun grenade which, at the time the protest took place, was not covered in the regulation on the allowed types and standards of grenades. Two weeks after the protest, however, the Minister of Health amended the order ‘On setting the permissible standards for the use of special means against a person’ to include this type of grenade in the appendices. Later in July 2024, the Minister of Internal Affairs amended the order defining the list of information classified as secret, adding to it information on the types and quantity of special means available to the police.
Overall, though police accountability has been a long-standing issue in Armenia, the deterioration seen in practice in 2024 is linked to the lack of transparency on the usage of special means, as well as the lack of prompt investigations against police officers in contrast to the ongoing court cases against protest participants. At the same time, a deterioration in this area in law has been seen due to the classification of information related to special means.
3.1
Law
Tooltip info. Law.
2.7
Practice
Tooltip info. Practice.
2.9
Overall
Tooltip info. Compared to previous year.
Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and other legislation. However, during the reporting period, the ruling party of Georgia initiated and adopted the Russian-style Law on Foreign Transparency of Foreign Influence (the so-called ‘Russian law’), which had far-reaching consequences for the protection of all rights in Georgia. During the protests against the new law, which took place primarily in April and May 2024, there were widespread violations of freedom of assembly and systematic violence by law enforcement officers. High-ranking political officials encouraged violence, while criminal and administrative legal mechanisms were instrumentalised to intimidate protest participants. Protesters, civil activists, journalists, politicians, and their families — including children and elderly relatives — were subjected to various forms of psychological and physical violence, as well as targeted intimidation. As a result, the overall score in this area has decreased from 4.5 in 2023 to 2.9 in 2024, with decreases in the scores for Legislation (from 5.2 in 2023 to 3.1 in 2024) and for Practice (from 3.8 in 2023 to 2.7 in 2024).
Everyone can freely enjoy the right to freedom of peaceful assembly by organising and participating in assemblies.
The Constitution of Georgia guarantees everyone’s right to peacefully assemble in public. The Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations, as well as other normative acts, also guarantees freedom of assembly. The Constitution protects both planned and spontaneous assemblies and demonstrations, and the law specifies that it protects assemblies both indoors and outdoors. There is also a restriction on demonstrating within a twenty-metre radius of certain government and military buildings, as well as railway stations, airports and ports. The law does not specifically regulate spontaneous assemblies, and, as a result, general procedural rules are applied, including prior notice to be given if an assembly is held on a public highway or hinders the movement of transport. Despite the recommendations made by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in 2009, amendments regarding the notification of spontaneous assemblies have not yet been introduced into the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations.
On 17 September 2024, the Georgian Parliament adopted the Law on Family Values and the Protection of Minors (and a related package of amendments) on its third reading. This law contradicts both national and international human rights standards, resulting in the unjustified restriction of fundamental rights, including freedom and assembly, as it bans any sort of manifestation that ‘popularises nontraditional relationships’. The legislative amendments include administrative and criminal sanctions which will effectively prohibit assemblies by LGBTQ+ individuals.
In practice, significant obstacles hinder the realisation of freedom of assembly in Georgia. These shortcomings were starkly evident during the mass protests against the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, during which the authorities dispersed entire gatherings in response to isolated incidents and repeatedly violated both Georgian law and Georgia’s international legal commitments on the use of active special means against peaceful demonstrators. These violations included deploying special means — such as water cannon, tear gas, and pepper spray — without prior warning, the targeted use of special means, the simultaneous use of multiple special means and obstructing demonstrators from leaving protest sites. Furthermore, the existence of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence poses a fundamental threat to civil society’s existence, creating a chilling effect on freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights.
Since 28 November 2024 (when the EU stated that it did not recognise the results of the Georgian parliamentary election), a series of alarming developments in Georgia have revealed a systematic effort to stifle civil engagement and the right of peaceful assembly. These include the widespread torture and inhumane treatment of demonstrators and media representatives, with the majority of detainees subjected to physical violence. Informal criminal groups have been permitted to attack demonstrators and media personnel, while media representatives have faced targeted harassment, leading to injuries and hospitalisations. Over 500 individuals have been unlawfully detained on administrative charges, prompting the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights to advocate for their release. Additionally, search and seizure operations have been conducted in private homes and offices, and criminal law mechanisms have been employed against demonstrators, resulting in the arrest of over 30 individuals. Public servants have also been subjected to physical threats and intimidation concerning their job security, as the government seeks to curtail their freedom of expression and compel their resignation.
The state facilitates and protects peaceful assemblies.
In general, prior notification is not required to hold an assembly. In exceptional cases, the law requires the submission of advance notice to the local government if an assembly is held on a public highway or hinders the movement of transport. Submitting the notice is free of charge. The local municipality must be notified five days in advance of the proposed assembly. The local self-government body is not authorised to issue or deny the right to hold an assembly without first receiving a notice. The law empowers the responsible persons to consider the feasibility of changing the location and time of the demonstration. The issue should be considered by the local self-government body within three days. Legislation does not specifically indicate the protection of the right to use any electronic means of communication to organise peaceful assemblies. However, the Constitution declares access to the internet as a fundamental right of Georgian citizens. The five days’ notice requirement does not apply to spontaneous assemblies, as notification is not feasible in such instances.
In practice, the state does not facilitate peaceful assemblies; instead, it actively tries to discourage individuals from protesting and organising rallies. During the anti-‘Russian law’ protests (April - May 2024), it was identified that, in some cases, specific individuals had physically abused opponents of the law, protest organisers and their family members, in a manner similar to so-called ‘Titushky’ raids (groups of government-affiliated enforcers, often in civilian clothing, who intimidate, assault, and suppress anti-government demonstrators using extra-legal violence, frequently operating with the tacit approval or cooperation of law enforcement). In addition to physical violence, numerous cases of intimidation and threats have been reported against demonstrators, civil society representatives, and activists critical of the ‘Russian law’. These include telephone threats, damage to private property, and other forms of state-organised persecution.
Another example of interference by law enforcement occurred during the protest by residents of Shukruti village (against the negative effects of mining on their homes and land) near the Parliament in Tbilisi, where activists were prevented by the police from setting up their tents. Despite unfavourable weather conditions, demonstrators were not allowed to pitch their tents, forcing them to continue their protest without shelter. The unjustified restriction of this right contradicts established rulings by both the Constitutional and general courts, which affirm that ‘the right to assembly and demonstration includes the right to choose the place, time, form, and content of the assembly, including the possibility of erecting temporary structures.’ Given that the protest was peaceful and the placement of tents did not obstruct roads, disrupt traffic, or cause any public disturbance, the blanket prohibition imposed by the police constituted a violation of the demonstrators’ freedom of assembly.
Since the start of widespread protests on 28 November, special forces have repeatedly used tear gas and water cannons without justification, despite the peaceful nature of the demonstrations and the unlawful nature of their dispersal. These measures are often deployed simultaneously, in a disproportionate manner, and in violation of safety protocols. Tear gas canisters are launched into densely packed crowds, heightening the risk of injury, with some thrown from the rooftops of nearby buildings. Cold-water cannons are disproportionately used in cold temperatures, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs continues to mix the water with chemical irritants, leading to severe health effects. Despite calls for transparency from GYLA, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has refused to disclose the chemicals used. Special forces also employ encirclement tactics, using force and arrests from multiple directions. These tactics, combined with other special means, violate the right to peaceful assembly, act as psychological intimidation, and pose an undetermined threat to the health of all participants, including minors.
The state does not impose unnecessary burdens on organisers or participants in peaceful assemblies.
In general, organisers are not held liable for maintaining public order or for the actions of others during an assembly. However, according to the Code of Administrative Offences, a violation of the rules for organising or holding an assembly or demonstration will result in a fine of 500 GEL (around 172 EUR). The broader issue stems from the outdated Administrative Offences Code, a remnant of the Soviet era, which continues to enable unjustified interference with human rights. For many years, the Code has been used as a tool to suppress demonstrations, imposing blanket penalties on participants and creating a chilling effect on civic activism. This pattern was once again evident during the protests against the ‘Russian law’.
The persecution of organisers and participants in peaceful assemblies, along with the imposition of heavy penalties, has also been documented. In the period from April to May 2024, about 200 people were detained and fined during the ongoing protests against the ‘Russian law’. The main charges included ‘disorderly conduct’ (Article 166 of the Administrative Offences Code) and ‘non-compliance with a lawful order or demand of a law enforcement officer’ (Article 173 of the Administrative Offences Code). Furthermore, an increasing number of peaceful demonstrators — around 50 — have faced administrative penalties under Article 125 of the Administrative Offences Code for organising or participating in group movements or gatherings, such as in urban or other populated areas, roadblocks, or group mobility where a section of the road is completely closed off. Additionally, charges under Articles 150, 1501, and 1502 (which pertain to self-expression through posters, drawings, symbols, banners, and markings on pillars or trees, as well as the placement and removal of municipal advertising) and Article 1741 (violating the rules for organising or holding assemblies or demonstrations) have been frequently used against various rally participants, including motorcycle owners.
Several individuals were also charged under the Criminal Code of Georgia, notably civil activists Saba Mefarishvili and Omar Okribelashvili. The state indictment accuses them of committing the crime outlined in Article 187(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the damaging or destruction of property by a group of people. This offence is punishable by three to six years of imprisonment. According to the factual circumstances of the case, Mefarishvili and Okribelashvili were charged with damaging an iron protective barrier near Parliament, valued at 400 GEL (around 138 EUR). During the court proceedings, it was revealed that the damage had already been compensated. Despite this, the courts continued the tendency to use the most severe preventive measures against participants in assemblies, and failed to adequately assess the appropriateness and proportionality of Mefarishvili and Okribelashvili being detained in custody during the ongoing trial. Prolonged pretrial detention, as in this instance, should only be applied when incarceration is the sole way to mitigate the long-term risks posed by the accused, but such risks did not exist in this case.
Law enforcement supports peaceful assemblies and is accountable for the actions of its representatives.
The Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations and the Police Law regulate the use of force during peaceful assemblies. Any interference with the exercise of the right to assemble and demonstrate must serve a legitimate constitutional aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The police are required to follow the proportionality principle, which means that a police measure must be useful, necessary, and proportionate. Nonetheless, the legislation lacks clear regulations on various aspects of public gatherings (including spontaneous and simultaneous assemblies). Neither Georgian law nor established practice provides a specific coordination mechanism in relation to pre-warning or negotiation procedures with demonstration organisers, the division of responsibilities between self-governing bodies and the police, or the unified legal regulation of using special means.
The investigation of crimes committed by law enforcement officials is highly problematic. As a rule, where an investigation commences into alleged beatings or other violence perpetrated by law enforcement, it does not yield specific legal outcomes. There have been multiple instances of physical violence and verbal abuse by law enforcement officers. In footage distributed through public sources, it is evident that, in some cases, police violence against activists and politicians has reached the level of degrading and inhumane treatment. Despite this, the Special Investigation Service only prosecutes such cases under Article 333(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to exceeding official authority through violence or the use of weapons. Even when potential perpetrators have been identified through publicly available sources, neither the Special Investigation Service nor the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia has provided information on their identification or prosecution. This raises serious concerns about whether these agencies lack the capability — or the political will — to hold violent officers accountable.
Since the beginning of the 28 November protests, more than 30 citizens have been arrested under criminal law in connection with them. However, at the time of writing, no law enforcement officers responsible for brutal crimes against protest participants have been held criminally accountable. At the same time, the use of criminal law instruments against activists is increasing, one of the goals of which is to suppress dissent. Activists are charged with crimes such as ‘participation in group violence’ (Article 225(2) of the Criminal Code), ‘preparation of a crime’ or ‘placement of an explosion’ (Articles 18 and 229 of the Criminal Code), and ‘harming the health of a police officer’ (Article 3531(2) of the Criminal Code). The defence lawyers of activists facing such charges have highlighted the prosecution's failure to provide evidence meeting the standard of reasonable suspicion required for criminal charges under Article 225 (‘organisation, management, or participation in group violence’). They have argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any coordination or collective intent among the accused, instead attributing isolated acts — such as throwing objects like sticks or bottles — without linking them to collective violence or showing that specific harm was caused. Defence lawyers have also questioned the distinction between such actions and administrative violations, as similar conduct had previously been addressed under administrative law. The charges not only lack a clear basis but also raise concerns about the potential misuse of legal mechanisms to suppress freedom of expression and peaceful protest.