The Democracy Research Institute echoes the judgment passed on August 8 by Judge Romeo Tkeshelashvili, according to which, after almost 8 months of detention, political prisoner Giorgi Akhobadze was found not guilty due to lack of evidence.

Doctor Giorgi Akhobadze was arrested on December 7 while returning home from a protest rally on Rustaveli Avenue. He was charged with committing a crime under part 6 of Article 260 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the illegal acquisition and storage of large quantities of narcotic drugs and provides for imprisonment from 8 to 20 years or life imprisonment. At the trial held on December 10, based on the motion of the Prosecutor's Office, despite the absence of proper legal grounds, the strictest measure – pre-trial detention was used against him.

According to the Democracy Research Institute, Article 13 of the Constitution of Georgia and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated in relation to Giorgi Akhobadze, which protect the right to human freedom, the restriction of which is permissible only in cases provided for by law.

The defense constantly spoke about the lack of evidence in the case and, accordingly, the absurdity of using the strictest measure of pre-trial detention.

Detention, according to both domestic legislation and international standards, is used only when there is appropriate evidence in the case and, accordingly, reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a specific crime and the use of another type of measure of restraint would jeopardize the execution of the decision. In addition, there is an obligation to conduct the justice process even more quickly in case of pre-trial detention. In the case of Giorgi Akhobadze, after 8 months of illegal detention, the court based its acquittal on the lack of appropriate evidence and confirmed the gross violation of his rights and the political motive of the case.   

In addition, the statements made by the Georgian Dream members regarding Giorgi Akhobadze (as well as other persons detained in the context of the protests) are further evidence that the case was politically motivated - the presumption of innocence had been violated repeatedly in relation to the unlawful prisoner. In addition, Irakli Kobakhidze noted after the court's decision that, despite the validity of the accusation, there was no video evidence in the case, therefore, "in the absence of 100% evidence, the court is obliged to release a person." This statement is especially noteworthy when the court's reasoned decision is not yet available.

According to the Democracy Research Institute, it is necessary for the relevant authorities to immediately respond to the Giorgi Akhobadze case, especially since all persons who participated in the case have been identified. For 8 months, there was only one piece of evidence in the case - witness testimony (there were no footage of the search or arrest in the case), based on which, on the one hand, the prosecutor guided the case at the stage of requesting a measure of restraint and, on the other hand, the judge - when applying detention. It is noteworthy that Giorgi Akhobadze was searched based on the investigator's decision (on the grounds of urgent necessity). Accordingly, there is reasonable doubt about the coordinated actions of the relevant agencies,[1] which resulted in Giorgi Akhobadze's illegal detention.

The Democracy Research Institute calls on:

The relevant authorities:

• To immediately/promptly investigate the above-mentioned case, especially since the identities of the investigators, witnesses, prosecutors, and judges are public.
• In accordance with the legislation, all persons involved in the case should be held accountable.
• Given the high public interest, information about the progress of the investigation should be proactively provided to the public.

The Court:

• Similar to the Giorgi Akhobadze case, the Prosecutor's Office has filed similar charges against several individuals arrested in the context of the protests, whose trials have not yet been completed, and there is no objective/neutral evidence in the case. Accordingly, it is necessary to acquit the defendants in the mentioned cases.