Hotline2 405 505

News

Tuesday, 28 December, 2021
Share

Rati Bregadze: "A Prisoner Cannot Stay in a Medical Institution When the Treatment Is Over and He Has Been Discharged from the Relevant Hospital

Minister of Justice, Rati Bregadze spoke at the briefing about the return of Mikheil Saakashvili from Gori Military Hospital to Establishment N12. According to the Minister, the convicted Saakashvili was transferred to Gori Military Hospital on November 19 for treatment and he received all the necessary medical services. Yesterday a decision was made to return the convict to the N12 penitentiary institution, which Mikheil Saakashvili did not obey.

"Since November 19, convict Mikheil Saakashvili has been transferred to Gori for treatment, where he has received all necessary medical services. Upon completion of the treatment, a decision was made to discharge him from the military hospital. He did not comply with the lawful request of the staff of the special penitentiary institution to be transferred to Rustavi N12 facility, and had some blood pressure problems on the grounds of anxiety and, consequently, the Special Penitentiary Service made a decision to temporarily postpone the legal transfer,” said Rati Bregadze.

Rati Bregadze did not comment on Saakashvili's health condition and said that experts in the relevant field should talk about it in detail.

"A lot of different information is spreading around and, naturally, I cannot talk about these speculations; only experts in the relevant field should talk about it in detail. As I have already told you, the treatment was completed in Gori Military Hospital, he was discharged from the hospital and, naturally, the prisoner could not be in the medical facility when the treatment was over and he was discharged from the relevant hospital. He did not agree with this decision. He did not obey the absolutely legal requirements of the staff of the Special Penitentiary Service. Later, as I have already mentioned, he had some blood pressure problems and, consequently, a decision was made to temporarily postpone his transfer," said Rati Bregadze.

Other News

Share
Print

According to the Strasbourg Court, Publicly Made Insulting, Obscene, and Degrading Statements Fall Outside the Scope of Freedom of Expression

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg upheld the position of the Ministry of Justice in the case of Miladze v. Georgia, confirming that publicly made insulting, obscene, and degrading statements directed at public officials are not protected under the right to freedom of expression.

The case concerned a video published on the social media platform TikTok in 2022, in which the applicant, civil activist Irakli Miladze, used obscene and insulting language toward the Mayor of Tbilisi, City Hall employees, and police officers. As a result, the national courts imposed a fine of 500 GEL, the minimum penalty provided for by law.

The Strasbourg Court unanimously held that the applicant’s statements did not amount to political criticism or the expression of views on a matter of public interest. According to the Court’s assessment, the language used was intended primarily to humiliate and insult public officials.

The Court also agreed with the reasoning of the national courts, noting that they had properly distinguished between harsh political criticism, which is protected in a democratic society, and personal insults, which are not. The judgment further emphasized that the sanction imposed on the applicant was minimal and proportionate, as he received only the lowest fine available under the law.

Today’s ruling by the Strasbourg Court reaffirmed an important principle: freedom of expression is one of the fundamental values of a democratic society and protects even strong and offensive criticism; however, it does not extend to humiliating or personally insulting statements directed at others, including public officials and civil servants.

The judgment further underscores that the state is entitled to protect political officials and public servants from unjustified verbal abuse and insults, ensuring that they are able to perform their duties in an environment free from attacks that undermine their dignity.

The Court’s assessment once again highlights the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, while clearly establishing that the exercise of this right — particularly on the internet and social media platforms — must not infringe upon the dignity and rights of others.