Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 11 November, 2021
Share

Minister of Justice: "A Lawful Measure Has Been Taken Against Saakashvili, the Aim Of Which Was To Minimize His Health Risks. Our Opponents Use the Term 'Kidnapping' to Have A Detrimental Effect On Public Consciousness"

Justice Minister Rati Bregadze responded to accusations by his opponents about Saakashvili's "kidnapping", calling it harmful.

"I want to make a statement on the harmful accusations spread in recent days. I will start with the term "kidnapping", which our opponents try to instill and want to have a detrimental effect on public consciousness; And they want to convince the public that we have kidnapped someone ... In general, how is it possible to say that transfer from one institution to another is a kidnapping ... this is harmful," said the Minister.

The Minister of Justice emphasized that a lawful measure has been taken against Saakashvili, the aim of which was to minimize the health risks of the convict:

"He refused to undergo medical treatment and the risk of his health deteriorating was growing. It was in order to avoid deterioration of his health condition and to minimize similar risks that it was decided to transfer him to the N18 medical facility, where he would be under much closer supervision and this risk would be fully minimized.

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.