Hotline2 405 505

News

Friday, 12 November, 2021
Share

Rati Bregadze: "They Refused to Participate in the Trial Online Because these People Want to Stage a Show, Create a Problem for Saakashvili's Security And, As They Say, to Set Up A Proper Visual Communication”

Rati Bregadze: "They Refused to Participate in the Trial Online Because these People Want to Stage a Show, Create a Problem for Saakashvili's Security And, As They Say, to Set Up A Proper Visual Communication”

According to the Minister of Justice, the prosecutor's office offered Mikheil Saakashvili to attend the trial online, however, he refused. According to Rati Bregadze, in fact, Mikheil Saakashvili's supporters want to stage a show and create a problem for his safety.

"The prosecutor's office offered him to participate in the process and we would have provided it technically, but they did not want to. Why? - Because these people want to stage a show creating a problem for his security, and as they say, they want to set up a proper visual communication. They are not interested in justice. If they were interested in finding out the truth, they themselves would have requested an online presence. But - no, everything is done purposefully to get him out. They try to create a problem for the safety of this person. But we will not endanger the safety of any prisoner," said Rati Bregadze on Rustavi 2.

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.