GeoEng
Hotline2 405 505
Home
News
Strasbourg Court Upholds Giorgi Mamaladze[a]s Sentence

News

Thursday, 03 November, 2022
Share

Strasbourg Court Upholds Giorgi Mamaladze's Sentence

The European Court of Human Rights upheld the verdict against Giorgi Mamaladze to be legal and dismissed the claim for moral compensation.

In the ECHR, Giorgi Mamaladze argued that the right to a fair trial was violated due to the circumstances of obtaining the evidence ("sodium cyanide"). He also appealed against the complete closure of the ongoing trial against him and claimed that the presumption of his innocence was violated based on the statements of the General Prosecutor's Office and officials.

The Strasbourg Court did not find a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, the circumstances of obtaining evidence ("sodium cyanide") and their reliability. Accordingly, the ECHR did not call into question the findings of the investigative body and the courts at the national level regarding the criminal case against the applicant. It is significant that the Strasbourg Court agreed with the government's position that the evidence obtained by the investigation proved that the "implantation" of a poisonous substance, as claimed by the applicant, was excluded. In addition, the European Court noted that Giorgi Mamaladze's verdict is based on a number of other evidences in the case, such as witness statements, audio and video material, computer data and others.

As for the applicant's other requests, the Court found that the complete closure of the hearings of the case against the applicant was not strictly necessary. In particular, according to the assessment of the European Court, the domestic courts did not adequately justify why part of the hearing could not be held in public. The ECHR considered it a violation of the presumption of innocence to jointly make separate public statements against the applicant and publication of part of the case materials by the Prosecutor's Office, while the obligation of non-disclosure of information was applied to the defense.

It should be noted that the mentioned violations are of a procedural nature and do not affect the validity of the verdict, which was once again confirmed by the decision of the European Court itself today, according to which the criminal proceedings were fair as a whole, the search of the applicant was legal, and there was no case of "implantation" of cyanide.

Other News

Share
Print

Memorial Ceremony for Victims of the 1990s Armed Conflict Held at the Holy Trinity Cathedral

Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Kobakhidze, members of the Government, and Minister of Justice Paata Salia attended the civil funeral service at the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Tbilisi for individuals transferred from the occupied region of Abkhazia who had gone missing during the armed conflict of the 1990s.

Paata Salia honored the memory of the deceased and extended his condolences to their families and loved ones.

Through the joint efforts of the Office of the State Minister for Reconciliation and Civil Equality and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and within the framework of a coordination mechanism involving Georgian and Abkhaz participants, 11 missing persons were identified and returned to their families. Among them were 2 military personnel and 9 civilians.
19.05.2026
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.
19.05.2026