Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 11 November, 2021
Share

Rati Bregadze: "Can anyone explain to me why Saakashvili should be transferred to a civilian clinic?"

The Minister of Justice responded to the request to transfer Mikheil Saakashvili to a multi-profile civil clinic. According to Rati Bregadze, he will be happy if convicted Saakashvili, in accordance with the call of the European Court, stops the hunger strike, but without any reservations:

"The European Court has called on Mr. Saakashvili to end the hunger strike. We will be very happy if he agrees ... but - without any reservations. Why should this person be taken to a private clinic? Can anyone explain it to me? "

According to Rati Bregadze, in case the hunger strike is stopped, convicted Saakashvili will return to the N12 penitentiary institution, because there will be no risk of his health deteriorating.

"If a person stops a hunger strike, it is very good ... Our spirit is absolutely in line with the decision of the Strasbourg Court. We too, of course, will be very happy if his health condition is stable and he returns to a normal rhythm of life. Once the conditions are right, he will be transferred back to the N12 special penitentiary facility, where he was previously serving his sentence," said the Minister.

On November 10, the Strasbourg court rejected Saakashvili's claim to transfer him to a private clinic and called on that he stops his hunger strike.

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.