Hotline2 405 505

News

Thursday, 11 November, 2021
Share

Rati Bregadze: "I Have Never Mentioned the Term ‘End of Hunger Strike' In Any of The TV Interviews. I Said - He Gets Natural Juices and Different Porridges"

According to the Minister of Justice, he never said on any TV interview that prisoner Saakashvili had stopped his hunger strike. Rati Bregadze explains that he only said that Saakashvili took natural juices and various porridges. According to him, the mentioned information was made public in response to the MP's question, which the agency was obliged to respond.

"I have never used the term 'stopped hunger strike' in any TV interview. I am responsible for all my words. It was as follows: he takes natural juices and different types of porridge. Here I will tell you where this information came from. We received the MP question we were obliged to answer. The question was: Does he take any supplements that may have a positive effect on the effects of hunger strike? Mr. Sarjveladze addressed us with this question and we, naturally, gave the answer. However, in this response we had not mention anything about stopping a hunger strike. They wanted to prove to the ECHR and to our international partners that, instead of calling for an end of hunger strike, we were forcing him to go on. However, these are the opponents who called on the prisoner through open broadcasts not to dare to end the hunger strike, otherwise his image as of a politician would have been ruined," Rati Bregadze said live on Rustavi 2.

According to him, the Ministry of Justice fully shares the spirit of the decision of the ECHR and the health and safety of Saakashvili, as well as other prisoners, is important for the agency.

"We fully share the spirit of the decision of the Strasbourg court and, naturally, we want this person, like all other prisoners, to be healthy. The health and safety of all prisoners is our responsibility and we must not forget that in addition to Mr. Saakashvili we have more than 9,000 prisoners and we pay due attention to them. "All prisoners are equal before the law," Rati Bregadze said.

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.