Introduction

Transparency International Georgia continues to examine politically motivated cases.

On 21 July 2026, following a detailed examination and assessment of the relevant cases, the organization published a list of political prisoners.[1] The list included persons who are currently in detention and whose arrest, prosecution and conviction were clearly connected with their participation, in one form or another, in the protests of 2024–2025 or with their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

At the end of July 2026, we were contacted by the lawyer of Mikheil Saakashvili, the third President of Georgia, who is currently imprisoned. For the purpose of examining whether Mikheil Saakashvili should be regarded as a political prisoner, the lawyer provided us with case materials relating to the so-called “Jackets Case”, the border-crossing case, and the case concerning the Patarkatsishvili assets, including Imedi television channel.

On the basis of our examination and analysis of these materials, we have concluded that, in circumstances where state institutions have been captured, the criminal cases against Mikheil Saakashvili, which have effectively become a permanent form of prosecution against him, are politically motivated. Furthermore, the conviction entered against him in the so-called “Jackets Case” is unsubstantiated and unjust. Accordingly, he should be considered a political prisoner under the criteria established by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1900 (2012).

We present below our findings and legal assessment concerning the above issues.

I. Criminal Cases against Mikheil Saakashvili

To date, Mikheil Saakashvili has been prosecuted, or remains subject to ongoing judicial proceedings, in six criminal cases. Proceedings have been completed and convictions delivered in four of those cases. As a result of the application, at different stages, of the principles of absorption or aggregation of sentences, his final sentence currently amounts to 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment, although this term may increase further. The sentence has been running since 1 October 2021, when Mikheil Saakashvili was arrested on the territory of Georgia.

The above cases are summarized in the table below:

No.	Case	Charges brought	First-instance judgment	Individual sentence	Subsequent developments	Contribution to final sentence
1	Girgvliani / pardon case	27 November 2014	5 January 2018	Initially 4 years; reduced to 3 years following an amnesty	Incorporated into the system of existing sentences in relation to another conviction in 2018	3 years
2	Gelashvili case	5 August 2014; charges aggravated on 10 November 2014	28 June 2018	Initially 8 years; reduced to 6 years following an amnesty	Second conviction in 2018	6 years
3	Patarkatsishvili case: 7 November, Imedi, property, metallurgical plant	28 July 2014	No judgment yet	—	The case remains pending before the courts	—
4	“Jackets Case”	13 August 2014	12 March 2025	9 years	Eight years of this sentence were incorporated into the aggregate of subsequent sentences	+8 years
5	Illegal border crossing	Arrest: 1 October 2021; charged: 20 October 2021	17 March 2025	4 years and 6 months	Partially aggregated with the judgment of 12 March 2025 pursuant to Article 59 of the Criminal Code	+4 years and 6 months, resulting in a total of 12.5 years
6	“Shark Selfie” / 2025 sabotage case	6 November 2025	No judgment yet	—	Being tried jointly with the case against eight opposition leaders; proceedings are ongoing	—

II. Cases Outside the Scope of Our Analysis

The case materials and judgments relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the pardon of persons involved in the crime committed against Sandro Girgvliani and the violence committed against Valeri Gelashvili have remained outside the scope of our analysis and assessment. This is because the European Court of Human Rights has delivered final judgments in relation to these cases and found no violation of Articles 6 or 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Mikheil Saakashvili.[2]

III. Cases Examined and Analysed

A. The So-Called “Jackets Case”

1. The Offence for Which Mikheil Saakashvili Was Convicted

The courts found Mikheil Saakashvili guilty under Article 182(2)(d) and Article 182(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which concern the unlawful misappropriation or embezzlement of another person's property or property right by abusing one's official position and on a large scale, where the property or property right was lawfully possessed or controlled by the perpetrator.

In this case, the Tbilisi City Court sentenced Mikheil Saakashvili to nine years' imprisonment. The higher courts upheld that sentence.

The case is widely known to the public as the so-called “Jackets Case” because, among other components of the case, he was convicted of the alleged “embezzlement” of state funds used for the purchase of clothing, including jackets.

2. The Constituent Elements of the Offence under Article 182 of the Criminal Code

On the basis of judgments and decisions in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Georgia concerning the interpretation of Article 182 of the Criminal Code and the circumstances in which conduct may be classified as embezzlement under that provision, the Constitutional Court of Georgia identified the principal elements necessary for conduct to be classified as embezzlement.

In particular, the following preconditions are necessary for conduct to be classified under Article 182 of the Criminal Code:

“(a) the offender must have authority to lawfully possess or control the property;

(b) the offender must exercise lawful possession of the property within a legal relationship with the owner of the property, such as through the performance of official duties;

(c) the offender must have the actual ability to exercise the authority to dispose of the property; and

(d) the offender must foresee that his or her conduct will cause damage to the owner of the property and must desire that damage to occur.”[3]

The Constitutional Court further explained:

“An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the decisive factor for classifying conduct as embezzlement is the simultaneous existence of the legal and factual ability to dispose of another person's property or property right. If one of the above criteria is absent, including where the existence of legal authority to dispose of another person's property cannot be established, classification of the conduct as embezzlement is excluded (see, for example, Judgment No. 472ap-18 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 7 September 2021; Decision No. 347ap-17 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 30 November 2017; Judgment No. 739ap-16 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 16 June 2017; and Judgment No. 339ap-15 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 23 December 2015).”[4]

3. Description of the Conduct Imputed to Mikheil Saakashvili

The conduct imputed to Mikheil Saakashvili is described in substantially the following terms in the judgments of the courts at all three levels of jurisdiction:

From 4 January 2004 to 17 November 2013, Mikheil Saakashvili was the President of Georgia and held a state political office.

From January 2004 to April 2009, his representation and protocol expenses incurred in connection with the performance of his presidential duties were financed from the funds of the Administration of the President of Georgia and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency”.

Since the expenditures of the Administration of the President of Georgia and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency” were public, it allegedly became necessary to prevent the disclosure of instances in which representation expenses had been used for purposes other than those intended.

For this purpose, it was alleged that Mikheil Saakashvili, purportedly to finance measures necessary to enhance the security of protected persons and improve the quality of their protection by the Special State Protection Service of Georgia, but in reality for personal motives, used his official position to ensure the misuse of state funds. He allegedly decided to allocate funds from the President's Reserve Fund to the Special State Protection Service, which was directly subordinate to him, and implemented this decision with the participation of the heads of that Service, O.K. and T.J.

More specifically, it was alleged that, acting on Mikheil Saakashvili's instructions, those individuals sent letters classified as “secret” to the President between 2009 and 2013, purportedly requesting the allocation of funds for the needs of the Special State Protection Service, in order to artificially create a legal basis for such allocations.

On this basis, by “secret” decrees of the President of 24 April 2009 No. 027, 11 January 2010 No. 01, 5 August 2010 No. 062, 26 December 2011 No. 0100, 27 September 2012 No. 014, 17 October 2012 No. 016, and 26 December 2012 No. 017, GEL 5,952,500 was allocated from the President's Reserve Fund to the Special State Protection Service.

Furthermore, it was alleged that, for personal motives and with the aim of using state funds, Mikheil Saakashvili instructed the Special State Protection Service, by his “secret” decrees of 4 January 2011 No. 09, 15 March 2011 No. 060, 4 January 2012 No. 01, 2 February 2012 No. 03, 19 March 2012 No. 05, and 4 January 2013 No. 01, to reimburse expenses that could not lawfully have been financed by the Administration of the President of Georgia or the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency”.

These expenses included travel and accommodation, both within Georgia and abroad, for the President of Georgia, members of his family and their guests; VIP services; cosmetic procedures; meals; education; the purchase of gifts and souvenirs; household expenses; and other expenditures.

Although GEL 20,017,652.1 had been spent from the budgets of the Administration of the President and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency” on the President's representation expenses between 2009 and 2012, it was alleged that, on the instructions and under the organization of Mikheil Saakashvili, the heads of the Special State Protection Service, O.K. and T.J., spent an additional GEL 9,024,367.34 from the state budget between September 2009 and 25 February 2013 for Mikheil Saakashvili's personal purposes and for purposes other than those intended.

Specifically:

• GEL 2,116,805.19 for hotel services;
• GEL 921,878.36 for travel tickets;
• GEL 64,929 for the education of Mikheil Saakashvili's children;
• GEL 1,425,725.8 for meals for Mikheil Saakashvili, members of his family and other persons, both within Georgia and abroad;
• GEL 2,328,505.64 for transportation services within Georgia and abroad;
• GEL 721,827.81 for cosmetic procedures and medical treatment;
• GEL 38,098.95 for the purchase of medicines;
• GEL 273,970.94 for the rental of private residential premises;
• GEL 115,171.14 for the purchase of clothing;
• GEL 237,683 for the purchase of gifts and souvenirs;
• GEL 191,643 for the remuneration of Mikheil Saakashvili's personal chef, S.K.L., the rental of his accommodation, travel to Spain and remuneration for interpretation services; and
• GEL 588,128.73 for various expenses.

These expenditures were written off under the supervision of the heads of the Special State Protection Service, O.K. and T.J., through secret documents that had been classified as “secret” in violation of the requirements of the “List of Information Classified as State Secrets”, since none of those documents contained information constituting a state secret.

According to the judgments, Mikheil Saakashvili's conduct caused the State material damage in the large amount of GEL 9,024,367.34.[5]

4. The Constituent Elements of the Offence under Article 182 of the Criminal Code Have Not Been Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Respect of the Conduct Imputed to Mikheil Saakashvili

(a) Were the Budgetary Funds Allegedly Embezzled Lawfully Possessed or Controlled by President Saakashvili?

The judgments do not disclose sufficiently reasoned grounds for concluding that President Saakashvili lawfully possessed or controlled, within the meaning of Article 182, the specific funds regarded as the object of the alleged embezzlement.

According to the judgment of the Tbilisi City Court, the President's Reserve Fund was under the President's lawful control and, therefore, President Saakashvili was responsible for the misuse of funds allocated from that Fund.[6]

Neither the Tbilisi City Court nor the higher courts distinguished between, on the one hand, the authority conferred by law on the President to decide on the allocation of funds from the Reserve Fund and, on the other hand, the actual or legal possession, control and disposal of funds once they had been allocated.

As noted above, for the constituent elements of Article 182 of the Criminal Code to be established, the perpetrator must have the actual ability to exercise authority to dispose of the property.

As is apparent from the courts' own description of the conduct imputed to Mikheil Saakashvili, until April 2009 actual expenditures were made by the Administration of the President of Georgia and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency”, while after April 2009 the Special State Protection Service was added as an additional spending authority.

Whether President Saakashvili's decision to add the Special State Protection Service to the spending authorities was lawful is irrelevant to the specific question at issue here—namely, whether Mikheil Saakashvili lawfully possessed or controlled the relevant budgetary funds. The issue of legality will, however, be addressed again in the following subsection.

If President Saakashvili did not personally spend the funds in question, and they were instead spent by other government agencies, then the first essential element of the offence under Article 182 of the Criminal Code is absent: the funds allegedly embezzled were not in his lawful possession or under his control.

Incidentally, in a similar situation, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, with the agreement of the Supreme Court of Georgia, acquitted a defendant (G.U.) of charges under Article 182 of the Criminal Code precisely on the ground that an essential element of the offence of embezzlement—the existence of another person's property or property right in the perpetrator's lawful possession or control—was absent, since all fundamental matters relating to the approval and amendment of the relevant budget fell within the competence of another body.[7]

It is a separate issue, however, that, in that case, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, again with the agreement of the Supreme Court, reclassified the defendant's conduct under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Code (“exceeding official authority”).[8]

It is important to emphasize the clear legal distinction between offences committed in office under Articles 332 and 333 of the Criminal Code and offences against property under Article 182. Where the element of lawful possession of property is not established, classifying the conduct under Article 182 amounts to an interpretation of the criminal law to the detriment of the accused (analogia in malam partem), contrary to the fundamental principle of legality.

(b) Did Mikheil Saakashvili Violate the Law by Adding the Special State Protection Service to the Spending Authorities?

Under Article 28 of the version of the Budget Code of Georgia in force between 2010 and 2013, reserve funds of the President of Georgia and the Government of Georgia were established within the State Budget. Funds from the reserve funds of the President and the Government were allocated to finance expenditures not envisaged by the State Budget. The directions in which the reserve funds of the State Budget could be spent were determined respectively by the President of Georgia and the Government of Georgia. Apart from the amount of the reserve funds, these provisions remain in force in substantially the same form today.[9]

Accordingly, the President had statutory authority to determine the directions in which the Reserve Fund could be spent.

The Tbilisi City Court itself referred in its judgment to the President's decrees of 24 April 2009 No. 027, 11 January 2010 No. 01, 5 August 2010 No. 062, 26 December 2011 No. 0100, 27 September 2012 No. 014, 17 October 2012 No. 016 and 26 December 2012 No. 017, on the basis of which funds from the President's Reserve Fund were allocated to the Special State Protection Service, predominantly for: “financing measures necessary to enhance the security of protected persons and improve the quality of their protection, including the purchase of vehicles and special equipment, covert and representation-related expenditures concerning protected persons, travel and accommodation within Georgia and abroad for the President of Georgia, members of his family and their guests, VIP services, medical treatment, meals, education, the purchase of gifts and souvenirs, household expenses and other expenditures.”[10]

The very passages cited by the Tbilisi City Court demonstrate only that Mikheil Saakashvili was exercising the powers conferred on him by Article 28 of the Budget Code of Georgia. First, he determined the directions in which the President's Reserve Fund would be spent and, second, he earmarked those funds to finance expenditures not envisaged by the State Budget.

The courts accuse the President of violating the law because, in order to finance the expenditures specified in the decrees, he transferred funds from the President's Reserve Fund to the Special State Protection Service rather than to the Administration of the President or the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency”. However, the courts have failed to convincingly identify which law the President violated in selecting the spending authority.

In addressing this issue, the Tbilisi City Court referred to Article 4(4) of the Law on the Special State Protection Service, in the version in force until 24 June 2011. Under that provision, the Special State Protection Service and its employees could not be assigned functions that they were not required to perform under that Law.[11]

First, however, the Tbilisi City Court, for reasons that remain unclear, did not refer to the version of that provision in force after 24 June 2011. Under the amended provision, the prohibition remained in force but was supplemented by the qualification: “except in cases determined by legal acts of the President of Georgia.”[12] Since Mikheil Saakashvili was charged, among other things, with conduct occurring after 24 June 2011, it follows, even on the court's own logic, that conduct carried out after that legislative amendment was entirely lawful.

Moreover, it is questionable whether even the prohibition contained in the pre-24 June 2011 version of Article 4(4) was applicable in this case. Under every version of the relevant law, and to this day, one of the principal functions of the Special State Protection Service has been the protection of the President. It is therefore unclear why the expenditure of state funds formally for the purpose of performing that function would fall outside the Service's functions.

As noted above, the President's decrees allocating funds from the President's Reserve Fund to the Special State Protection Service expressly stated that the funds were intended to finance “measures necessary to enhance the security of protected persons and improve the quality of their protection”, which clearly falls within the functions of the Special State Protection Service.

The courts also stated that Mikheil Saakashvili made this decision because the Special State Protection Service was directly subordinate to him. This, however, cannot serve as a persuasive argument, since both the Administration of the President and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency” were likewise subordinate to the President.

Finally, Mikheil Saakashvili was also accused of transferring responsibility for spending funds allocated from the President's Reserve Fund to the Special State Protection Service because he allegedly intended to conceal unlawful expenditures through secrecy classification.

The defence explained that, following the August 2008 war, there was a threat that the President might be assassinated by Russian intelligence services. This made special security measures necessary, and the classification of certain expenditures formed part of those measures. The Tbilisi City Court rejected this argument on the ground that, if the issue concerned security, not all expenditures had been classified. The court therefore concluded that the true purpose of classifying the expenditures was to conceal information about illegitimate expenditures from the public.[13]

Ensuring the security of a President in a country that had recently fought a war against a vastly more powerful neighbouring state, and keeping the President's movements confidential for that purpose, constitutes far too serious a consideration to be dismissed by the court on the basis of a single weak argument.

Accordingly, when Mikheil Saakashvili issued decrees providing that funds from the President's Reserve Fund should be transferred to the Special State Protection Service to finance measures necessary to enhance the security of protected persons, including the President, and improve the quality of their protection, he was, in all likelihood, acting in accordance with the applicable legislation. At the very least, the courts failed to establish the contrary in a convincing manner.

(c) The Issue of the Alleged “Misuse” of Funds

A separate question is whether the funds allocated for the declared purposes were actually spent for those purposes—in other words, whether each expenditure corresponded to the objective of financing “measures necessary to enhance the security of protected persons and improve the quality of their protection”.

As already noted, ensuring this was not the President's direct responsibility, since he was not himself the spending authority for those funds.

From the perspective of whether expenditures were made for their intended purposes, the most serious problem in this case is that the courts attributed to Mikheil Saakashvili, as a single undifferentiated body of conduct, the alleged “embezzlement” of more than GEL 9 million.

The court judgments list:

• hotel expenses;
• airline tickets;
• transportation;
• meals;
• travel by family members;
• the education of his children;
• medicines;
• cosmetic procedures;
• private accommodation;
• clothing;
• gifts;
• souvenirs;
• a personal chef;
• expenses relating to guests; and so forth.

These expenditures do not all have the same legal nature. For that reason alone, it cannot be convincing to treat them collectively as having been made for purposes other than those intended, even to a person unfamiliar with budgetary legislation.

For example, the courts' categorical conclusions concerning the alleged misuse of funds spent on the President's foreign travel—hotels, airline tickets, meals and similar expenses—are entirely unclear.

For instance, the courts considered to have been made for purposes other than those intended the funds spent on accommodation, meals and travel during visits to Thailand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates in March 2012, undertaken together with other state political officials, in the respective amounts of GEL 127,858, GEL 60,856 and GEL 47,845.

By including these expenditures in their entirety in the alleged damage of more than GEL 9 million caused to the State, the courts evidently did not examine at all the purposes served by those visits, including whether they were intended, for example, to deepen relations with those States and attract investment from them.

The same applies to expenses incurred in hosting high-ranking foreign guests. In its oral and written submissions and complaints, the defence provided highly illustrative examples of expenditures that were classified as “misuse” and “embezzlement” of budgetary funds, including the costs of hosting then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Senator Joe Biden; the costs of the President's visit to the United States in March 2011, during which Saakashvili met Donald Trump and an agreement was concluded concerning the construction of a Trump Tower in Batumi; and the expenses associated with Saakashvili's travel to Prague on 23 December 2011, when he attended the funeral of Václav Havel, one of the leaders of the 1989 “Velvet Revolutions” and a symbol of the liberation of the Czech Republic from Soviet occupation. The defence provided many such examples.

It is clear that all of these expenditures served state interests, and characterizing them as the President's “private” or “personal” interests defies common sense.

According to the Tbilisi City Court, a distinction must be drawn between “functional and personal expenses”. In the court's view, a functional expense is one that an office-holder requires in order to perform his or her official functions and exercise official powers, whereas personal expenses are expenses unrelated to the performance of official functions and incurred to satisfy private interests, including personal, family, household, leisure or similar interests.[14]

The court did not refer to any normative act establishing such a classification of expenditures or providing a legal basis for it in the field of state budget or public financial law. It is therefore unclear on what legal basis the court relied when applying these categories.

Furthermore, the decisive consideration in assessing an expenditure should not be where the office-holder was located, but whether the particular expenditure served the exercise of his or her official functions.

Accordingly, if the President was not on holiday and was performing constitutional functions within the framework of an official or working visit, the mere fact that an expenditure was incurred abroad cannot justify classifying it as a “personal” expense.

To reach such a conclusion, the court would have had to establish that the particular expenditure genuinely served personal rather than official interests.

It is possible that certain individual expenditures may indeed give the impression of having been unnecessary or uneconomical. However, the courts were required to examine and assess separately the purpose and legality, efficiency and effectiveness of each individual expenditure forming part of the total amount of more than GEL 9 million. They failed to do so.

Isolated examples cannot establish that the aggregate amount of more than GEL 9 million was spent for purposes other than those intended.

Criminal law is governed by the principles of the individualization of criminal responsibility and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Treating all expenditures as a single undifferentiated body of conduct constitutes a violation of both substantive and procedural criminal law, because the existence of criminal conduct was neither established nor substantiated in the judgment in respect of each individual episode.

(d) The Court Judgments Do Not Establish That Mikheil Saakashvili Knew That His Conduct Would Cause Damage to the Budget or Desired Such Damage to Occur

Even if the alleged misuse of funds had been conclusively established in respect of each and every expenditure forming part of the total amount of more than GEL 9 million, and even if such expenditures could personally have been attributed to Mikheil Saakashvili, those circumstances would still not establish the offence of “embezzlement” of budgetary funds.

As noted above, an indispensable element of the offence of embezzlement is that the person accused of embezzlement knew that his or her conduct would cause damage to the budget and desired that harmful result to occur.

Furthermore, embezzlement under Article 182 of the Criminal Code is an acquisitive offence. It is necessary to establish direct intent and a selfish purpose—namely, the intention to obtain an unjustified material benefit for oneself or a third person (animus rem sibi habendi).

This mandatory component of the subjective element of the offence was not adequately examined in the judgments.

The judgments refer to a “personal motive”, which, according to the courts, motivated Saakashvili when he transferred responsibility for requesting funds to finance representation expenses from the President's Reserve Fund from the Administration of the President and the Legal Entity of Public Law “State Provision Agency” to the Special State Protection Service.

Clearly, such an administrative decision could have required adequate justification. If it was insufficiently justified, it would have been legitimate to examine whether the President had exercised his powers properly. However, that circumstance does not in itself mean that the decision was malicious from a criminal-law perspective.

Under the constitutional model in force at the time, the President possessed particularly broad executive powers and significant discretion in issuing normative and individual administrative acts. In these circumstances, the courts were under a particular obligation to explain in detail the legal and factual basis on which they concluded that the President's decision constituted conduct causing damage to the State.

In particular, they were required to demonstrate how the “personal motive” referred to in the judgments was transformed into an intention to “embezzle” state funds and what causal link existed between the administrative decision taken by the President, the representation expenses incurred and the damage allegedly caused to the State.

This was particularly important given that the representation activities concerned, in the absence of contrary circumstances established by the courts, served to deepen the President of Georgia's relations with leaders of the country's strategic partners—activities that, by their nature, are connected with the State's foreign-policy and security interests.

5. Summary

In summary, we may conclude that the application of Article 182 of the Criminal Code in the case under consideration is contrary to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (nullum crimen sine lege—no crime without law), which prohibits the extensive interpretation of criminal-law provisions to the detriment of the accused.

Since neither lawful possession of the property nor direct acquisitive intent has been established, the conviction entered against Mikheil Saakashvili is unjust and unsubstantiated. It is therefore also incompatible with the principles of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

6. Disproportionality of the Sentence

Having regard to the fundamental principles governing criminal responsibility and sentencing, the imposition of a nine-year prison sentence on Mikheil Saakashvili in the so-called “Jackets Case” is manifestly unjust and contrary to the principle of proportionality.

First and foremost, where a person is convicted under a provision whose constituent elements have not been established, the imposition of the penalty prescribed by that provision automatically becomes unjust and disproportionate.

However, even if the courts' judgments concerning the alleged commission of “embezzlement” by Mikheil Saakashvili had been substantiated—which they were not—the imposition of a nine-year prison sentence, close to the maximum penalty provided for by Article 182 of the Criminal Code, would in itself be disproportionate.

Article 182(3) provides for a term of imprisonment of between seven and eleven years. As we have already seen, a substantial proportion of the expenditures characterized as “misuse” were, in reality, expenditures made for legitimate and intended purposes.

Furthermore, even if individual expenditures revealed a breach of budgetary discipline or an abuse or excess of official authority, such conduct would constitute either an administrative violation or, at worst, another criminal offence, rather than a particularly serious offence against State property. The corresponding sanction would therefore have been less severe.

In light of these circumstances, the imposition of a nine-year prison sentence on Mikheil Saakashvili violates Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the prohibition of punishment without law.

Because of the extensive interpretation of the law to the detriment of the accused, the failure to differentiate between individual expenditures and the artificial aggravation of criminal responsibility, the sanction constitutes a politically motivated, unjust and manifestly disproportionate punishment.

B. Other Pending and Concluded Cases

As noted in Part I of this report, another case against Mikheil Saakashvili has proceeded and been concluded, while proceedings in two other cases remain pending before the courts. These cases are as follows:

• The border-crossing case: In this case, Mikheil Saakashvili was found guilty by judgments of the courts at all three levels of jurisdiction of illegally crossing the Georgian border and was sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment. Furthermore, under the judgment of the first-instance court, subsequently upheld by the appellate and cassation courts, eight years of the nine-year sentence imposed in the “Jackets Case” were partially aggregated with the sentence imposed in this case pursuant to Article 59(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. In other words, 89% of the nine-year sentence was added. Ultimately, on the basis of the aggregation of sentences, Mikheil Saakashvili's principal sentence was set at 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
• The case concerning the dispersal of the protest of 7 November 2007, the raid on the Imedi television channel, and the takeover of property belonging to Badri Patarkatsishvili: In this case, Mikheil Saakashvili has been charged, in several episodes, under Article 333(3)(b) and (c), as well as Article 333(2), of the Criminal Code. In the event of conviction, he faces between five and eight years' imprisonment. At present, it is difficult to predict whether the court will add this sentence to the 12.5-year term already imposed on Mikheil Saakashvili or apply the principle of absorption, in which case the total sentence would remain 12.5 years.

Having regard to the principles set out in Article 59 of the Criminal Code, the application of the principle of absorption appears more likely, since Mikheil Saakashvili is accused of acts allegedly committed at a time when he had not yet been convicted in any of the other cases.

However, under the current regime, in which the judiciary is entirely subject to the political dictates of the regime, the possibility that the principle of full or partial aggregation of sentences may be applied cannot be excluded.

• The “Sharks Case”: In this case, Mikheil Saakashvili is accused of committing the offence provided for by Article 317 of the Criminal Code—“public calls for the violent change of Georgia's constitutional order or the overthrow of state authority”—which is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment.

Mikheil Saakashvili is charged together with leaders of other opposition parties who are defendants in the “face masks” case—or, according to the interpretation of the authorities' propaganda channels, the “sabotage” case. Our organization has examined and assessed these cases.[15]

Because this alleged offence was committed after Saakashvili had already been convicted in four other cases, and having regard to the principles set out in Article 59 of the Criminal Code, it is almost certain that the principle of aggregation of sentences will be applied.

This means that, as a result of the aggregation of sentences, Mikheil Saakashvili's term of imprisonment could increase to as much as 15.5 years.

IV. The Long-Term Imprisonment of Mikheil Saakashvili Reveals the Authorities' Long-Term Political Objectives

From the perspective of Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), the imposition of a disproportionate sentence in the “Jackets Case” and the other cases clearly reveals the authorities' unlawful strategic objectives.

Article 18 of the Convention prohibits States from applying restrictions permitted under the Convention for purposes other than those for which those restrictions have been prescribed.

1. The Standard Under Article 18 of the Convention and the “Ulterior Purpose” Test

In Merabishvili v. Georgia,[16] the European Court of Human Rights explained that a violation of Article 18 arises where a restriction of a right—such as detention or imprisonment—pursues, beyond its officially declared legal purpose, a dominant ulterior political purpose.

2. The Authorities' Ulterior Purpose

The sentence imposed on Mikheil Saakashvili in the “Jackets Case”—nine years' imprisonment, and ultimately 12 years and 6 months following the aggregation of sentences—points precisely to the existence of such an ulterior purpose:

• The manifest disproportionality of the sentence: The extensive interpretation of the criminal-law provision, Article 182 of the Criminal Code, to the detriment of the accused, and the characterization of the President's representation and state-related expenditures as unlawful embezzlement, indicate that the official purpose of the administration of justice is merely a “pretext”.
• The degree of disproportionality: Where the conduct amounts, at most, to a breach of budgetary discipline or an official rule, the imposition of a nine-year prison sentence serves the purpose of retaliation or political neutralization rather than the restoration of justice.
• The statement of the former Prime Minister: A telling example of the authorities' ulterior purpose is the statement made by the then Prime Minister Gharibashvili in October 2021: “He should behave himself, otherwise we will add other charges and bring the others along as well.”[17]

3. A Scheme to Remove a Political Competitor

In the Merabishvili case, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 (§ 354), but did not consider it clearly established that the violation had been motivated by the purpose of removing Vano Merabishvili from the political arena (§ 332).

For the reasons set out below, it is precisely this ulterior purpose that is apparent in Saakashvili's case.

(a) The Tactic of Aggregating Sentences and Permanent Prosecution

A tactic of permanent criminal prosecution has been employed against Mikheil Saakashvili, involving a total of six cases in which convictions and sentences are successively added to, or partially aggregated with, one another.

With the imposition of a nine-year sentence in the “Jackets Case” and the addition of the illegal border-crossing case, the total term of imprisonment currently stands at 12 years and 6 months. It is highly likely that this term will increase further once judgments are delivered in the two remaining cases.

(b) Neutralization Across Electoral Cycles (“Political Sterilization”)

Mikheil Saakashvili's 12.5-year prison sentence, which began to run on October 1, 2021, and will continue at least until 2034, if it is not further extended, covers several parliamentary, local and presidential electoral cycles.

Under the current circumstances, Mikheil Saakashvili will be unable to participate, at a minimum, in the 2032 parliamentary elections and the 2033 local elections. However, if convictions are entered in the remaining two cases and the sentences are aggregated, his exclusion from political activity is likely to continue even longer.

Such a lengthy period of imprisonment exceeds any reasonable objectives of criminal prevention. It amounts to the complete removal of a political opponent from several future electoral cycles, ensuring that one of the country's principal opposition figures is unable to participate directly in political processes.

It should be specifically emphasised that, in the absence of the new, unsubstantiated and/or disproportionately lengthy prison sentences imposed on Mikheil Saakashvili, he would have been released from prison on 30 September 2027.

V. Mikheil Saakashvili Is a Political Prisoner

The criminal prosecution and convictions of Mikheil Saakashvili, particularly in the so-called “Jackets Case”, meet several criteria for political imprisonment established by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1900 (2012).

Under the above Resolution, “[a] person deprived of his or her personal liberty is to be regarded as a ‘political prisoner’:

a. if the detention has been imposed in violation of one of the fundamental guarantees set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols (ECHR), in particular freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association;

b. if the detention has been imposed for purely political reasons without connection to any offence;

c. if, for political motives, the length of the detention or its conditions are clearly out of proportion to the offence the person has been found guilty of or is suspected of;

d. if, for political motives, he or she is detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons; or,

e. if the detention is the result of proceedings which were clearly unfair and this appears to be connected with political motives of the authorities.”

As discussed above, the conviction in the “Jackets Case” is contrary to the fundamental principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege). The constituent elements of embezzlement under Article 182 of the Criminal Code have not been established because the budgetary funds were not in the President's lawful possession or control, the expenditures were not individualized, and direct acquisitive intent has not been demonstrated.

Against this background, the imposition of a nine-year prison sentence, close to the maximum penalty provided for by the relevant provision, constitutes manifestly excessive and disproportionate punishment and directly indicates the political motivation underlying the legal proceedings.

Furthermore, the combination of cases and the determination of a 12-year-and-6-month term of imprisonment through the aggregation of sentences—a term that may increase further in light of the pending cases—reveals a dominant ulterior political purpose.

The permanent criminal prosecution and the imposition of such a lengthy period of imprisonment go beyond the objectives of restoring justice and serve to ensure the long-term isolation of the country's former President and principal opposition leader from several electoral cycles (“Political Sterilization”).

These circumstances violate Articles 6, 7 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, pursuant to criteria (a), (c), (d) and (e) of Resolution 1900 (2012), provide a full legal basis for regarding Mikheil Saakashvili as a political prisoner.

Accordingly, Mikheil Saakashvili's name will be included in the list of political prisoners compiled by our organization.

 

[1] Transparency International Georgia: https://transparency.ge/en/blog/list-political-prisoners.

[2]  Saakashvili v. Georgia, Applications nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, 23 May 2024.

[3] Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia in the case of Giorgi Ugulava, Nugzar Kaishauri, Davit Tsipuria, Gizo Ghlonti, Giorgi Lobzhanidze and Archil Alavidze v. the Parliament of Georgia, No. 3/1/740,764, 7 June 2024, para. II-49.

[4] Id., para. II-49.

[5] See the judgment of the Tbilisi City Court of 12 March 2025, case No. 1/1793-15, pp. 2-3.

[6] Id, p. 67.

[7] Order of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 17 July 2017, case No. 106აპ-17, para. 13.

[8] Id., para. 5.

[9] The Budget Code of Georgia, Article 28.

[10] The judgment of the Tbilisi City Court of 12 March 2025, case No. 1/1793-15, p. 67.

[11] Id., p. 51.

[12] Law of Georgia on the Special State Protection Service, Article 4(4), as amended after 24 June 2011.

[13] The judgment of the Tbilisi City Court of 12 March 2025, case No. 1/1793-15, pp. 7-8.

[14] The judgment of the Tbilisi City Court of 12 March 2025, case No. 1/1793-15, p. 37.

[15] Transparency International Georgia: https://transparency.ge/ge/blog/45-tomi-relevanturi-da-sarcmuno-mtkicebulebebis-gareshe-ratom-gaasaidumloes-8-opozicioneris/?custom_searched_keyword=%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90%E1%83%91%E1%83%9D%E1%83%A2%E1%83%90%E1%83%9F.

[16] Merabishvili v. Georgia, Application no. 72508/13, [GC], 28 November 2017.

[17] https://on.ge/story/90596.