Giorgi Okmelashvili was arrested on May 15, 2024, within the framework of a criminal case under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under Article 353¹, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Georgia - for attacking a police officer during a protest near the Parliament of Georgia on May 13. On May 16, the prosecutor's office charged him under Article 353¹, Part 1 (attacking a police officer in connection with the officer's official duties) and Article 260, Part 1 (illegal purchase and possession of narcotic substances) of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

On February 3, 2025, Giorgi Okmelashvili was found guilty under Article 353¹, Part 1 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. The charge under Article 260, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Georgia was dropped during the court proceedings based on the  "Law on Amnesty" Of Georgia.

This criminal case is an example of investigative bodies first making the decision to detain Giorgi Okmelashvili and then beginning to collect evidence against him.

The criminal case was investigated hastily, essentially in three days. The investigation was conducted by an unprecedented number of (15) investigators (this number of investigators is typically involved in multi-episode and/or organized crime investigations). More than 60 investigative and procedural actions were conducted in three days.

This criminal case clearly demonstrates the coordinated actions of the investigative authorities, the prosecutor's office, the judiciary, the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise, and pro-government media in the presence of political will/instructions – how quickly decisions are made in the investigative bodies, the prosecutor's office, the courts, and the forensic institution, and how coordination occurs between agencies beyond official channels.

Giorgi Okmelashvili's criminal case clearly shows that the prosecutor's office fails to fulfill its monitoring function over the investigative body, which is its main responsibility. The prosecutor has not revoked any of the investigator's illegal decisions (which are numerous in this case). Moreover, the prosecutor has requested the court to recognize illegal investigative actions conducted by the investigator as legal.

This case is a good illustration of how the court fails to fulfill its role as a controller over investigative bodies and the prosecutor's office, and unconditionally satisfies the prosecutor's motions, even when these motions are neither substantiated nor in accordance with criminal law and are based on evidence obtained in violation of the law.

Additionally, this criminal case is a good example of the state exceeding its authority. The investigative body, with the help of the prosecutor's office and court, exceeded its authority during investigative actions and seized computer equipment necessary for the operation of Giorgi Okmelashvili's company in order to suspend the company's activities. The investigation also seized the accused's vehicle. The seized items had no evidentiary value for the charges that the prosecutor was bringing against Giorgi Okmelashvili.

It is also noteworthy that investigative actions conducted in the administrative buildings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were massively carried out bypassing the electronic program of criminal case proceedings (investigations in Georgia are conducted in a special electronic program where it is difficult to modify documents/correct dates). Conducting the investigation using the old method (on paper) provides more opportunity for falsification of the investigation. Such exceptions are typically allowed when the dates and hours indicated in the investigative/procedural action protocols do not reflect the actual time.

Delayed Report to the Investigative Body About the Investigation Initiation by the "Victim" Police Officer

The "victim" police officer notified the investigative body about the violence committed against him not immediately, but the next day, May 14. In his written statement, the police officer notes that on May 13, in the morning hours, one of the participants of the protest hit him with an elbow in the facial area.

By the time the "victim" police officer approached the investigative body, the investigative body had already conducted several investigative actions and had sent photos of Giorgi Okmelashvili to all territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for identification purposes.

Identical Witness Testimonies, Contradictions in the Times Indicated in Witness Questioning Protocols with Other Investigative Actions

First of all, it should be noted that on May 14, 2024, the investigative body (Main Investigative Department of Tbilisi Police Department) sent a written request to all territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, sending photos of Giorgi Okmelashvili to establish his identity.

It is based on this letter that witness police officers appear in the criminal case. A total of four police employees were questioned as witnesses, one of whom was recognized as a victim.

It's noteworthy that the letter sent by the investigative body to all territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was accompanied by "screenshots" of Giorgi Okmelashvili's photos taken during the preparation of the protocol for requesting information on May 14, between 16:10-16:25 hours, in Tbilisi, at 10 Gulua Street.

Police Officer Sh.Z.'s Questioning - In response to the letter sent by the investigative body to the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on May 14, 2024, on the same day (May 14), a letter was sent from the Old Tbilisi Main Department to the investigative body stating that Sh.Z. recognized (identified) the person in the photo as Giorgi Okmelashvili.

Sh.Z. was questioned as a witness on May 14, during the period of 17:00-17:20, in the building of the Tbilisi Police Department (in Dighomi). The reality of the time indicated in the questioning protocol raises serious questions, as according to the case materials, 6 procedural actions were carried out within half an hour after the investigation made the "screenshots" (from 16:25), which is practically impossible:

1 - The investigative body prepared a letter and sent photos of Giorgi Okmelashvili to the territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for identification;

2 - The letters were distributed by the heads of territorial units to police employees for review;

3 - Sh.Z. reviewed the letter and prepared a response letter stating that he recognized Giorgi Okmelashvili;

4 - Sh.Z.'s superior, in turn, prepared a second letter and informed the investigative body about this;

5 - The investigative body summoned Sh.Z. as a witness;

6 - Sh.Z. appeared at the Tbilisi Police Department building (in Dighomi Massive) for questioning from the Old Tbilisi Main Department (which is on Tabukashvili Street).

Questioning of Police Officers J.B. and L.Ch. - In response to the letter sent by the investigative body to the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on May 14, 2024, on the same day (May 14), a letter was sent from the Sagarejo Department of the Kakheti Police Department to the investigative body stating that two employees of the Sagarejo Department, L.Ch. and J.B., could provide information related to the criminal case. The criminal case file includes absolutely identical reports from these two police officers (identical paragraphs, periods, commas, content).

During questioning as witnesses, J.B. and L.Ch. explained that on May 14, while performing their duties at work, they were assigned to write an official note. While reviewing it, they recognized the man who had committed physical violence against a police officer.

J.B. 's questioning began on May 14 at 17:05, while L.Ch.'s began on May 14 at 17:07 in the Tbilisi Police Department building (in Dighomi). The reality of the times indicated in the investigative action protocols raises serious questions, as according to the case materials, the following actions were carried out within 40 minutes after the investigation made the "screenshots" of Giorgi Okmelashvili's photos (from 16:25), which is practically impossible:

1 - The investigative body prepared a letter and sent photos of Giorgi Okmelashvili to the territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for identification;

2 - The letters were distributed by the heads of territorial units to police employees for review;

3 - J.B. and L.Ch. reviewed the letter and prepared reports stating that they possessed information of interest to the investigation;

4 - The superior of J.B. and L.Ch. in turn prepared a letter and informed the investigative body about this;

5 - The investigative body summoned J.B. and L.Ch. as witnesses;

6 - Of the above-mentioned witnesses, one from Sagarejo and the other from Iormuganlo appeared at the Tbilisi Police Department building (in Dighomi Massive) for questioning.

Questioning of the Police Officer Recognized as a Victim A.O. - Witness police officer J.B. and police officer A.O., recognized as a victim, describe Giorgi Okmelashvili absolutely identically: "A man of approximately 40-43 years; height 175-180 cm, full build, with dark, longer than medium-length hair, thick facial features, thick nose, dark long beard, wearing a greenish-grayish jacket."

Illegally Conducted Photo Identifications

The photo identifications of Giorgi Okmelashvili were conducted in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the criminal case, three photo identifications were conducted, specifically, Giorgi Okmelashvili’s photo was presented for identification to three police officers. In all three cases, the justification for conducting photo identification was stated as "the whereabouts of Giorgi Okmelashvili are unknown."

According to Article 131(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, identification using a photograph is allowed only if presenting for identification in person is impossible or requires unreasonable effort.

The case file does not contain any evidence proving that it was impossible to present Giorgi Okmelashvili in person for identification or that doing so would have required unreasonable effort. There is no indication of any attempt to contact him, search for him, or any refusal by Giorgi Okmelashvili to appear before the investigative authorities for identification. This is especially notable given that the investigator was able to locate Giorgi Okmelashvili immediately for the purpose of his arrest (the prosecutor’s motion for his arrest was submitted to the court on May 15, 2024, at 11:18 AM, and Giorgi Okmelashvili was arrested on the same day at 4:19 PM in Tbilisi).

Before the identification process, two identifying officers (police officers) had already seen Giorgi Okmelashvili’s photo and had identified him. Specifically, on May 13, the investigative authority sent Giorgi Okmelashvili’s photos to all territorial units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting that they be presented to all employees to check if anyone had information about him. The case file contains reports from two police officers (written before the identification procedure) stating that the person in the photo had attacked a police officer on May 13.

It is also noteworthy that, although the photo identifications were conducted by three different investigators, all at exactly the same time, all three identifying officers described Giorgi Okmelashvili’s appearance and identifying features in identical wording in the identification protocols:

• Photo Identification Protocol, Police Officer A.O. – On May 13, 2024, near the Georgian Parliament, an unknown man, described as "40-43 years old, 175-180 cm tall, of full build, with medium-length dark hair, a long dark beard, thick facial features, a prominent thick nose," struck the police officer’s right elbow forcefully once.
   
  • Identified by the following features: "Thick facial features and lips, dark eyes, a prominent thick nose, a long black beard, and overall appearance."
• Photo Identification Protocol, Police Officer L.Ch. – On May 13, 2024, near the Georgian Parliament, an unknown man, described as "40-43 years old, approximately 175-180 cm tall, of full build, with medium-length dark hair, a long dark beard, thick facial features, and a prominent thick nose," struck the police officer’s right elbow forcefully once.
   
  • Identified by the following features: "Thick facial features, a prominent thick nose, lips, a long black beard, dark eyes, and overall appearance."
• Photo Identification Protocol, Police Officer J.B. – On May 13, 2024, near the Georgian Parliament, a protester who struck a police officer in the face with his right elbow was described as "approximately 40-43 years old, about 175-180 cm tall, of full build, with medium-length dark hair, thick facial features and lips, a prominent wide nose, a long dark beard," wearing a hooded raincoat in a greenish-gray color and dark pants.
   
  • Identified by the following features: "Thick facial features and lips, a prominent thick nose, a long black beard, and overall appearance."

It is important to note that the testimonies of these police officers are also identical in describing Giorgi Okmelashvili.

Illegally Conducted Searches and Seizures

The motions submitted by the prosecution to the court and the court orders authorizing searches and seizures in the criminal case are unsubstantiated and do not comply with the Criminal Procedure Code.

According to Article 93(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a prosecutor’s motion must be substantiated, with specific arguments justifying the request. Under Article 112(3), a court order for a search or seizure must specify the object, item, substance, or other entity to be discovered and its identifying characteristics. Furthermore, Article 112(5) states that if a delay may result in the destruction of significant factual evidence or make obtaining such evidence impossible, the investigative action may be conducted urgently without a court order. In such cases, the prosecutor must submit a request to the court to recognize the lawfulness of the urgent action and provide evidence justifying the necessity of the urgent procedure. Additionally, Article 135(2) requires that all seized items, objects, and substances be described in the search and seizure protocol with their individual and generic characteristics.

In the criminal case against Giorgi Okmelashvili, the prosecutor's office submitted 11 motions to the court: 5 motions regarding the issuance of preliminary permits for investigative actions (3 motions concern requesting information, one for searching the defendant, and one for searching the defendant's residence); 4 motions regarding the legality of urgent investigative actions (an urgent search of the defendant's office, an urgent search of the defendant's car, the seizure of the defendant's car, and the seizure of a raincoat from a police officer); one motion regarding the detention of the defendant; and one motion regarding the imposition of a preventive measure.

First of all, it should be noted that the evidence in the case does not support the claim that there was an urgent need/grounds for conducting investigative actions, and in some cases, not only was there no urgency, but there were no grounds for the seizure at all. Furthermore, none of the rulings specify the specific evidence or facts that justified the urgency of the investigative actions. The motions only provide general, template references, stating with the same wording that delay would have made it impossible to obtain evidence or would have led to the destruction of evidence. Specifically:

• On May 14, 2024, the “injured” police officer’s raincoat, which had reddish stains, was seized as an urgent necessity. The grounds for conducting the urgent seizure were the destruction of factually important evidence and the impossibility of obtaining it. The claim that the “injured” police officer could have destroyed evidence of importance to the case is unrealistic. It is also worth noting that the biological examination of the urgently seized raincoat was appointed late, on June 3, 2024. Until that date, no investigative actions had been carried out on this item, which could have justified its urgent seizure. 
• An urgent search of the defendant’s car and office was conducted on the same day when a search of the residence was carried out based on a court order (the residence search was conducted after the search of the car and office). There is no new circumstance in the criminal case that would have created the need for urgent searches of these premises (other than the template statement by the police officer that Giorgi Okmelashvili keeps clothing and an electronic device containing information in the office and car). The possibility of storing clothing in the office or car should have been a permissible fact for the investigation prior to the day of the search, and it is unclear what information could have been recorded on the electronic device that would have been connected to the assault on the police officer, especially since the investigation had already obtained video footage showing Okmelashvili’s presence at the protest and his contact with the police). The fact that no evidence of significance to the case was found in the car or office is confirmed by the items seized during the searches. No evidence was seized from either the car or the office that could be linked to the charges against the defendant (the narcotic substance was seized during the residence search, which, as previously noted, was carried out after the car and office searches).
• The ruling for the urgent necessity of conducting a search of the office was issued on May 16, 2024, while the search itself was conducted on May 15, 2024 (before the ruling, which is illegal).

As for the motions presented by the prosecutor to the court, they are not substantiated and do not comply with the law:

• None of the motions related to the search indicate what object, item, or object was being sought in the search. The motions only generally state that “a search is necessary to find and seize evidence of importance to the case,” but it is unclear which items are important for the case. 
• In the motions in which the prosecutor requested the recognition of the legality of the urgently conducted investigative actions, there is no explanation for what justified the urgent conduct of the search/seizure and how the seized items are related to the charges against the defendant. In some of the motions (e.g., the motion for recognizing the legality of the urgent search of the office), it is not even mentioned which items were seized from the office.

The court fully granted all 11 motions submitted by the prosecution. Moreover, all motions were approved on the same day, mostly within 3-4 hours of submission, with one ruling issued outside of working hours. None of the court’s rulings specify the object, item, or subject that the investigator was supposed to search for and seize. Consequently, none of the rulings contain reasoning regarding the connection between the items to be seized and the case. The court unconditionally granted all motions, even though the records of the investigative actions do not detail the seized items (e.g., the amount of data stored on memory cards, the names of files, etc.). Furthermore, the vast majority of items seized during the searches had no connection to the charges against the defendant.

The lack of real judicial oversight resulted in the seizure of items that have no evidentiary value in relation to the charges against Giorgi Okmelashvili. Specifically, during the search of his vehicle, two mobile phones, a laptop, and a wallet containing money and plastic cards were seized. During the search of his office, five personal computers, a laptop, and memory cards were taken. Additionally, the investigators seized Giorgi Okmelashvili’s car, even though it was neither the object of the crime, a weapon, a means of committing the offense, nor did it bear any traces of a crime. Thus, the seizure of Giorgi Okmelashvili’s car and the large-scale confiscation of office equipment could have had only one purpose: to punish him and disrupt his office's activities.

Illegally Obtained and Attached Video Recordings in Violation of Criminal Procedure Law

On May 14, 2024, the investigative authority sent a written request to TV channel "Imedi," asking whether the protest on May 13 had been recorded and where those recordings were stored. The investigative unit received a positive response very quickly, and the prosecutor, based on this response, swiftly prepared a motion requesting access to information from "Imedi." This motion was submitted to the court on the same day at 12:05 PM. That same day, the court promptly issued an order granting access to the requested information, and the investigative action was carried out between 4:00 PM and 4:20 PM on May 14. The official record of the information retrieval does not specify the number of video files seized, their size, or their names.

On May 13, 2024, the investigative authority also sent a written request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs' Strategic Communications Department, asking whether the protest had been recorded and where the footage was stored. The investigative unit received a positive response the same day. Based on a court order issued on May 14, an investigator conducted an investigative action between 4:10 PM and 4:25 PM. The official record states that recordings (plural) were obtained from the Strategic Communications Department and stored on a memory card. However, the number indicating the total files was altered and is not clearly readable. The record does not specify the size of the files or their names. Moreover, an additional note appears in the record - added after the initial documentation was completed - stating that the investigator opened the recordings and took so-called "screenshot" photos.

On May 14, 2024, between 4:55 PM and 6:00 PM, the investigator viewed the video footage obtained from TV channel "Imedi." The official record states that there were 53 video/audio files on the memory card, which the investigator reviewed at an accelerated speed (without specifying their length). According to the same record, only two video files - N275_0566 (20 seconds) and N275_0567 (15 seconds) - were deemed relevant to the investigation. However, the record does not state that these videos depict physical violence against a police officer. Instead, the investigator was only interested in the appearance and clothing of a single man (later identified as Giorgi Okmelashvili), which was described in detail in the report. This selective focus suggests a premeditated intent to prosecute and arrest Giorgi Okmelashvili. At that time, the investigation had not established his identity, nor was there any evidence linking him to an attack on a police officer in the video recordings. The case materials do not explain why the investigator did not describe the appearance and clothing of other individuals captured in the videos.

On May 14, 2024, between 5:10 PM and 5:25 PM, the investigator also viewed the video material obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs' Strategic Communications Department. According to the official record, only one 13-second video file was present on the memory card, titled "aqciis monacile urtyams policiels" (translated: "Protester Hits Police Officer"). The record states that the footage shows a man likely striking a police officer with his elbow. However, the initial request from the investigative authority to the Strategic Communications Department on May 13 had broadly requested footage from the protest on Rustaveli Avenue and surrounding areas. It remains unclear why and how the responsible person at the Strategic Communications Department selected and provided only one 13-second video file that captured an incident of alleged violence against the police.

It is also noteworthy that the video recordings obtained from both the Strategic Communications Department and TV channel "Imedi" were examined by different investigators simultaneously, yet both of them provided identical descriptions of the individual in the footage (Giorgi Okmelashvili): "A full-bodied bearded man wearing a greenish-gray hooded raincoat with the hood up, along with dark-colored pants."

Delayed, Unrealistically Short, and Incomplete Forensic Examinations

Forensic Medical Examination

The expert opinion does not include photographs documenting the injuries. It should first be noted that the police officer did not contact the investigative body to request the initiation of an investigation, nor did he immediately seek medical assistance. The forensic medical examination was scheduled for the second half of the day on May 14, 2024, at the Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau. The alleged victim physically appeared for the examination. The following day, on May 15, the bureau issued a conclusion stating that the victim had sustained a minor injury (without disfigurement). According to the expert opinion, visible injuries in the form of bruising were noted on Aleksandre Okhanashvili’s body, specifically on the left wing of the nose and the left side of the upper lip area. Despite the visible nature of these injuries, the expert did not attach photographic documentation of the injuries to the descriptive section of the report (which is typically included in a forensic medical conclusion). This raises a well-founded suspicion that the police officer may not have had any injuries at all. This suspicion is further reinforced by the fact that the "victim" police officer approached the investigative body only the following day - suggesting that he did not initially consider himself a victim, which is why he did not find it necessary to report the incident immediately.

Habitoscopic Examination

The habitoscopic examination report was prepared within an unprecedentedly short time - just a few hours - during nighttime hours, whereas such expert reports generally require more time. Specifically, the habitoscopic examination was scheduled on May 14, 2024. Case materials indicate that the review and attachment of one of the video materials sent for examination as evidence were completed on May 14 at 18:00. The Ministry of Internal Affairs' Forensic-Criminalistics Department forwarded the expert report to the investigator on May 15 at 04:11 AM (midnight, outside of working hours). The report was prepared by a department manager (deputy head of the department) who, outside of regular working hours (during the night), completed a technically and professionally complex forensic report in approximately 10 hours.

Comprehensive Chemical and Biological Examination

The chemical and biological examination report was also prepared within an extremely short time frame. The expert was given two tablets for analysis, which, according to the case materials, were seized during the search of Giorgi Okmelashvili’s residence on May 15 between 17:30 and 19:45. The forensic examination was scheduled the same day - May 15, and the conclusion was issued on May 16 at 14:03.

Biological Examination

On June 3, 2024, a biological examination was scheduled at the Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau concerning a raincoat seized from the police officer under urgent necessity 21 days earlier. If the raincoat indeed contained traces of the crime (such as bloodstains), it is unclear why the examination was scheduled with such a delay, given that the raincoat had been seized urgently and in an expedited manner. The forensic report was issued on June 24.

Information Technology Examination

This examination was scheduled on May 16, 2024, on technical devices (computers, laptops, memory cards, cameras, and mobile phones) seized during searches of a residence, office, and vehicle. The forensic examination was conducted at the Ministry of Internal Affairs' Forensic-Criminalistics Department. However, the expert report was not completed before the case was sent to court (the case was submitted to the court on June 28), further confirming that the seized devices and the information contained within them held no evidentiary value for the prosecution. This suggests that the purpose of the seizures was unrelated to gathering legitimate evidence.

Prosecutor and Judges

The prosecutor handling this criminal case: Ani Khubejashvili

Judges who approved the prosecutor’s illegal and unfounded motions for searches and seizures:

• Davit Mgelashvili
• Davit Kurtanidze
• Teona Epitashvili

The judge who conducted the substantive hearing of the case: Giorgi Gelashvili