What is the group "Daitove" and why did it become the target of the de facto government?

The group "Daitove" (“Let them stay”) was created during the civil protests against the "Russian law" in the spring of 2024. Its name comes from the idea that the residents of Tbilisi could give an overnight stay at their homes to our compatriots arriving in Tbilisi from various places in Georgia to participate in protest rallies.

"Daitove" actively participated in various activities before, on, and after the parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024. The group provided the public with information regarding the principles of fair elections and actively collaborated, including with the observation mission "My Voice," [1] which, in turn, united 30 non-governmental organizations and had 2000 observers present at polling stations opened in Georgia and abroad. "Daitove" was involved in campaigns aimed at encouraging citizens to participate in the elections.

Obviously, the group members have also been active in mass protests following November 28, which are related to the de facto government's rejection of Georgia's European choice, the brutal dispersal of protests, and the implementation of repressive measures of an administrative and criminal nature against hundreds of protest participants.

"Daitove" actively participated in various actions before, during, and after the parliamentary elections held on October 26, 2024. As of today, 255,000 citizens are members of the "Daitove" group at  Facebook. In addition to the announced actions, members of the group receive operational information on current events and various legal and other specific issues, including human rights. Members united in the group share their knowledge and experiences, including regarding personal safety during protests.

Given the above, it is logical that "Daitove" and its activists are one of the main targets of the de facto authorities.

Search and seizure at the homes of "Daitove" leaders

On December 4, 2024, criminal police entered the home of one of the leaders of "Daitove," a well-known public figure - Ilia Ghlonti. They presented Ilia with a ruling from an investigator dated the same day regarding the "search in case of urgent necessity" and informed him that a search was to be conducted at his home. According to the search record dated the same day, one laptop computer and one mobile phone were seized from Ilia's home. No other items or documents were seized. According to the search record, Ilia Ghlonti has been designated in the case as a "witness."

According to available information, a similar search was conducted at the home of another leader of "Daitove", Nancy Voland.

The legality of the investigator's decision

(a) Absence of probable cause

According to the mentioned ruling, under some ongoing criminal case unknown to Ilia (the case number is indicated in the ruling), which is supposedly under investigation according to the first and second paragraphs of Article 225 of the Criminal Code ("Organization, leadership, or participation in group violence") and Article 239 ("Public incitement to violent actions"), the investigator has supposedly determined that there is a "probable cause" that an "item or substance essential for the case" is kept with Ilia Ghlonti, which is why there is supposedly an "urgent necessity" for conducting a search. The ruling does not specify what this "probable cause" consists of.

Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) require that that a search and seizure may be conducted if there is a “probable cause” that in a certain place, with a certain person is kept “a document, substance or any other object containing information that is essential to the case”. When it comes to search and seizure, Article 3(11) of the CPC defines “probable cause” as a “totality of facts or information” that would satisfy an objective person to conclude that some document, substance or any other object containing information that is essential to the case is actually kept in a certain place, with a certain person.

In this case, the investigator did not trouble himself to indicate which facts or information led him to conclude that Ilia Ghlonti had objects of significance for the case, or specifically, which objects he was going to search for at Ilia Ghlonti’s place. In this regard, the investigator's ruling to conduct the search resembled fishing in a prohibited area by chance, as the investigator had neither the basis for conducting the search nor did he know what he was looking for.

Accordingly, the investigator failed to meet the standard of probable cause, which means that the search was illegal.

(b)    Absence of urgent necessity

The same applies to the issue of urgent necessity. In Georgia, one’s personal space and communication are secured by Article 15(2) of the Constitution. Pursuant to the said Article, “[p]ersonal space and communication shall be inviolable. No one shall have the right to enter a place of residence or other possessions, or to conduct a search, against the will of the possessor. These rights may be restricted only in accordance with law for ensuring national security or public safety, or for protecting the rights of others, insofar as is necessary in a democratic society, based on a court decision or without a court decision in cases of urgent necessity provided for by law. In cases of urgent necessity, a court shall be notified of the restriction of the right no later than 24 hours after the restriction, and the court shall approve the lawfulness of the restriction no later than 24 hours after the submission of the notification.”

Article 112(1) of the CPC provides that “[a]n investigative action that restricts private property, ownership or the inviolability of private life, shall be carried out under a court ruling upon motion of a party. Not later than 24 hours after receiving a motion and the information required for its review, a judge shall decide the motion without an oral hearing.”

Pursuant to Article 112(5) of the CPC in the case of urgent necessity, when a delay may cause destruction of the factual data essential to the investigation, or when a delay makes it impossible to obtain the above data, etc., an investigative action provided for by Article 112(1) may also be carried out without a court ruling. In that case, the prosecutor shall, within 24 hours after initiating the above investigative action, notify a judge and hand over the materials of a criminal case, which justify the necessity of carrying out the investigative action urgently. Within not later than 24 hours after receipt of the materials, the judge shall decide the motion without an oral hearing.

In this case, the investigator only indicated in his ruling that the delay might cause destruction of the factual data essential to the investigation and it might make it impossible to obtain the necessary data.

To justify the existence of urgent necessity it is not sufficient to simply cite the norms of the law and refer to the circumstances provided for by the law. It is also necessary to refer to specific facts or information that would convince an objective observer of the actual existence of urgent necessity. The investigator failed to refer to such facts or information in his ruling. Therefore, the search was also illegal because there was no urgent necessity to conduct it without a court order.

It is unknown whether the prosecutor has ever filed a motion with the court regarding the recognition of legality of the search conducted with Ilia Ghlonti and whether the court has ever granted such a motion. Ilia Ghlonti has never received the relevant court order.

However, even if the prosecutor had made a motion and the court had granted such a motion, the search conducted with Ilia Ghlonti would still be considered illegal in the eyes of the public, because, as noted above, the investigator failed to substantiate either the existence of a probable cause or the necessity of urgency. The court could not remedy these two significant flaws of the investigator in any way.

Criminal law measures as a tool for the persecution of supporters of Georgia's European choice in the hands of a repressive regime

It is well known that in Georgia, where the state has been captured [2] by one oligarch and his henchmen, criminal law measures are used against supporters of Georgia's European choice and for the purpose of persecution [3]. There is no genuine judicial review in the country. The court, as well as the prosecutor's office and other investigative agencies, are merely uncritical executors of the political orders of the government.

The search conducted with Ilia Ghlonti and other leaders from whom necessary items such as personal computers and mobile phones were seized, the fact that these items have not yet been returned to their owner despite the investigative body and the prosecutor's office having more than enough time to 'investigate' the information recorded on these items and 'determine' how significant this information is for the 'case' that is supposedly under investigation, indicates that in this case, too, criminal law mechanisms were specifically used to 'persecute' and, in general, to intimidate a democratic society.

The use of the tax authority for repressive purposes

The Georgian Dream has also attempted to use other agencies against Ilia Ghlonti. Tax coercion mechanisms are also used to exert pressure on him.

In the days leading up to the New Year, the business entities in which Ilia Ghlonti has ownership rights received identical letters from the Revenue Service, in which the service requests the recipients to provide information/documentation regarding their economic activities, including the results of cash inventory, information about balances on accounting records, information about the movement of funds in accounts, statements and information about bank accounts, etc. The letters indicate that in case of failure to provide the information, the recipients will be fined GEL 400, and for each subsequent case – GEL 1000.

Our concluding comments

The oligarchic regime of the "Georgian Dream" began the persecution of activist groups especially after it initiated the "Russian Law" two years ago for the first time. As it became clear, stopping the protests and the groups involved in organizing them through brutal crackdowns was an unattainable task for them.

Therefore, alongside mass crackdowns, the de facto government also resorted to methods of control through administrative and criminal law mechanisms against citizen and student initiative groups. However, this requires a consolidated repressive state apparatus. It is precisely for this reason that in recent years, there has been a regular practice of constantly promoting loyal personnel in the so-called law enforcement and justice systems through advancement, rewards, bonuses, and incentives. Budgetary funds collected at the expense of taxpayers are again spent on repressions against the same taxpayers. The "informational" support of repressive measures is provided by the propaganda media of the pro-Russian regime and an army of troll-bots lurking on social platforms. Their goal is to reduce public trust in civil activists.

The case of the group "Daitove" is a clear example of how a ruling party in a captured state can mobilize and use law enforcement, financial, and propaganda institutions against its own population to achieve its illegal goals.

"Transparency International Georgia" will continue to monitor the cases of "Daitove" and other participants in civil protests and will periodically inform the public about the progress of these cases.