Introduction
The investigation into a criminal case against Vasil Kadzelashvili, Vepkhia Kasradze, Zviad Tsetskhladze, Irakli Miminoshvili, Giorgi Gorgadze, Nikoloz Javakhishvili, Tornike Goshadze, and Insaf Aliyev related to organizing, leading, or participating in group violence (Article 225, Sections 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code) has been ongoing for more than three months and has come to an end. A preliminary court hearing on this case was held on March 6.
Three protest participants—Zviad Tsetskhladze, Vefkhia Kasradze, and Vasil Kadzelashvili—are accused of organizing or leading group violence, which carries a sentence of 6 to 9 years in prison.
The remaining 5 defendants—Tornike Goshadze, Nikoloz Javakhishvili, Giorgi Gorgadze, Insaf Aliyev, Irakli Miminoshvili—are accused of participating in group violence, for which the sentence ranges from 4 to 6 years in prison.
An investigation is also underway regarding public incitement to violent acts that resulted in serious bodily harm, death, or other severe consequences (Article 239¹, Section 2 of the same code), carrying a sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison. However, none of the above-mentioned individuals have been charged with this crime.
Transparency International Georgia has reviewed 14 volumes of case materials provided by the defendants' legal representatives. These materials include various investigative and procedural documents as of January 22, 2025. The facts, findings, and legal assessments presented in this review are based on these materials.
Based on the evidence in our possession, we can conclude that all 8 defendants are innocent. First, the elements of the alleged crime are not present. Second, as of January 22, 2025, the case materials do not contain a totality of coordinated, clear, and convincing evidence that would prove the guilt of any defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Information about the Defendants
The defendants are individuals aged between 19 and 53. Some of them are students, some are actors, some are members of a political party (“Lelo”), and others come from entirely different fields. The majority of them met each other for the first time in the courtroom, which, as explained in detail below, rules out the crime they are accused of.
Possible Motives behind the Criminal Prosecution of Protest Participants
The profiles of the defendants suggest that, if not all, then many of them were arrested and charged to intimidate the public and to stop protests within specific groups. For example, before the arrest of these individuals, student groups were particularly active during protest rallies, which attracted public attention and stirred a sense of solidarity toward the protests. The arrest of "Lelo" members, Kasradze and Kadzelashvili, could be interpreted as a message directed at political parties. The charge against Insaf Aliyev could serve as a signal to national minorities.
This case also appears to have been a reflection of the disinformation campaign conducted by the government for months leading up to the elections, falsely claiming that someone was planning to stage a "Euromaidan" in Georgia. As described below, this narrative was also reflected in the investigator's report regarding the initiation of the investigation.
Initiation of the Investigation and Separation of Criminal Cases
The investigation was initiated based on a report filed on December 3, 2024, by David Kurdovanidze, head of the Wanted Persons Division of the Organized Crime Department within the Ministry of Internal Affairs' Central Criminal Police Department. The report was addressed to David Keburia, head of the Main Division for Combating Organized Crime. In his report, Kurdovanidze informed his superior that the protest, which began on November 28 near the parliament building, had turned violent. According to the report, some protesters threw stones, metal objects, bottles filled with rocks, pyrotechnics, and other items toward the parliament building. Furthermore, he claimed that, "based on the information at his disposal," the violent actions were being "organized" by Vefkhia Kasradze, Vasil Kadzelashvili, Zviad Tsetskhladze, and others.
The report also alleged that these individuals were "inciting protesters to rebel, instructing them to disobey lawful police orders, and teaching them how to create dangerous, explosive, and incendiary devices." Additionally, it claimed that Zviad Tsetskhladze was comparing the events in Tbilisi to the so-called "Euromaidan" protests in Ukraine in 2014, instructing protesters on how to block streets and build barricades. The content of the report largely repeats the same propagandistic messages that high-ranking officials had been voicing from political platforms for months ahead of elections.
Attached to the report was a list of 48 individuals who, according to the author, were "in contact with the organizers" and were "carrying out their instructions." This list included some of the individuals who were later formally charged.
The report did not specify the sources from which Kurdovanidze obtained this information. That same evening, when questioned as a witness, he repeated the report verbatim but still did not disclose the source of his information. He merely stated that the source was "reliable" because it had "previously provided valuable information that was later successfully acted upon."
Transparency International Georgia had previously warned the public about the illegal and disgraceful practice of planting [1] drugs on individuals, highlighting concerns over the legitimacy of investigations based on such "confidential" information.
The criminal case, which was initially launched under Article 225 (Sections 1 and 2) and Article 239¹ (Section 2) of the Criminal Code, was assigned the case number 090031224002. Within a few days, this case was split. The case provisionally labeled as the Zviad Tsetskhladze and 7 others was separated under N090051224002.
The General Nature of the Charges
One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is the principle of individual responsibility. With rare exceptions, a person is held accountable only for their own actions. Collective responsibility is not recognized by civilized legal systems. In cases of group offenses, the specific role and function of each defendant in the group act must be clearly established.
Despite this universally accepted legal standard, the charges in these criminal cases are of extremely general nature—so much so that it gives the impression that the defendants are being held accountable not for their individual actions but for some general situation created by the illegal actions of the ruling party, Georgian Dream. The author of the above-mentioned report (which initiated the investigation) refers to this situation with terms such as “insurrection” and “coup d’état”, neither of which, incidentally, are offenses defined in the Criminal Code of Georgia.
To illustrate this issue, let’s take the indictment against Irakli Miminoshvili as an example. This document, which spans just over a single page, presents the prosecutor’s version of events regarding the protests that began on November 28, 2024. The prosecutor describes how the protest allegedly “turned violent”, how “some protesters threw stones and other objects”, and how “Vefkhia Kasradze and Vasil Kadzelashvili were organizing and leading these actions.”
The formulation of the charges describes Irakli Miminoshvili’s role only as being present at the protest on November 30, 2024, and “actively participating in group violent actions.” Specifically, the ruling merely states that he “was throwing stones at law enforcement officers, thereby endangering the lives and health of both the officers and other individuals present in the vicinity.” However, there is no mention of what specific consequences resulted from his actions, whose life or health was endangered, how this danger was manifested, what the essence of the “group action” was, with whom Irakli Miminoshvili was associated in carrying out such actions, whose orders he was following, and so on.
Despite this, the prosecutor claims that he committed the crime stipulated under Article 225, Part 2 of the Criminal Code—"participation in group violence.”
The charges against all other defendants are formulated in the same general manner.
The evidence presented by the prosecution does not confirm that the defendants committed the alleged crime. Inadmissibility of Evidence
Based on the evidence collected by the investigators, an impartial prosecutor could not have concluded that the defendants committed the crime they are accused of.
For example, the evidence against Javakhishvili, Gorgadze, Miminoshvili, Aliyev, and Goshadze consists of a December 4, 2024 report by Detective Giorgi Jikia (of the Central Criminal Police Department's Organized Crime Unit) to his superior, Giorgi Kurdadze. In this report, Jikia claims that the individuals in question “appear on social media and internet portals, where their criminal actions are recorded.” The report lists specific websites and social media pages where audio-visual materials supposedly documenting their crimes were posted.
The charges against Vefkhia Kasradze and Vasil Kadzelashvili—which, as noted earlier, involve organizing and leading group violence—are based on another report submitted to Kurdadze by Detective Shalva Jakhua on December 3, 2024. This report states that on TV Imedi’s Facebook page, there is a video recording of a private conversation between Kasradze and Kadzelashvili during the protests, which allegedly “confirms” that they were planning violent acts. According to this recording, Kasradze and Kadzelashvili supposedly said things like: “These guys [Georgian Dream] won’t leave on their own;” “We should splash five grams of gasoline on Kaladze’s wife’s store in Tskneti and throw a cigarette butt;” “We need to find out which restaurant they go to, which café they visit, who they meet with;” “We should organize diversionary things;” etc.
All of the above so-called “evidence” consists entirely of video/audio material covertly recorded presumably by a State Security Service or MoI agent. However, the case file contains no court order or prosecutorial decree authorizing the collection of such material. Just because someone uploaded these recordings to the public internet or social media does not make them legally admissible evidence. If the original collection of this material was illegal, its subsequent publication or submission to law enforcement does not suddenly make it lawful evidence.
This raises serious due process concerns, as Georgian law and international legal standards strictly regulate the conditions under which covert surveillance materials can be used as evidence in a criminal case.
According to the first part of Article 1433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a covert investigative action is conducted based on a judge's ruling, upon a motivated motion by the prosecutor. According to the sixth part of the same article, in cases of "urgent necessity," a covert investigative action may be conducted or initiated without a judge’s ruling, based on a motivated decision by the prosecutor. However, the prosecutor is required to submit a motion to the district (city) court within no later than 24 hours from the start of the covert investigative action, requesting legal recognition of the action taken under urgent necessity.
As already stated, the case lacks both a court ruling and a prosecutor's decision that would render this covert investigative action lawful. According to the first part of Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code, evidence obtained through a substantial violation, as well as any other evidence legally obtained on the basis of such evidence—if it worsens the legal position of the accused—is inadmissible and has no legal force. This doctrine of criminal procedural law, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, effectively renders the entire case materials against these defendants as non-existent. According to the sixth part of the same article, inadmissible evidence cannot serve as the basis for a court decision.
Furthermore, according to the first part of Article 78 of the same code, a document has probative value if its origin is known and it is authentic. In all three of the aforementioned cases, not only were these covert video/audio recordings obtained without a court warrant or a prosecutor's decision, but their origin and authenticity are also unknown, as no evidence confirming these aspects exists in the case materials.
Therefore, the key pieces of evidence that led to the prosecution of Javakhishvili, Gorgadze, Miminoshvili, Aliyev, Goshadze, as well as Kasradze and Kadzelashvili, are inadmissible. Additionally, any other potentially legal evidence obtained on the basis of these inadmissible pieces of evidence—including search records, habitoscopic expert conclusions, and other materials in the case—must also be considered inadmissible.
Under such circumstances, any conscientious prosecutor would not have initiated a criminal prosecution, let alone wasted valuable administrative resources by sending these empty and baseless cases to court. Any conscientious judge would not have imposed preventive measures on the accused in such a case and would have terminated the criminal prosecution at the preliminary hearing stage.
No Effective Judicial Review over Searches and Seizures Has been Implemented
In the case materials against all defendants, there are records of personal searches, searches of their residences, and in some cases, searches of their vehicles. Formally, all these investigative actions were either conducted based on a court warrant or under "urgent necessity" on the basis of an investigator’s decision, which was later recognized as "lawful" by the court.
However, it is a well-known fact—reflected in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights—that in Georgia, there is no effective and genuine judicial review regarding intrusions into constitutional rights, such as the inviolability of private and family life. We have previously informed the public about this issue in detail in our analytical study on the illegal practice of planting [1] drugs. Courts automatically approve prosecutors’ motions, whether submitted in advance or post-factum, without any proper examination of the case circumstances.
The absolutely clear and indisputable confirmation of what has been stated is that, in the given criminal cases, Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili of the Tbilisi City Court reviewed and, in separate rulings, granted 21 prosecutorial motions on December 5, 2024, in a single day. These motions sought to recognize as lawful investigative actions (searches and seizures) conducted without a judge's authorization. No objective and rational person could believe that it is physically possible to thoroughly examine the circumstances of searches and seizures conducted in 21 different locations against different individuals in a single day, assess their compliance with constitutional and legal requirements, and issue a well-reasoned decision.
Lack of Essential Elements in the Corpus Delicti of Organizing, Leading, and Participating in Group Violence (Judicial Practice)
The established practice of the Supreme Court of Georgia dictates that an essential element of the crime of "organizing, leading, and participating in group violence," as provided under Article 225 of the Criminal Code, is a pre-organized group action. A spontaneously executed joint action is insufficient to constitute the elements of this offense.
In a ruling on a specific case dated July 18, 2023 (Case №478ap-23, para. 9), the Supreme Court of Georgia stated:
"The evidence in the case does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that G. Ts., G. M., and G. S. had pre-arranged to organize, lead, or participate in a group crime, or even acted in agreement with a specific person and carried out someone's instructions, which are necessary elements for the crime under Article 225 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Without establishing these elements, the crime outlined in part 2 of Article 225 of the Criminal Code of Georgia is not present."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' decisions that the charge brought under part 2 of Article 225 should have been reclassified under subparagraph "b" of part 11 of Article 126 of the same Code ("battery or other violence that caused physical pain to the victim but did not result in the consequences provided under Article 120 of this Code," "committed by a group").
A similar decision was reached by the Supreme Court in another case (Case №694ap-23, December 26, 2023, para. 33):
"The Cassation Chamber indicates that, in this case, the appellate court considered what is encompassed by the offense provided under part 2 of Article 225 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Based on the presented evidence, it was not established that Z. Ch., G. Kh., G. M., M. D., T. B., G. G., or G. Ts. followed any instructions or issued any orders themselves. Therefore, the prosecutor's claim of participation in organized group violence is not supported by corresponding evidence and is unsubstantiated."
In yet another ruling (Case №397ap-23, September 25, 2023, para. 12), the Supreme Court stated:
"To participate in the organization of group violence, it is necessary for the convicted individuals to be aware of the goal of the organized criminal group and to know about the common criminal activities or the group's intent to commit the specified crimes. One of the main defining characteristics of an organized group is prior coordination among its members.
In this case, the materials presented by the prosecution fail to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the convicted individuals participated in an organized manner within a group. Similarly, the examined evidence does not indicate that the defendants had any prior coordination or knowledge of each other’s intent. The evidence reviewed in this case clearly establishes that the convicted individuals—T. G., M. D., B. M., V. B., N. G., and I. Ts.—acted together with others not through prior agreement, in an organized and premeditated manner, but rather spontaneously, as a reaction to a specific situation at a specific time."
As we can see, according to the established practice of the Supreme Court, in order for defendants to be found guilty under Article 225 of the Criminal Code, the prosecution must present a totality of appropriate evidence that satisfies an objective observer beyond a reasonable doubt that the participants in the group violent actions:
In the present cases, there is not a single piece of evidence—no witness testimony, no audio or video recordings, nor any written documents—that would prove that the defendants had prearranged to engage in group violent actions, that they had an organizer or leader who issued orders, or that they were aware of the purpose of an organized group and its criminal intent."
Moreover, with one exception (Kasradze-Kadzelashvili situation), the defendants had not even known, nor had ever communicated with each other. Even if they threw any objects, for which, as already mentioned, there are no legally obtained and admissible pieces of evidence in the case, they did so spontaneously, chaotically, based on the specific situation, and not in a pre-agreed and organized manner.
Even in the Kasradze-Kadzelashvili situation, the content of the conversation does not suggest the formation or organization of any group or the issuing of orders and instructions to group members, let alone the unlawfulness and inadmissibility of evidence obtained from unauthorized covert recordings. Therefore, even if this recording were lawfully obtained and authentic, which it is not, it does not confirm the formation of an organized group. From the conversation, we only learn that two people, angered by police violence, spontaneously share some perhaps wrongful ideas, but this cannot be called either the organization of violence or even its planning, as it is merely talk, not the commission or preparation of a violent act. Moreover, just talking does not necessarily indicate an intention to commit such an act.
The case of Zviad Tsetskhladze is a separate issue. Based on videos uploaded to his Facebook page, he addresses not a specific organized group, but the general Facebook audience, teaching an undefined group of people how to defend themselves from illegal police violence. In this case, it is also impossible to prove that Zviad Tsetskhladze was leading any organized group. Furthermore, self-defense against illegal assault, i.e., necessary defense, even if the assailant is a police officer, is a circumstance that excludes the wrongfulness of the act.
Based on the above, the charge of organizing and leading group violence against three of the protest participants, as well as the charge of participating in such actions for five others, is unfounded due to the absence of the elements of the crime under Article 225 of the Criminal Code.
In the Actions of the Defendants No Corpus Delicti of Any Other Crime Is Present
As mentioned above, based on the established practice of the Supreme Court and lower courts, when the court determines that the elements of group violence are absent, it checks whether a crime under Article 126, Part 1(b) of the Criminal Code has been committed, and if so, it reclassifies the crime.
In the given case, it would have been appropriate to consider whether, if the elements of the crime under Article 225 of the Criminal Code are absent in the defendants' actions, there are the elements of the crime under Article 126, Part 1(b), which reads as follows: “beating or other violence causing physical pain to the victim, but without the result foreseen in Article 120 of this Code,” committed “in group.”
Article 126 of the Criminal Code is a result-based crime. There must be a result of the criminal action—beating or other forms of violence—resulting in the physical pain of the victim, but not the outcome defined in Article 120 ("Intentional Minor Injury to Health").
To prove this result, the victim must exist, who experienced physical pain directly as a result of the action—beating or other violence—committed by the defendant. In other words, there must be a causal link between the act and the resulting effect.
According to the first part of Article 8 of the Criminal Code, "if a crime under a relevant article of this Code is only considered completed when the action causes an unlawful result or creates a specific threat of such a result, it is necessary to establish the causal link between the act and the result or threat."
Therefore, the defendants might be charged with the crime provided for in Article 126, part 11, subparagraph "b" only if it could be proven that a specific police officer suffered physical pain due to an object thrown by a specific defendant.
The case materials contain a list of police officers injured during protest actions, according to which, between November 28 and December 27, 2024, 158 police officers were injured in the protest in front of the parliament. As of January 22, 2024, in the criminal case where the accused are Vasil Kadzhelashvili, Vepkhia Kasradze, Zviad Tsekhladze, Irakli Miminoshvili, Giorgi Gorgadze, Nikoloz Javakhishvili, Tornike Gozhaze, and Insaf Aliyev, a total of 31 police officers were recognized as victims. When comparing their testimonies and the charges formulated against the defendants, it appears that in the case of 22 injured officers, the resulting physical pain cannot be attributed to any of the accused because, in those 22 instances, the defendants were either not present at the relevant time and place or were present but accused of committing different actions.
For example, the victim N.M. states that on November 28-29, he was on Chichinadze Street when a stone hit him, he lost consciousness, it was dark, and he couldn’t see who threw it. This result cannot be attributed to any of the accused because none of them are accused of throwing stones on Chichinadze Street that night.
The victim D.K. states that on December 4, he was at the "Courtyard Marriott," where political party leaders were gathered, and during a confrontation, an object hit his hand, injuring his finger, and he was urgently taken to the Caucasus Medical Center. There were many people, and he couldn’t see who threw the object. This result also cannot be attributed to any of the accused because none of them were present at the "Courtyard Marriott" on the night of December 4.
According to the statement of the victim L.S., on December 2, he was on Chichinadze Street when a firework hit him in the face, burning his skin and nose. He was taken to the Caucasus Medical Center, where six stitches were applied, and he couldn’t see who threw it. In this case as well, this result cannot be attributed to any of the accused because none of them are accused of throwing fireworks on December 2.
There are 9 situations in which the date, location, and type of the alleged actions match the testimonies of the victims. However, even in these 9 situations, there is no evidence that the specific outcome suffered by the victim is causally linked to the actions of the specific defendant.
For example, the victim B.B. states that on November 29-30, he was near the Kashueti area when a stone hit his leg, and he couldn’t see who threw it. Theoretically, this could have been the result of actions by Irakli Miminoshvili or Giorgi Gorgadze since they are accused of throwing stones on Rustaveli on November 30. However, there is no evidence to prove that the stone that hit B.B. was thrown by Irakli Miminoshvili or Giorgi Gorgadze.
Similarly, in the case of the victim M.K., who claims that on November 28, he was under the arches of the parliament when a homemade explosive device fell in front of his feet, exploded, and caught fire to his clothes, causing him to temporarily lose his hearing. He was taken to the National Audiology Center but couldn’t see who threw the object. Theoretically, this result might be linked to the actions of Nikoloz Javakhishvili, as he is accused of throwing fireworks on November 28. However, there is no evidence that the firework fragment that hit M.K. was thrown by Nikoloz Javakhishvili.
The reasoning regarding the absence of a causal connection applies to any other result-based crime, such as intentional minor injury to health (Article 118 of the Criminal Code) and intentional light injury to health (Article 120 of the Criminal Code).
It is possible that the defendants' actions could have contained elements of the crime stipulated under Article 153 of the Criminal Code, but only if the legality, origins and authenticity of the audio-video material in the case had been proven, which, as we have already noted, is not the case.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the above analysis allows us to conclude that:
Participants in the fabricated case against the accused:
Judges:
Prosecutors:
Employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs:
