Civil activist Vakhtang Gagnidze, an active participant in the ongoing protests, was sentenced to 3 days of administrative detention by Judge Koba Chagunava.
According to Gagnidze’s lawyer, Dimitri Vardiashvili, the court considered several cases jointly, including allegations of artificially blocking a roadway and creating an obstruction for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Both offences fall under Article 174¹, paragraph 10 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The lawyer stated that Gagnidze was unable to attend the hearing due to his health condition. According to the same source, he suffers from severe pain and is simultaneously raising funds to cover medical treatment expenses.
Following the court’s decision, Gagnidze wrote on social media: “I could have avoided administrative detention for myself — you are aware of my surgeries and you also know that my rehabilitation is not going very well. But this is a different matter… When my friends are being detained on absurd charges allegedly for restricting pedestrians on the sidewalk when my fellow protesters are imprisoned for years because of protest, I cannot run around holding a piece of paper and boast that ‘they cannot detain me, I am untouchable.’
There is another issue: I, who a month ago was facing the possibility of losing my leg and survived, now have to undergo rehabilitation in damp conditions. From a human perspective, this makes no sense they could have given me some time to recover and then imposed detention. It’s alright everything will be fine.”
Civil activist Shota Odishvili was sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention by Judge Zviad Tsekvava of the Tbilisi City Court. The case concerns allegations of disobedience to police.
Odishvili, who had referred to the honorary chair of “Georgian Dream,” Bidzina Ivanishvili, in an insulting manner, was detained on April 9 near the April 9 Memorial, as representatives of “Georgian Dream” arrived at the site and police attempted to remove activists using force.
According to the detainee’s lawyer, Marika Arevadze, the Ministry of Internal Affairs charged him with petty hooliganism and disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer.
On April 3, Judge Tornike Kapanadze of the Tbilisi City Court found three civil activists liable for administrative offences in connection with a protest held on a sidewalk. One of them, Abkhaz war participant Zosime Bzhalava, was sentenced to 2 days of administrative detention, while the other two – Naniko Bedineishvili and Vika Dzandzava – received a verbal warning.
According to Bzhalava’s lawyer, Malkhaz Pataraia, Zosime Bzhalava is an internally displaced person from Abkhazia. In his assessment, the court’s decision is unlawful and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution.
Administrative proceedings against citizens in relation to sidewalk protests commenced following legislative amendments adopted by Georgian Dream on 12 December 2025. The amendments were adopted following accelerated parliamentary consideration over a three-day period. As a result of these amendments, protest activity on sidewalks was, in effect, also prohibited. For a first violation, the legislation provides for administrative detention for a period of up to 15 days (up to 20 days in the case of an organizer), while a repeated violation may result in the imposition of criminal liability. According to the assessment of Transparency International Georgia, “the detention of an individual for standing on a sidewalk, even under administrative procedure, let alone the imposition of criminal punishment cannot withstand any criticism when assessed against the standards of freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and by international human rights instruments.”
Civil activists Tornike Toshkhua and Mindia Shervashidze, who were arrested in August 2025 on charges of group violence, were found guilty by the court and each sentenced to one year of imprisonment. The decision was delivered on April 1 by Judge Elene Goguadze of the Tbilisi City Court. The sentence is to be calculated from the date of arrest.
Tornike Toshkhua (37) and Mindia Shervashidze (33) are participants in the pro-European protests on Rustaveli Avenue. They were arrested on August 16, following an incident that occurred on August 1. On that day, the activists attempted to remove from the area an individual armed with a knife – identified as Georgian Dream supporter Beka Gotsiridze, who was allegedly attempting to provoke a confrontation. The attempt resulted in an incident.
Subsequently, the Prosecutor’s Office brought charges against the activists under the provision of group violence (Article 126¹, paragraph 1, subparagraph “b” of the Criminal Code of Georgia). The court did not accept the defense’s argument that the defendants had acted within the bounds of necessary self-defense. Legal representatives have assessed the decision as setting a dangerous precedent.
Civil activist Spartak Tsiklauri was found liable for an administrative offence in connection with a protest held on a sidewalk and was sentenced to 4 days of administrative detention.
Administrative proceedings against citizens in relation to sidewalk protests commenced following legislative amendments adopted by Georgian Dream on 12 December 2025. The amendments were adopted following accelerated parliamentary consideration over a three-day period. As a result of these amendments, protest activity on sidewalks was, in effect, also prohibited. For a first violation, the legislation provides for administrative detention for a period of up to 15 days (up to 20 days in the case of an organizer), while a repeated violation may result in the imposition of criminal liability. According to the assessment of Transparency International Georgia, “the detention of an individual for standing on a sidewalk, even under administrative procedure, let alone the imposition of criminal punishment cannot withstand any criticism when assessed against the standards of freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and by international human rights instruments.”
Civil activist Vakhtang Ramishvili was found liable for an administrative offence in connection with a protest held on a sidewalk and was sentenced to 4 days of administrative detention. The decision was issued by Judge Tornike Kapanadze of the Tbilisi City Court. The Ministry of Internal Affairs charged Ramishvili with creating an obstruction for pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Administrative proceedings against citizens in relation to sidewalk protests commenced following legislative amendments adopted by Georgian Dream on 12 December 2025. The amendments were adopted following accelerated parliamentary consideration over a three-day period. As a result of these amendments, protest activity on sidewalks was, in effect, also prohibited. For a first violation, the legislation provides for administrative detention for a period of up to 15 days (up to 20 days in the case of an organizer), while a repeated violation may result in the imposition of criminal liability. According to the assessment of Transparency International Georgia, “the detention of an individual for standing on a sidewalk, even under administrative procedure, let alone the imposition of criminal punishment cannot withstand any criticism when assessed against the standards of freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and by international human rights instruments.”
On 22 October 2025, Judge Nino Enukidze of the Tbilisi City Court found civic activist Giorgi Eliashvili liable for an administrative offence on the grounds of failure to comply with a lawful order of the police and imposed an administrative fine of GEL 2,000.
According to available information, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia alleged that Eliashvili had artificially obstructed a roadway and failed to comply with a lawful police order, namely to leave the road. However, the court established that Eliashvili had not blocked the road and discontinued the proceedings in that part. Notwithstanding this finding, the court nevertheless held him liable for disobedience and imposed the fine.
Proceedings commenced in October 2025 and were postponed on several occasions due to the failure to present evidence. The examination of evidence was concluded in November 2025. Video footage submitted by the defence indicates that, at the time of detention, Eliashvili was standing on the curb and was subsequently moved onto the roadway by police officers. Eliashvili was detained on 22 October 2025.In a social media statement, his lawyer, Boris Chele Kurua, questioned the legal basis for the finding of disobedience, noting that the court itself determined that Eliashvili had not been engaged in the conduct (road blocking) which he was allegedly ordered to cease.
Ani Kistauri, an employee of the Media Development Foundation (MDF), was subjected to 2 days of administrative detention. The decision was delivered by Judge Davit Makaradze.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs drew up an administrative offence report against Kistauri for standing on a pavement. The case concerns her presence in front of Parliament on 17 and 18 December 2025 during pro-European protest actions.
During the hearing, the Ministry’s representative, Tekla Kobakhidze, stated that, during Kistauri’s presence at the location, pedestrians were required to move onto the bus lane in order to continue to their destination, which, in her assessment, constituted an obstruction of pedestrian movement. On this basis, she requested that Kistauri be found liable for an administrative offence.
However, the Ministry’s representative did not substantiate the basis on which it was asserted that the individuals who moved onto the bus lane were not protest participants and that their movement had in fact been obstructed, relying instead on her own assessment.
At the stage of the proceedings, defence lawyer Mariam Jikia submitted two motions: first, requesting the termination of the proceedings on the grounds that the relevant legal provision is currently under review before the Constitutional Court, and second, requesting the examination of the patrol inspectors who had drawn up the administrative offence reports. Judge Makaradze dismissed both motion.
Civil activist Mariam Kipiani was subjected to 2 days of administrative detention for standing on a pavement. The decision was delivered by Judge Davit Makaradze.
During the hearing, the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tekla Kobakhidze, stated that, during the protest, Kipiani was standing in front of Parliament with the intention of deliberately obstructing pedestrian movement. She further indicated that demonstrators had occupied the pedestrian walkway and were expressing their protest in this manner. She requested that Kipiani be found liable for an administrative offence; however, she did not specify where the protest could have been conducted, given that, under the applicable legislation, blocking a roadway is sanctioned in a similar manner.
At the hearing, the Ministry presented surveillance footage from 112, showing several individuals moving from the pavement onto the bus lane while passing near Parliament. According to the Ministry’s representative, these individuals were not participants in the protest and had to move onto the bus lane because the pavement was fully occupied.
The defence asked whether these individuals had raised any complaints, to which the Ministry’s representative responded that no communication had taken place with them. When asked on what basis it was asserted that they were not protest participants and that their movement had been obstructed, Kobakhidze stated: “I am certain.”
Civil activist Mariam Melikishvili was subjected to 2 days of administrative detention for standing on a pavement. The decision was delivered by Judge Manuchar Tsatsua. The Ministry of Internal Affairs alleged that, on 18 December 2025, Melikishvili obstructed pedestrian movement on the pavement.
On 31 March, civic activist Mariam Melikishvili reported a on social media that, in the context of serving a 2-day administrative detention imposed on 27 March, she was requested to fully undress prior to her placement in a temporary detention facility. According to her account, following her transfer from the courtroom to a temporary holding cell, a female police officer instructed her to fully undress. The activist further stated that she was informed that, in case of refusal, the same procedure would be carried out by male officers upon her transfer to another facility. Despite this, she refused to comply with the request.
It is noteworthy that multiple detainees have reported similar practices. The Public Defender of Georgia has stated that, during full-body searches, individuals should not be required to undress different parts of their body simultaneously, and that such practices may amount to degrading and humiliating treatment.On 5 February 2025, the Public Defender filed a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court of Georgia, challenging the regulations governing penitentiary institutions that required detainees to fully undress during searches. Subsequently, on 10 June 2025, amendments were introduced by order of the Minister of Justice, abolishing the requirement for detainees to fully undress simultaneously during such procedures.
Administrative proceedings against citizens in relation to sidewalk protests commenced following legislative amendments adopted by Georgian Dream on 12 December 2025. The amendments were adopted following accelerated parliamentary consideration over a three-day period. As a result of these amendments, protest activity on sidewalks was, in effect, also prohibited. For a first violation, the legislation provides for administrative detention for a period of up to 15 days (up to 20 days in the case of an organizer), while a repeated violation may result in the imposition of criminal liability. According to the assessment of Transparency International Georgia, “the detention of an individual for standing on a sidewalk, even under administrative procedure, let alone the imposition of criminal punishment cannot withstand any criticism when assessed against the standards of freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and by international human rights instruments.”
