On 19 March, information was disseminated that Shalva Esartia, an activist detained in Zugdidi, was being held under criminal, rather than administrative, proceedings, which was later confirmed by his lawyer, Ramaz Mikaia. According to him, Esartia was charged under Article 353³ of the Criminal Code, which concerns the repeated commission of the same act by a person who has already been subject to an administrative sanction and provides for imprisonment of up to one year.
On 20 March, Judge Ekaterine Bebia of the Zugdidi District Court imposed pre-trial detention as a preventive measure on Shalva Esartia, who had been detained on charges of disobedience to a police officer.
Shalva Esartia was detained on 17 March. His detention was preceded by being stopped while driving, which, according to the “Civil Solidarity Fund”, occurred on the purported grounds of failing to yield to a pedestrian. Esartia denied committing any offence, stating that he had not violated traffic rules. Footage disseminated on the same day shows police officers using force to place him into a patrol police vehicle.
According to the organisation, the shift from an initial administrative charge to criminal proceedings raises indications of selective enforcement and may be linked to his activism. Esartia has been detained for the third time on charges of disobedience to a police officer — in previous instances, he was first fined and subsequently subjected to administrative detention, whereas the present case is being pursued under criminal law.
The provision of the Criminal Code under which repeated disobedience to or insult of a police officer is punishable by up to one year of imprisonment was introduced in Parliament by “Georgian Dream” on 13 October 2025 and adopted under an accelerated procedure within two days.
On 17 March, human rights defender Ucha Nanuashvili wrote on social media that he had been summoned for questioning at the State Security Service. According to him, the summons is related to his communication with an expert operating under the OSCE“Moscow Mechanism”.
Nanuashvili stated that an investigator from the State Security Service contacted him following a statement he made on television. In this context, “POSTV Analitika” disseminated a video on social media claiming that Ucha Nanuashvili had allegedly coordinated the report prepared under the Moscow Mechanism. Nanuashvili himself notes that this circumstance became the basis for summoning him for questioning.
Attention was also drawn to this issue during a briefing held by Irakli Kobakhidze on 16 March. In the context of the video disseminated by “POSTV”, a journalist from the pro-government channel “Rustavi 2” asked Irakli Kobakhidze about the possible role of Ucha Nanuashvili and inquired how noteworthy he considered this information. In response, Kobakhidze stated that “it would not be surprising for agents to be in coordination, and this is also evident from the published text; of course, there would have been full coordination with local agents.” Against the backdrop of these developments, Ucha Nanuashvili was summoned for questioning at the State Security Service the following day.
On 18 March, Ucha Nanuashvili was questioned before a magistrate judge. According to Nanuashvili, he provided the OSCE expert with information on the situation in the country and on human rights reports, which, in his assessment, constitutes an attempt to intimidate civil society in order to restrict future communication with international organisations. He further stated that the State itself had an obligation to cooperate with the expert, while paragraph 6 of the “Moscow Mechanism” requires participating States to refrain from any actions against individuals cooperating with the expert — a requirement which, according to Nanuashvili, has been violated.
The case is linked to the report prepared under the OSCE Moscow Mechanism, which was published on 12 March. The report provides a detailed account of the situation in Georgia since 2024, including democratic backsliding, the deterioration of human rights, and the persecution and repression of protest participants and the opposition. The “Moscow Mechanism” was invoked on 29 January by 24 OSCE participating States, leading to the establishment of an independent fact-finding mission, which prepared the report within a limited timeframe.
Zurab Tsetskhladze, the father of prisoner of conscience Zviad Tsetskhladze, states that in the case concerning standing on a sidewalk during a protest, Judge Nino Enukidze terminated the administrative proceedings and referred the case to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (MIA), indicating that the matter may contain elements of a criminal offence.
The continuation of the case under criminal law is linked to legislative amendments introduced by the ruling party, Georgian Dream, to the Code of Administrative Offences. Under these amendments, the repeated obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular movement during an assembly or demonstration may give rise to criminal liability.
According to Tsetskhladze, the police drew up the administrative offence report on 9 February 2026. The report was issued under Article 174¹(10) of the Code of Administrative Offences. This provision covers several types of administrative offences, including covering one’s face with a mask or other means; creating obstacles to the movement of pedestrians or vehicles; and artificially blocking the roadway used by vehicles or pedestrians. Under Article 347 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, the repeated commission of any of the acts defined in the aforementioned provisions by a person who has already been sanctioned under those articles is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year.
Judge Levan Murusidze of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by civil activist Lasha Songulia in the so-called “sidewalk standing case.” Songulia had challenged the decision of the Tbilisi City Court, which terminated the administrative proceedings and transferred the case to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (MIA) for further action due to the possible existence of elements of a criminal offence.
The MIA alleged that on 17 December 2025 Songulia created an obstruction to pedestrian movement on the sidewalk near the Parliament of Georgia. On 8 January 2026, the Tbilisi City Court concluded that the act might contain elements of a criminal offence and transferred the case to the MIA.
The continuation of the case under criminal law is linked to legislative amendments introduced by the ruling party, Georgian Dream, to the Code of Administrative Offences. According to these amendments, the repeated obstruction of movement during an assembly or demonstration may give rise to criminal liability. Lasha Songulia had previously been sanctioned for allegedly “artificially blocking a roadway” — initially he was fined 5,000 GEL and later subjected to five days of administrative detention.
Before the Court of Appeals, Songulia also requested the suspension of the proceedings pending a decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and asked the appellate court to submit a constitutional referral to the Constitutional Court. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed these motions and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Civil activist Baia Margishvili faces up to two years’ imprisonment for tearing case materials in a courtroom during a court hearing. Charges were brought against her in her absence. She has been charged under Article 366(2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia, which concerns the insult of a judge or juror and is punishable by a fine, corrective labour for a term of one to two years, or imprisonment for up to two years.
Margishvili told Radio Liberty that she learned unexpectedly about the initiation of criminal charges against her. On 10 February, she was contacted by the police department where she had previously filed a complaint and was informed that criminal proceedings had been initiated against her.
The incident for which Margishvili is being charged occurred on 7 November 2025. On that day, Judge Zviad Tsekvava of the Tbilisi City Court was hearing a case concerning the alleged “artificial blocking of the road” by Baia Margishvili. “You have torn the Constitution over people’s heads – what are you talking about? This is how you have torn the Constitution over people’s heads,” Margishvili stated, after which she took the hearing transcript, tore it up, and scattered the pieces on the table in front of the judge. Following the incident, she was fined 200 GEL and removed from the courtroom.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia has initiated a criminal investigation against civic activist Davit Gagrel in connection with standing on a sidewalk. As reported by the activist on social media, the court informed him that the administrative proceedings instituted against him had been terminated and that the case materials were remitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to the presence of indicia of a criminal offense.
According to Davit Gagrel, the court indicated that the alleged act – obstructing pedestrians’ movement on a sidewalk on 18 December 2025 could not be assessed solely within the framework of administrative liability, as he had previously served detention under the same provision. On this basis, the administrative proceedings were discontinued and the case was referred to law enforcement authorities for criminal legal qualification.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs alleges that Davit Gagrel obstructed citizens’ movement in connection with a protest expressed on a sidewalk. On this basis, administrative proceedings have been instituted against protest participants since Georgian Dream adopted a further repressive legislative amendment restricting freedom of assembly on 12 December 2025, which in fact prohibited protests on sidewalks. Under the amended legal framework, a first violation is punishable by administrative detention of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), while a repeated violation may entail the imposition of criminal liability.
On the same legal grounds, the court has, to date, remitted the cases of five civic activists to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for further criminal-law assessment: Vazha Gaprindashvili, Giorgi Tsulaia, Ana Bdeiani, and father and son Kakha and Konstantine Mikaia. In total, six activists currently face the risk of criminal prosecution in connection with protests conducted on sidewalks.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs has initiated criminal prosecution against civic activist Kakha Mikaia, a former member of the Political Council of Georgian Dream, and his son, Konstantine Mikaia, in connection with standing on a sidewalk. In an interview with TV Pirveli, Kakha Mikaia stated: “I received a decision stating that, following amendments to certain provisions of the Administrative Offences Code, the case has been transferred to criminal proceedings. This was expected from the current authorities.”
Father and son Kakha and Konstantine Mikaia are active participants in the protests on Rustaveli Avenue. Both had previously been subjected to administrative detention on the grounds of allegedly blocking a roadway. On 21 October 2025, Judge Nino Enukidze sentenced Kakha Mikaia, who had been detained during a protest on allegations of unlawfully blocking a roadway, to 14 days of administrative detention. On the same day, Konstantine Mikaia was also sentenced to 14 days of administrative detention. Prior to that, on 17 September 2025, Konstantine Mikaia had been detained for 10 days for non-payment of a fine.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs has been accusing individuals of obstructing citizens’ movement for protests expressed on sidewalks since Georgian Dream adopted another repressive legislative amendment restricting freedom of assembly on 12 December 2025, which in fact banned protests on sidewalks. Under the amended legal framework, a first violation is punishable by administrative detention for up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), while a repeated violation may give rise to criminal liability.
On the same grounds, the court has, to date, referred the cases of three civic activists to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for further action: Vazha Gaprindashvili, Giorgi Tsulaia, and Ana Bdeiani.
Tbilisi City Court Judge Tornike Kapanadze terminated the administrative proceedings instituted against civic activist Ana Bdeiani and referred the case materials to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for further action. According to lawyer Marika Arevadze, the judge noted in the reasoned decision that the case may contain elements of a criminal offense.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs alleges that Ana Bdeiani, a mother of three, artificially obstructed a sidewalk. The administrative offense report was issued pursuant to Article 174¹, Part 10 of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia. Ana Bdeiani had previously been subjected to administrative liability on 4 November 2025 on the grounds of the alleged artificial obstruction of a roadway.
Since Georgian Dream adopted another repressive legislative amendment restricting freedom of assembly on 12 December 2025, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been initiating proceedings against civic activists for obstructing citizens’ movement in connection with protests expressed on sidewalks, which the amended legislation in fact banned. Under the amended legal framework, a first violation is punishable by administrative detention for a term of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), while a repeated violation may give rise to criminal liability.
On the same grounds, the court has, to date, referred for further action to the Ministry of Internal Affairs the cases of two civic activists – Vazha Gaprindashvili and Giorgi Tsulaia.
Tbilisi City Court Judge Davit Makaradze remitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs the case of civic activist and United National Movement member Giorgi Tsulaia, who had been accused of obstructing movement due to protesting on a sidewalk. The judge identified indicia of a criminal offense in Giorgi Tsulaia’s case, as the activist had previously been subjected to detention for blocking a roadway (on 22 October 2025, he was sentenced to eight days of detention).
The Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated new proceedings against Giorgi Tsulaia on 17 December 2025 in connection with his participation in a protest held on that date. On the same day, the Ministry initiated proceedings against more than 20 individuals, including doctor Vazha Gaprindashvili, whose case was likewise remitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Since Georgian Dream adopted another repressive legislative amendment restricting freedom of assembly on 12 December 2025, the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been initiating proceedings against protest participants with “obstructing citizens’ movement” for protests carried out on sidewalks, which the amended legislation in fact banned. Under the amended legal framework, a first offense is punishable by administrative detention of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), while a repeated offense may entail criminal liability.
Civic activist and doctor Vazha Gaprindashvili is facing the threat of criminal prosecution for standing on a sidewalk. The Ministry of Internal Affairs accuses him of “obstructing citizens’ movement” in connection with the protest held on 22 December 2025.
On 8 January, an administrative hearing was held in this case, after which Judge Tornike Kapanadze referred the case to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, citing the presence of elements of a criminal offense. Vazha Gaprindashvili has previously been identified as an administrative offender on the grounds of allegedly “blocking a roadway.”The Ministry of Internal Affairs has been bringing charges of “obstructing citizens’ movement” against protest participants for expressions of protest carried out on sidewalks since Georgian Dream adopted another repressive legislative amendment restricting freedom of assembly on 12 December 2025, which effectively banned protests even on sidewalks. Under the legislation, a first offense is punishable by administrative detention of up to 15 days (up to 20 days for organizers), while a repeated offense may result in criminal liability.
