Watchdog Submission to ECHR Highlights Instrumentalization of Administrative Code Against Protesters

Listen to this article

The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), a local human rights watchdog, has submitted a written opinion to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the case of the administrative detention of a Georgian citizen during the March 2023 protests against the Foreign Agents Law, the GYLA reported on September 19. In the statement, the watchdog also speaks about the general controversies over administrative detentions by law enforcement agencies during protests and the rulings of local courts.

The ECHR is currently considering the case that reflects a broader pattern seen in many similar instances. Citizens are often detained by the police during protests under two common administrative charges: Article 166 for petty hooliganism and Article 173 for disobeying lawful police orders. This pattern was particularly evident during this year’s massive protests against the Foreign Agents Law.

In the case for which GYLA submitted a written opinion to the ECHR, a citizen was detained under Articles 166 and 173 while recording a video of law enforcement officers using physical force against another person and asking them to stop. According to GYLA, the only witness from the police claimed that the citizen was detained because he refused to move out of the way. However, GYLA asserts that the citizen was actually standing on the sidewalk. The plaintiff was detained for 35 hours, with the detention extended without a clear explanation. Neither the judge of the Tbilisi City Court nor another judge of the Court of Appeals considered this detail. The person was found guilty and fined GEL 2000 (about USD 745).

For many years, the GYLA has been highlighting the “malicious practice of administrative detention” and the problems with the Code of Administrative Offences, which is used to restrict the realization of freedom of assembly and expression in the country.

The GYLA highlights that local court rulings in such cases are “patterned” and do not address the specific circumstances of each case. The watchdog notes that the decisions are largely “identical,” with only the names of the individuals changing. It also points out that controversial administrative detentions have been a longstanding issue.

In its written position on the specific case, the GYLA raises several points:

The evidence presented by the government is contradictory and the defendant failed to present neutral evidence either at the national or international level
The disruption of the rally was not lawful, did not serve a legitimate purpose, and did not meet the standard of necessity. In addition, the government presented, as evidence, television reports from a completely different day, along with contradictory evidence, thereby failing to meet the burden of proof and making it clear that there is no evidence against the appellant;
The reason for the detention was that the detainee had recorded the video of the official misconduct.

Also Read: