The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has criticized the practice of investigative bodies requiring defense lawyers and other participants in criminal proceedings not to disclose case materials without the permission of the investigators. According to the organization, in a number of recent criminal cases, investigators have imposed an obligation on lawyers and other participants to keep the investigation materials in their possession secret. Violating this ban can lead to criminal liability.
GYLA notes that the law indeed allows for restrictions on the dissemination of investigation materials to protect the interests of the investigation, ensure justice, and guarantee the safety of the participants. However, such measures must be based on specific and individually justified circumstances, rather than being applied automatically.
The organization emphasizes that the authorities must clearly explain what specific harm the publication of information could cause to the investigation—whether it concerns witness safety, the preservation of evidence, or other risks. The mere fact of an ongoing investigation cannot serve as sufficient grounds for completely classifying case materials.
The NGO believes that the current practice effectively grants investigative bodies, the prosecution, and the courts unlimited discretionary powers. The organization recalls that the Constitutional Court of Georgia has previously pointed to the risks of abusing such powers and emphasized the need to take into account all legitimate interests of the parties.
Of particular concern is the impact of such restrictions on the right to a defense. GYLA believes that the defense encompasses not only the ability to present evidence in court, but also the right to inform the public of one’s position, participate in professional and public discussions, and respond to the prosecution’s statements. A ban on public comments on a case can significantly restrict the defense strategy.
The organization also draws attention to the issue of respecting the presumption of innocence. If a criminal case is already widely covered in the media, and the prosecution retains the ability to publicly comment on the proceedings while the defense is barred from speaking out, a one-sided information environment is created. This can contribute to the accused being prematurely perceived as guilty before a court ruling is delivered.
According to the association, the issue has become particularly acute after 2025, when restrictions on media coverage of court proceedings were tightened. Under these conditions, additional restrictions on the dissemination of information by trial participants reduce the transparency of justice and public oversight of state institutions.
In conclusion, the organization states that such practices contradict the principles of open and accountable justice and risk further undermining the already weakened public trust in the judicial system.
