The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the criminal case of Mzia Amaglobeli, a journalist, founder, and director of the media outlets Batumelebi and Netgazeti, NGO chair Tamar Oniani announced at a briefing. According to her, several of Mzia Amaglobeli’s rights were violated during the proceedings in Georgian courts, including the right to defense, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence.
“This is the first criminal case in which, after November 28, 2024, a political prisoner has appealed to the Strasbourg court after exhausting all domestic judicial remedies. The complaint concerns politically motivated criminal prosecution and conviction, and is based on the argument that Mzia Amaglobeli’s right to a fair trial was violated in all three judicial instances.
The complaint also describes the context of the consolidation of authoritarian rule in Georgia and the rising number of political prisoners. This is already the fourth complaint filed by GYLA in Strasbourg to protect the rights of Mzia Amaglobeli.
Alongside GYLA, Amaglobeli is represented by prominent British lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, one of the leaders of Doughty Street Chambers, who specializes in criminal law, public law, and international human rights protection.
GYLA emphasizes that all cases against Mzia Amaglobeli are closely linked and are part of systematic state repression.
The fourth complaint to the ECHR substantiates the following violations of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Politically motivated justice (Article 18 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention). According to the applicants, the criminal prosecution of Amaglobeli was initiated not to serve justice, but as an act of political retribution. The purpose of the proceedings was to punish an independent journalist and intimidate society for expressing dissent. In support of this, the complaint cites public statements by high-ranking officials who labeled Amaglobeli a “foreign agent” and declared her guilty even before the verdict was delivered.
Violation of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention).
- Lack of an impartial tribunal. According to GYLA, Judge Nino Sakhelashvili, who presided over the case, was not impartial. Already at the stage of selecting a restrictive measure, she demonstrated a pre-formed negative bias that persisted during the trial on the merits.
- Lack of a reasoned judicial decision. The organization claims that at no stage did the national courts evaluate the defense’s evidence, while the prosecution’s materials were accepted without critical assessment.
- Unsubstantiated judicial decisions. The rulings of the Batumi City Court, the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Georgia are described as superficial and insufficiently reasoned. The court ignored the defense’s arguments, failed to examine 19 crucial video recordings, and relied solely on contradictory testimony from police officers.
Violation of the right to defense. According to GYLA, the Batumi City Court reclassified the charges against Mzia Amaglobeli during the final hearing of the court of first instance. On August 6, 2025, Judge Nino Sakhelashvili announced that the charge had been reclassified from Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia (assault on a police officer, punishable by four to seven years of imprisonment) to Part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code (resistance, threat, or use of violence against a representative of authority, which carries a penalty of a fine, home arrest for up to two years, or imprisonment for a term of two to six years).
At the same time, the organization claims that the parties were not notified in advance of the potential reclassification. The complaint emphasizes that this deprived Amaglobeli of the opportunity to effectively defend herself against the new charge.
Violation of the presumption of innocence. GYLA states that public remarks by high-ranking officials, who repeatedly called Mzia Amaglobeli a “criminal” and an “agent,” violated the presumption of innocence and shaped public opinion regarding her guilt before any verdict was reached. Furthermore, the organization believes these statements could have influenced the judicial process.
The complaint also notes that keeping Amaglobeli in a glass dock (commonly referred to as an “aquarium”) guarded by armed officers during court hearings was not dictated by security concerns, but served as a means of psychological pressure and stigmatization, which also violated the presumption of innocence.
“The case of Mzia Amaglobeli is an indicator of how the justice system can be used to execute the political will of the authorities,” Tamar Oniani stated.