Human rights organization Transparency International Georgia stated that no terrorist purpose can be seen in the actions of Aleksandre Elisashvili, leader of the Citizens party (“Mokalakeni”), who was sentenced to 13 years in prison for attempting to set fire to a court building.
According to a released statement, taking into account Elisashvili’s personality, his political affiliation, his systematic conflict with the ruling party in recent years, and other contextual circumstances, a reasonable suspicion arises that the politician’s conviction under a terrorism charge—rather than for damage to property—was potentially aimed at making an exemplary punishment of a prominent opposition figure and, at the same time, casting a shadow over Elisashvili himself, his party, and, more broadly, the entire pro-Western opposition.
“In a verdict dated July 10, 2026, the Tbilisi City Court found Aleksandre Elisashvili guilty of an attempted offense under Part 1 of Article 323 of the Criminal Code (CC)—committing a terrorist act—and sentenced him to 13 years of imprisonment. According to the verdict, Aleksandre Elisashvili attempted to set fire to the Tbilisi City Court building with a terrorist purpose.
As a result of a legal analysis of the court ruling, we concluded that the court failed to prove the existence of a terrorist purpose in the action committed by Aleksandre Elisashvili to the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ Consequently, the court violated his right to a fair trial and other rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights; this circumstance provides grounds to consider Aleksandre Elisashvili a political prisoner, as he meets the criteria established by the Council of Europe,” Transparency stated.
According to the rights group, the evidence cited by the court—witness testimonies, confiscated video footage, physical evidence, expert conclusions, and other materials—undeniably proves that an attempted arson of the court’s registry office did take place. Furthermore, Elisashvili himself confirmed that he doused the registry office building with gasoline in order to burn it down.
“The main legal problem with the verdict, therefore, lies not in proving the fact of the attempted arson, but in qualifying this action as a terrorist offense.”
The authors also note that the court verdict indicates Elisashvili was dissatisfied with developments in the country and the performance of the judiciary. In his final statement, the politician explained that he had been subjected to unjust detentions and physical violence. Thus, the factual circumstances established by the court quite clearly point to a political and protest motive behind the act.
According to Transparency, based on the circumstances established by the court, it can be said that Elisashvili had a clear motive: he was dissatisfied with the actions of the authorities and the court, considered the court unfair, and wanted to express this dissatisfaction in a radical form. However, this does not mean that a legally defined terrorist purpose existed. Political protest can be the motive for a crime, but a political motive in itself does not constitute a terrorist purpose.
“The court should have established which specific type of terrorist purpose motivated Elisashvili: whether it was intimidating the population, compelling a government body to perform or refrain from performing a specific act, or destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures of the country. To repeat, the court did no such thing. Nowhere in the verdict can one find a place where the court thoroughly, broadly, and convincingly argued that any of the aforementioned signs of a terrorist purpose were present in Elisashvili’s actions.”
The organization notes that the court correctly established the political motive behind Elisashvili’s action—he was dissatisfied with the performance of the court and the authorities, considered his act an expression of political protest, and sought to resist the government. However, a political motive and a terrorist purpose are distinct legal concepts.