Tetritskaro District Court Judge Vladimir Khuchua has dismissed administrative offence proceedings brought against a citizen over a social media comment. Such cases are initiated by the recently established Hate Speech Unit of the Human Rights Protection Department under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia.
“In this instance, the court finds that the commission of an offence by M. S. has not been proven, as no evidence substantiated in accordance with the statutory procedure was presented. The case file contains no evidence (information) whatsoever indicating that the Facebook social network profile under the name ‘M. S.’ belongs to M. S. There is no data or information showing whether he created this profile (page).
Furthermore, there is no information as to who owns and uses the profile, or who specifically posted the comment in question and from where. No data has been provided by the relevant internet service provider or the social network itself. There is no expert assessment regarding any of the factual circumstances. No evidence or information concerning the aforementioned facts was presented during the court hearing either,” reads a statement from the Tetritskaro Court staff.
The court emphasizes that such an approach and case-handling practice fail to meet the standards required for the legitimate protection of human rights. During the hearing, no information or arguments were produced to demonstrate that it is impossible to create a Facebook profile using someone else’s name, surname, and photograph. “Accordingly, in a situation where anyone can register a profile under any name and upload anyone’s photographs, the court cannot establish the commission of an offence solely on the basis of ‘identifying’ this image.”
“No one is required to prove their innocence. By law, the burden of providing irrefutable evidence rests exclusively on the administrative body.
Even if it is assumed with a reasonable degree of probability that the profile belongs to a specific individual, it must still be proven that this act (writing the comment or otherwise) was committed directly by that person.”
The statement highlights that, under current provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences and governing legislation, the identity of the specific individual who wrote the message must be established beyond doubt in order to unequivocally confirm that they committed the act, irrespective of who owns the page and who uses it.
“The court reiterates that within the scope of the case under review, not a single piece of direct evidence, nor any other information confirming the commission of an offence by M. S., has been presented. <…>
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the administrative offence proceedings concerning the misconduct provided for under Article 166, Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia (petty hooliganism) against M. S. are subject to dismissal,” Judge Vladimir Khuchua’s ruling states.
