The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has pointed out legal inconsistencies in the case of opposition politician Giorgi Baramidze, who was detained on September 11 on charges of high treason, specifically sabotage. According to the prosecution’s version, his statement regarding the war in Abkhazia damaged the reputation of the Defense Forces of Georgia, infringed upon the honor and dignity of war veterans and fallen service members, jeopardized the reconciliation process, and undermined peaceful policy and the course toward de-occupation.
The Young Lawyers, however, believe that this case raises several significant legal questions, an exhaustive and objective assessment of which is crucial both for the effective protection of Giorgi Baramidze’s rights and for ensuring the independence of criminal justice from political influence and opportunistic interests.
Under Article 318 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, sabotage is defined as the obstruction of the normal functioning of a state or other enterprise, institution, organization, or service, committed with the aim of weakening Georgia.
According to the association, to invoke this provision, it is not sufficient to assert that a particular statement might have been painful for society, politically controversial, reputationally damaging, or contrary to the official stance of the state.
The organization asserts that the prosecution must present specific and verifiable facts proving:
- precisely which state body, agency, or institution faced obstruction to its normal functioning;
- precisely which function, activity, mechanism, or process was disrupted;
- what actual consequences ensued;
- what causal link exists between Baramidze’s statement and said consequences;
- what evidence substantiates that this obstruction was carried out specifically with the aim of weakening Georgia.
“The prosecution refers to disruption in the work of the Office of the State Minister for Reconciliation and Civic Equality, as well as confidence-building mechanisms. However, merely citing the name of an agency cannot replace the obligation to prove a concrete outcome.
The prosecution must clarify, for example: which specific event, dialogue format, program, negotiation, or cooperation mechanism was disrupted; who was prevented from carrying out specific actions; for how long or in what form this activity was restricted; and why this outcome is a direct consequence of a single public statement.
Potential damage to the state’s reputation or international image may present a political or diplomatic problem, but Article 318 of the Criminal Code does not provide for a distinct offense of ‘inflicting reputational damage’ on the state. Accordingly, a generalized reference to reputational harm cannot substitute for evidence of actual disruption to the normal functioning of a state institution,” the Young Lawyers’ Association emphasizes.
In its assessment, the organization notes that an essential element of the offense of sabotage is a specific intent—namely, acting ‘with the aim of weakening Georgia.’ This requirement fundamentally distinguishes a politically, ethically, or historically controversial opinion from an act that can be classified as sabotage.
According to the Association, a specific statement may trigger negative political, societal, or reputational fallout, but such an effect in itself does not demonstrate that the speaker acted with the intent to weaken the state.
“The intent must be substantiated by independent evidence and cannot be automatically inferred solely from the content of the statement itself or its critical reception.
Otherwise, a vicious circle emerges: a statement is declared harmful to the state, and then that presumed harm is used to prove that the author intended to weaken the state. Such an approach fails to meet the legal standards for proving direct intent.
In this context, it is fundamentally important to consider Baramidze’s subsequent clarifications, the full context of the statement, and the historical background. Potential imprecision in phrasing, a controversial nature, or the moral unacceptability of an utterance does not automatically establish the corpus delicti of sabotage or indicate that the individual acted with the aim of weakening Georgia,” the human rights defenders stated.
Article 307¹ of the Criminal Code defines ‘treason against the homeland’ as the commission by a citizen of Georgia or a stateless person with legal status in Georgia of certain specified crimes, including sabotage.
The Association underscores that this article does not constitute an independent crime in its own right and cannot bridge evidentiary or legal gaps in the elements of the underlying offense. Consequently, it is necessary to first establish the presence of all objective and subjective elements of sabotage under Article 318, and only then address the issue of supplementary classification under Article 307¹.
“The concept of ‘treason against the homeland’ carries an extraordinary moral, political, and reputational weight. Its use in the public domain and within criminal proceedings requires an exceptionally precise, individually substantiated qualification supported by concrete evidence. Legal phrasing must not substitute for proof of the specific elements of a crime or serve as a tool for public stigmatization,” the organization states.
According to the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, the function of the prosecution is not to criminally persecute individuals undesirable to the state.
In the lawyers’ assessment, when applying procedural measures such as detention or filing charges, the legal classification must be grounded in a reasonable suspicion that all mandatory elements of the imputed crime are present.
“If a public statement is treated as an alleged criminal act, precisely what circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion that this speech disrupted the normal functioning of a specific state institution, and that this was done with the aim of weakening Georgia?
If the answers to these questions are reduced merely to the possible reputational or political fallout of what was said, doubt arises not only regarding the correctness of the qualification, but also the justification of the criminal prosecution itself.
Furthermore, the prosecution is required to consider circumstances that not only support the accusation, but also refute the selected legal classification. If the investigation reveals that the factual circumstances of the case do not align with the elements of the charged article, a revision of the classification becomes mandatory.
Applying an incorrect or manifestly inappropriate qualification can impede effective defense, pose a risk of unlawful deprivation of liberty, lead to judicial dismissal of procedural motions, and, under certain circumstances, raise questions of unlawful criminal prosecution or abuse of office.
At this stage, it is impossible to predetermine the form of liability, as it will depend both on the actual procedural actions of the prosecution and on judicial assessment,” the Association points out.
The authors highlight that detention, and particularly pre-trial custody, cannot follow automatically from the gravity of the charges or the political significance attributed to the case.
According to the human rights defenders, restriction of liberty is permissible only when there is a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime and, at the same time, specific, actual, and individually assessed procedural risks exist.
The organization believes that the court and the prosecution must explicitly explain:
- what facts pointed to a genuine risk of flight or evading justice;
- with respect to which witness, document, or other piece of evidence there was a risk of witness tampering, destruction, or fabrication;
- why the alleged procedural risks could not be mitigated by a less severe preventive measure.
“The primary piece of evidence in the case is a public statement, the content and dissemination of which have already been recorded and cannot be destroyed or altered by the accused. The mere fact that the investigation is not yet complete or that new witnesses may emerge does not justify remand in custody. The risk of interference with the evidentiary base must be specifically substantiated and supported by real facts.
This case is of particular importance also because the pretext for criminal prosecution was a public political statement on a historically sensitive and publicly significant issue. In a democratic society, public debate on war, historical events, state policy, and accountability is shielded by robust legal safeguards.
A false, erroneous, or controversial opinion cannot in itself incur criminal liability merely because it offends part of society, or is painful or unwelcome to the state. The response of criminal law must be grounded in the proven existence of all mandatory elements of the crime, rather than in a political, moral, or reputational assessment of the statement,” the statement says.
The Young Lawyers’ Association notes that when an active opposition politician faces an accusation as grave and stigmatizing as ‘treason against the homeland,’ and the ground for the case is an overt political utterance, an elevated duty rests upon the state to provide a clear, independent, and politics-free legal justification.
Baramidze’s Controversial Interview
On July 18, an episode of Iago Khvichia’s program “The Birth of Georgia” featuring Giorgi Baramidze as a guest was published on YouTube. The discussion touched upon various topics, including the exchange of prisoners during the war in Abkhazia in the early 1990s. Baramidze said at the time that “they no longer gave us prisoners, and we didn’t have any prisoners—our side didn’t take prisoners.” Asked by Khvichia why, the opposition figure replied: “They finished them off.”
Later, Baramidze released a video statement on social media clarifying his remarks. The politician explained that his words concerned the situation during the first weeks of the war: “When the opposing side asked to exchange anyone [prisoners], there were none.” The UNM (United National Movement) member also stated that his comment began circulating out of context, in a “cherry-picked manner.” According to Baramidze, he expected that pro-government media would seize upon what he said.
Shortly thereafter, a criminal case was opened against the opposition figure under Articles 307¹ and 318 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, which involve treason against the homeland and endangering state interests.