The lawyers representing Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought 2025 laureate, imprisoned Georgian journalist Mzia Amaglobeli, have filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia.
The lawyers are challenging the decision of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, which upheld the two-year prison sentence imposed on Mzia Amaglobeli by the Batumi City Court.
In the cassation appeal, the defense requests that the Criminal Chamber of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal annul the guilty verdict delivered against Mzia Amaglobeli on November 18, 2025, and replace it with an acquittal.
The lawyers also ask the court to hear the cassation appeal through an oral hearing and to allow Mzia Amaglobeli to participate in the court proceedings.
“The Court of Appeal upheld Mzia Amaglobeli’s verdict not only in terms of the sentence, but also left the legal qualification practically unchanged. It did not examine a single circumstance that we raised in the appeal.
From the standpoint of legality, the Kutaisi Court of Appeal’s judgment is even worse than the first-instance verdict. The appellate judgment is a legally worthless document — so unlawful and unsubstantiated.
I can tell you that after going through two court instances, Mzia Amaglobeli has never enjoyed the right to a fair trial: neither at the investigation stage (because a fair trial includes the investigation stage as well), nor at the Batumi City Court, nor at the Kutaisi Court of Appeal. Georgian courts have deprived Mzia Amaglobeli of the right to a reasoned decision — to substantiate a decision against her,” Mzia Amaglobeli’s lawyer, Maia Mtsariashvili, told Batumelebi.
In the cassation appeal, the lawyers argue that the court violated Mzia Amaglobeli’s right to presumption of innocence.
“No one is obliged to prove their innocence; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The court also assumed the role of the prosecutor itself: in evaluating the evidence, it resolved not a single doubt or contradiction in Mzia Amaglobeli’s favor.”
The lawyers emphasize that Mzia Amaglobeli was not afforded a fair trial at either the investigation or the court stages.
“The court neither discussed nor assessed any of the circumstances or arguments presented by the defense.
Neither the first-instance nor the appellate judgment reflects the results of the court hearings; neither responds to any of the defense’s arguments or the grounds of the appeal; neither assesses any of the evidence presented and examined by the defense; neither specifically identifies any piece of prosecution evidence; nor refers to any specific excerpt from any witness testimony on which the court relied to reason Mzia Amaglobeli’s guilt.
Accordingly, the court’s reasoning regarding Mzia Amaglobeli’s guilt is not based on specific evidence that the defense could meaningfully challenge. Both judgments – one of the city court and another of the court of appeals – leave the impression that the court did not thoroughly review the case materials,” the lawyers write in the cassation appeal.
The lawyers also stress that, like the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal failed to indicate or assess the fact that Mzia Amaglobeli’s eyesight deteriorated dramatically while she was in a penitentiary facility. The court did not note that she has vision in only one eye, at approximately 10%.
“The court violated all procedural requirements applicable to a judgment, namely that it must be lawful, reasoned, and fair.
In delivering the judgment, the court violated the Constitution of Georgia, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the requirements established by the Criminal Procedure Code.
The court judgment is unsubstantiated, as it is not based on a body of evidence examined in court that excludes reasonable doubt. None of the court’s conclusions are reasoned, and the judgment fails to address any argument, objection, or legal position advanced by the defense,” the cassation appeal states.
The cassation appeal further notes that the decision of the Kutaisi Court of Appeal contradicts the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; creates the impression that the court did not carefully examine the case materials; that the appellate court did not respond to any of the arguments raised in the defense’s appeal; and that the court did not engage with the positions set out in the appeal or by the defense.
The appeal also emphasizes that the court failed to address the defense’s argument that the first-instance judgment under challenge relied solely on the false testimony of police officers, and that the court did not assess the credibility of those police testimonies against the constitutional standard of reliability, nor whether that standard was met in the case at hand.
The Court of Appeal also failed to substantively assess the false testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. Moreover, it did not establish the qualifying elements required for classification of the act under Article 353 of the Criminal Code, nor did it respond to any of the defense’s arguments that Mzia Amaglobeli’s actions cannot be qualified under Article 353 of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court has six months to consider the cassation appeal filed by Mzia Amaglobeli’s lawyers.
