The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), which represents the interests of journalist Mzia Amaglobeli before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has announced that the Court has registered a second application lodged on her behalf. This application concerns her administrative detention and the related proceedings.
Sakharov Prize 2025 laureate and Georgia’s first female journalist recognised as a political prisoner, Mzia Amaglobeli, was arrested twice during the night of 11–12 January, 2025. Her first arrest was administrative, followed shortly by a second arrest on criminal charges. She has remained in unlawful and politically motivated detention since 12 January, 2025. On 6 August, Amaglobeli was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
Amaglobeli’s legal team has submitted two applications to the ECHR. The first application has already reached the communication stage, with both the Georgian Government and the applicant’s representatives having submitted their written observations.
Further details of the case are outlined in GYLA’s statement:
The proceedings of the cases of Mzia Amaglobeli before the Strasbourg Court are actively ongoing.
· In the first case (the imposition of detention as a measure of restraint and related violations), GYLA has submitted written observations;
· In the second case (administrative detention and related offences), the European Court of Human Rights has registered the application.
In more detail:
The first case (Amaglobeli v. Georgia, no. 13661/25) concerns violations of the following rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Mzia Amaglobeli, the founder of Batumelebi and Netgazeti, who was unlawfully arrested and detained on 12 January 2025: Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 (right to an effective remedy), and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights). In this connection, GYLA lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Mzia Amaglobeli on 28 April 2025.
On 31 October 2025, the Government of Georgia submitted written observations to the Strasbourg Court in response to the application. The State denied the existence of any violations and maintained that Mzia Amaglobeli’s arrest, as well as her continued pre-trial detention, were compatible with the State’s Convention obligations.
We remind the publicity that in 2025, during a protest rally held in front of the Batumi City Police Department building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), Mzia Amaglobeli was unlawfully arrested twice.
On 11 January 2025, Mzia Amaglobeli was unlawfully administratively detained for placing a sticker with the inscription “Georgia goes on a strike” to the exterior facade of the auxiliary building of the Batumi City Police Department. At that time, Mzia Amaglobeli was exercising her freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention and was expressing solidarity with individuals unlawfully detained in the context of the ongoing protest. In relation to her unlawful administrative detention and the violations identified within the administrative offence proceedings brought against her, GYLA applied to the Strasbourg Court on 17 November 2025. The Court has already registered the application and assigned it a case number (no. 36304/25). This constitutes Mzia Amaglobeli’s second case before the Strasbourg Court.
On 12 January 2025, Mzia Amaglobeli was unlawfully arrested for the second time in front of the Batumi City Police Department building, this time under criminal law. On 13 January 2025, the Prosecutor’s Office charged her under Article 353¹(1) of the Criminal Code, which concerns an attack on a police officer. It is significant that, by its judgment of 6 August 2025, the Batumi City Court reclassified the charge brought by the prosecution against Mzia Amaglobeli under Article 353(1) of the Criminal Code (resistance, threat, or violence against a public order officer or another representative of authorities) and, without examining the new charge, arised from the original formulation of the accusation, which had not been the subject of examination at any stage of the proceedings. As a result, the defendant’s fundamental right to defend herself against a new charge and new factual circumstances was disregarded. On 18 November 2025, the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, by Nikoloz Margvelashvili as a chairperson, delivered a judgment upholding the decision of the Batumi City Court without assessing the circumstances and relevant facts required for classification under Article 353 of the Criminal Code. Proceedings of this case are still ongoing at the domestic level.
It is noteworthy that, both at the domestic level and before the Strasbourg Court, the state has failed to clarify or establish the identity of the person who actually carried out Mzia Amaglobeli’s arrest under criminal law. The Ministry of Justice, as well as the Prosecutor’s Office, has been unable to substantiate the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence that would confirm the commission by Mzia Amaglobeli of the specific act qualified by the prosecution as an “attack on a police officer,” or the necessity of applying detention as a measure of restraint. Consequently, Mzia Amaglobeli’s right to liberty guaranteed under Article 5 of the Convention was violated.
In particular, the state itself indicates that “the degree of harm” alone is not decisive for the legal qualification of the act and that, under Article 353¹ of the Criminal Code, importance is also attached to “the context in which the act was committed” and “the offender’s intent.” However, in order to demonstrate the sequence of events and the surrounding circumstances and to substantiate Mzia Amaglobeli’s intent, the State failed to submit relevant evidence, including neutral evidence, and relied on video material contained in the case file, which does not allow for the identification of any fact, particularly the “offender’s intent.” The submissions explain that the arrest was arbitrary and pursued a malicious purpose, as it was prompted not by reasonable suspicion but by a threat made by Irakli Dgebuadze that he would “arrest Mzia Amaglobeli under criminal grounds.”
It is important to note that under Article 5(3) of the Convention, domestic courts are obliged, from the very first stage to substantiate both the existence of reasonable suspicion and the presence of relevant and sufficient additional grounds justifying detention. In parallel, with regard to the use of detention as a measure of restraint against Mzia Amaglobeli, the state reiterated the arguments advanced by the prosecution at the domestic level concerning the risks of absconding, influencing witnesses, and committing a new offence. Even though, during the examination of the merits at the domestic level, Mzia Amaglobeli’s lawyers not only refuted the existence of these risks but also drew the prosecution’s attention to the applicable standard and the necessity of evidence required to justify continued detention, the state failed to submit relevant evidence at the international level.
The Government’s observations state that, for the application of detention as a measure of restraint, the prosecution relied on Mzia Amaglobeli’s administrative detention and administrative offence cases, in respect of which no final decision had been delivered and which had not even been examined by the courts. Accordingly, in circumstances where the prosecution failed to submit appropriate evidence to substantiate the alleged risk of committing a “new offence” and relied solely on administrative detention, Mzia Amaglobeli was simultaneously required to prove her innocence regarding the cases that were still pending at the domestic level. Through the prosecution’s position and the courts’ endorsement of the prosecution’s arguments without any assessment, the presumption of innocence was violated, a principle established under international practice, which protects the individual at all stages of proceedings until a final judgement is delivered.
The position submitted by the Government fails to dispel the existence of an intention whose real aim was to make an example of Mzia Amaglobeli through punishment. In this regard, statements by representatives of the ruling party, including Irakli Kobakhidze and Nino Tsilosani, have also been submitted. These statements refer to Mzia Amaglobeli as guilty and assert that she fulfilled a specific assignment, even though no final decision has yet been delivered against her at domestic level.
The additional written observations also present new factual circumstances about the case, including significant matters not mentioned in the Government’s observations. In particular, on 14 November 2025, the Prosecutor’s Office that was asking an aggravation of the charge and sentence against Mzia Amaglobeli, submitted to the Kutaisi Court of Appeals an expert opinion commissioned in respect of Mzia Amaglobeli’s mobile phone. This examination was ordered in a manifestly unlawful manner, on the basis of a report by Vladimir Chitaia, a detective of the Detective (Operational) Division of the Guria Police Department. In his report, he claimed that, according to information available to him, the alleged attack on a police officer by Mzia Amaglobeli had been premeditated and that she had communicated with unidentified persons via mobile phone applications, exchanged messages, and received instructions. It is noteworthy that, in ordering the expert examination of Mzia Amaglobeli’s mobile phone, the court relied solely on the information provided by Vladimir Chitaia and failed to take into account the fact that the phone would contain information related to journalistic activity, thereby violating the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Moreover, following an expert examination lasting nearly 9 months, no interesting information to the investigation was identified on Mzia Amaglobeli’s phone. Under the above circumstances, Mzia Amaglobeli was deprived of an effective means of protecting her rights, as her rights were restricted in circumstances where there was no body of evidence, except for Vladimir Chitaia’s letter, in which the information provided could not be confirmed.
We inform the publicity that the present application and the submitted observations represent only part of the violations committed against Mzia Amaglobeli. GYLA will periodically provide the public with updates on the stages of the proceedings concerning Mzia Amaglobeli’s cases before the Strasbourg Court.
