Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Almost Committed a Crime or Almost a Fair Trial

September 22, 2009

Maia Gogoladze
Natia Imerlishvili

The trial of Ivane Tamazashvili was not reported by the media and did not create public interest. His story did not astonish anybody because several hours in the cell at the police station, truncheons, beating, declaring his action to be a criminal offense, fine of 400 GEL have become the everyday routine of our life.

Ordinary Story

On June 15, 2009 law enforcement officers arrested Ivane Tamazashvili during the dispersal of the protest rally in front of the building of the Tbilisi Police Main Department. Tamazashvili was on his way back from a business meeting. In Korneli Chaladze Street he met some women with whom he was acquainted t. One of them, Tsismar Oniani, was a lawyer who was going to the police department to meet her detained client. Tamazashvili decided to see them to the police station. Tsismari Oniani was waiting for a permit. Tamazashvili was talking with another woman. The rally was going on in front of the department. Tamazashvili talked with the rally participants too because some of them were his friends. At that moment he saw masked policemen in black uniforms with truncheons running towards participants in the rally. The policemen laid siege to the demonstrators, journalists and passers-by and started to beat them. Tamazashvili saw how policemen beat demonstrators, women, journalists and people who fell down. He helped a girl to stand up and wanted to help journalists too but the policemen armed with a chair leg rushed to him and shouted at him: “Aren’t you a friend of Melor Vachnadze?” (A young activist of the opposition parties). Tamazashvili asked the policeman why he was holding the leg of the chair and in reply the policeman hit him on the back. Three more policemen helped their colleague, beat Tamazashvili ruthlessly and dragged him into the police department. Tamazashvili fainted and when he recovered he saw 30 more demonstrators alongside him. The detainees were beaten again. Tamazashvili fainted again and recovered in a cell where he spent 8 hours. He and the other detainees were ordered to write a letter of explanation. Someone dictated what they were to write. The detainees wrote that they had not obeyed the order of the policemen. However, the letters of explanation did not say what the order was. Afterwards, Tamazashvili, who had been beaten, was taken to the court room. Nobody inquired about the condition of his health conditions either before or after the trial. Tamazashvili was not informed of his rights or the reason for his detention either during his detention of in his cell.

Ordinary Trial

The trial started late in the evening. The attorneys for Tamazashvili read the case 10 minutes before the trial started. The court gave them only ten minutes to study the case.

The trial was short; the protocol was drawn up. The Judge ofthe Administrative Collegium of the Tbilisi City Court Miranda Eremidze found Ivane Tamazashvili guilty of the crime referenced in Article 173 of the Administrative Code of Georgia and fined him 400 GEL.

According to the judgment, the court discussed the protocol and case materials about the offense and concluded that charge was established by the case materials and existing evidence.

The court really did discuss the protocol and did hear the explanations of the parties, but could not discuss case materials and evidence since there was nothing against Ivane Tamazashvili in the case materials. Consequently, evidence against the detainee could not have been provided at the trial. The author of the administrative protocol, Avtandil Poladashvili, inspector-investigator of the Division III of the Gldani-Nadzaladevi district police department, was seen by for the first time Tamazashvili at the trial. The detainee saw Poladashvili who wrote the administrative protocol neither during detention nor at the police station. The lawyer Tsismar Oniani, the only witness to the fact, confirmed that she had not seen Poladashvili in front of the police station during Tamazashvili’s detention. That means, the protocol was written by a person who had not witnessed the crime and had not interrogated the detainee either.

There is list of evidence in Article 236 of the Administrative Code of Georgia which are necessary to find a person guilty. They are: witness testimony, photo or video-recording of the crime, other materials that describe the crime. None of the listed evidence is mentioned in the case materials. There is no witness who can confirm that Ivane Tamazashvili had blocked the driving lane of the street and he had not disobeyed the policemen. However, the video-camera installed at the entrance to the police station could have recorded the detention and the incident between Tamazashvili and the policemen. This recording could expose the guilt of Tamazashvili but despite the request of the defense the recording was not introduced in the court.

The judgment relied only on one circumstance – the protocol of inspector-investigator Avtandil Poladashvili which stated that Ivane Tamzashvili had almost “committed the crime.” The attorney for Ivane Tamazashvili, Kakha Kojoridze, requested the secretary of the trial to record the accusation against Ivane Tamazashvili correctly and exactly; however the judge strictly replied to him: “The trial protocol will be drawn up according to the law. The statement of Poladashvili will be recorded in it and additional indications and suggestions are not necessary.” However, after the protocol was requested the defense found out that the accusation was not recorded in it. Tamazashvili’s attorney requested to correct the protocol. Although it was corrected the exact accusation – almost committed the crime – again was not recorded. Instead they wrote a less absurd accusation: “Ivane Tamazashvili had nearly blocked the driving lane.” Generally, the protocol of the trial is an important example of how the court neglects its functions and goals.

The author of the administrative protocol reported to the court that Ivane Tamazashvili resisted the policemen in Korneli Chaladze Street on June 15 2009 and did not free the driving lane as demanded by the law enforcement officers. The judge asked to clarify the demand of the policemen and inquired whether Tamazashvili had blocked the driving lane. The inspector-investigator replied that the policemen had demanded the detainee to free the driving lane that was nearly blocked by Tamazashvili together with other people (this phrase was written in the protocol after the attorney requested it). The judge did not ask Poladashvili what “the nearly blocked driving lane” meant, when policemen demanded Tamazahvili to obey their orders--whether he was in the driving lane and whether he had blocked the road with any technical or mechanic materials. The judge did not request Poladashvili to provide any evidence to prove that Tamazashvili had blocked the road.

At the trial Tamazashvili stated that he had not blocked the road because he was not standing in the driving lane. He was standing at the entrance to the police station that was a place where citizens have the right to move. He was arrested in that place. Tamazashvili stated that he had not resisted the policemen because they had not ordered anything.

The only witness to the incident, lawyer Tsismar Oniani, confirmed the testimony of Tamazashvili. “Tamazashvili did not resist the police; nobody had ordered him to do anything. Tamazashvili did not commit the crime; he tried to help the women during the incident and requested the policemen not to beat journalists.” Tsismar Oniani tried to explain to the policemen that Tamazashvili was with her and asked them not to beat him. Policemen beat Tamazashvili so ruthlessly that Oniani did not expect to see him alive. Tamazashvili could not stand up and the policemen dragged him into the police station.

Judge Miranda Eremidze did not ask any questions to Ivane Tamazashvili or to the only witness during the trial. When passing the judgment she did not consider the testimonies of Tamazashvili and his witness, and the video-recording provided by the defense. The video-recording demonstrated how the policemen beat rally participants without warning them about anything.

Ivane Tamazashvili is a veteran of the war in Abkhazia. He joined the Georgian army in Abkhazia at the age of 16 before had finished school. His parents looked for their underage son two times and made him return home both times. Anyway he went to the front. Finally, they understood that it was impossible to convince their son to stay at home and did not resist him. Ivane Tamazashvili returned to Tbilisi after Sukhumi was occupied. Then he finished school and an institute too. He is chemist by profession.

Ordinary Crime

Under Article 173 of the Administrative Code of Georgia Ivane Tamazashvili was found guilty of resisting or neglecting an order of the law enforcement officers. According to the article, in order to charge a person with the crime, two factual circumstances must be confirmed: existence of a legal order of law enforcement officers and disobedience to the order. The court had to find the existence of these two circumstances. The legality of the policemen’s order could not have been found because the Law of Georgia on Assembly and Demonstrating entitles citizens to come together in the street even in front of the police station. Law enforcement officers have no right to prevent demonstrators from enjoying their right. Furthermore they cannot order to disperse the rally. As for “neglect of the order”, the judgment passed by Miranda Eremidze did not mention that fact that Tamazashvili had neglected or ignored the order of the policemen. According to Article 173 of the Administrative Code of Georgia only “neglect of the order” is an offense and not general disobedience to the policemen. It is completely obscure how the court found Tamazashvili guilty under Article 173 of the Administrative Code and how Tamazashvili could disobey the order of the policemen while they had not ordered anything.

We tried to get in touch with Judge Miranda Eremidze to ask some questions of her. We wanted to ask her why she neglected the violation of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia and Article 5 of the European Human Rights Convention by the law enforcement officers. According to those articles the detainee was to be informed of his rights, the basis of his detention and the charge against him. Why was Ivane Tamazashvili placed in detention for 8 hours while Article 247 Paragraph I of the Administrative Code of Georgia states that a person cannot be detained more than 3 hours? Who and how can an offender be punished for violation of the law and whether the policemen should be punished for violation of the law? It is obvious that Miranda Eremidze did not want to meet us.

The law of Georgia entitles the judge to decide which and how many proofs are necessary to pass judgment on the accused. Thus, the law trusts in the honesty and competence of the judge. Tamazashvili’s case is one of those which cast doubt on the reliability of such trust.


Lia Toklikishvili
Head of Journalistic Investigation
The project is implemented by the Human Rights Center and Magazine “Sitkva”
with financial support of the Eurasian Partnership Fund

News