The Public Defender responds to the new law restricting the right to assembly adopted by the Georgian Dream. He emphasised Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to peaceful, unarmed public assembly without prior permission. According to his statement, it is unclear under what circumstances protests on sidewalks could provide a valid basis for restricting this right.
News
Trending stories
- 1 BBC investigation: WWI–Era Chemical Weapons Used to Disperse Tbilisi Protests
- 2 Starting in 2026, First-Year Students at Private Universities Will No Longer Receive State Grants
- 3 NGOs Demand Answers on Which Chemical Substances MIA Used Against Protesters
- 4 Zurabishvili Appeals to International Organisations to Investigate Possible Use of “Camite”
- 5 Kobakhidze and Putin Attend International Forum on Neutrality in Turkmenistan
- 6 The Strasbourg Court Has Begun the Substantive Hearing of Gela Mtivlishvili's Case
Authorities are warning citizens gathered on the sidewalk near the Parliament that the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) must be notified at least 5 days in advance of any assembly that affects public movement. According to the MIA, organisers must wait for official instructions before proceeding; failure to follow this procedure will result in the assembly being declared illegal.
Following the December 10 amendments to the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations, MIA is now empowered to regulate the timing and location of protests. Once a notice is received, the Ministry has three days to issue directives if it considers the assembly a threat to public movement.
Those who fail to follow the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ instructions or warning procedures, or who intentionally obstruct the movement of people, may face severe sanctions. This includes administrative arrest of participants and organisers of assemblies.
Given the ambiguous legislative provisions, the Public Defender of Georgia advises that the Ministry of Internal Affairs should adhere strictly to the principles of necessity and proportionality when restricting the right to assembly.
“The Ministry must not restrict the rights of peaceful protesters if the inconvenience to pedestrians, the availability of alternative routes, the number of participants, and the form of the assembly are not sufficiently severe,” stated the Public Defender
Considering such a human rights standard, it is unclear to the Public Defender in which cases protesting on the sidewalk could serve as a legitimate reason to interfere with a right. Particularly, when the exercise of the right is typically conducted in this manner for a short period of time.
“It should also be noted that the enforcement of broad legislative provisions must not occur in a way that turns the obligation of prior notice into a requirement to obtain a permit—an outcome explicitly prohibited by Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia,” stated the Public Defender.
The Public Defender cited the European Court of Human Rights' approach, which holds that regulations requiring prior warning should not serve as a hidden obstacle to exercising the right to protest. Furthermore, as the Public Defender highlights, the Guidelines on Freedom of Assembly developed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) and the Venice Commission emphasise that enforcing such a norm should not be an end in itself.
“Otherwise, failure to submit a notice should not automatically render the assembly unlawful, interfere with participants' rights, or lead to its dissolution. [...] While assemblies may inherently disrupt normal life, authorities should permit such disruptions unless they cause disproportionate harm to opposing interests,” the Public Defender noted.
