Evidence insufficient to prove opposition leader Manjgaladze organised group violence, GYLA

The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) on Monday said evidence presented in the criminal case against opposition leader Paata Manjgaladze is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he organised or led group violence against the government.

GYLA examined the case following an appeal by Manjgaladze’s family and lawyer. A first-instance court has already issued a guilty verdict, and the case is currently being reviewed by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals.

GYLA claimed the case is being considered against the background of what it described as the state’s strict criminal justice policy in cases related to the events of 4 October 2026. The organisation noted that most defendants were initially remanded in custody and that all cases concluded by the time of its statement had resulted in guilty verdicts, including some reached through plea agreements.

GYLA also said Manjgaladze had been subjected to additional restrictions on communication with the outside world, which remained in force despite an appeal by the defence to a senior prosecutor.

The organisation argued that other defendants’ guilty pleas and convictions could not replace evidence establishing Manjgaladze’s individual actions and intent. It said defendants might agree to plea deals not only to admit guilt but also to avoid the risk of severe punishment or lengthy imprisonment, or because they lacked confidence in a fair trial.

GYLA said the evidence in Manjgaladze’s case did not establish his specific connection to the violent events near the Presidential Palace, nor did it demonstrate that he had planned the violence, issued instructions, coordinated the actions or had the relevant intent.

The organisation also criticised the prosecution for failing to distinguish Manjgaladze’s political activities and connection to the protest from individual involvement in organising violence. It said previous political statements could not compensate for the lack of direct evidence, particularly given uncertainty surrounding the context in which they were made.

GYLA said these shortcomings raised serious questions about the reasoning behind the first-instance conviction and called for a thorough assessment of Manjgaladze’s individual responsibility and the defence’s arguments during the appeal proceedings.

The organisation also referred to an amicus curiae opinion submitted by the Public Defender, which highlighted what it described as ambiguity in the charges and a lack of evidence. According to the Public Defender’s assessment, identifying Manjgaladze as an organiser of the protest, without establishing his specific actions and intent, was insufficient to impose criminal liability.