Beyond the Barricades: Human Rights, Protest, and the Rule of Law in Georgia

Author: Irem Cakmak, LLM

June 4, 2025

Ramaz Bluashvili on Pexels

1. Introduction

Since 28 October 2024, thousands of citizens have taken to the streets of Georgia to oppose controversial legislative proposals, defend civil society, and protect the country’s democratic future. Protests erupted after the preliminary official results of the parliamentary election of 26 October were announced, and escalated further on 28 November when the ruling party declared that, contrary to its election promises, it would "suspend" the European Union accession process until the end of 2028. On 4 December, 2024, Euronews reported that more than 300 people were arrested in the first six days of the assemblies, with the Interior Ministry claiming that the protests had "exceeded the norms set by the law for assemblies and rallies."

The government's heavy-handed response, including the use of force against demonstrators, mass arrests, and new restrictions on protest rights, has raised serious concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in the country. In order to assess the legality of Georgia’s response to the protests, it is first necessary to evaluate the scope of the right to peaceful assembly.

Georgia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which enshrines the right to peaceful assembly in Article 21. ICCPR is one of the core international human rights treaties that legally binds states to protect fundamental freedoms essential to human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law.

Article 21 enables individuals and groups to express dissent, participate in public discourse, and advocate for social and political change. The right to peaceful assembly is crucial because it allows the public to express the popular will, acts as a check-and-balance mechanism against state practices, and is interconnected with rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to political participation. Therefore, when states suppress peaceful assemblies, they not only violate international law, but also undermine the broader framework of civil and political rights essential to democratic life.

This blog post will be the first in a series examining the right to peaceful assembly in countries currently experiencing mass protests and democratic backsliding, starting with Georgia and continuing with case studies from Serbia, Greece, and Türkiye.

2. Right to Peaceful Assembly Under Article 21 ICCPR

The right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in  Article 21 of the ICCPR, which guarantees individuals the right to gather and collectively express their opinions through demonstrations, marches, sit-ins, vigils, and other forms of assembly. An assembly is understood as the intentional gathering of individuals for a specific purpose, which may include expressing political opinions, raising awareness of social issues, exchanging cultural ideas, or even pursuing commercial objectives. Legal protection does not depend on the popularity or acceptability of the views expressed. Importantly, acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins or road blockades may also fall within the scope of peaceful assembly if they are conducted without violence.

2.1. The Requirement of Peacefulness

For an assembly to be protected under Article 21, it must be peaceful. An assembly is considered peaceful when it is not characterized by widespread or serious violence. Actions such as blocking traffic, making loud noises, or failing to obtain prior authorization do not in themselves negate the peaceful character of an assembly. Disruptions to traffic or business activities must be managed within the framework of human rights law and not be used as an excuse to suppress assemblies.

Even when a small number of participants engage in violence, it does not render the entire assembly violent. Authorities must assess individual behavior, and collective punishment is strictly prohibited. Moreover, the evaluation of peacefulness must focus on the participants' behavior not on provocations by bystanders or aggressive reactions by authorities.

Finally, for an assembly to be considered violent, the acts must reach a high threshold of harm, such as serious bodily harm, death, or substantial property damage.

2.2. State Obligations and Permissible Restrictions Under Article 21

Under international law, States bear three core obligations with respect to peaceful assemblies under Article 2 of the ICCPR: to respect, protect, and fulfill this right. Respect entails refraining from unjustified interference. Protect requires the State to shield assemblies from disruption by third parties, including hostile groups or counter-demonstrators. Fulfill demands proactive facilitation, such as providing safe access to public spaces, managing traffic, and ensuring the security of participants.

Facilitation of assemblies is not a discretionary act by the State but a binding legal obligation. When an assembly remains peaceful, authorities must not disperse or forcibly interfere with it. They may only impose narrowly tailored restrictions based on legitimate grounds like public safety or the rights of others, and even then, restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.  Where a content-based restriction is justified, authorities should take the least intrusive and restrictive measures to address the issue. Procedural violations, such as failure to notify authorities, cannot alone justify dispersal or punishment if the assembly is otherwise peaceful.

The right to peaceful assembly is deeply connected with other fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and participation in public affairs. Its erosion is often a sign of broader democratic decline.

Ramaz Bluashvili on Pexels

3. Georgia: A Case Study

3.1 Background

In 2023–2024, mass protests erupted in Georgia against a "foreign agent" law targeting civil society and independent media, which, despite initial withdrawal following public outcry, was reintroduced and ultimately passed by Parliament.

The political environment further deteriorated after the disputed parliamentary elections of October 2024, which opposition groups alleged were marred by widespread fraud. Many citizens demanded a rerun of the election, but the government refused, even as domestic and international criticism intensified. In November 2024, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze further exacerbated tensions by announcing the "postponement" of Georgia’s European Union accession plans, thereby deepening public disillusionment.

The authorities’ response raised serious concerns about compliance with Article 21 ICCPR obligations.

3.2 Police Response

One of the most troubling aspects of the Georgian authorities’ response to the protests was the excessive use of force, the treatment of protesters, journalists, students, and the failure to prevent violence by third parties. Law enforcement employed harsh tactics, including tear gas, pepper spray, and water cannons mixed with chemical agents, raising serious concerns under international human rights law.

Journalists and protestors faced physical assaults, intimidation, and arbitrary detention, with many reports indicating coordinated targeting by police and unidentified masked groups, with little to no intervention by law enforcement. In some instances, evidence suggested active collusion or at least acquiescence by the police.

Moreover, university campuses, traditionally safeguarded as spaces for independent thought and civic dialogue, also came under pressure. Despite protections under Article 19  of the ICCPR and reaffirmations by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, police forces entered campuses and used disproportionate force to detain student protesters. This not only violated the principle of necessity and proportionality but also undermined the autonomy of educational institutions, which are meant to serve as safe spaces for political expression and critical engagement.

The state’s failure to prevent, investigate, or punish third-party violence, particularly when such violence is linked to or tolerated by police, constitutes a grave breach of its positive obligations under Article 21 of the ICCPR. When such complicity exists, the violations are not just more severe; they reflect a deeper institutional failure and an erosion of the rule of law.

Additionally, such actions amount to police brutality, which is strictly prohibited under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials Principles 4 and 5, and are never permissible, especially in the context of peaceful assemblies.

3.3 Government Response: Weaponizing Justice, Administrative Measures, New Laws, and Stigmatization

In parallel with physical repression, the Georgian government increasingly resorted to the instrumentalization of the judicial system to target protesters and stifle dissent, reflecting a broader trend of enacting repressive legislation targeting civil society, independent media, and political opposition. Many of the detained protesters faced legal proceedings that reportedly lacked basic fair trial guarantees, including violations of the rights to due process and an impartial judiciary. For instance, two activists were convicted on January 20 by the Tbilisi City Court for damaging a security barrier during the May 2024 protests and initially sentenced to three years, later reduced to ten months through a plea deal. Their prosecution under Article 187(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, currently under legal challenge, raises serious concerns about mandatory minimum sentencing, lack of judicial discretion, and fair trial guarantees while both activists also reported mistreatment in custody, including psychological intimidation and, in one case, physical assault.

Rather than responding constructively to public grievances, the Georgian government escalated its repressive approach through administrative measures, new legislation, and stigmatization campaigns against civil society and political dissenters. Amendments to the "Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations" significantly increased penalties for protest-related offenses, including sharp rises in fines, extensions of administrative detention periods from 15 to 60 days, and new restrictions, such as a ban on the use of face coverings during protests. Additionally, sweeping changes to the Administrative Offenses Code expanded police powers to detain individuals without adequate judicial oversight, a move that was heavily criticized by legal watchdog organizations.

In December 2024, the authorities introduced severe financial penalties for blocking roads, setting fines at 5,000 laris (approximately $1,850), resulting in thousands of protesters facing either disproportionate financial burdens or imprisonment. In January 2025 alone, the total amount of fines imposed on protesters exceeded $6.5 million, an especially burdensome figure in a country where the average monthly salary is approximately $740.

Simultaneously, authorities deployed facial recognition technologies against demonstrators, a practice that facilitated discriminatory surveillance and infringed upon the right to privacy.

In March 2025, the Georgian Parliament adopted a raft of new legislative measures, including a Georgian version of the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act , amendments to the broadcasting law curtailing media independence, new offenses criminalizing insults against public officials, and provisions excluding civil society organizations from participation in governmental decision-making processes.

These legislative initiatives were accompanied by a stigmatization campaign portraying protesters and independent organizations as "foreign agents," "traitors," or "anti-Georgian" elements, a clear strategy to delegitimize dissent and erode public trust in civil society.

4. Conclusion

The right to peaceful assembly constitutes a foundational element of democratic societies and is inextricably linked to the exercise of other core human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to political participation. The effective protection of this right is essential to preserving an open civic space where individuals and groups can voice grievances, advocate for change, and hold governments accountable.

As seen in the Georgian example, violations of the right to peaceful assembly often signal broader systemic failures, including the erosion of judicial independence, suppression of free expression, and the weakening of democratic governance. Accordingly, the protection of peaceful assemblies must be understood not in isolation but as a safeguard for the full spectrum of civil and political rights guaranteed under international law.

Compliance with international human rights standards concerning the right to peaceful assembly is not merely a legal obligation; it is a measurement of a State’s commitment to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity. Sustained efforts must therefore be directed toward aligning domestic practices with international norms, ensuring that peaceful assemblies are facilitated, protected, and respected as a fundamental expression of democratic life.

---

Glossary:

• Administrative Detention:  A form of detention without formal charge or trial, often used to suppress dissent or public demonstrations. In Georgia, recent amendments expanded the detention period from 15 to 60 days.

• Civil Disobedience:  A non-violent form of protest that involves intentional law-breaking such as, sit-ins or road blockades) to express opposition to laws or policies.

• Collective Punishment:  The unlawful practice of penalizing a group of people for the actions of a few individuals, strictly prohibited under human rights law.

• Disproportionate Force: Excessive or unnecessary physical force used by authorities that exceeds what is needed to manage a situation, violating international standards on law enforcement.

• Dissent: The expression of opinions or beliefs that differ from or challenge those held by the majority, or an authority, such as the government.

• Due Process: Legal guarantees ensuring fair treatment in judicial procedures, including the right to a fair trial, impartial judges, and the presumption of innocence.

• EU Accession Process: The formal procedure through which a country seeks to become a member of the European Union, involving meeting a set of political and economic criteria such as stable democratic institutions, rule of law, respect for human rights, and a functioning market economy.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):  A key United NAtions treaty adopted in 1966, binding on Georgia, that protects rights such as free expression, peaceful assembly, and fair trial guarantees.

• Mass Surveillance: Monitoring individuals or groups at scale, often through technologies like facial recognition. Raises serious privacy and human rights concerns when used to suppress dissent.

• Proportionality:  A principle in human rights law requiring that any restriction on rights must be appropriate, necessary, and the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate aim.

• Rule of Law:  A foundational democratic principle stating that all individuals and institutions, including the government, are subject to and accountable under the law.

• Third-Party Violence:  Violence against protesters by non-state actors (e.g., counter-demonstrators or masked individuals), which the state has a duty to prevent and investigate under Article 21 ICCPR.

• Weaponization of Justice:  The misuse of legal systems to target political opponents, suppress dissent,