On September 25, Public Defender Levan Ioseliani met the residents of Shukruti gathered in front of the Parliament building of Georgia and personally listened to their demands. The Public Defender noted that his Office would start studying the cases of rights violations against them, including alleged cases of illegal dismissal or restriction of freedom of assembly, as soon as relevant documentation is submitted by the participants in the protests. The residents of Shukruti promised to submit an application and relevant documents to the Public Defender.

The residents of the village of Shukruti have been protesting against the Georgian Manganese company for several months now. From September, the protests moved to Tbilisi, in front of the Parliament of Georgia. The Public Defender has been following the events since the protest was announced, and representatives of the Office have had several communications with the lawyer and met with the protesters both in Shukruti and Tbilisi.

Due to high public interest and for the purpose of informing the public, the Public Defender’s Office outlined three main directions of human rights: 1. The right of the protesters to put up a tent, 2. The issue of giving monetary compensation to the residents, 3. Alleged violation of the right of equality and the right to a fair trial.

The Public Defender has made several public statements over the years regarding the demonstrators’ right to put up a tent. He released a statement relating to the assembly of the residents of Shukruti as well, in which he emphasized that the erection of temporary constructions was protected by freedom of assembly and the deprivation of this right was unjustified if the placement of the the tent did not block the entrance to the building or impede traffic. In the statement, the Public Defender once again called on the law enforcement officers not to restrict the right to assembly.

As for the issue of monetary compensation, the Public Defender does not have the authority to examine or evaluate the agreement concluded between individuals and a private company regarding the damage caused by the company's activities, its extent, the amount of compensation or the manner of issuing it. The mentioned issue goes beyond the scope of the authority granted to the Public Defender by legislation and the Public Defender is deprived of the opportunity to make a legal response. Representatives of the Public Defender's Office explained this issue to the residents of Shukruti right after the protests were launched.

The third issue, which the Public Defender has the opportunity to study and respond to, concerns the alleged violation of the rights to equality and a fair trial. At the meeting with the residents of the village of Shukruti, representatives of the Public Defender's Office explained that if they believed that (in addition to monetary compensation issues) there were procedural violations against them in the process of investigating a criminal case, or if there was alleged discrimination on the part of the company, they had to contact the Public Defender's Office, which would allow the Office to start proceedings and study the issues of alleged rights violations. As of September 24, no such request has been received by the Office.

In addition to the above, the Public Defender will additionally study the issues related to environmental protection in the village of Shukruti and will present the results of the study in a parliamentary report. The study of this issue is not related to the protests or violation of the rights of specific persons.