On January 16, the Public Defender of Georgia filed an opinion of the friend of the court (amicus curiae brief) with the Kutaisi Court of Appeal relating to the use of a pre-trial detention against Mzia Amaglobeli. The document discusses the shortcomings in the justification of the use of pre-trial detention and, based on the analysis of human rights standards, considers that such an intensive restriction of a person's freedom based only on abstract and potential threats is inadmissible.

In accordance with the standards of criminal procedure legislation and the European Court of Human Rights, in order to use of the measure of pre-trial detention, there must be relevant and sufficient evidence that would justify this degree of restriction of freedom for the accused.

In its motion for the use of the measure of pre-trial detention, the Prosecutor's Office referred to the risks of hiding and destroying evidence/influencing witnesses.

Such risks may potentially exist in all criminal proceedings. However, the threat that would justify the imposition of the most severe measure and restriction of freedom must be specific. Otherwise, in the face of an abstract threat, the use of detention would be possible in virtually all cases.

The Prosecutor's Office, in its motion, also referred to the risk of re-offending, citing as its main argument the fact that the accused had been released from administrative detention for several hours, and the court took this argument into account.

It is noteworthy that the fact on the basis of which Mzia Amaglobeli was detained on administrative charges has not been assessed by the court. The court did not consider the legality of Mzia Amaglobeli's detention or the commission of an administrative offence by her. Under these circumstances, the Public Defender considers that the aforementioned circumstance did not constitute an argument that would outweigh all other arguments against the use of detention.

In addition, when submitting a motion for the use of pre-trial detention, the prosecutor is obliged to substantiate the appropriateness of the measure requested and the inappropriateness of using another, less severe measure.

The Public Defender's Office examined the indictment, the prosecutor's motion, the court's ruling, and the appeal of the defence and concluded that the prosecutor had not properly substantiated why it was not appropriate to use another, less severe measure, especially since, according to the appeal, the defence expressed its readiness to pay a fairly large amount of bail and undertake additional obligations.

The ruling of the Batumi City Court makes it clear that the court did not properly respond to the offer submitted by the defence and left the issue of using a less severe measure without proper justification.

The Public Defender hopes that the Kutaisi Court of Appeal will consider the legal arguments presented in the amicus curiae brief and will consider the application of a proportionate measure against Mzia Amaglobeli, which will be justified by specific threats, if any.