The officials of the public defender of Georgia on January 16 filed an Amicus Curiae petition with the Kutaisi Court of Appeal against order of Batumi court. The defender has requested appellant court to issue order for use of a preventive measure against Mzia Amaglobeli.
It is worth to note that as per the standards of criminal procedural legislation and the European Court of Human Rights, in order to impose detention as a preventive measure, there must be relevant and sufficient evidence that would justify such a degree of restriction of freedom for the accused.
In the motion for the imposition of a preventive measure, the prosecutor’s office pointed to the risks of absconding as well as the destruction of evidence/influence on witnesses. At the same time risks may potentially exist within the framework of all legal proceedings where criminal prosecution is underway.
However, the threat that would justify the imposition of the most severe preventive measure and restriction of freedom must be specific. Otherwise in the conditions of an abstract threat, the use of imprisonment will be possible in virtually all cases.
It is noteworthy that the fact on the basis of which Mzia Amaglobeli was administratively detained has not been assessed by the court. The court did not consider the legality of Mzia Amaglobeli’s detention or whether he committed an administrative offense.
It was also stressed that under these circumstances, the Public Defender considered 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 a preventive measure, the prosecutor is obliged to substantiate the appropriateness of the preventive measure requested by him and the inappropriateness of using another less strict preventive measure.
The Public Defender’s Office reviewed the indictment, the prosecutor’s motion, the court’s ruling and the defence’s appeal and concluded that the prosecutor had not properly substantiated why it was not appropriate to use another, less severe measure of restraint.
The ruling of the Batumi City Court made it clear that the court did not properly respond to the offer and left the issue of using a less severe measure of restraint with proper justification.