Statements

On May 16, 2016, Tbilisi City Court found five high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense guilty in the so-called “cable case” and sentenced them to seven years of imprisonment. The substantiated judgment of the Court is currently unavailable; however, this statement is based the assessment of circumstances and facts that were made public by the parties of the proceedings, and the information obtained during the trials and from open sources and reports.

The public had been following this case for a long time, and we must note that both the indictment and the events that unfolded during the trials raised questions among the public regarding substantiation of charges, legal grounds for the restraining measures, existence of reliable evidence, and fair trial. Therefore, it looks that administration of justice was deficient and the process was politicized.

From the outset these doubts were reinforced by the context and situation of the case. The indictment was preceded by an open confrontation between the then Minister of Defense Irakli Alasania, and former Prime Minister, Bidzina Ivanishvili, resulting in resignation of Mr. Alasania. Distrust towards the trial was also reinforced by statements of former high-level officials. Notably, former Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili was informed about the details of the case, although part of the case was classified at that time. It remained unclear why and how the persons who were not involved in the investigation and therefore, should not have had access to the case file had information about details of the case.

Initially the entire “cable case” was classified as secret by the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office, as a result of which the defense’s access to the materials of the criminal case was limited for some time. The Public Defender made a statement in reaction to the fact and urged the Prosecutor’s Office to keep only those materials classified that contained information envisaged by the Law of Georgia on State Secrets and declassify remaining information to ensure the defense’s access to the case file. Notably, a video released by the Prosecutor’s Office shortly after the verdict of guilty was delivered contains information about the network of secret strategic infrastructure, which was one of the grounds for classifying this case.

As for the charges brought against the officials of the Ministry of Defense, the Prosecutor’s Office accused them of acting as an organized group and embezzling large amounts of state funds. There are several circumstances that raise questions in this regard:

▪ It is clear from titles and positions of the convicts that they did not hold top offices at the Ministry of Defense and, therefore, they could not have managed or spent the funds allegedly embezzled according to the prosecution; 

▪ Considering the convicts’ positions, they did not have the authority to make final decisions independently. Therefore, it is unclear how the prosecution has ruled out any possible involvement of then top-level MOD officials or why it did not have a single question for the former Minister of Defense;

▪ The “cable project” was discussed and approved by the Government of Georgia, while the funds were transferred through the Ministry of Finance, which once again indicates the nature and the degree of the convicts’ involvement in the transaction and weakens arguments of the prosecution; the indictment does not prove to an absolute certainty that the convicts acted as an organized group;

▪ The indictment fails to prove to an absolute certainty that the convicts acted with mercenary motives and intentions, which is a necessary precondition for indicting a person for such a crime;

▪ Notably, the judge took the decision only in two non-working days after 18 months of deliberations.

The foregoing legal circumstances and questions about indictment, as well as preconditions for detention and the context of the case, in combination with individual deficiencies revealed during court’s consideration of the case, suggest that administration of justice was inadequate and biased, possibly as a result of political influences. We, the undersigned NGOs, continue to closely monitor this case, and we are going to make detailed assessments after studying substantiated judgment of the Court.

Transparency International Georgia (TI Georgia)

Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC)

Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI)

Partnership for Human Rights (PHR)

International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)

Georgian Democracy Initiative (GDI)

Article 42 of the Constitution

Independent Experts’ Club