GYLA submitted a written opinion of the friend of the court (‘Amicus Curiae’) to the Tbilisi City Court regarding the preventive measure applied to Nino Datashvili.

The opinion of the amicus curiae contains following issues: The purposes and grounds for the application of measure of restraint under the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia; Court practice regarding the use of detention as a measure of restraint, based on GYLA’s court monitoring findings; Assessment of detention applied to Nino Datashvili as a measure of restraint; Decision-making standards concerning the use of detention as a measure of restraint; forensic psychiatric expert examination of an individual.    

The document underlines following issues:

• Detention, as the most severe form of restriction of liberty, must always be considered a measure of last resort. ¹ Accordingly, the court should only apply it when it is the only effective means to prevent: (1) the accused from absconding or obstructing the administration of justice; (2) interference with the collection of evidence by the accused; or (3) the commission of a new offence by the accused. ² Over the years GYLA’s court monitoring findings indicate that detention is not consistently used as a last resort. The rate of detention and unjustified cases is high. 3

• According to GYLA’s assessment, the application detention against Nino Datashvili  at the initial appearance of the accused in court was unjustified. ⁴ The prosecution noted risks of absconding, committing a new offence, and influencing witnesses. According to GYLA, that it is unclear how the defendant could influence witnesses, given that the vast majority of them are bailiffs, and the incident in question is documented on video recordings. Furthermore, Datashvili has no prior criminal or administrative record, and did not abscond, even though she was aware of the investigation, which had already been ongoing for more than 10 days. 

• Over the years GYLA highlights that, when justifying the use of detention, the prosecution often refers to the individual’s need for forensic psychiatric expert examination. Even in cases where, based on publicly available information presented during the hearing, the defendant’s background provides no grounds for such a presumption. This flawed practice of prosecution raises concerns that the real aim of forensic psychiatric expert examination is not to assess the defendant’s mental capacity or ensure their health and dignity, but rather to use it as a reason to maintain detention at the next stage of judicial review. Although the existence of such an evaluation is not a legal ground for continuing detention, past judicial practice shows that courts often refer to it in their reasoning when deciding to uphold detention. 

• It remains unclear on what basis the prosecutor, a person without relevant professional expertise, determined that conducting forensic psychiatric expert examination was necessary to establish issues of importance to the case. This is particularly concerning given that the motion submitted by the prosecutor fails to meet even the minimum standard of justification, as it does not explain why the intended goal could not be achieved by less restrictive means. The prosecution’s motion is not based on any new circumstances or alleged risk evidenced by the defendant’s behavior, but rather on a medical certificate submitted by the defense during the initial appearance hearing. Consequently, the motion fails to meet the necessity standard, violates the right to liberty as guaranteed under the Convention, and raises a risk of arbitrary interference. ⁵ Moreover, the nature and content of the motion suggest a perception of the prosecution that the court would automatically grant the request, which likely contributed to the lack of meaningful effort to substantiate it.

• Also, the lack of reasoning in the ruling delivered by Judge of the Investigative and Pre-Trial Panel of Tbilisi City Court, Fikria Sikturashvili is alarming. The Prosecution did not present any evidence regarding Nino Datashvili’s current or recent psycho-emotional condition around the time of the alleged crime. And the fact that the judge based the ruling, which significantly interferes with the rights of the accused, on a so-called “Form 100” (medical certificate) issued in 2019. 

• Before a person is forcibly placed under psychiatric examination, the legal procedure must include effective safeguards against arbitrariness. ¹⁴ One of the main and essential guarantees to prevent arbitrariness is the person's direct participation in the court proceedings or representation by a lawyer. ¹⁵ According to the defense, the accused was not informed about the prosecutor’s motion, and the lawyer was made aware of it only 40 minutes before the court hearing. In this short time, the lawyer was unable to meet the defendant, who was in a penitentiary facility, and could not inform her about the prosecution’s motion. As a result, the defense lawyer and the accused were not able to plan their strategy together. Consequently, one of the fundamental guarantees in the procedure of placement in a psychiatric facility, the effective mechanism to prevent arbitrariness, was violated, which is inconsistent with the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the fact that an appeal of this decision does not suspend its enforcement may further indicate the lack of an effective remedy for the protection of rights.

According to the prosecution, on 9 June 2025, at the Tbilisi City Court, Nino Datashvili verbally insulted and physically assaulted court bailiff. As a result, she was charged under Article 353².3 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, which provides a fine or imprisonment from 4 to 7 years. On 21 June, the court imposed detention as a measure of restraint. Subsequently, on 31 July, the prosecutor submitted a motion to the Tbilisi City Court requesting Nino Datashvili be placed in a medical facility for a forensic psychiatric expert examination. 

At the same time, Nino Datashvili’s statement is noteworthy, as it alleges violence committed against her by bailiffs. Also, other citizens mentioned ongoing violence by bailiffs at court. ¹⁶ It remains unclear to GYLA whether any investigation or internal inquiry has been launched into these reported incidents of violence against individuals in court by specific employees of the Bailiff Service.

See the document