Prepared by Messenger Staff
Bezhashvili Says Parties Still Don't Know Evidence Against Them Nine Days Into Constitutional Court Hearings
United National Movement leader Levan Bezhashvili said the examination of evidence is a vital stage for conducting the party ban case objectively and fairly, and that nine days into the hearings the parties still do not know what evidence is being used against them.
Speaking to journalists at the Constitutional Court, Bezhashvili said that when the plaintiff seeks the dissolution of five pro-European parties, "both the public and we ourselves have a right to know what evidence they possess to support such a move."
Even after nine days, he said, it remains unclear to the parties exactly what allegations are being made against each specific party and what evidence is used to substantiate them. "There is a complete void in the evidence presented," he said.
Bezhashvili described the materials of the parliamentary investigative commission as "a hodgepodge of rumors and hearsay," something he said has been noted repeatedly and reported to the public. The parties need to know which evidence the court deems admissible, which it deems inadmissible and what it chooses to exclude, he said. That is why they asked for the motion to be filed, and they are now awaiting the court's final decision on it.
What has been presented so far, he said, consists of testimonies from Georgian Dream supporters and "outright lies," matters the opposition has already addressed publicly and will continue to do so. "Therefore, this process is of great importance, and the court must reach an objective decision," Bezhashvili said.
Gvaramia Clashes With Constitutional Court Judge Nadaraia, Says He Will Seek His Recusal
Nika Gvaramia of the Coalition for Change had a heated exchange with Constitutional Court presiding judge Revaz Nadaraia during the hearing of the lawsuit seeking to ban five opposition parties.
Gvaramia was backing a motion by Levan Samushia of Lelo-Strong Georgia to examine evidence when Nadaraia interrupted him. Gvaramia said he would file a motion for the judge's recusal.
"You cannot conduct the proceedings in such a one-sided manner! Please, let me speak!" Gvaramia said. "How are you speaking to me? When did you decide that you have the right to speak in this tone?"
He disputed the court's position that links can count as evidence without being presented in physical form. "This does not constitute evidence; the required formal criteria have not been met," Gvaramia said, accusing the court of acting "in an inquisitorial manner, in violation of the law." The adversarial principle, he said, "has not been abolished," and the court cannot skip the stage of examining evidence. "If you do not allow me to examine this evidence, how am I supposed to convince you?"
Nadaraia answered that Gvaramia should stick to the motion and stop referring to earlier requests the court had granted. "You also seem to think that you have the right to do whatever you please, but that is not the case." "Now, either you comply with the court, or?", responded Nadaraia.
