The Public Defender of Georgia announced that he will challenge in the Constitutional Court the legislative changes adopted by the ruling party “Georgian Dream” regarding the freedom of assembly and demonstrations.

He made this statement during an appearance on the public broadcaster’s program “Day’s Topic.”

A journalist asked the Ombudsman about the state of human rights in Georgia in 2025 and about the stricter laws adopted by Georgian Dream over the past year, including a recent amendment banning standing on sidewalks.

Levan Ioseliani stated that he personally requested an opinion from OSCE/ODIHR regarding the legislative changes. Since the amendments were implemented in two stages, the Public Defender sent the full package of changes to OSCE/ODIHR in both cases.

Ioseliani noted that the OSCE/ODIHR evaluated these changes negatively.

“There is extensive reasoning on why these amendments restrict human rights in certain areas. Regarding the notification requirement [for the Ministry of Internal Affairs before holding a protest], the provision exists in the Constitution; this is not new. However, it is important that this notification does not become equivalent to mandatory permission, which would itself contradict the Constitution.

Furthermore, there is a Constitutional Court precedent confirming that such notifications should not imply a permit requirement for participants conducting spontaneous demonstrations. I want the public to know that we are working very thoroughly on these amendments — from the blanket ban on masks to other legislative changes that have been enacted,” said Ioseliani.

He emphasized that constitutionally guaranteed rights should not be infringed. He also discussed the ban on wearing masks during protests, saying he disagrees with it.

“I do not consider a blanket ban on masks appropriate. When the law prohibits all types of masks at peaceful assemblies, it means that if someone participates in a peaceful protest and wants to wear a mask to prevent catching a contagious disease, this is banned by law. I believe this is a disproportionate sanction regarding assembly rights.

Generally, it does not make sense. How can you forbid someone from wearing a mask if they need it? It is not only a health issue — some masks are religious symbols for certain people, and so on,” Ioseliani added.

The journalist reminded the Ombudsman of the government’s argument that masks at protests make it difficult for investigators to identify individuals committing violence.

“I understand that, but if a protest exceeds peaceful forms and turns violent, the mask is irrelevant. We are talking about peaceful assembly. For example, a medical mask, which is very often used, should not be prohibited. If someone later decides to break the law and investigators want to make their job easier at the expense of greater harm, that cannot be a justification.

Therefore, we are working not only on this issue but also on other amendments. It is likely that this year we may not complete the process, or if we do, we may submit a Constitutional Court petition this year challenging all the articles adopted by Parliament in the last year,” said Ioseliani.

The Public Defender also stated that the Constitutional Court challenge will cover changes in fines and mandatory imprisonment.

“We see problems with proportionality and balance. The use of mandatory imprisonment and the subsequent introduction of direct criminal sanctions… therefore, we consider this part should be challenged in the Constitutional Court of Georgia. I believe the Constitutional Court should assess the proportionality of these penalties.

I hope this will be a very interesting discussion, and we will do everything possible to ensure that these amendments comply with existing international standards,” explained Levan Ioseliani.

The Ombudsman did not specify the exact timing but promised that the petition will be submitted to the Constitutional Court soon — by the end of this year or the beginning of next year.

The petition will address the full package of amendments and associated laws resulting from changes made to the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations.