“The State Security Service statement says that these means were used by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as necessary. The statement is written so incompetently that they did not even include the phrase ‘as necessary, on the basis of law.’ They did not even add that. This is highly symptomatic. No investigation was conducted at all. It is deeply embarrassing to call this an investigation,” says lawyer Ana Natsvlishvili, explaining why she believes the State Security Service (SSS) did not conduct a genuine investigation into the use of chemical agents during protests in Tbilisi.
“The wording that ‘we did not use prohibited substances’ is legally false.
Did the law explicitly authorize you to use a substance created with this specific formula? Did it authorize its use in that particular form, for example mixed with water, or together with water? Did it authorize its use in an area like Rustaveli Avenue, where other people live? Did it authorize its use at a protest of that scale? Did it authorize its use in winter?” Natsvlishvili asks.
What does the SSS version of the investigation show? Batumelebi interviewed lawyer Ana Natsvlishvili, a member of the 10th convocation of Parliament and former Chair of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association.
Ms. Natsvlishvili, what are your arguments? Why is the SSS version of the “chemical weapons use case” not credible?
The BBC worked for more than a year on a film to collect materials from various sources, submit them to field specialists, and prepare conclusions based on expert analysis.
On the one hand, we have an international organization with a high reputation such as the BBC, which worked on this film for over a year. On the other hand, we have the State Security Service of Georgian Dream, which has zero credibility domestically, let alone internationally. The SSS completed its “investigation” in five days. This would be laughable if it were not tragic.
How did they manage to conduct more than 160 investigative actions in five days? Anyone with even minimal experience in investigative work, or even information-gathering and verification at a journalistic level, understands that this is physically impossible. This is self-deception. They have deceived themselves so many times that, sadly, it no longer surprises me.
You cannot question so many witnesses, collect so much information, and analyze it all in five days. That is impossible.
The second crucial issue is that the same agency initiated the investigation in two radically different directions from the outset, which is an anomaly in itself. Are you investigating abuse of authority by the state (Article 332 of the Criminal Code), or cooperation with a hostile organization (Article 319)? This alone shows that establishing objective truth was not the purpose of this investigation.
When questioning a witness, which angle do you use? Do you question them for abuse of authority, then two minutes later switch hats and question them for cooperation with a hostile organization? This is illogical and cannot serve the purpose of establishing objective truth when both lines of investigation are conducted simultaneously by the same agency, by the same people.
If they had truly sought objective truth, the law obligated them to initiate an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons immediately, at the moment these substances were used.
At the time, many people reported severe health problems. As we now see, these substances allegedly leave long-term effects on human health, and in the following months many people’s conditions worsened.
I myself wrote at the time, after experiencing these substances firsthand, that war had been declared on the people. You cannot use such weapons against civilians in peacetime. We also remember the alarm raised by doctors, professionals, who publicly demanded to know what substances were being used so they could provide adequate treatment.
All of this publicly available information obligated state authorities to launch an investigation back then. Why did they not?
They did not start an investigation then, yet they completed one in five days now. This confirms that the goal was never to investigate state responsibility. They became entangled in such a serious scandal that they launched a one-sided investigation from the outset, pretending to pursue two directions. The first direction, abuse of authority, evaporated within five days, and only the second one continues.
When the same agency investigates both directions, it is a serious problem for objectivity. Regardless of who withstands the pressure and who does not, the very structure creates pressure on witnesses. From what I have heard publicly, those involved, including respondents in the BBC investigation, gave very dignified answers.
However, when the state summons you and says it is investigating abuse of authority but may also reframe the case as cooperation with a hostile organization, this is direct pressure on witnesses. It also intimidates others who may possess critically important information but choose to remain silent because the investigation has been launched under Article 319.
What does it mean that the investigation was launched under Article 319 after the BBC film?
On one side, the state chose the lightest possible article to address its own potential responsibility. The Criminal Code contains provisions that describe the alleged crime far more adequately, yet they selected the mildest one. Against citizens, however, they chose the harshest possible charge.
This reveals bias and intent. The goal is not to establish the truth, but to notarize a pre-written answer. That was the SSS’s task.
As for “cooperation with a hostile organization,” the law must be foreseeable. Before a citizen takes an action, they must know whether it is lawful. Before this film, no state body ever declared the BBC a hostile organization or warned citizens against cooperating with it.
Everyone understands that cooperating with Russia’s FSB is prohibited. But where is it written, or which authority determined, that the BBC is a hostile organization? If the state does not warn citizens in advance, it effectively traps them into committing an act that it later retroactively labels a crime. This is entirely outside any legal framework.
Today I listened to Deputy Interior Minister Aleksandre Darakhvelidze say that the Ministry of Internal Affairs provided documents to the SSS. If the SSS conducted its investigation based on what the Ministry voluntarily chose to provide, this is beyond ridiculous.
An investigative body should not wait for a potentially implicated agency to decide what documents to hand over. It must independently enter, conduct investigative actions, and seize documentation, including information accessible only to a few individuals.
And how did they manage expert examinations so quickly within five days? There are countless unanswered questions.
Why did the SSS omit the use of water cannons between November 28 and December 4, focusing only on December 4 and 5?
How was this timeframe defined? What logic was used? The crackdown on protests, including the use of special means, lasted much longer.
The SSS statements are extremely vague. For example, they say they questioned high-ranking officials. Which officials exactly? Were those directly involved questioned in their official capacity?
In my view, they know perfectly well that this case will not end here and that an international investigation will be inevitable. That is why the text is so manipulative, like walking through a minefield and avoiding stepping anywhere decisive. But they will not succeed.
We also lack specifics regarding healthcare data. Which days are they referring to? How many people were affected? “From November 28 and subsequent days” could mean two days or two weeks. What exact statistics were provided?
They claim intoxication was identified in only five people, all discharged the next day. Is this data from five days or five months? The information previously provided to the Young Lawyers’ Association showed different figures.
This is an extremely serious allegation. Under all legal standards, preventive measures should have been applied immediately against specific individuals once the investigation began. When there is a risk of influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, or absconding, detention should be imposed pending investigation.
In Georgia, we have dozens of cases where none of these risks were substantiated, yet people were detained pending verdicts. Here, however, this is a classic case where those implicated hold official power and have the means to destroy evidence and influence witnesses.
If they intend to scapegoat only drivers or operators, that will not work. Decisions of this magnitude cannot be made without direct orders from top officials.
The SSS investigation essentially repeats Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s claim that the substance used “does not fall under the category of prohibited substances.” This wording is legally false.
The principle that what is not prohibited is allowed applies to citizens. It does not apply to public authorities. Public power may act only when explicitly authorized by law and strictly within the limits defined by law.
If the Ministry deemed the use of a non-prohibited chemical appropriate, is this legally acceptable?
The law lists specific chemical formulas known to have devastating effects. But this list cannot be exhaustive. New formulas may emerge with equally harmful consequences. The law cannot foresee every new chemical composition.
Did the law authorize the use of this specific formula? In this form? In that location? At that scale? In winter?
Moreover, the purpose of police means can never be punishment. Even if a protest becomes violent, the goal must be to stop violence at that moment, not to disperse an entire protest or punish thousands of people.
In the BBC film, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture refers to experimentation. This is why authorities manipulate language, claiming the substance was not prohibited. What we saw was experimentation and punishment. This constitutes torture. It was not aimed at dispersal but at punishing demonstrators.
The SSS statement even says the means were used “as necessary.” They did not even add “on the basis of law.”
The law requires a three-step test: legal authorization, a legitimate aim, and proportionality. Even if a legitimate aim existed, the means used must be the least harmful available. They used the most severe means.
All of this clearly shows that no real investigation was conducted. It is deeply inappropriate to call this an investigation.
Is there a chance evidence can be preserved? Will there be an international investigation?
An international investigation is inevitable. This concerns one of the most critical international conventions prohibiting chemical weapons. Member states are obligated to monitor each other. Impunity would signal to other states that they can treat their own citizens this way.
The ruling party is now actively trying to erase and conceal evidence. But international experience shows that even in such environments, crimes can still be documented using appropriate methodologies.
I urge people who have medical documentation to preserve it, document symptoms, and take photographs if symptoms persist. I understand this is traumatic, but it is crucial.
In The Hague, the prosecutor may initiate proceedings independently, as happened with the August War case, or another state may submit a referral. But first and foremost, evidence must be gathered and a solid legal case built. The Hague is a more appropriate venue to protect victims’ rights.
Cases investigated by The Hague typically involve states where democracy has collapsed. It is painful, but that is where we are now.
For me, as a Georgian citizen and lawyer, it is vital that justice in Georgia itself changes and that these individuals are held accountable in Georgia’s name.
Has this case created preconditions for political change?
Political change requires many factors. These people have committed numerous systemic crimes, including a constitutional coup, mass torture, and mass unjust convictions. They operate a one-party parliament at breakneck speed.
The elections of October 26, 2024 were not recognized internationally as free or democratic. They face a severe legitimacy crisis, now compounded by credible allegations of chemical weapons use.
If they had nothing to hide, they would have invited international missions immediately.
Their reaction shows that when caught committing a crime, they fabricate versions to conceal the truth. Their messages contradicted each other. Lies entangle themselves.
Their goal was to punish society and protesters. This is illegal and criminal. They seek to evade legal, political, and moral responsibility, but accountability will come.