From April 15, 2024, to March 1, 2025, the Georgian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited over 600 persons who had been detained or injured during public protests. Among them, 58% alleged ill-treatment. In this Q&A, the Public Defender of Georgia, which holds the NPM mandate, shares how it used its full institutional mandates—investigation, prevention, and public advocacy—to defend human rights in this difficult context.
Can you tell us a bit about the Public Defender as an institution, and your different mandates?
The Public Defender of Georgia is an independent constitutional institution responsible for protecting human rights and freedoms across the country. It investigates violations based on individual complaints or on its own initiative and is not part of any branch of government.
In addition to its general mandate, the Public Defender also carries out several specialized functions under national and international law. These include acting as:
- National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) since 2009, monitoring the treatment of people in detention, psychiatric institutions, care homes, and similar facilities, under the UN Optional Protocol against Torture (OPCAT);
- Anti-Discrimination Mechanism since 2014, enforcing the Law on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and overseeing equality in both public and private sectors;
- Disability Rights Monitoring Mechanism, promoting and monitoring implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) since 2014;
- Child Rights Monitor, overseeing compliance with the Code on the Rights of the Child and other child protection laws since 2020.
In 2016, responding to a UN recommendation, the Public Defender also established a Femicide Watch to monitor gender-based killings and attempted killings of women, aiming to improve victim protection mechanisms.
The Public Defender operates across Georgia, with offices in Tbilisi and regions. Although the Georgian government does not control the occupied territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region, the Public Defender remains committed to monitoring the rights of people living in and near those areas with all the accessible means.
Can you tell us a bit about some of the main findings and recommendations from your annual report linked to torture and ill-treatment and your work on monitoring protests?
2024 was particularly severe and memorable in the context of human rights violations during protest rallies. A series of violations primarily began during the protests of April–May 2024. The Public Defender regularly informed the public about reports of alleged ill-treatment and the condition of individuals detained and injured during the protests.
The rights violations identified in the context of the protests, considering their nature and particularly their scale, encompass many aspects. In this context, violations were recorded relating to ill-treatment, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, and the right to privacy. These issues are discussed in detail in the Public Defender’s parliamentary report: https://ombudsman.ge/res/docs/2025052310222648365.pdf
The protests and the related human rights issues pose really complex challenges for independent oversight bodies like the Public Defender. Can you tell us about how you have used all the different and complementary mandates of the institution to try and respond to these challenges in a holistic way?
During the protests, the Public Defender and the staff of the Public Defender’s Office were actively involved in identifying the whereabouts of detained and injured individuals, visiting and interviewing them, documenting and revealing possible violations of their rights, notifying investigative bodies, and regularly informing the public.
The Public Defender publicly condemned the alleged ill-treatment of protest participants multiple times, as well as the attacks on activists and protesters by unidentified individuals—attacks that bore signs of persecution based on views and political opinions. The Public Defender also contacted the relevant investigative body regarding publicly shared incidents of ill-treatment, including those involving journalists, and submitted corresponding internet links as evidence.
From April 15, 2024, to March 1, 2025, the Public Defender and their representatives visited 624 individuals who had been detained or injured during the protests. Among them, 360 individuals (57.7%) reported alleged ill-treatment.
Given the frequency and intensity of the protests, the recurring nature and scale of reported ill-treatment, and the high and legitimate public interest in the matter, in 2024 the Public Defender requested exceptional access to the investigation materials concerning alleged ill-treatment of protest participants from the Special Investigation Service.
The Special Investigation Service granted the Public Defender exceptional access to the case files. The authorized representatives reviewed all written case materials in November and December 2024, which amounted to approximately 55 volumes.
The goal of reviewing the case files was to determine whether, around seven months after the launch of the investigation, the Special Investigation Service’s actions met the standards of an effective investigation, as required by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Following the review, the Public Defender submitted a detailed proposal to the head of the Special Investigation Service and the Prosecutor General of Georgia, recommending specific investigative actions and a reclassification of certain charges.
In addition, monitoring visits were conducted to temporary detention isolators in order to examine medical documentation produced by facility staff concerning detainees, including those arrested during the protests.
Would you say the treatment of detainees or the authorities’ response to protests has changed compared to previous years? Are there new patterns or red flags in 2024–2025?
During the assemblies and demonstrations of 2024, compared to previous years, there was a significant increase in reports of alleged ill-treatment by law enforcement officers during the dispersal of peaceful protests, as indicated by protesters and detainees.
An analysis of the information obtained through interviews with detainees during protest dispersals reveals a growing trend of ill-treatment from year to year.
Do you think working in this way has come with any lessons for other NHRIs and NPMs in how to approach this kind of complex issue?
Navigating these complex and sensitive issues came with a number of challenges, and in addressing them, Public Defender’s Office sometimes found approaches that may also be relevant or useful to other NHRIs and NPMs facing similar contexts.
For instance, responding to widespread allegations of ill-treatment during protests required us to act quickly and maintain a strong field presence. This included locating and interviewing detained or injured individuals, documenting their accounts, and ensuring that these findings were communicated both to investigative authorities and to the public. While not without its difficulties, this hands-on approach helped the Office gather timely information and strengthen the visibility of rights violations.
Another important aspect was gaining exceptional access to investigative materials. While this was an unusual step, it allowed the Office to assess whether ongoing investigations met the standards of effectiveness required under international human rights law. That process highlighted the value of persistence, legal grounding, and institutional dialogue when seeking transparency from state bodies.
The public Defender also recognized how critical it is to continuously build the skills and capacities of the staff - especially in contexts involving mass mobilization and potential systemic violations. Exposure to international standards and peer practices helped the Office improve the quality of our monitoring and analysis.
How can your international partners best support you going forward?
Sharing best practices, learning about the achievements of other countries, and exploring effective examples of institutional strengthening will provide a solid foundation for the professional development of staff. This process is especially important since it will further enhance the effectiveness and impact of the Public Defender’s Office in identifying and monitoring cases of ill-treatment.
Deepening professional knowledge and adopting approaches based on international standards will strengthen the capacity of the independent oversight body to respond more effectively to existing challenges and contribute to the advancement of human rights protection mechanisms.