A tense verbal confrontation unfolded in Georgia’s Parliament during Public Defender Levan Ioseliani’s presentation of his office’s 2024 annual report.

The debate followed after parliamentary majority member, Head of the Temporary Investigative Commission Tea Tsulukiani directly challenged Ioseliani’s approach to human rights protection, accusing him of selective advocacy and political bias.

“Whatever Lomjaria’s staff may have chosen for you, please believe that any violation of human rights of any person in Georgia concerns you – don’t be ashamed of our existence,” Tsulukiani said, referencing former Public Defender Nino Lomjaria’s tenure.

Tsulukiani criticized Ioseliani for allegedly failing to address what she described as systematic violations of property rights and freedom of movement affecting government officials and their families during the reporting period.

“When there were mass violations of deputies’ and ministers’ property rights and freedom of movement last year during the reporting period, did you call on anyone that this was wrong?” Tsulukiani demanded.

“You are ashamed to defend us. You are ashamed of our defence.”

“You should have called on the government to file an interstate complaint against Britain at the Strasbourg Court,” Tsulukiani said, referring to restrictions on movement of certain politicians and their families.

The parliamentary majority member argued that Ioseliani’s mandate requires him to protect all citizens equally, regardless of their political affiliation or position.

“Human rights law is about balance, and you have completely disrupted this balance,” she stated, calling for the Public Defender to defend everyone “with sword drawn, regardless of who they are.”

In response, Ioseliani maintained his institutional independence and rejected the accusations of bias. He emphasized that his role focuses on identifying problems rather than celebrating achievements.

“Next year and the year after that, when I come to Parliament, I don’t plan to talk about achievements – I plan to talk about problems,” Ioseliani declared. “This is the Public Defender’s mandate.”

Addressing Tsulukiani’s criticism directly, Ioseliani said: “As for Madam Tea’s remarks, I really don’t intend to respond in the same style and rhetoric. I don’t want to call her ignorant or incompetent. The fact is that we understand human rights differently.”

The Public Defender explained his position on election monitoring, clarifying that while electoral rights fall under his protection mandate, direct election observation is not his institutional role.

“Elections are not my topic as an observational organization. When OSCE/ODIHR or any organization has observers at 3,000 polling stations, whatever assessment they make, I cannot make such an assessment and it wouldn’t be right, because I am not an observational organization,” he explained.

Ioseliani also defended his focus on systemic issues, citing problems in social housing facilities as an example of ongoing human rights challenges.

“When every social housing facility in Georgia is absolutely unacceptable from a human rights perspective and living there is dignity-degrading – in Gori, Ozurgeti, and Kutaisi – isn’t this a systemic problem?” he asked.

The Public Defender emphasized his commitment to political neutrality.

“This is my principled position. As long as I am a Public Defender, I will always talk about people, always talk about their rights, but never about politics,” he said.

Ioseliani concluded by expressing gratitude for “all critical opinions” and urged for objectivity in evaluating his work.