“Mzia Amaglobeli never expected a fair decision and remains on hunger strike for all political prisoners, determined to fight to the end,” the lawyer Juba Katamadze told the GPB First Channel.

According to Katamadze, Amaglobeli’s detention serves a political purpose.

“She was not surprised by the court’s ruling. It has been 34 days since her hunger strike, and although weakened, she asked us to talk less about her health. She says that she is fighting not just for herself but for all political prisoners, whether from prison or a clinic,” Katamadze said.

He also criticized the Batumi Court for rejecting their motion to cancel her detention, stating that there are no valid legal grounds for her imprisonment.

“There are no valid arguments or circumstances justifying the detention. The only point mentioned by the Batumi City Court is administrative detention. However, this also does not apply, as the Ministry of Internal Affairs has not brought this case to court to determine whether the individual is an administrative offender,” said Juba Katamadze.

Katamadze emphasized that Amaglobeli’s worsening health condition should have led to a change in her preventive measure.

“We presented new evidence, including updated medical diagnoses; however, the court still made a politically motivated decision. Imprisonment is being used as a tool of repression. There was no legal basis for her initial detention, and despite the time that has passed, the case against her remains unresolved because the defense has irrefutable evidence. The state’s actions reflect a political goal and a desire to punish her,” he noted.

Today, the Batumi City Court has rejected a motion by the defence to modify the preventive measure imposed on Mzia Amaglobeli, the founder and director of media outlets Batumelebi and Netgazeti, ruling it inadmissible.

Mzia Amaglobeli has been engaged in a hunger strike for over a month. The Batumi City Court initially ordered her imprisonment as a preventive measure on January 14, following her arrest on January 12 under Article 353 of the Criminal Code, concerning the assault of a police officer.