The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) published its opinion on the amendments to the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences and Criminal Code.

According to the document, the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are an integral part of the foundations of a democratic, tolerant and pluralist society in which individuals and groups with different backgrounds and beliefs can voice their opinions, gather and interact peacefully with one another.

The Opinion states that states have positive obligations to respect, protect and facilitate the exercise of these rights, without discrimination.

The OSCE/ODIHR remarks that “effective protection of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression can help foster a culture of open democracy, enable participation in public affairs, and invigorate dialogue on issues of public interest.”

Based on the document, any restriction on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly must meet the strict threepart test under international human rights law, namely that it must be provided by law, serve to protect one of the legitimate aims exhaustively recognized under international law and be necessary and proportionate to achieve this aim.

In addition, the document reads that any restrictions must be non-discriminatory.

“The state’s positive duty to facilitate peaceful assembly should be reflected in the legislative framework and relevant practices, and when considering restrictions to reconcile this right with the rights of others or other permissible grounds for limitation, the state should prioritize facilitation over unnecessary or disproportionate limitations,” it says.

The OSCE/ODIHR remarks that the current Urgent Opinion should be read against the backdrop of the serious concerns raised previously by ODIHR, international and regional organizations and bodies, national observers and other stakeholders regarding these and earlier legislative initiatives.

“In particular, those unduly restricting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association, as well as the detention, in recent months, of peaceful protesters, human rights defenders, and opposition politicians for their peaceful participation in assemblies, in clear violation of Georgia’s international human rights obligations,” reads the report.

According to the Opinion, the Amendments under review were submitted to the Parliament on 8 October 2025, adopted through an accelerated procedure on 16 October 2025, without public discussion, and entered into force upon publication on 17 October 2025.

“Overall, they introduce much harsher administrative and criminal penalties. They exclude the possibility to apply less restrictive alternative sanctions, introduce lengthier administrative detention as a default penalty for certain conduct defined as administrative offences, and criminal imprisonment where someone has a past record of committing these offenses. This further exacerbates the negative impact of the restrictions introduced in February 2025 and December 2024, which ODIHR found to unduly interfere with the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Georgia in the Urgent Opinion published in March 2025.

In particular, the October 2025 Amendments introduce harsh terms of administrative detention up to the maximum of 60 days’ detention, as the sole penalty for certain assembly-related offences, eliminating judicial discretion to impose lighter sanctions ODIHR Urgent Opinion on the Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code of Georgia (as adopted on 16 October 2025) 3 such as fines of a proportionate nature or warnings.

This approach directly contradicts international standards that require sanctions to be necessary, proportionate, and nondiscriminatory. It transforms administrative detention into a default response to nonviolent behaviour that do not reach the level of seriousness of the misbehaviour that may justify a stricter response (e.g., mere wearing of a mask or carrying laser and light-beam devices, disrupting the roadways or participation in a peaceful assembly that is considered unlawful),” it reads.

As the OSCE/ODIHR Opinion notes, “while deprivation of liberty, including administrative detention, should never be used as a punishment for the peaceful exercise of the right guaranteed under international law, the lack of less severe alternative sanctions also undermines the principle of proportionality.

The Opinion states that “this, compounded by the absence of effective remedies to challenge such detentions, exacerbates the potential for abuse and the risk of arbitrary deprivation of liberty violating Article 9 of the ICCPR and Article 5 of the ECHR.”

“Under Article 347 of the Criminal Code as amended, imprisonment for terms of up to one year may now be imposed for the mere commission of certain non-violent acts, qualified by the national legislation as administrative offences where someone has a past record of committing such specified administrative offences, and of up to two years for doing so repeatedly (meaning more than once, and not within any stipulated timeframe), without evidence of intent to cause harm to society or to the people or actually causing such harm. These provisions penalize conduct that is protected by international human rights law, including the wearing of a mask, or for the peaceful participation in assemblies deemed unlawful or obstructing roadways.

The amendments make imprisonment the default sanction, de facto resulting into disproportionate criminal penalties for the mere exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, including when guaranteed by the norms of international law. Thus, imposition of criminal penalties in response to a conduct, which may be legitimate and lawful under international law, would result in arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of Article 9 of the ICCPR and Article 5 of the ECHR,” it says.

Based on the document, in addition, “the introduction of criminal penalties involving imprisonment of up to one year for children (under 18 years of age) for repeated violations of the above-mentioned administrative provisions contravenes international obligations, which require that deprivation of liberty be used for children only as a measure of last resort, and call upon States to adopt non-custodial alternatives to detention as the default response to criminal offences allegedly committed by minors.”

The Opinion reads that, as noted in previous Opinions, “disproportionate penalties alone violate the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as they may deter the organization and participation in such events and have a chilling effect on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.”

“The amendments also criminalize verbal insults or other “offensive actions” against law enforcement and other officials, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment for repeated offences. Such vague and broad terminology, which may lead to subjective interpretation, fails to meet the standards of legality, clarity, and foreseeability required under international law. It risks erroneous, overbroad, arbitrary and/or targeted ODIHR Urgent Opinion on the Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code of Georgia (as adopted on 16 October 2025) 4 enforcement against legitimate criticism of public officials, thereby undermining freedom of expression and further amplifying the chilling effect on civic activism,” it reads.

As the OSCE/ODIHR Opinion notes that the vague and broad wording of certain assembly-related offences are vulnerable to target individuals expressing dissenting views, human rights defenders, civil and political activists, journalists or others legitimately exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

“Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the amendments to the legal framework governing the exercise of fundamental freedoms, when considered alongside enforcement patterns, raises serious concerns that the October 2025 Amendments may be used for purposes beyond those permitted under the ECHR, in violation of Article 18 of the ECHR, in particular.

Overall, the October 2025 Amendments raise serious concerns about Georgia’s lack of compliance with international human rights obligations, especially Articles 9, 19 and 21 of the ICCPR and Article 5, 10, 11 and 18 of the ECHR and should be repealed,” reads the Opinion.