Jano Archaia

Apprehended

Tortured

Violence

Prisoner

J. Archaia

Jano
Archaia

Jano Archaia, a 49-year-old Georgian dance choreographer, distributor, and taxi driver, who supported his family through daily labor, was arrested on December 5, 2024. He has children, grandchildren, and a dog waiting for him at home.

The charges against him are severe: Article 225, Part 2 of the Georgian Criminal Code, which refers to participation in group violence. However, numerous questions surround this case, particularly concerning the fairness of the judicial process and the legitimacy of the charges.

«If anyone imagines that Mr. Jano [Archaia] or Mr. Guram [Mirtskhulava] has any influence over 158 police officers—whose identities the prosecution itself cannot determine—well, that’s .. as the European Court of Human Rights uses the term 'abstract,' or I would even say this belongs to the realm of fantasy. It is beyond merely difficult to imagine»
—attorney Omar Purtseladze.

Jano Archaia was the sole provider for his family, a factor that, according to his lawyer, Omar Furtceladze, should have been one of the main arguments for his release on bail. Furthermore, the lawyer emphasized the defendant’s health condition—Archaia had undergone a major operation a year earlier and requires a special diet, medication, and constant medical supervision. Nevertheless, Judge Tamar Mchedlishvili, and later Judge Ketevan Jachvadze, imposed two months of pretrial detention on him, despite the prosecution's failure to present compelling evidence.

Jano Archaia’s case is being tried alongside 10 other defendants. Charged under the same article are Onise Tskhadadze, Guram Mirtskhulava, Luka Jabhua, Jano Archaia, Ruslan Sivakov, Revaz Kiknadze, Giorgi Terashvili, Valeri Tetrashvili, Sergei Kukharchuk, and Irakli Kerashvili. According to detainees its unclear how they can be considered as a group as they have never met, there is no proof of their prior communication and they saw each other for the first time at the court. The charges carry a prison sentence of 4 to 6 years.

The substantive hearings on their cases were scheduled to begin in January. However, the prosecution requested an extension of the investigation period, delaying the process by another two months. Their argument? They had not had enough time to collect evidence.

The judge granted this request, but the defense argues that the prosecution had already wasted the previous two months and that the extension serves only to artificially prolong the case.

At the March 5 hearing, Judge Ketevan Jachvadze was replaced by a new judge, Irakli Shvangiradze, who took office in December 2024. According to human rights defenders, this judge replacement is part of a deliberate delay tactic, intended to stretch the proceedings indefinitely.

Defense attorney Guja Avsajanashvili requested Judge Irakli Shvangiradze's recusal, as the day before, they had been informed that Judge Nino Tarashvili was supposed to oversee the pretrial hearing. However, Tarashvili withdrew from the case for reasons unknown. The defense expressed doubt that the new judge could review all 13 volumes of case materials in just a few hours, as the prosecution is required to submit evidence five days before the trial, allowing the judge time to familiarize themselves with the case. Additionally, before becoming a judge, Irakli Shvangiradze had been a prosecutor, raising further concerns about impartiality.

Andro Chichinadze’s lawyer also filed for the recusal of prosecutor Vazha Todua, a motion supported by all defense attorneys. Avsajanashvili additionally requested the removal of the second prosecutor, Vakhtang Tsabukelashvili, referring to him as "worthy of sanctioning." The request was based on March 3 sanctions imposed by the Baltic states, with Estonia specifically placing visa restrictions on Vazha Todua.

Todua responded that he learned about the sanctions from the media and that they would not interfere with his professional duties. Judge Shvangiradze rejected the recusal motions, stating that he had reviewed the case materials and that inclusion on a foreign sanctions list did not constitute grounds for disqualification.

Despite repeated requests from the defense, the court once again refused to consider alternative pretrial measures, keeping Archaia in detention.

※Loading...

The trial took place in a tense atmosphere. When prosecutor Vazha Todua claimed that the defendants appeared together in video footage from the protest, Archaia reacted angrily, demanding that the prosecution present actual evidence:

«Where do I appear? Where do I appear? I gave you three months, and you brought nothing! Prove that I am in the footage! Yes, I was there [at protest], and if you release me now, I will go back again!»
—Jano Archaia

Due to his outburst, Judge Irakli Shvangiradze ordered his removal from the courtroom. The incident caused severe distress for Archaia’s wife, who felt unwell, forcing a temporary suspension of the session.

When the trial resumed, the remaining defendants expressed solidarity with Archaia and demanded his immediate return to the courtroom. In protest, they announced they would not continue participating in the hearing unless the judge reversed his decision. The audience responded with applause, prompting Judge Shvangiradze to partially close the hearing.

※Loading...

Jano Archaia’s case has drawn the attention of the Georgian Democratic Initiative (GDI). According to their assessment, Archaia is a political prisoner whose arrest serves political motives.

GDI evaluated the case in accordance with Resolution No. 1900 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which defines the criteria for political imprisonment. The organization argues that Archaia’s case meets at least two of these criteria—his arrest was politically motivated, and his pretrial detention is the result of an unfair judicial process.

Jano Archaia’s case highlights systemic issues within Georgia’s justice system, including political persecution, flawed court proceedings, and human rights violations. The court's decisions are not based on credible evidence, the prosecution uses prolonged investigations as a tactic to keep detainees imprisoned for extended periods, and the defense's arguments are not given due consideration.

※Loading...