Day: January 16, 2026

Lawyer predicts Ivanishvili’s downfall

Commenting on the current political developments in Georgia, lawyer Sandro Baramidze says there is a global trend of authoritarian regimes in decline, and that sooner or later this will also affect Georgia’s current leadership.

According to Baramidze, there is a broad consensus in society that the regime of Bidzina Ivanishvili and the Georgian Dream party — of which he is widely regarded as the informal leader — has gone beyond any legal framework and has “not only violated the country’s constitution, but effectively destroyed the constitutional order itself”.

The lawyer also commented on a complaint filed by the Georgian government with the UK broadcaster BBC, demanding the removal of a report alleging that chemical agent “camite” was used during the dispersal of protests in Tbilisi in 2024. Baramidze said the complaint contradicts procedural law and that no court would agree to consider it.

Opinion: Why Bidzina Ivanishvili is turning on his former allies?

Georgia’s de facto ruler has effectively sent several of his close allies and protégés to prison

Sandro Baramidze:

“[In Georgia] there are no longer any fundamental human rights. The right to freedom of assembly and demonstration has been destroyed, as has freedom of association, while the livelihoods of media outlets and non-governmental organisations have been blocked. The authorities are now trying to eliminate political pluralism by filing a constitutional complaint to ban three parties. In this way, they seek to eradicate electoral democracy, because if there is no choice, elections lose their meaning.

But the situation for authoritarian regimes worldwide has changed dramatically. There is a clear trend towards their collapse. Sooner or later, Georgia’s turn will come — and in our case it will require far less effort than in Iran or Venezuela.”

‘We once fought for European future — now we are defending country’s sovereignty’: view on protests in Georgia

Lawyer Nika Simonishvili comments on new legislative amendments that further restrict the holding of demonstrations.

As for Georgian Dream’s claims against the UK broadcaster BBC, the party has no standing to lecture one of the world’s most authoritative broadcasters on ethics or professionalism.

The BBC documentary that so angered Georgian Dream is based not on assumptions or facts established by the BBC itself, but on testimonies from victims, reports and conclusions by chemical weapons experts, as well as other sources.

More broadly, Georgian Dream’s complaint is inadmissible before any judicial body, including the European Court of Human Rights. A generally accepted principle of procedural law is that a party may file a complaint with a competent authority only to seek redress for violations of its own rights. It cannot act on behalf of others. Georgian Dream’s complaint contains four claims, three of which do not concern the party itself.

Two of the claims relate to the Interior Ministry, and one concerns Bidzina Ivanishvili personally. Georgian Dream, however, cannot file a complaint on behalf of the Interior Ministry or Ivanishvili. Such a complaint would be ruled inadmissible by any body, whether in Georgia or abroad.

Georgian government files complaint with BBC

Ruling Georgian Dream party files complaint with BBC over alleged defamation and bias

Lawyer predicts Ivanishvili’s downfall

Changes to Azerbaijan’s information law

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has approved amendments to the Law on Information, Informatization and Information Protection, previously adopted by the country’s parliament.

Under the changes, the distribution on internet platforms — including websites and social media — of content that “openly expresses disrespect for society and insults public morality” is banned. The amendments are said to aim at preventing the spread of such material and at “protecting national moral values and ethical standards”.

‘Public order’ as pretext: Azerbaijan’s recent legislative changes

Considered separately, the changes span different areas, but together they signal a new phase in the state’s punitive policy.

Key provisions of the amendments

The new legal provision bans the dissemination on online resources and information and telecommunications networks of actions that offend public morality and openly express disrespect for society. This includes obscene language, gestures of a similar nature, as well as the display of body parts in a manner deemed contrary to national moral values.

The explanatory note to the bill says that unethical publications, calls and offensive actions have become increasingly widespread on social media and websites in recent years, making such regulation necessary.

It also stresses that this type of content has a particularly negative impact on teenagers and young people and may influence changes in their patterns of behaviour.

The amendments further provide for a clearer definition of enforcement mechanisms and liability, aimed at addressing existing gaps in this area.

The law applies not only to internet users, but also to owners of information resources and domain name holders. As a result, platforms themselves will be required to comply with the new rules.

What Azerbaijan’s plan to place internal troops under presidential control could mean

The opposition argues that this represents a dangerous expansion of presidential powers and could be used to suppress protests by force.

Expert warns of potential risks to freedom of expression

Osman Gunduz, president of the Azerbaijan Internet Forum (AIF), says the absence of clear definitions in the law for concepts such as “public morality”, “obscene language” and “contrary to national moral values” increases the risk of broad and subjective interpretation.

“President Ilham Aliyev has approved new amendments to the law that had been discussed for a long time. Under the changes, the dissemination during mass events of content that offends public morality, openly expresses disrespect, contains profanity, obscene language and gestures, as well as visual material deemed contrary to national moral values, is restricted.

Why was this step taken?

It can be assumed that in recent years the growing spread on social media and certain online platforms of content that clearly goes beyond ethical boundaries — offensive, explicit and aggressive in nature — has made such legal regulation necessary. From the perspective of protecting children and vulnerable groups, as well as ensuring minimum ethical standards in the public space, the stated aims of the law appear understandable and logical,” he says.

‘Ilham Aliyev, how about making peace with your own citizens?’ – journalist writes from prison

Azerbaijani journalist Fatima Movlamli, detained as part of the Meydan TV case, wrote from prison about her reflections on the recent “historical peace meeting” in Washington

However, it should be noted from the outset that there are also risks involved.

Because the concepts used in the law — such as “public morality”, “obscene language” and “contrary to national moral values” — lack clear definitions, there is a risk of subjective and selective enforcement.

For example, if the actions of an official are subjected to harsh and emotional criticism on social media, such a post could be interpreted as “open disrespect for society”, removed, and its author held liable.

The same approach could be applied to widely shared satire, performance art, video footage from public protests, and journalistic material.

The message to journalists, bloggers and content creators is clear: greater caution will be required when criticising. The use of profanity, explicit insults and provocative visual material already creates legal risks and potential liability. Live streams and “stories” will carry the same responsibility as standard publications.

It is important to understand that in the online environment, profanity, nudity, actions aimed at humiliating society and open insults are no longer treated as forms of freedom of expression. Criticism based on facts, arguments and adherence to ethical standards remains safer.

In principle, the law is intended to protect the ethical environment and public space. However, without clear guidance, unambiguous interpretation and effective judicial oversight, its application may pose risks to freedom of expression. Similar approaches exist in a number of countries, but they are applied within narrow limits, with clear definitions and under court supervision.

Experience shows that where democratic traditions are weak, institutions are underdeveloped and officials act arbitrarily, such provisions can turn into tools for suppressing journalists, civic activists, bloggers and critics.

I believe the new rules have the potential to raise the standard of content production in the country, encouraging higher-quality, well-argued and ethical material.

There is hope that the new regulations, aimed at protecting the public space, “public morality” and national moral values, will genuinely contribute to a higher level of public culture and will not become instruments of self-censorship or the silencing of critical voices.

Trial in Meydan TV case in Azerbaijan: ‘Implement resolution, free press!’

Journalists facing charges expressed their protest by performing a song in the courtroom.

Changes to Azerbaijan’s information law

The post Can new state program reverse Azerbaijan’s tourism slowdown? first appeared on The South Caucasus News – SouthCaucasusNews.com.