The Judge Who Broke the Silence

The judge of the Tetritskaro District Court, Vladimer Khutchua, is today practically the only judge who has broken the prevailing silence within Georgia’s judiciary and openly confronted the injustice entrenched in the court system. His name became widely known to the public particularly after the parliamentary elections of 2024. Since then, Vladimer Khutchua has been associated with fair, principled, precedent-setting cases of significant public importance.

The judge from Tetritskaro, Vladimer Khutchua, upheld a lawsuit filed by the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association concerning violations of the right to secret voting. During the court hearing, Judge Vladimer Khutchua established several concrete violations of ballot secrecy through a practical experiment. As a result, the court annulled the election results of 18 polling stations in Electoral District No. 25 (Zalka) and 13 polling stations in Electoral District No. 26 (Tetritskaro).

Since 2012, Vladimer Khutchua has worn the judicial robe and has made his decisions based on his conscience, professional responsibility, and the principles of law. He raises his voice at a time when the justice system remains silent—precisely what makes his stance exceptional, rare, and of particular importance to society. Another precedent is linked to amendments made in 2025 to the Code of Administrative Offences.

On 1 December 2025, it became known that Vladimer Khutchua, judge of the Tetritskaro District Court, had suspended proceedings in four administrative offence cases pending before him. Vladimer Khutchua requested that the Constitutional Court declare unconstitutional those amendments introduced in the summer of 2025 to the Code of Administrative Offences which, among other things, provide for the mandatory imposition of administrative detention in cases where a fine imposed for an administrative offence is not paid.

As a reminder, this is the very law most frequently used to detain participants in protests held on Rustaveli Avenue.

We conducted an interview with Judge Vladimer Khutchua, which we publish below in full and without alteration.

Tiflis24: Let us begin with your constitutional submissions. Under the law adopted by “Georgian Dream,” a person may be sent to prolonged detention for failing to pay a fine, without the judge having any right to conduct an individual assessment. Please explain why this provision is unconstitutional.

Violation of fundamental human rights. In the summer of 2025, amendments were introduced to legal provisions concerning, among other things, minor hooliganism and disobedience to a lawful order of the police. The legislator restricted judicial discretion by stipulating that if a person had previously committed a similar administrative offence, had been fined, and was unable—explicitly unable—to pay that fine, a sanction under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences must be applied, namely a minimum of 30 days of administrative detention for disobedience to a lawful police order.

This occurs without allowing the judge to assess the individual personal circumstances of the person concerned: their background, activities, socio-economic situation, and other characteristics that would enable the judge to determine an individualized and proportionate sanction.

Socio-economic discrimination.A person with sufficient financial means can pay a fine ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 GEL and, at the normative level, does not face imprisonment. By contrast, a person who lacks such means, whose social and economic situation objectively makes it impossible to pay the fine—and this is known in advance both to the individual and to the court, as it is stated during the hearing and not disputed by either party—is effectively condemned to at least 30 days of administrative detention in the event of a similar offence in the future, a period that may even be extended to 60 days.

Tiflis24: Following your argument, one could conclude that the parliamentary majority introduced amendments that create a direct basis for socio-economic discrimination. How does this law function in practice, and which cases did you suspend?

I selected several cases with the following circumstances: the individuals concerned were socially vulnerable; some did not even have housing. They had minor children, were unemployed, had no stable source of income, and relied primarily on social assistance provided by the state. They stated that they were unable to pay the fine. I concluded that this regulation posed a concrete risk that their rights would inevitably be violated in the future, as they had no means whatsoever to pay even the statutory minimum fine. For this reason, I determined that these cases involved violations of human rights.

Tiflis24: You are effectively refusing to adjudicate people under a repressive legal norm adopted by the parliament of “Georgian Dream.” Earlier, you stated that the parliamentary elections were conducted in violation of the principle of secret voting and were therefore unconstitutional. What reactions followed these decisions?

As you know, after my decision in the election dispute, organized attacks began against me and my family. The greatest “compromising material” presented against me after 25 years of public service—including 12 years as a judge—was the claim that my decision had been motivated by my wife’s alleged promise of a “strawberry cake.” That was the most serious “compromat.”

More seriously, however, there was an enormous amount of lies, defamation, and grave insults directed at me and my family, entirely beyond any ethical standards. This organized campaign clearly had an origin; such actions cannot occur without coordination and a central source.

Public officials made statements of similar content. I will not voice my assumptions, but it became clear where these attacks were coming from. Supporters of the ruling party and public officials accused me of violating the law and committing a crime. Members of parliament even stated publicly that I had committed a crime. More than a year has passed, and no one has asked me a single question about whether I violated judicial secrecy or colluded with anyone.

I now state that they knew from the very beginning that these accusations were entirely unfounded. They were made solely to obscure the legal basis of my decision. That was the motive.

Tiflis24: Do you believe this was an organized attack against you?

Absolutely. It is impossible for tens of thousands of people to post identical messages on social media at the same time and at specific hours. Simultaneously, a massive smear campaign began against me, my family, and my wife, including allegations that she supported my decision or was disloyal to the authorities. It was claimed that my decision had been coordinated in advance with certain politicians and even announced publicly two hours before a demonstration. This was an absolute lie. It is impossible for anyone else to know a decision before it has fully formed in my own mind. I was accused of specific crimes, yet neither investigative bodies nor any other institutions ever posed even basic questions.

Tiflis24: If this was an orchestrated campaign of discreditation, at what level were these decisions made?

I cannot say this definitively, but it is clear that these accusations, slander, and attacks were not planned at a low level. It is highly likely that higher levels were involved. To this day, I have questions but no answers. For my family and me, this caused immense suffering. It was extremely difficult for my children to endure such filth being directed at our family. There were also other covert actions behind the scenes. I am aware of facts, and even individuals involved told me about them, but said they could not openly support me because they would face repercussions.

Tiflis24: What do you mean by “actions behind the scenes”?

That family members or close associates experienced difficulties in completely unrelated matters, feeling that services or assistance were denied to them because of their association with me. I will not go into detail. The fact remains that this decision and the subsequent developments were anything but easy for me. I do not exclude that this continues even today.

Tiflis24: Have you ever regretted your decision? In one interview, you said people told you, “Why make life difficult for yourself?” What is your answer?

“Why make life difficult for yourself?” was indeed the first reaction of many. My answer is this: I will never claim to be flawless. But I can always demonstrate that in more than 13 years of judicial service I have never made a single decision—explicitly, not a single one—that I believed contradicted my conscience, my dignity, or my sense of justice.

I will also never say that I acted under pressure. I stand by all my decisions and consider them just. In particular, the decisions regarding the parliamentary elections were made after a 16-hour hearing: 16 hours of examining evidence, 16 hours of hearing the parties. I know that it was the only correct and just decision. In the courtroom, not a single party raised objections to my assessment. No one claimed that my position was wrong. All of this began only after the decision was announced.

Tiflis24: How do you explain this?

No one expected such a decision. That is one of our core problems. In Georgia’s history, there has probably been no precedent where a court effectively annulled election results approved by the ruling party nationwide, creating a real possibility of new parliamentary elections. This decision made me known, but I worked with the same determination before and continue to do so. Nothing has changed for me.

Tiflis24: You often say that there are many conscientious judges in the system. Why, then, is there silence? Why are you alone?

That question should be addressed to others. I cannot explain why other judges remain silent and do not raise their voices. I believe there are many conscientious judges who do their work. Yet even those who could speak out against systemic injustice have remained unheard. Why? They must answer that themselves. Those who believe this applies to them should speak.

Tiflis24: Your decision regarding the 2024 parliamentary elections is now being examined by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. What is your position?

The relevant authorities in Georgia could still reconsider their stance, as the European Court will request certain evidence from the Georgian side. They should carefully examine the legal and factual grounds of my decision. I do not believe that anyone with the appropriate qualifications who studies the evidence and case materials and conducts a quasi-judicial review would reach a different conclusion. Everyone saw that ballot secrecy was not respected. Decisions should be taken so that the Georgian state does not face international embarrassment.

Tiflis24: Is it not too late, since the case is already in Strasbourg?

Legally, nothing can be changed now. But political will can still be shown. Why should it be excluded to make a political decision and hold new, fair elections if there are doubts regarding the previous ones? This is not an assessment, but an acknowledgment that paths exist.

Tiflis24: You say there is open and indirect criticism of you. Do you mean from society or from those in power?

The vast majority of society shows me a level of support that I could hardly have imagined. That alone gives me hope. There are individual politicians who make false accusations. But the support I feel from ordinary citizens on the street—when they stop me and thank me—is my greatest reward.

Tiflis24: What would you like to say now?

All judges and all citizens should know this: if even one person raises their voice, that city is not dead. In Georgia, there can never be a situation where not even one person speaks up and people say that justice is dead.

There may be implicit threats in some statements directed at me, but I fear no threats. No one will be able to exert pressure on me, and I will always say this out loud. No one can prevent me from serving justice.