Lemonjava at Constitutional Court: Georgian Dream's Lawsuit Repeats Russian Doctrine Provisions

During the hearing of the lawsuit on banning the opposition, Giga Lemonjava, representative of the "Coalition for Change", told the Constitutional Court that the provisions in Russia's foreign and security doctrine concerning Georgia and its occupied territories are exactly the same as those found in the constitutional lawsuit of "Georgian Dream".

Lemonjava said that if the court accepts the assessment of the lawsuit, its decision will create a legal basis for an interpretation according to which Georgia's policy at the time was a factor facilitating the Russian occupation, while Russia's actions were a response. In his explanation, if the court establishes as fact the theses presented in the lawsuit, a Georgian state body will for the first time in the history of independence give the Russian narrative internal state legal legitimacy.

Lemonjava named two key theses of the lawsuit: the artificial restoration of the borders of the former Autonomous District of South Ossetia in 2007, and the start of the 2008 war by Georgia. In his view, these theses literally coincide with Russia's doctrine, while the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court have already established Russia's responsibility.

"This substantially weakens Russia's responsibility as a state that carried out a military intervention on the territory of Georgia, and it consolidates the so-called 'new reality' it created with the authority of Georgia's own court," said Lemonjava.

Archil Gorduladze, representative of the claimant side, responded to Lemonjava's statement: "Did he rely on our lawsuit? Did the Russian doctrine rely on our lawsuit? That's what he said!"

Revaz Nadaraia, Chairman of the Constitutional Court, did not allow Lemonjava to continue his speech and called his statements unethical. "You started very unethically, how can a lawsuit rely on the doctrines and assessments of a foreign state? If this assessment of yours is political, you are a politician and make it wherever you want," Nadaraia said, adding that such political assessments are not relevant to the court.

In response, Lemonjava reminded the court that it is not making a dry legal decision but one of strategic importance, on which the fate of the state depends. Nadaraia replied to him: "No demagogy is needed! We will examine whether, based on the circumstances and facts presented in the lawsuit, it complies with Article 23 of the Constitution!"

Lemonjava noted that the court should not have overlooked Article 78 of the Constitution either, because giving legal force to the content presented in the "Georgian Dream" lawsuit ultimately contradicts this article.