"There was no agreement or organization, nothing was premeditated. If that were the case, then the entire protest should be accused of the same thing," said Zviad Tsetskhladze, who has been detained on charges of organizing group violence, during his court hearing.

According to Tsetskhladze, the charges against him could just as easily be brought against any of the 20,000 people who attended the protest.

“These proceedings will set a precedent. This trial will become a 'case' for the future. Any action taken by either the defense or the prosecution will serve as an example for the next generation.

I want to address the prosecution: you claim that it is not necessary for the accused to have known each other. The article under which I am charged refers to the organization of a violent group. When talking about a group, it is impossible for its members not to be at least somewhat connected or acquainted with one another. If the argument is that we should not have known each other, then there might be accusations that we committed some wrongdoing, but if you are saying that we were strangers to each other, then these alleged crimes should not be treated as group offenses but as individual ones. If we are talking about a group, then there must at least be a shared intent to achieve a specific outcome together.

The prosecution claims this was a group offense, yet they also say it is not necessary for us to have known each other well or co-organized anything. By this logic, anyone who was at the protest that day could be accused in the same way. That would mean 20,000 people were part of a violent group action.

You mentioned barricades—yes, barricades were indeed made. In my opinion, they were created for defensive purposes, but they were made nonetheless. Thousands of people contributed to their construction. However, there was no prior agreement or organization; nothing was premeditated. If you argue otherwise, then the entire protest should be charged with the same thing.

The prosecution cannot prove that we had the opportunity to get acquainted on-site or that we coexisted in any way beforehand. Without that, it is physically impossible for this to have been an organized action.

When you spoke about the risk of flight, you argued that the charge is serious, and therefore, we might flee. But you forget that none of us have ever been convicted, and you are speculating by assuming we committed this act. You also overlook the presumption of innocence. Until the court delivers its verdict, even for the judiciary, we are innocent.

When you claim that we are inclined toward injustice, our individual biographies do not support this. As for the argument about flight risk—none of us have fled anywhere. There are alternative restrictive measures available.

I will use my own example: when I was in Ukraine, there was a risk that I would be arrested upon returning. I made a rational choice and came back,” said Tsetskhladze.