“It would have been very easy for me to become the ‘star boy’ of a particular political group or several opposition parties or NGOs, repeating their assessments in everything or even amplifying them, but this is not the function of the Public Defender,” Georgia’s Public Defender Levan Ioseliani said in an interview with "Kviris Palitra".

According to Ioseliani, the Public Defender is not the defender of any single group or a bearer of its narrative.

“I think it is already clear to society what kind of policy the Public Defender follows in this regard. The Public Defender is not the protector of one specific group or a mouthpiece for its narrative. I issue very harsh assessments when I see excessive use of force against protesters, but at the same time I also assess cases when protesters themselves cross the limits of the right to peaceful assembly and expression. That is why my positions are often unacceptable to both sides. It would have been very easy for me to become the ‘star boy’ of a specific political group or several opposition parties or NGOs, repeating or intensifying their assessments, but that is not the role of the Public Defender. Objective assessments by the Public Defender are important first and foremost for our society, as well as for international partners, who value the fact that the Public Defender does not fall under the influence of the narrative of any political party or interest group,” Ioseliani said.

He also spoke about the events of October 4 and noted that he was ready to testify about his communication with Paata Manjgaladze, though he was not given that opportunity at the time. According to Ioseliani, when he saw people entering the Presidential Palace, he called Manjgaladze because he clearly understood the serious legal consequences this could entail.

“I intended to give testimony to the court regarding the circumstances related to Paata Manjgaladze’s involvement on October 4 and my communication with him. Whether this will be considered in his favor is for the court to decide. When I saw people entering the Presidential Palace, I called Paata because I clearly understood what severe legal consequences this could lead to. After working in parliament, I had a normal relationship with Paata, and it was in this context that I warned him. I told him that the actions and calls being conveyed by the protest organizers to the participants were absolutely unacceptable and that this process had to be stopped. Paata agreed with me and said he fully shared my position and that such a thing should not happen. According to him, he would do everything to stop the process. These are the circumstances I intended to testify about in court, and I am still ready to do so today. If the court deems this episode of communication between Paata Manjgaladze and me important for the case, I am ready to give the relevant testimony,” Ioseliani said.