The Tbilisi City Court has remanded Besarion (Busa) Zhvania in custody in absentia, who is accused of organizing the ordered group intentional murder of Niko Kvaratskhelia. Meanwhile, the preliminary court hearing for brothers Davit and Guram Kakulia has been scheduled for April 8 at 15:00.

The Kakulia brothers attended the hearing remotely. As noted by the presiding judge Teona Epitashvili, the accused did not wish to attend the hearing in person.

The prosecution requested the strictest measure of pretrial detention for Besarion Zhvania, while for the Kakulia brothers, they only requested the setting of the date for the preliminary hearing.

Prosecutor Gia Shaishmelashvili argued that the charge presented against Besarion Zhvania constitutes a particularly serious crime.

According to the prosecutor, the accused is evading appearance in court and is therefore already considered a fugitive. He also stated that Zhvania has been questioned several times during the investigation and has given contradictory testimonies each time. Additionally, as alleged by the prosecution, he provided investigators with a different phone number than the one he presumably used during the commission of the crime.

The prosecution believes that these circumstances indicate a risk of obstructing the investigation, as the accused’s freedom could be used to exert pressure on evidence or witnesses.

Gia Shaishmelashvili noted that at the time of the crime, the accused was in a state of prior conviction. According to the prosecutor, he had been recently released from a penitentiary institution when, according to the prosecution’s version, he planned a new crime: “Released in the summer, he organized an intentional murder in September.”

The prosecution also considers that there is a risk of continuation of criminal activity by the accused.

The defense, in turn, stated that to date the prosecution has not presented any valuable or convincing evidence confirming the involvement of any of the three accused in the said crime. According to them, the case does not reveal any specific circumstance or factual material that directly indicates the possible participation of any of them.

The lawyers noted that the current situation suspiciously coincided with media reports according to which a certain group was planning to launch protest actions if the prosecution did not respond in a timely manner.

In their view, there must exist specific and substantiated evidence indicating that the imposition of a preventive measure against a particular person is necessary, while in the case of the other accused, it is appropriate only to set the date for the preliminary hearing.