According to the Ombudsman’s report, the principle of prohibition of double jeopardy (non bis in idem) was violated in the administrative proceedings against Mzia Amaghlobeli, founder of Batumelebi and Netgazeti.

This is stated in the Ombudsman’s 2025 annual report.

"Under the Constitution and the European Convention, the principle of prohibition of double jeopardy (non bis in idem) was violated in the administrative proceedings against Mzia Amaghlobeli. Police officers detained Amaghlobeli under Article 173, Part 1 of the Administrative Offenses Code (ASC) on the grounds that on January 11, 2025, in Batumi, she posted a sticker on the police building façade and verbally insulted police officers, and despite multiple warnings, did not stop the illegal action. The police report drafted on January 11, 2025, is similar in content to the arrest record.

The administrative offense report was drawn up on February 14, 2025, regarding verbal insults directed at police officers and interference with the police during the detention of others at the protest on January 11, 2025. In court, her lawyers argued that she had only posted a sticker (and had not committed any other act), and therefore the police had no competence to detain and hold her accountable. However, the court considered her disobedience, manifested in posting the sticker, as an administrative offense under Article 173 of the ASC and used it as one of the grounds for recognizing the offense.

A few months later, the police initiated administrative proceedings against Mzia Amaghlobeli again, this time under Article 150 of the ASC, on the same grounds, date, location, and actions for which she had already been prosecuted. Specifically, according to the administrative offense report drawn up on April 30, 2025, on January 11, 2025, during the protest, Amaghlobeli did not comply with police instructions and posted a sticker on the exterior façade of the police building.

In this case, the Ombudsman submitted an Amicus Curiae opinion to the court, highlighting the possible risk of violating the principle of prohibition of double jeopardy and the unjustified qualification of a form of peaceful protest as an administrative offense."