According to the lawyer of the former head of the State Security Service, Grigol Liluashvili, Lana Tsertsvadze, the two witnesses questioned today - Eliso Kiladze and Giorgi Mikadze - clearly and unambiguously explained that "they did not have any form of protection from Grigol Liluashvili in relation to the so-called call centers."

According to Lana Tsertsvadze, during the trial, Eliso Kiladze nullified the testimony of one of the main prosecution witnesses questioned in the past, Givi Jibladze.

“The two witnesses who were questioned clearly and unambiguously explained that they did not have any form of protection from Grigol Liluashvili in relation to the so-called call centers. In addition, Ms. Eliso Kiladze was questioned at today’s trial, which completely nullified the testimony of one of the main witnesses for the prosecution with very significant and very unmistakable facts. From 2018, until the arrest of Mr. Grigol Liluashvili, the aforementioned person, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, had zero opportunity to physically communicate with Mr. Grigol Liluashvili. The witness could not even talk about direct communication. She could not name the facts of direct contact, she could not bring any records, correspondence, or phone calls. She could not provide anything except general information about the protection.

Ms. Eliso Kiladze did not only speak in general phrases. She spoke about how she [the prosecution witness] could not have been in physical contact with Grigol Liluashvili, either directly or indirectly, throughout all these years, and specifically mentioned names, surnames, and places, which is naturally confirmed by the evidence that the defense has already presented in court,” the lawyer said.

According to Lana Tsertsvadze, the testimony of the prosecution witness, Giorgi Jibladze, should not be used as the basis for a guilty verdict, because he has the prospect of signing a plea agreement in exchange for his testimony "as a reward."

"The witness we are talking about, whose testimony was invalidated by Eliso Kiladze, has actually already been awarded a plea agreement in his previous criminal case. As of today, he is accused of the call center episode and is out on bail of ten thousand GEL, and naturally has the prospect of signing a plea agreement in the future. When a person has the status of a defendant and has the prospect of signing a plea agreement, such testimony should not be the basis for a guilty verdict," the lawyer said.