Archil Gorduladze, responding to Eva Gotsiridze’s question about whether the four other parties will also be held accountable for events that took place before 2012: “If you do not distance yourself from human rights violations and form a coalition with the United National Movement, you become responsible for its actions”

Past actions cannot simply be dismissed as if nothing happened, with claims that “what happened in the past stays in the past” or that “we should turn over a new leaf and start afresh.” Such an approach cannot exist in reality. If each party does not come forward, distance itself and clearly state its position on human rights violations committed under the previous government, and instead claims that human rights were never violated between 2004 and 2012, while forming a coalition with the United National Movement, it becomes responsible for the actions committed by the National Movement in the past, Archil Gorduladze, a representative of Georgian Dream, said.

He was responding to a question from Constitutional Court judge Eva Gotsiridze about whether the other four parties should also be held accountable for events that took place before 2012.

In particular, the judge asked the representative of the plaintiff party to clarify his position.

“We are talking about the attribution of facts. Should the events that took place before 2012 be attributed to the other four parties? I understand that there are also events that occurred during their subsequent joint activities. In your opinion, should everything be attributed to them because they operate together? They are responsible to one another, but I want to ask you separately and make this distinction clear: should the events that took place before 2012 be attributed to the other four parties or not? If so, on what grounds?” Eva Gotsiridze asked Archil Gorduladze.

For his part, Gorduladze explained that the parties whose banning is being sought “act as a single organism.”

“When parties jointly and through documented statements declare that their goal is to form a coalition government together, nominate a joint presidential candidate, and categorically rule out participating in the executive branch formed by another party, in this case our party, or taking part in the formation of the government, among many other things outlined in our lawsuit, this is not simply a handshake or an exchange of greetings between two parties. This once again confirms that they act as a single organism.

“There have been repeated attempts here to suggest that we are challenging their constitutionality simply because they maintain ties with one another and are seeking to form a coalition. To put it mildly, this is an attempt at disinformation.

“On the one hand, we are demonstrating their unity, and on the other, explaining what this unity consists of. In response to your question, when they act together in the present and commit actions together in the present, they share responsibility for one another's actions, and their objectives are, of course, joint. At the same time, by acting together now, they become responsible for the actions committed by each party in the past if they do not actively distance themselves from those actions,” Gorduladze said.

He also cited examples from other countries, including Turkey, in discussing the banning of political parties, arguing that voters' freedom of choice had not been restricted.

“Past actions cannot simply be dismissed as if nothing happened, with claims that ‘what happened in the past stays in the past’ or that ‘we should turn over a new leaf and start afresh.’ Such an approach cannot exist in reality. If each party does not come forward, distance itself and clearly state its position on human rights violations committed under the previous government, and instead claims that human rights were never violated between 2004 and 2012, while forming a coalition with the National Movement, it becomes responsible for the actions committed by the National Movement in the past.

“Otherwise, under a different interpretation, it would mean that neither militant democracy nor the principles of democracy nor the rule of law exist. If one party committed certain acts, newly established parties could then join it and trample on the principles of democracy without any consequences, leaving the very concept and principles of militant democracy with no possibility of existing,” Archil Gorduladze said.