Persons affected during the June 20 rally issued a joint statement on the amnesty bills, stating that they did not agree in principle with the "amnesty" bills initiated by both the ruling party and the parliamentary opposition.
“We do not agree in principle and condemn the amnesty bills initiated by both the Georgian Dream and the parliamentary opposition in connection with the June 20 events.
We expected that after the signing of Charles Michel document, the first paragraph of which envisaged “amnesty for all violations and arrests of June 19-21”, the ruling team would use the chance to avoid responsibility for June 20. During the crackdown on anti-occupation protests, we peaceful protesters suffered severe physical damage in addition to the violations of our rights. So we were not surprised that the Georgian Dream passed a bill that would grant amnesty to all butchers and officials who issued illegal orders on June 20.
As for the opposition bill, it can be said that this initiative on their part is a futile political attempt to maintain a moral face, which deserves legal criticism.
1. Although they even publicly apologized for agreeing to amnesty without informing the victims about the case, they did not even involve victims in the drafting process, which is another unethical and pragmatically unjustified action. By doing so, they continued to resolve the fate of our violated rights without any coordination or agreement with us.
2. This draft law explicitly pardons 3 law enforcers, 1 of whom was accused of abuse of office, in particular, of shooting at citizens. Pardoning a police officer is categorically unacceptable to us.
3. The draft law asserts that the political officials who issued the order cannot be exempted from responsibility, however, there is a reasonable suspicion that the persons who did not hold political office should also share responsibility (Bidzina Ivanishvili and Anzor Chubinidze).
4. The amnesty under this wording will effectively lead to the termination of pending criminal cases, making it impossible for persons to be identified as victims and have access to evidence, which in turn should have served as the basis for disputes in both local and international courts.
The statement was signed by: