Nika Gvaramia: Georgian Dream is the primary - if not the only - party subject to a ban under constitutional criteria

Georgian Dream is the primary - if not the only - party subject to a ban under constitutional criteria. In other words, applying the interpretation of the legal provision proposed by the plaintiff, the party that ought to be banned is Georgian Dream itself. This statement was made by Nika Gvaramia, a representative of the Coalition for Change, during the presentation of the respondent's arguments at the Constitutional Court.

As he noted, if the legal provision is interpreted in the same way as the representatives of Georgian Dream perceive it, then "anyone who violates the pluralistic order would automatically be classified as someone who violates the constitutional order and usurps power."

"Yesterday, we discussed five grounds which—when evaluated against the standard set out in the lawsuit—indicate that Georgian Dream is the primary—if not the only—party subject to a ban under constitutional criteria. A "mirror-image" reading of all five grounds—by which I mean applying the standard in the way the plaintiffs themselves propose—reveals one thing. According to the plaintiffs' own interpretation, the criteria describe a governing force that alters the constitutional course, punishes the opposition, and forcibly suppresses protests far more accurately than they describe an opposition that demands elections, justice, and freedom for political prisoners. Consequently, if we interpret the legal provision and apply these standards to the actions in question in the same manner as Georgian Dream does, then any entity that undermines the pluralistic order would automatically be classified as one that violates the constitutional order and usurps power.

Therefore, under the interpretive framework proposed by the plaintiffs, the party that ought to be banned is Georgian Dream itself," stated Nika Gvaramia.