Levan Bezhashvili: Mikheil Saakashvili's position has a defining role - the governing board must hold consultations with him, and if other people can better represent the interests of the 'National Movement', that is not a problem either

­Mikheil Saakashvili's position has a defining role in the party's representation—the governing board must hold consultations with him, and if other people can better represent the interests of the "United National Movement," that is not a problem either, stated Levan Bezhashvili, one of the leaders of the "United National Movement," while speaking with journalists.

According to him, the party's representatives did not distance themselves during the court trial because the legislation and international standards themselves draw the line between actions carried out by the state and party responsibility.

"The 'United National Movement' has its own strategy regarding constitutional proceedings. The format of constitutional proceedings often cannot and does not provide for discussing issues that are matters of political justice. Proceeding purely from constitutional legal proceedings, we are trying to prove that there are no constitutional and legal grounds for the abolition of the party. This is a defense strategy, and it is important for the court to see that the 'United National Movement' does not pose a threat to the protection of the constitutional order.

The goal of 'Georgian Dream' and the court is for us to conduct a legal debate in the whirlpool of the past. Our task today is to convince the court that the facts of the past are not relevant today.

Mikheil Saakashvili's position has a defining role in the party's representation. The party leadership must discuss this, the governing board must hold consultations with Mikheil Saakashvili, and if other people can better represent the interests of the 'United National Movement'—that is not a problem either.

We, the party representatives, did not distance ourselves from anything; that is what the legislation does and what international standards do—when it comes to actions carried out by the state, this cannot be attributed to the banning of a political party. Our legal argumentation is based on the Constitution and the decisions of the Strasbourg Court. Any other evaluation is political debate—if we are conducting political debates, very well, then we will be guided by the existing documents; it is simply that the court format does not allow for this. I understand Saakashvili's pathos that political arguments are very important, especially since we are talking about the abolition of political parties, and we already talk about this frequently outside the court," stated Levan Bezhashvili.