12 August 2026,   14:47
more
The ECHR has confirmed that the state has the legitimate right to use special means when there is an attack on law enforcement officers and state bodies

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has announced its decision in the case of Tsaava and Others v. Georgia, which concerns the dispersal by the police of a major anti-government protest on the night of 20-21 June 2019 from the front of the Parliament building in Tbilisi.

The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that the state has a legitimate right to use special means when there is an attack on law enforcement officers and state bodies. The decision stated that the force and special means used by the state should have been directed against those demonstrators whose actions were violent.

The statement noted that the Grand Chamber fully agreed with the Lower Chamber’s critical assessment of the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough, timely and effective investigation.

“The Court found no indication that the demonstration, at the outset, had been intended to be anything other than peaceful, or that the participants – the applicants in particular – had had violent intentions when joining it. Nevertheless, it was mindful of the fact that the demonstration had taken place around the Parliament building and of the fundamental need to ensure the effective functioning of Parliament in a democracy. It accepted that the authorities had been faced with a difficult task in preserving public order once some of the demonstrators had attempted to storm the Parliament building. However, even if statements made by some politicians present at the scene may have been incendiary, that fact - and the relatively limited group of protestors trying to storm the building – was not enough to deprive several thousand peaceful protestors, including the applicants, of their rights to demonstrate.

Although the authorities had been arguably justified in wanting to disperse the demonstration, especially since it was taking place just outside the Parliament building, the way in which the dispersal had been carried out was not justified. In particular, no order to disperse had been given, nor a clear audible warning about the impending use of rubber bullets”, - reads the statement.

MORE HEADLINES