Georgia has been a parliamentary republic since 2018. Although the country formally has a multiparty system, in practice a single political party dominates. Since 2012, that party has been Georgian Dream (GD). The opposition’s influence has steadily declined in recent years. In 2025, several opposition leaders have been imprisoned and prosecuted, according to international and local organizations, for political reasons. At the same time, the authorities are attempting to ban the largest opposition parties through a new procedure before the Constitutional Court. Additionally, legislative changes prevent civil society actors from engaging in politics. These measures aim to consolidate GD’s dominant position.
According to international organizations, ongoing political tensions and the lack of reforms to the judicial system are leading to democratic backsliding. The term state capture is also used to describe the situation in Georgia due to the concentration of power within GD and the party’s control over the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.
Despite a positive recommendation from the European Commission (EC) in November 2023 to grant Georgia the European Union (EU) candidate status, the country has, since 2024, been drifting further away from the West. In 2024–2026, the parliament passed a series of repressive laws without consulting the opposition, including an anti-LGBT+ law and a law on transparency regarding foreign influence in 2024. When the prime minister announced in late November 2024 that the EU accession process will be paused until 2028, a wave of protests ensued. International actors criticize the excessive police violence against largely peaceful demonstrators in late 2024–early 2025 and the failure to prosecute those responsible. Violence and intimidation by unidentified groups, allegedly directed by the authorities, go unpunished.
In response to the ongoing protests, in 2025 the parliament repeatedly approved legislative amendments that impose increasingly severe penalties for protest-related offenses and severely hinder the operations of civil society organizations. Since October 2025, heavy fines have been replaced by administrative detention for a first offense, while repeated violations are now treated as criminal offenses punishable by up to one year in prison, and up to two years for repeat offenses. Due to court backlogs, only two people have been criminally prosecuted for repeated offenses so far. The Court of Appeals generally upholds first-instance rulings. After exhausting domestic legal remedies, cases may be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
Figures on administrative proceedings vary. The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) reports proceedings against 2,000 individuals and 544 administrative detentions between November 2024 and September 2025. During the same period, the Legal Aid Network provided legal assistance to 1,400 individuals. According to GYLA, these legal proceedings serve to punish and intimidate protesters. In connection with the protests in 2024–2025, the NGO reports that criminal proceedings were initiated against 147 individuals. Dozens of people were sentenced to prison terms in 2025 following unfair trials, which, according to Amnesty International (AI), demonstrates that the criminal justice system is being used to silence critics. The European Parliament also points to politically motivated proceedings against protesters, journalists, and opposition figures.
According to GYLA, civil society organizations are operating under the most difficult conditions since Georgia’s independence. Since March 2026, it has been a criminal offense to provide services or expertise to foreign individuals, organizations, or agencies with a presumed political purpose without prior authorization. The increased risk of criminal prosecution puts further pressure on NGOs. As a result, many civil society organizations have significantly reduced or ceased their activities, meaning that free legal aid is often now only offered in strategic cases.
Due to the general repressive climate, experts say it is difficult to assess who might be targeted by the authorities and in what way. The legal framework certainly allows for individuals to be prosecuted administratively or criminally for minor protest-related offenses, though this does not mean that everyone who breaks the law is actually prosecuted or punished. The authorities lack the resources to do so and have no such intention, as the current measures already have a chilling effect and the protests have subsided. According to experts, the risk of being subjected to pressure, including through legal proceedings, is largely linked to the visibility and frequency of participation in protest actions. In addition to potential legal consequences, there is also a risk of being fired or not hired due to (past) participation in protests, especially for people working in government agencies. Intimidation tactics, primarily at the start of the protests in 2024, are also cited as a means of pressure. Family members of activists may also be pressured to ensure that their relative ceases their protest.
Policy
The policy implemented by the Commissioner General is based on a thorough analysis of accurate and up-to-date information on the general situation in the country of origin. This information is collated in a professional manner from various, objective sources, including the EUAA, the UNHCR, relevant international human rights organisations, non-governmental organisations, professional literature and coverage in the media. When determining policy, the Commissioner General does not only examine the COI Focuses written by Cedoca and published on this website, as these deal with just one aspect of the general situation in the country of origin. The fact that a COI Focus could be out-of-date does not mean that the policy that is being implemented by the Commissioner General is no longer up-to-date.
When assessing an application for asylum, the Commissioner General not only considers the actual situation in the country of origin at the moment of decision-making, he also takes into account the individual situation and personal circumstances of the applicant for international protection. Every asylum application is examined individually. An applicant must comprehensively demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a clear personal risk of serious harm. He cannot, therefore, simply refer back to the general conditions in his country, but must also present concrete, credible and personal facts.
There is no policy paper for this country available on the website.