The Court rejected as inadmissible Mr Saakashvili’s complaints under Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention. It found that he had not substantiated his allegation that there had been an ulterior motive – hindering his participation in Georgian politics – behind his prosecution. The Court took into account in this respect that the charges brought against Mr Saakashvili had been serious and well-founded, that there had been a significant body of both direct and concordant circumstantial evidence against him in the case file, that the national courts had conducted fully adversarial proceedings during which his lawyer had been able to confront all the major witnesses and otherwise contest the evidence against him and that, above all, the court decisions had been duly reasoned, - reads the judgement delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the "Saakashvili v. Georgia" case.

“The Court rejected as inadmissible Mr Saakashvili’s complaints under Article 18. His fear that there had been an ulterior motive behind his prosecution was unsubstantiated. The backdrop of bitter political antagonism between Mr Saakashvili’s political party and the new ruling forces could not on its own prove that the predominant purpose of the opening of the criminal cases against him had been to hinder his participation in Georgian politics.

To the contrary, and bearing in mind in particular the duly reasoned court decisions, the Court found that the authorities’ honest desire had been to bring Mr Saakashvili to justice for his wrongdoings. Even the highest-ranking State official was not, as a matter of principle, immune from prosecution”, reads the judgement.

ipn.ge