Taking into consideration the increased public interest, the Public Defender of Georgia once again echoes the so-called cyanide case and notes that full closure of the trial does not serve the aim of enhancing the public confidence in the investigative and judicial authorities.

The Public Defender of Georgia has repeatedly stated that the presumption of innocence of the defendant had been violated by high political and public officials during the investigation. In addition, given that the defense was obliged not to disclose case details, the unilateral dissemination of information by the Prosecutor's Office damaged the principle of equality of the parties.

At a pre-trial hearing on May 5, 2017, the judge satisfied the motion of the Prosecutor's Office on the full closure of the trial. As a result, the public cannot receive information about the progress of the trial, including the opinions of the parties. According to the court ruling, the following circumstances served as the basis for closing the trial:

• Protection of the interests of the investigation launched into the telephone threats against one of the witnesses
• Protection of personal data of the individuals involved in the video and audio recordings
• Application of special means of protection for the individuals involved in the case

It is noteworthy that part 3 of Article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia provides for the possibility of closing a trial in case of the abovementioned circumstances. However, according to the same norm, it is possible to close the trial partially or fully.

The defense said at the trial that it would be sufficient to partially close the trial for the abovementioned procedural purposes. Unfortunately, when declaring the resolution part of the court ruling, the judge did not elaborate on why the closure of the trial would be the proportionate measure for the protection of the benefits provided by Article 182 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Consequently, no arguments were provided to prove why the protection of the benefits would be impossible by only partially closing the trial.

The Public Defender of Georgia considers that the publicity of a trial represents the right enshrined in the Constitution of Georgia, the European Convention on Human Rights and other acts, the restriction of which is allowable only in extreme cases. The publicity of court hearings is one of the most important factors in increasing the public confidence in fair trial. Therefore, the court should always try to restrict the publicity of court hearings, as one of the safeguards against the violation of the right to a fair trial, only for the purpose of protecting more benefits and in compliance with the requirements of the test of proportionality.

It should also be emphasized that examination of the content of evidence does not take place at the pre-trial hearing. At this stage, the parties only submit the list of evidence that will be examined at the essential hearing of the case. Consequently, convincing justification of the full closure of the trial is necessary.

Given that the investigation of the criminal case has been completed, but the defense is still not allowed to disclose case materials, the publicity of the trial is the only way to increase public confidence in justice. The Public Defender of Georgia hopes that the court will use a much tougher test in the limitation of the public nature of the trial and it will be possible to carry out public control over the mentioned case.