The Issue of Individualization in Justifying the Use of Imprisonment as a Measure of Restraint in Criminal Proceedings (in the Context of Georgia)

The European Court of Human͏ Rights has made it clear in many rulings that the rule under the European Convention on Human Rights is that jail, as a way to hold someone back, should only be used in rare situations when no less harsh choice can meet the goals of the criminal process. The law about criminal procedures in Georgia shows this idea and way. But, a look at court cases and official numbers reveals that jail is the most used way to hold someone back. This might point to an issue with how well judges explain using jail in criminal cases. The problem might be tied to gaps in the laws for criminal procedures or wrong understandings of the law by judges also to missing need for judges to clearly show why they decided on jail use. It is important to highlight that the Constitution dedicates a separate article to the issues of detention and imprisonment. This underscores that the right to personal freedom is a constitutional right. “The Constitution protects individual freedom, which is guaranteed not only by substantive legal norms but also by procedural norms elevated to a constitutional level, emphasizing its special place within the system of fundamental rights”.[1] In this context, Georgian courts do not infrequently use blanket justifications, which undoubtedly presents a problem.