On July 3, TV channel Imedi shared two videos on Facebook in which former Prime Minister and “For Georgia” party leader Giorgi Gakharia speaks at the parliamentary commission. In the first video, which covers the April 14 session, Gakharia states, “…This area [Chorchana Forest] has always been on the side controlled by the Georgian government, and there has never been an intensive or active question raised about this territory…” In contrast, in the July 2 recording, the opposition leader explains, “…Georgia did not have control, effective control, over this area [Chorchana Forest]…”
In the video description, Imedi claims that the politician made contradictory statements during the investigative commission’s sessions.
TV company Imedi is disseminating a manipulated video regarding Giorgi Gakharia’s testimony at the parliamentary commission. In fact, Gakharia stated during both sessions that the Georgian side had difficulties controlling the Chorchana Forest. On April 14, Gakharia explained that before 2019, there was no interest in occupying Chorchana and it was considered territory under Georgian control. During the same session, he also described the problems the Georgian side encountered while patrolling the forest. Therefore, the claim that Gakharia made contradictory statements about Chorchana does not reflect the truth.
On July 2, Giorgi Gakharia was questioned by the parliamentary temporary investigative commission regarding the establishment of a checkpoint in the village of Chorchana. This was Gakharia’s second hearing before the parliamentary commission. On April 14, the opposition leader spoke about the June 20 crackdown, relations with international partners, his resignation, and the construction of the checkpoint in Chorchana Forest. In 2019, a police checkpoint was built near the occupation line in Chorchana. According to Gakharia’s opponents, building the checkpoint created a threat of war. Commission members accused the politician of acting without coordinating with official agencies and of losing territory. During both sessions, Gakharia discussed who controlled the Chorchana Forest and what threats the area faced.
During the April 14 session, the former Prime Minister began his remarks on the Chorchana issue by describing the territory and the situation:
Giorgi Gakharia [3:47:30]: “This is a large forested area, about 2,000 hectares, adjacent to the village of Chorchana and the occupation line. This area has always been on the side controlled by the Georgian government, and there has never been an intensive or active question raised about this territory. At some point, abductions of people by the occupation forces began from this area […], and at some point, markings appeared in the Chorchana Forest – the kind of markings that typically emerge during creeping annexation.”
In response to questions from commission members, the politician repeatedly emphasized that the Georgian side had difficulties controlling the Chorchana Forest. He also repeatedly noted that members of the Special Tasks Department (STD) had problems conducting intensive patrols in the forest, which he attributed to the poor condition of the roads.
Giorgi Gakharia [3:50:25]: “The problem was that the road in this forest, used by relevant STD units to patrol, was in poor condition, and over time, patrols could no longer be carried out with the same intensity…”
Giorgi Gakharia [3:58:56]: “This route, where patrolling was not taking place, became a very large blind spot, and there was a serious risk, a serious risk of it being taken.”
During the same April 14 commission session, Gakharia also stated that the forest was controlled not by the Georgian side, but by separatists. According to the then-Minister of Internal Affairs, separatists were patrolling the forest territory, and the Georgian side could not enter.
Giorgi Gakharia [4:03:40]: “No, there were no outposts – neither theirs nor ours. They simply controlled the forest because they patrolled it, Georgians were not patrolling it, and the occupation regime was patrolling it. We couldn’t enter that area.”
It’s also worth noting that during the discussion about establishing a checkpoint in Chorchana, the commission chair, Tea Tsulukiani, agreed [4:17:03] with Gakharia’s statement that separatists were patrolling parts of the forest. She concurred with Gakharia’s reminder that the forest was controlled by the occupation forces:
Tea Tsulukiani: “Before that, on the map and in reality, there were no outposts – you confirmed this – neither ours nor of the separatists. Based on the principle of doing it earlier, you …”
Giorgi Gakharia: “But separatists were patrolling the forest.”
Tea Tsulukiani: “Yes, yes, yes, yes, indeed.”
Gakharia repeated the same point about control over part of the Chorchana Forest during his second appearance at the session via remote connection. He said that Georgia did not have effective control over the forest [20:20–21:10]. He also clarified [22:40] that Georgian official agencies and the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) patrolled the area periodically, since there were no resources for permanent control.
Therefore, TV channel Imedi is manipulatively disseminating the recording of Giorgi Gakharia’s hearing. In reality, the former Prime Minister made consistent statements at both sessions about the control over the Chorchana Forest acknowledging that the Georgian side had difficulties in controlling that territory and it was patrolled by occupation forces.
On February 13, the temporary commission of the Parliament of Georgia began its work. Its chair is Tea Tsulukiani, a member of the ruling party Georgian Dream. The commission’s goal is to investigate the activities of current and former officials who served between 2003 and 2012. Several opposition politicians have been summoned to the sessions; some refused to appear and were subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. Earlier this month, Myth Detector fact-checked a statement Tsulukiani made during one of the commission sessions about Moldova receiving visa-free travel with the EU. Myth Detector evaluated her claim as disinformation.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
