Notice of 18-Year Sentence in Attempted Murder Case: Qualification, Concurrence, and Finality of Judgment

On 9 October 2026, Imedi disseminated information from the Prosecutor's Office: Batumi City Court found two individuals guilty in a case of attempted intentional murder committed by a group and violence, sentencing each to 18 years of imprisonment through the concurrence of crimes. The notice refers to episodes from December 2025. The full judgment and appeal status are not presented.

Attempt Differs from Completed Crime

Article 19 of the Criminal Code defines an attempt as an intentional act directly aimed at a crime but not brought to completion. Sub-paragraph 'i' of Article 109 concerns group murder. The reference to 19–109 precisely describes the corresponding qualification of an attempt and should not be reinterpreted as confirmation of a completed murder.

In the Prosecutor's Office notice, the victim's whereabouts are described as unknown. This circumstance is not independent confirmation of death. To understand the court's reasoning, evidence, assessment of intent, the role of each individual, and the full court act are required. A public notice does not have the status of an independent expert examination or the text of a judgment.

18 Years is the Final Sentence for Several Episodes

Article 126 of the Criminal Code concerns battery causing physical pain and other relevant violence, as well as aggravating circumstances. The notice refers to the first part and sub-paragraph 'b' of part 1¹ — group action. In cases of concurrence of crimes, the sentence is assessed according to the rules of Article 59. The announced 18 years is not a term automatically applicable to all similar cases.

Time of Act and Applicable Law

The source describes events from 8 and 10 December 2025. For this explanation, both the current text and the consolidated version in force before the December episodes were checked: the description of attempt and group qualification in this part matches. In the full assessment of specific responsibility and punishment, Articles 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code — the law in force at the time of the act and the retroactive effect of a lighter law — must still be considered.

Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution links the presumption of innocence to a legally binding guilty verdict. A notice of conviction by the first instance may have a different status from a final judgment. In this case, finality has not been verified, and the article does not draw such a conclusion.

Article 6 of the European Convention, which is binding for Georgia, includes guarantees of a fair hearing, and Article 7 prohibits a heavier penalty than that provided for at the time of the act. The European Court is not an instance that re-examines a Georgian judgment solely on the basis of a press release; an application is subject to admissibility requirements. At this stage, it is possible to explain the qualification disseminated by the agency, while an independent assessment of the case's outcome requires the full act.

Related explanation: Plea Bargain Request and Court Control.

Verification Date

Legislation verified as of 9 October 2026.

This article is for informational purposes, based on the public sources cited, and does not constitute individual legal advice.