What Article 237 governs
Article 237 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia defines how evidence is assessed in an administrative case. It is a procedural norm without a sanction — its point is that the conclusion of the examining authority on the evidence arises from free assessment, but that freedom does not release the authority from responsibility: the assessment must rest on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of all the circumstances of the case.
For the defence in an administrative case this is one of the most important norms: it is here that the rule is formulated that unresolved doubt is decided in favour of the person.
No evidence has predetermined force
The first part of the article establishes two principles. First: no evidence has predetermined force — neither a record, nor a summarising conclusion, nor a witness statement, nor anything else. All evidence stands equal before assessment, and its final weight must be determined by the conviction of the examining authority. Second: that conviction is inner — the authority is guided by law and conscience, but the conviction must rest on a joint, comprehensive, complete and objective examination of all the circumstances of the case. Free assessment thus does not mean arbitrariness: the conclusion must be substantiated by the materials of the whole case.
Doubt is resolved in the person's favour
The second part of the article brings into administrative proceedings the principle known from criminal justice: a doubt arising in the assessment of evidence, which is not confirmed in the manner established by Georgian legislation, must be resolved in favour of the person subjected to proceedings. In other words: if a doubt remains in the materials of the case that is not covered by other evidence, the authority must follow it in the direction that benefits the person.
In practice this norm fires where the authority's conclusion rests on one piece of evidence while the case contains another that calls that conclusion into question. Resolving the doubt in the person's favour is then a requirement of the law, and disregarding it is a ground for appeal.