Article 364 and Its Purpose – What This Norm Protects
Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Georgia establishes liability for interference with the administration of justice, with investigation, or with the conduct of the defense. The purpose of the norm is clear: it is in the interest of the state that a case be investigated comprehensively, fully and objectively, that the court administer justice freely, and that the defense of every accused remain inviolable. An attack on these values is assessed precisely under this article.
The article unites three directions. The first is connected with the investigating authorities: unlawful interference in the activity of a prosecutor or an investigator with the aim of obstructing the comprehensive, full and objective investigation of a case. The second is connected with the court: gross interference in the activity of a court with the aim of influencing the administration of justice, and unlawful interference in the activity of a juror (candidate juror). The third is connected with the defense: interference in an advocate's activity with the aim of obstructing the conduct of the defense.
How the Prosecution Builds the Case – and How the Defense Counters It
For the charge it is necessary to prove interference – that the person interfered in some form in these activities; the unlawfulness of that interference; and the aim listed in the article. All three elements work together: the fact of interference must be established separately in each case, and if any element is not confirmed, the qualification collapses.
The defense actively uses the following questions: whether the action was interference at all – or was a action permitted by law; whether it was unlawful; and whether the aim invoked by the prosecution is provable. Establishing the aim is the hardest part – it concerns the person's internal attitude and can be corroborated only by external facts. This is why a critical review of the investigation's version is particularly important in such cases.
Sanctions – Every Part Separately, Without Compression
The penalties of the parts of the article are established separately, and merging them into one general range would be incorrect:
- part 1 – unlawful interference with the corresponding aim in the activity of a prosecutor, an investigator or an advocate – a fine, or community service for a term of one hundred and eighty to two hundred and forty hours, or imprisonment for a term of up to one year;
- part 2 – gross interference in the activity of a court with the aim of influencing the administration of justice – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years;
- unlawful interference with the aim of influencing the administration of justice in the activity of a juror (candidate juror) – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years;
- part 3 – the part 2 act committed by a person holding a state-political office – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of one to three years, with deprivation of the right to hold an office or conduct activity for a term of up to three years or without it;
- part 4 – an act of part 1, part 2 or the juror-related provision committed by using an official position – a fine, or imprisonment for a term of two to four years, with deprivation of the right to hold an office or conduct activity for a term of up to three years or without it.
Note: for these acts a legal person is punished by a fine or deprivation of the right to conduct activity. The question of individualization of punishment and mitigating circumstances is regulated by other norms of the Code.
Official Position and Other Aggravating Circumstances
Parts 3 and 4 give the article two special aggravating conditions: the status of a person holding a state-political office, and the use of an official position. The difference is subtle but significant: the first concerns only interference in a court's activity and requires a special status; the second covers all forms and concerns the use of official capacities in the course of the interference.
In practice this means: if the accused acted as an ordinary person, the case remains within part 1 or part 2; if he used an official resource, it proceeds under part 4, extending the penalty to imprisonment from two to four years. Establishing the connection between the act and the accused's position is therefore decisive for the defense.
What You Should Know About the Process
If a case under Article 364 has been opened against you, bear in mind that such cases are often connected with public resonance, and the prosecution experiences additional pressure. At the same time, the forms of interference are diverse – the law names no specific form, which leaves wide room for interpretation, an opportunity for both sides.
Procedural time limits, jurisdiction and the rules of investigation are defined by other provisions – these questions are considered separately during a consultation with a lawyer.
How a Legal.ge Lawyer Can Help You
Our lawyers examine every detail of the qualification – which part the facts fall under, whether the aim of the interference is substantiated, and whether unlawful interference existed at all. We represent your interests both at the investigation stage and in court, and explain the consequences of every step. A timely consultation remains the decisive factor in this category of cases.