Last week, at the background of the trial of Rustavi2 case, the country"s President met with his French counterpart in Paris, the Prime Minister was in Strasbourg, Minister of Foreign Affairs visited the United Nations. Another international institution published political ratings in Georgia. The US Congressman demanded the freezing of accounts of the former prime minister . It should be noted that at almost all of the meetings, the freedom of expression, media independence and Rustavi 2 were mentioned.

Tbilisi Appeal Court started the consideration of Rustavi2 case with the record braking speed, just as Tamaz Urtmelidze did it.

After Tamaz Urtmelidze issued a ruling according to which Rustavi 2 owners were deprived of their property and it was handed over to Kibar Khalvashi, Rustavi 2 lawyers naturally appealed to the Court of Appeal, including the seizure of property by which Urtmelidze created many problems for the TV. Appellate judges panel composed of judges Nata Nazghaidze,George Goderdzishvili and Ketevan Meskhishvili partially cancelled the seizure of property ordered by Urtmelidze. After that the consideration of the main complaint started and therefore it should have been considered by the same panel, however, the Appellate Court changed the compostion of judges and appointed Lily Tkemaladze, Khatuna Arevadze and Vano Tsiklauri, who sent a letter to Rustavi 2 saying that that as the case was diffficult they would need at least five months for its consideration. Suddenly, the Court of Appeal informed Rustavi 2 that the judges of that panel were changed, and other judges under charmanship of Nata Nazghaidze would consider the company`s appeal. However, the composition of panel was completely changed .Two new judges- Natia Gudjabidze who has founded an NGO Union of Judges together with Tamaz Urtmelidze and former prosecutor Shorena Kavelashvili. This panel began the consideration of the Rustavi2 case on an expedited basis.

Why the Court of Appeal has changed three times the composition of judges who are to consider the case of the country"s most influential television is a fact that raises doubts.