"არ მაქვს სურვილი დავესწრო სხდომას" - გრიგოლ ლილუაშვილის წერილი: რატომ არ ესწრება ის სასამართლოს?.

[ 24/12/2025 20:09 ] Read on ambebi.ge

Report Overview: The article is short, mostly factual, and reports basic procedural information and a direct quote from the defendant’s letter. There is no visible biasing language, no evaluative commentary, and no clear omission of key context within the narrow scope (why he is not attending the hearing). The main limitation is that only one side (the defendant’s explanation) is presented, and there is no parallel statement from the prosecution or the court, which slightly reduces overall objectivity and balance.

Sides Objectivity Scores

Grigol Liluashvili / Defense (92)

Court / Prosecution (80)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

Grigol Liluashvili / Defense

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s perspective without comparable representation of other relevant sides.

The article provides the defendant’s explanation for not attending the hearing (his letter, read by the lawyer) but does not include any comment or position from the prosecution, the judge, or the court administration about his absence or about the request for a preventive measure. Example: "მიმაჩნია, რომ 24 საათში ვერ შევძლებ საქმის მასალების გაცნობას... სანამ არ გავეცნობი საქმის მასალებს, არ მაქვს სურვილი დავესწრო სხდომას." There is no follow-up such as: what the prosecution argued, whether the court accepted or criticized this reasoning, or any neutral legal context about such absences.

Add a brief summary of the prosecution’s position on the preventive measure and on the defendant’s absence (e.g., whether they objected, what arguments they made).

Include a short, neutral comment or explanation from the court (judge or court spokesperson) about the procedural implications of the defendant not attending the hearing.

Provide minimal legal context: for example, whether it is common or legally permissible for a defendant to skip such a hearing on the grounds of needing more time to review case materials, without evaluating or endorsing his reasoning.

Clarify the outcome of the hearing regarding the preventive measure, if available, to avoid focusing solely on the defendant’s subjective explanation.

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.