Abstract
The article analyzes the case where, according to the factual circumstances, the person should have been acquitted of murder, but instead he was punished. self-defense is the human right to defend oneself from an aggressor. The basis of self-defense justification is the human right to life, the right to protect it from an aggressor. The article is a critical analysis of the judicial interpretation of the limits of self-defense. The article refers to the decisions of the Zugdidi District Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding a specific case. According to the author's perception, both judgments present a narrow interpretation inconsistent with the essence of self-defense, and both instances came to different results due to different legal assessments of the facts. The author of the article lists the necessary criteria for the justification of self-defense and analyzes how it should be interpreted, simultaneously criticizing its judicial interpretations. Judicial definitions, made case by case, do not serve to foresee the defining norm of self-defense, which undermines legal security. Every person has the right to defend himself against an aggressor, to use effective and proportionate means of self-defense, so as not to put himself at risk. A person has the right to know precisely when and what kind of force he can use against the aggressor. In the Georgian reality, this right is systematically violated, and analyzing a specific criminal case serves to identify this problem. According to the author, Georgian judicial practice misses the essence and purpose of the norm, which contributes to the discrediting of the right to self-defense, and everything only strengthens the aggressor