WHO WAS “SOME IMERETIAN”

Abstract

Ilia Chavchavadze was murdered on August 30, 1907, and the investigation commenced the following day, August 31. Despite Chavchavadze’s status as a member of the State Council of the Russian Empire, the investigation into his assassination
was not treated as a matter of particular importance in either St. Petersburg or Tbilisi. Responsibility for safeguarding the life of a State Council member lay with the administration of the Caucasian Viceroyalty, as well as with the secret services and law enforcement agencies. From the very outset, these institutions took deliberate measures to ensure that the murder of Ilia Chavchavadze would not be classified as a commissioned political assassination. The authorities sought to frame the crime in a manner that suggested Chavchavadze had been killed for agrarian reasons by local peasants who opposed him. Why was it so important for the administration of the Caucasian Viceroyalty to avoid recognizing the murder as political? The distinction was crucial: in the case of a commissioned political assassination, the administration of the Caucasian Viceroyalty, along with the special services and law enforcement agencies, would have borne significantly greater responsibility than in the case of a landlord killed by peasants. An alternative version of the crime-murder committed for robbery - was also explored. For an entire year, however, investigator N. F. Ilyashenko failed to obtain any evidence that would conclusively demonstrate that the murder of Ilia Chavchavadze was not a commissioned political act. The prolonged investigation provoked growing public dissatisfaction.
Having reached an impasse, the investigative authorities resorted to fabricating false accounts of the crime to placate public opinion. One such fabricated version involved the alleged participation of “Some Imeretian” in the murder of Ilia Chavchavadze. Those who testified to the involvement of “Some Imeretian” were unable to provide any information regarding his identity. It was evident that these false witnesses were merely repeating a narrative constructed by the investigator. As expected, the official search once again failed, proving incapable of identifying even a single individual from Imereti connected to the crime.