CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E0DDDA8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCAA154B1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s99C28F9F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA34329EC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s71C46D32 { margin-left:29.21pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB9C60D57 { margin-left:32.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA   ( Application no. 28490/02 )                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 October 2014       FINAL   07/01/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Paul Mahoney,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28490/02) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ninety ‑ nine Georgian nationals (see the appended list) on 22 July 2002. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by two Canadian lawyers, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. M. Burns, and by Mr   M.   Chabashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Mr   L.   Chelidze of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants alleged that their rights under Articles 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention had been breached on account of the large ‑ scale religiously motivated violence to which they had been subjected in the respondent State and the relevant authorities’ total failure to prevent, stop or redress the alleged violations. 4.     On 11 April 2003 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are all Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for the ninth applicant, M.   Kvergelidze. Their application to the Court is based on thirty cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times. The applicants lodged approximately 160 complaints with the investigation authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (“the GPO”), with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators. The complaints failed to yield any concrete results. 6.     At least four acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities, while four other cases indicate their indirect involvement. Twelve of the thirty acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on Jehovah’s Witnesses by the group of Orthodox believers run by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (“Father Basil”), a priest defrocked by the Georgian Orthodox Church (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no.   71156/01, §   11, 3   May 2007). Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities, in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response. In at least fifteen of the cases, when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities, the courts refused to hear their complaints. In the majority of the cases, the victims reported the original investigation authorities’ indifference and failure to act to the GPO, but the latter took no adequate action. In only three cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which then dismissed them. 7.     The Public Defender of Georgia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and national and international media repeatedly reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses had been the target of violence by private and Orthodox religious individuals, the majority of whom had been led by Father Basil, and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it. 8.     In support of the factual account set out below, the applicants produced the statements of more than 100 victims and witnesses of the alleged violence, photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place, photographs of the injured applicants, as well as video recordings and photographs of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked. To illustrate the situation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgia at the material time, the applicants’ representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses before the Court ( Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others , cited above, and Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no. 72874/01, pending before the Court). The following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred. A.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 1 9.     This part of the application concerns applicants K.   Pirtskheliani, E.   Pirtskheliani, G.   Lemonjava, Z.   Sartania, N.   Pularia, D.   Pachkoria, Z.   Gogokhia, R.   Tskhadaia, B.   Tskhadaia, B.   Kurashvili, N.   Kantaria, L.   Esebua, R.   Karchava, D.   Gulua, T.   Biblaia, S.   Kintsurashvili, K.   Kutaladze, D.   Samkharadze, L.   Sabashvili and M.   Berishvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 40-59). 10.     On 23 August 2000, A.T., P.Ch., O.P, Z.G., D.Zh. and V.G., senior officials at the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior (Western Georgia) drew up a “plan for a protection operation to prevent the meeting of the religious movement of Jehovah’s Witnesses” in the village of Rokhi on 25   August 2000. The plan stated that “unofficial demonstrations against the meeting in question are likely to take place, requiring police intervention to prevent religious conflict.” The aims of the operation were defined as follows: to pick up individuals attending the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting, to identify them for operational purposes, to gather information on the identified individuals by infiltrating their ranks; and to set up permanent and mobile checkpoints on the outskirts of the village of Rokhi, and on the roads around Rokhi and between neighbouring villages. 11.     According to the applicants, the Rokhi religious convention was postponed by two weeks because of the on-going negotiations between the meeting organisers and local officials on the security measures to be put in place. 12.     On 8 September 2000 a peaceful meeting of some 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place at the property of K. and E.   Pirtskheliani (applicants nos. 40 and 41), when it was suddenly disrupted by the police. According to the applicants, the police opened fire inside their property. Masked police officers entered the house, turned it upside down and removed various items. Around fifty Jehovah’s Witnesses who were present were beaten, including applicants D.   Gulua, M.   Berishvili, K.   Pirtskheliani and K.   Kutaladze. E.   Pirtskheliani, the aged co-owner of the house, was verbally assaulted and one of the attackers spat in her face. She was also made to watch her house being ransacked and plundered, and the stage set up in the courtyard set on fire. At the same time the police organised around seven buses to drive the participants of the religious meeting off from the scene. 13.     Elsewhere, police checkpoints were set up on the main roads to impede a further 1,300 Witnesses – including the applicants B.   Kurashvili, R. Tskhadaia and B. Tskhadaia – from reaching the meeting. According to applicant D.   Samkharadze, he and L.   Sabashvili were allegedly attacked and beaten on their way to the assembly, whilst N.   Pularia, R.   Karchava, Z.   Gogokhia, Z.   Sartania, S.   Kintsurashvili, T.   Biblaia, L.   Esebua, and G.   Lemonjava escaped physical aggression but were verbally assaulted and humiliated. 14.     The applicants lodged complaints with the Samegrelo ‑ Zemo Svaneti regional prosecutor’s office in September 2000, and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article   178 §   3   (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia   (robbery) on 15 January 2001. The criminal file was sent to the investigation department of the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior and investigator B.Ch. was put in charge of the investigation. In February ‑ April 2001 most of the applicants, along with other participants of the 8   September 2000 religious meeting, were questioned as witnesses; none of them was granted formal victim status. It appears that no other investigative measures were taken. 15.     On 19 June 2001 the applicants were informed that the investigator had suspended the investigation on 15 April 2001 and that the regional prosecutor had upheld that decision on 20 April 2001. The reason stated was the failure of the investigation to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicants referred the matter to the regional prosecutor’s office, complaining that their statements, providing, among other things, the names of several police officers involved in the incident and the number plates of the vehicles used, had been disregarded. The investigator’s decision was set aside on 12 July 2001 and the case was referred back to the same investigator for further inquiries. However, the investigation was subsequently suspended again without the applicants being informed. They did not learn that their case had been closed until the respondent State submitted its observations to the Court in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses against Georgia on 31 December 2001. Consequently, on 17   January 2002, the applicants contacted the regional prosecutor to obtain a copy of the decision. They received no response. B     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 2 16.     This part of the application concerns applicants R.   Tsartsidze, M.   Gelashvili, R.   Botchoidze, V.   Gabunia, G.   Sagaletovi, S.   Bozoyani, Z.   Martirosovi, Z.   Baidoshvili, Sh.   Simoniani and A.   Gratiashvili (listed in the appendix as nos.   60-69). 17.     According to the applicants, on 16 September 2000 a large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses departed for a meeting in Marneuli (Eastern Georgia). The police had set up checkpoints along the route, blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination. Nineteen buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back. Meanwhile, the police allowed a bus carrying Orthodox believers to continue to Marneuli. Upon arrival, the group of Orthodox believers burst into the property belonging to R. Tsartsidze (applicant no. 60) in which the meeting was to be held. They destroyed religious objects and removed items belonging to the owner of the property. The police officers present refused to intervene to protect the Jehovah’s Witnesses and at least some of them went as far as to beat members of the meeting. At least twenty-eight Witnesses were beaten and robbed during the attack. Property belonging to the Witnesses valued at several thousand US   dollars was destroyed or stolen. In addition, according to an audit report submitted by the applicants, 1,500 kilograms of religious literature worth several thousand US dollars was burnt on that day. 18.     R.   Tsartsidze was assaulted and beaten by those who stormed his house, while Sh. Simoniani, G. Sagaletovi, Z. Martirosovi, R.   Botchoidze and M.   Gelashvili were stopped and beaten by a group of Orthodox believers on their way to the convention site. G. Sagaletovi submitted a medical certificate stating that he had sustained concussion as a result of the beatings. M. Gelashvili sustained bruises around his right eye and on his right knee. It appears that the next day he was further assaulted by two police officers on account of his participation in the events at hand. 19.     S. Bozoyani was prevented by the roadblocks from travelling to Marneuli and thus escaped the attack unharmed, while V.   Gabunia, Z.   Baidoshvili and A. Gratiashvili did not submit any statements with regard to the treatment inflicted on them. 20.     On 18 September 2000 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the GPO. They received no information concerning the progress of their complaint. Therefore, on 24 December 2001, the applicants’ representative contacted the GPO requesting a copy of the decision taken with respect to the initial complaint. The GPO did not respond. On 25 March 2002, the applicants lodged a complaint against the authorities for their failure to reply. Their complaint was dismissed on 2 April 2002 by the Marneuli District Court on the ground that they could not file a complaint against a non-existent decision. C.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 3 21.     This part of the application concerns the applicants I. Papava, E.   Baramia, M. Sakhokia, M. Chikovani, T. Todua and Z. Khargelia (listed in the appendix as nos.   34-39). 22.     On 3 September 2000, several private individuals, including Z.O., K.T., and U.A., armed with guns and knives, burst into the home of I.   Papava in Senaki (Western Georgia) where a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place. One of the assailants blocked the door, while the others proceeded to attack the applicants. A gun was pointed at the head of M. Sakhokia and he was punched in the face until his nose, which had been broken, began to bleed. T. Todua was cruelly beaten and a cigarette was stubbed out on his forehead. Z. Khargelia was punched in the face and stomach and threatened with a knife, and M. Chikovani jumped out of a window when one of the attackers took out his gun and pulled the trigger. She was taken to hospital by ambulance and placed in intensive care. I.   Papava, the owner of the house, was not at home during the attack, but his wife, E. Baramia, was present and was also assaulted. 23.     Along with their statements giving details of the incident, the applicants also provided the Court with a photograph of M.   Chikovani, who, after jumping out of the window, sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for months, a photograph of M. Sakhokia with a broken nose, and a photograph of T. Todua with a cigarette burn on his forehead. 24.     The police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident insulted the victims and refused to record their complaints. On 22   September 2000, the applicants lodged a collective complaint with the city prosecutor. 25.     On 15 October 2000, several of the applicants were summoned to give a statement. Their representative subsequently lodged a complaint in respect of the pressure and harassment to which the applicants had been subjected during questioning. He also denounced the investigators’ refusal to organise a medical examination of M.   Chikovani and other victims of the attack. 26.     On 22 February 2001, the applicants were notified of the decision of 20 December 2000 to take no further action in relation to their complaints. According to the decision, the investigating authorities had concluded that M.   Sakhokia’s injuries had been self-inflicted, while M.   Chikovani had jumped out of the window “of her own free will”. The decision also stated that the investigative authorities had established that one of the attackers had had a toy gun and had hence concluded that the meeting in question had not been violently disrupted. 27.     Following an objection lodged by the applicants on 3   March 2001 with the regional prosecutor, the case was sent to the city prosecutor for further investigation. On 13   November 2001, the applicants went to the public prosecutor’s office to seek information on the progress of their case. They learnt that no further action would be taken and were denied a copy of the decision. On 26   November 2001, the applicants applied to the Senaki Court of First Instance but the judge refused to register their application. It was only following a complaint filed with the Chair of the Georgian Supreme Court that the Senaki court dealt with the applicants’ application on 4   January 2002 and quashed the decision of the public prosecutor’s office to take no action in their case. The case was sent back for additional investigation. Since then, the applicants have received no further news from the investigation authorities. D.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 4 28. This part of the application concerns the applicants I.   Geliashvili, E.   Kakhelishvili, K. Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, L.   Nozadze, T.   Arabidze, B.   Saralidze and S.   Kvergelidze (listed in the appendix as nos. 26-33). 29.     On 16 and 17 August 2000, a large group of Orthodox believers led by Father Basil burst into the courtroom of the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi, which was dealing with a criminal case against two Jehovah’s Witnesses. The group attacked the applicants, journalists and foreign observers present in the room. The court bailiffs guarding the courtroom did not move or intervene in the confrontation. The group of believers was equipped with big wooden crosses, which they used as weapons. They took control of the courtroom. The lawyer acting for the accused asked for the hearing to be adjourned, but the judge did not allow his request. The court imposed no penalties on the religious believers who had forcibly occupied the courtroom. The attack was filmed and broadcast on the   Rustavi 2   and Kavkasia television channels. 30.     Applicants E.   Kakhelishvili, S.   Kvergelidze, L.   Nozadze and I.   Geliashvili managed to escape the aggression unharmed, while K.   Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, T. Arabidze and B. Saralidze, according to their statements, suffered verbal and physical abuse; they were all threatened with being beaten by the big crosses. 31.     The applicants lodged various complaints. They were given no information as to the progress of their cases. On 3 July 2002 their lawyer asked for access to the file and discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted on 17 August 2000 and that on that same day, an investigation unit had been set up. The case had since been assigned to three successive investigating officers. The first two had managed to secure an extension of the investigation period until 17 December 2000 and 17   February 2001 respectively. On 17 February 2001, the investigator responsible had decided to close the case on the grounds that it had been impossible “to identify the perpetrators of the attack”. The applicants pointed out that the video recording of the attack had been broadcast on television and that furthermore, many of the witnesses had recognised Father Basil’s religious group. 32.     On 22 March 2001, the decision to take no further action was set aside and the file returned for further investigation. On 3 May 2002, the investigation period was extended to 20 September 2002. Following two years of investigation, none of the attackers was placed under investigation and no decision was served on the applicants and their lawyer. E.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 5 33.     This part of the application concerns the applicant G.   Makharoblishvili (listed in the appendix as no.   16). On 29 January 2001, while walking along the road between the villages of Okami and Lamiskana (Eastern Georgia), the applicant was picked up by four private individuals, who were later identified as T.B., G.K., N.P., and J.B. They took him by car to the place of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Lamiskana. They threatened to kill him unless he crossed himself and went around the site carrying an icon. When the applicant refused, they dragged him into a forest and beat him. They stripped him and took his personal belongings, including religious literature, which they then set alight. They threatened to rape him if he did not do as they ordered. They placed the belt of his own trousers around his neck, dragged him by the hair and forced him to crawl to a sacred rock and kiss it. After an hour and a half, and having been warned not to mention the incident to anyone, the applicant was taken back to the attackers’ car. He was thrown out of the car outside the house of a villager. The villager took care of the applicant for two days until he was able to return home. 34.     On 19 February 2002 the applicant reported the incident to the police. In support of his version of events he submitted, along with his detailed statement, a statement of the villager, who had taken care of him. When the attackers learnt that he had done so, they threatened him. The police contacted them and obtained a written undertaking that they would stop intimidating the applicant. The applicant was notified of the decision of 1 June 2001 not to open a criminal case two months later. On 28 August and 24 December 2001, his lawyer lodged an appeal with the regional prosecutor and the GPO respectively. He received no response. On 20   March 2002, the lawyer referred the matter to the Kaspi Court of First Instance. The court informed him verbally that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings would be set aside by the regional prosecutor and that the investigation would go ahead. On 2 April 2002, the regional prosecutor sent the matter for further investigation. Since that date, the applicant has received no further information as to the progress of his case. His lawyer’s requests for information have also been to no avail. F.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 6 35.     This part of the application concerns applicant S.   Khojenashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 70). On 16 April 2001, the applicant was allegedly beaten up by V.A., in the Baghdadi region (Western Georgia) because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. The applicant went to the local hospital, which alerted the police. The medical certificate submitted by the applicant stated that he had sustained bruising on the back of his head and abrasions on his face, right cheek, forehead and the back of his left ear. 36.     On 18   April   2001, the applicant filed a complaint with the Baghdadi police. He was pressurised on many occasions by the attacker and his family to withdraw his complaint. The police investigated, identified Mr V.A. as the attacker and forwarded the case file to the Baghdadi Court of First Instance. On 5 June 2001, before even questioning the applicant and the prosecution witnesses and after having questioned the defence witnesses, the trial judge decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. The applicant appealed to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, which, by a decision of 8   October 2001, upheld the decision of the lower court. Both those courts established that V.A. had not beaten up the applicant while he had been touting his literature, but had merely pushed him to get away from him. The applicant had therefore been injured by falling. On 24 January 2002, the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. G.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 7 37.     This part of the application concerns applicant V. Dolidze (listed in the appendix as no.10). On 19 April 2000 the applicant, along with some thirty Jehovah’s Witnesses, was celebrating a religious feast in a private house in the city of Lanchkhuti (Western Georgia). Late in the evening some seventy persons approached the house and tried to interrupt the religious gathering. Several of them, who were apparently drunk, including L.Ch. and O.E., the latter being armed with a wooden stick, burst into the house and verbally assaulted the Witnesses; the applicant was physically assaulted by L.Ch. Police intervention was requested and the head of the city police, T.K., arrived but, according to the applicant, only to assist the attackers. He forced the applicant to go to a police station, where the latter was physically assaulted by T.K., insulted by other people, including an Orthodox priest, and threatened with further physical violence unless he stopped practising his religion in Lanchkhuti. He was detained at the police station for about three hours. 38.     On 25 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. By a decision of 15 May 2000 an investigator from the Lanchkhuti district prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. He concluded, after having questioned several police officers, that there was no evidence substantiating the applicant’s allegation that T.K. had insulted him. The applicant was not informed of the above decision until 22   March 2001. He immediately appealed, complaining, inter alia, that his initial complaint had concerned not only the conduct of T.K. but also the violent dispersal of the Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting of 19 April 2000 and the physical and verbal assault on him that had ensued. On 22 April 2001 the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld on appeal and no further investigation was ever conducted. The respective decision was served on the applicant only on 19 May 2002. H.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal cases nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 39.     These parts of the application concern the applicants N.   Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (listed in the appendix as nos.   72 ‑ 74, case no. 8); G. Markozashvili and L.   Markozashvili (nos.   75 and 76, case no. 9); K. Vashakidze, N. Gabisonia, N. Gegia and M.   Tchubabria (nos.   77-80, case no.   10); I.   Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and   M. Bekauri (nos. 82-85, case no. 11); A.   Burjanadze and A.   Elbakidze ‑ Jioeva (nos. 86 and 87, case no. 12); N. Butkhuzi (no. 88, case no.   13); and V. Begheluri and G. Todua (nos. 1 and 2, case no.   14) respectively. 40.     On 16 January, 27 November, 19 and 26 December 2000, 8 June 2001, 19 and 26 December 2000, 11 November 2000 and 29 April 2001 respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith. A group of Father Basil’s followers in Tbilisi, a group of around thirty followers of Father Tsaava and Father Basilaia in Martvili, and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes; they insulted them; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors, frightening children who had been left home alone (case no. 9); they tried to force one of the applicants to kiss the cross (applicant no. 80, criminal case no.10); and they seized their religious literature (case no. 14) and burned it (case no. 11). The homes of applicants A. Elbakidze-Jioeva and N. Butkhuzi at which the Jehovah’s Witnesses held their services were burgled and ransacked, and religious objects were stolen (cases nos. 12 and 13). 41.     In certain cases, the police were present at the scene but did not intervene to protect the applicants (criminal cases nos. 9 and 10). 42.     In all cases, the applicants lodged complaints, but apart from cases nos. 8 and 10, no response was ever received. The applicants contacted the Prosecutor General to obtain a written decision as regards their complaints but they never received a reply. In some cases the courts contacted the public prosecutor’s office themselves requesting written decisions, but received no response. 43.     In criminal case no. 8, in reply to a complaint filed by applicants   N.   Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (nos. 72-74), the police informed them that they had issued a warning to Father Basil to stop attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants requested several times a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but received no response. On 18 June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to hear an objection lodged by the applicants on the grounds that they could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. The complaints filed by G. and L. Markozashvili (criminal case no.   9), I.   Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and M. Bekauri (criminal case no.   11), N. Butkhuzi (criminal case no. 13) and V. Begheluri and G.   Todua (criminal case no. 14) on 19 March 2002 had the same outcome; On various dates in March-June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the ground that they had failed to submit the decisions of the prosecutor’s office. 44.     In criminal case no. 10, the applicants were notified of the prosecutor’s decision of 30 July 2001 to take no further action. This decision was set aside by the court authorities and the case was referred back for further investigation. Subsequently, on 8 May 2002 the Martvili prosecutor upheld the initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor concluded, on the basis of various witness testimonies, that neither of the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse during the alleged incident; they had been merely prevented by the local priests and population from attending a religious gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the home of N. Gabisonia (applicant no. 78) in order to avert an escalation of religious conflict in the city. 45.     In criminal case no. 12, following several written complaints which have been left unanswered, on 5 June 2002 the head of the local police informed the applicants in person that no investigation had been carried out because they had never received their written complaints. I.     Act of violence in the context of criminal case no. 15 46.     This part of the application concerns the applicant Kh.   Japiashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 89). On 6 May 2000, the applicant was travelling to the village of Shakasheti with various religious books belonging either to him or to the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was stopped by police officer Z.D. and taken to Agara police station, where the books were confiscated. His attempts to object resulted in verbal abuse and he was released. The applicant returned to the police station some time later accompanied by two other Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were the other owners of the confiscated literature. On arrival, they noticed the charred remains of their books. On 8 May 2000, they lodged a complaint. 47.     On 10   June   2002 the applicant was notified of a decision of 23   May 2000 not to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime. J.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 16 48.     This part of the application concerns the applicants K.   Gagua and A.   Gegelia (nos.   90 and 91). On 30 June 2000, G.Ts., an Orthodox priest, accompanied by several police officers, including B.B., approached K.   Gagua, who was sitting on a bus in the city of Martvili, and demanded that he show them his bag. On the instructions of the priest, the police officers confiscated the religious literature and personal documents found in the bag. The applicant filed a complaint at the police station. 49.     On 16 July 2000, both applicants were walking through the central square in the village of Didi Chkhoni (Martvili municipality) when they were stopped by a group of fifteen men. The applicants were cruelly beaten because of their faith. The head of the local police, R.A. and two police officers, K.T. and N.A, were close by and witnessed the act of violence, but failed to intervene to protect the victims. On the contrary, they threatened to arrest the applicants. The applicants filed a complaint. In support of his complaint, A. Gegelia submitted a medical report which stated that he had sustained bruises around his left eye, on his forehead and on both thighs. 50.     The applicants’ complaints were never followed up. On 24   December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. On 29 March 2002, the applicants took legal action in respect of the investigation authorities’ failure to act. On 10   April 2002, the Martvili Court of First Instance refused to hear the complaint on the ground that the applicants could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. On 22   April 2002, the applicants filed the same complaint with the same court. On 16   May 2002, that court responded that the case had been referred back to the prosecutor’s office for a written decision. In reply to their query of 19   August 2002, the responsible investigator informed the applicants that on 28   May 2002 a decision had been taken to close the case. He based his decision on the statements of the alleged perpetrators. He dismissed the medical evidence and concluded that no crimes had been committed. The decision also stated that the time-limit for initiating a private legal action had expired. K.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 17 51.     This part of the application concerns the applicant A.   Mikirtumovi (listed in the appendix as no. 97), a Jehovah’s Witness pastor. On 21   September 2000 the applicant was visiting a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Tetritskaro. Having been stopped in the street by unidentified individuals, he was taken to the police station where he was jeered at and insulted. The police threatened to arrest him if he were ever to be seen practising his religion in Tetritskaro again. The applicant was expelled from the town and the bus driver was ordered not to let him off the bus before the terminus in Tbilisi. 52.     On 22 September 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. He received an acknowledgment of receipt but no further information as to the progress of his case. On 24 December 2001, he contacted the GPO asking for a decision. No response followed. On 19 March 2002, the applicant referred the matter to the Tetritskaro Court of First Instance. On 5   June 2002, the first-instance judge informed him that the court’s attempts to obtain the file and the decision from the public prosecutor’s office had failed and that he was therefore unable to investigate his complaint. One month later, the court managed to obtain a copy of the prosecutor’s decision, which it forwarded to the applicant. It appeared from the 30   June 2001 decision that the prosecutor had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. He concluded, on the basis of the statement of the two police officers involved in the incident, that the applicant had been taken to the police station for his own safety in order to prevent any conflict with the local population. The prosecutor also stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s allegations of abuse. 53.     The prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld by the Tetritskaro Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 20 August and 10 October 2002 respectively. L.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 18 54.     This part of the application concerns the applicant Z.   Kvaratskhelia (listed in the appendix as no.   98). On 15 August 2001, the applicant was stopped in a Tbilisi street by police officer N.M., who asked him what he had in his bag. The religious literature and the Bible in his bag were confiscated. The police officer and two passers-by insulted the applicant. On the following day, the applicant went to the police station to request the return of his books and Bible. In response to his request, officer N.M. threw a bag he was holding towards the applicant and kicked him out of the police station. 55.     On 21 August 2001 the applicant filed a complaint but received no response. On 24   December 2001, his lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. The applicant referred the matter to the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. At the hearing of 12 April 2002, the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor’s office not to institute criminal proceedings dated 5 November 2001. The court set aside that decision and referred the case back to the public prosecutor’s office for further investigation. On 21 June 2002, the applicant’s lawyer tried unsuccessfully to obtain information on the progress of the file. M.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 19 56.     This part of the application concerns the applicants B. Gogoladze, A.   Tvaradze and M. Kapanadze (nos. 13, 14 and 15). On 1 April 2001 the applicants were returning from a religious meeting. In the village of Dviri (Borjomi district, Western Georgia), they were attacked by a group of villagers accompanied by Mr S.Kh., and Mr J.B., administrative head of the county town of the district and administrative head of the village respectively. One of the attackers, a private individual, struck B.   Gogoladze, who started bleeding and grabbed his bag containing a Bible and other religious literature. The same person then attacked the other two applicants, lashing them with the strap of the bag belonging to Gogoladze. The two administrative heads condoned the violence and insulted the applicants. They then ordered the villagers to stop and left the scene with them. 57.     On 5 April 2001 the applicants filed a complaint. On 24   August 2001, they were notified of the decision to close the proceedings. On   6   September 2001, the applicants challenged that decision before the regional prosecutor, who dismissed their action on 1 October 2001. The applicants complained to the GPO on 28 November 2001, but no reply followed. N.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 20 58.     This part of the application concerns the applicants V.   Begheluri, I.   Janashvili, M.   Makievi, Kh.   Makieva, E.   Tabaghua, E.   Begheluri, J.   Gogokhia, T.   Kolbaia, L. Gelashvili and N.   Maisuradze (listed in the appendix as nos. 1, 6 and 17-24). 59.     On 28 July 2000 in Tbilisi, followers of Father Basil stopped a bus that was carrying Jehovah’s Witnesses to a religious meeting in Marneuli. They punctured the tyres, forced the applicants along with other Jehovah’s Witnesses out of the bus and assaulted them, verbally and physically. The men, including M.   Makievi, E.   Begheluri and V.   Begheluri, were particularly severely beaten; N.   Maisuradze was also personally targeted because she was video recording the attack. In particular, after forcefully getting of the bus, she was chased by two men who assaulted her and then took the camera away from her. They shortly returned to her a broken camera, but the video recording was missing. They also threatened her not to make any recordings in the future. 60.     On 31 July 2000 forty-eight Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the applicants, filed a complaint. In August-September 2000 they in addition submitted individual statements detailing the violent incident. On 24   December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO asking for a decision to be taken. They received no response. On 19 March 2002, the applicants complained to the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi of the investigation authorities’ failure to take action, which had amounted to a rejection of their complaint. On 19 June 2002, the court informed the applicants that in the absence of any written decision, their complaint could not be examined. O.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal case no. 21 61.     On 15 September 2001 the applicant M. Gaprindashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 99) was walking along a street in the city of Kutaisi, when he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse because of his faith. Notably, he alleged that he had been beaten and insulted by a passer-by while he was distributing religious literature. Accompanied by his attacker, the applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly hit by a police officer, T.K., while other police officers thanked the attacker. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the statements of four eyewitnesses. 62.     On 19 September 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint. On 12   October 2001, the Kutaisi prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings against the passer-by, identified as L.M., and police officer T.K. Noting that the applicant’s statement and those of the eyewitnesses supporting his version of the events were controversial, the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence committed by either of them. The applicant challenged that decision. After having questioned the parties concerned, the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant’s injuries had not been confirmed by a medical report. An appeal by the applicant to the Supreme Court of Georgia was dismissed on 18   June 2002. P.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal cases nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 63.     This part of the application concerns the applicants M.   Salukashvili, L. Kikalishvili, V. Burduli and I. Janashvili   (listed in the appendix as nos.   3 ‑ 6, case no.   22); L. Khitarishvili, N. Kobaidze and M.   Kvergelidze (nos. 7-9, case no. 23); E.   Gabelaia   (no. 81, case no. 24); and S. Barsegyani, I.   Dalakishvili-Barsegyani, and T.   Arabyani   (nos. 12, 92 and 93, case no.   25) respectively. 64.     According to the applicants, because of their faith they were subjected to threats, verbal assault and theft of their religious literature and personal belongings while walking in the streets on 13 February 2000, 3   April 2000, 13 July 2000 and 20 June 2001 respectively. The attacks were carried out in different parts of the country. The perpetrators were followers of Father Basil or just laypersons hostile to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most of them were identified by the victims. 65.     The applicants in all the cases complained to the police. When filing the complaint, some of them were subjected to verbal abuse by police officers (case no. 22). In response to their complaints, some of the applicants were informed verbally that the police had already warned the attackers to stop abusing Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, when E.   Gabelaia (case no. 24) complained to the police on 18 July 2000 that she had been repeatedly assaulted by S.G. and his friends, the police limited themselves to contacting S.G. and obtaining a written undertaking that he would stop intimidating the applicant. The latter was informed in this respect verbally by head of police on 20 July 2000. According to the case file, she took no further action in response. 66.     The applicants in criminal cases nos. 22, 23 and 25 were not informed of any decision taken by the relevant national authorities in connection with their complaints. The applicants complained to the courts of the inaction of the investigation authorities, but the courts refused to deal with their cases in the absence of a written decision. The respective court decisions were delivered on 3 April (criminal case no. 25) and 18 June 2002 (criminal cases nos. 22-23). Q.     Acts of violence in the context of criminal cases nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 67.     This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani   (listed in the appendix as nos. 11 and 12, case no.   26), K.   Korchilava (no.71, case no. 27), A. Turkia and T. Galdava   (nos. 94 and 95, case no. 28), D.   Margiani (no. 96, case no. 29) and G. Kokhreidze (case no. 30). According to the applicants, while walking in the street they were subjected to verbal and physical abuse because of their faith. They were