CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 28 novembre 2017

.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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s84AAD1AF { margin-top:8pt; margin-right:28.35pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; line-height:12pt } .s52829506 { font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; font-weight:bold } .sFF221B46 { margin-top:8pt; margin-right:28.35pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:left; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s510B7B5C { font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s7A2FAC00 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sD06D394E { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sC09BD1C2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s81A630B7 { width:38.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s308C6609 { width:211.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFC1F2909 { width:0.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDFFF74F3 { width:178.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEA28A320 { width:225.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6BB4899B { width:215.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sD858A76D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside: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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sF32B1133 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .sA426CA09 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside: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 } .s3C960594 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4D040A4F { width:9.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA0D88A35 { width:165.1pt; display:inline-block } .s95E7DBD8 { width:163.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBA6609D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s5D230FD2 { font-family:Arial; color:#1a1a1a } .sE1E90691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:13pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sFA0E4E80 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s49A3A97C { font-family:Arial; vertical-align:4pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA89582B { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic }         GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA   (Application no. 72508/13)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   28 November 2017             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Background B.     The incident at Tbilisi Airport on 30 November 2012 C.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the State Programme for Job Seekers and the house in the village of Kvariati 1.     The initial phase of the proceedings 2.     The applicant’s arrest and placement in pre-trial detention 3.     The two adjournments of the pre-trial conference hearing 4.     The applicant’s request for release during the pre-trial conference hearing 5.     The applicant’s request for release of 7 October 2013 6.     The applicant’s conviction and sentence and his appeals against them D.     The other criminal cases against the applicant E.     Alleged covert removal of the applicant from his prison cell on 14   December 2013 and investigations into that allegation 1.     The applicant’s allegations 2.     The authorities’ initial reaction to those allegations 3.     Inquiry by the Ministry of Prisons’ General Inspectorate (December 2013 – January 2014) 4.     Developments after the end of the inquiry 5.     Investigation by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (June 2016 – February 2017) F.     Criminal cases against other members of UNM’s leadership 1.     Statements by Georgian Dream government ministers in connection with those cases 2.     Statements by foreign governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations in relation to those cases 3.     Refusals to extradite former UNM officials to Georgia 4.     Interpol’s deletion of information about Mr Saakashvili and Mr   D.K. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Provisions governing arrest B.     Provisions governing pre-trial detention 1.     Grounds for ordering pre-trial detention 2.     Maximum duration 3.     Judicial review C.     Power of the prosecuting authorities to drop charges III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS A.     Council of Europe B.     European Union law C.     Case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights D.     Disguised prosecution for political opinions in extradition law IV.     COMPARATIVE-LAW MATERIALS THE LAW I.     SCOPE OF THE CASE II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.     The Chamber judgment B.     The parties’ submissions to the Grand Chamber 1.     The applicant 2.     The Government C.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Whether the Grand Chamber has jurisdiction to examine the complaint relating to the applicant’s arrest 2.     General principles under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention 3.     Application of those principles III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.     The Chamber judgment B.     The Government’s preliminary objection 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Grand Chamber’s assessment C.     Merits of the complaint 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Court’s assessment IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 5 §   1 A.     The Chamber judgment B.     The Government’s preliminary objection 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Grand Chamber’s assessment C.     Merits of the complaint 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Court’s assessment VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage B.     Costs and expenses 1.     In the Chamber proceedings 2.     The applicant’s claims in the Grand Chamber proceedings 3.     The Government’s comments on the claims 4.     The Court’s assessment C.     Default interest OPERATIVE PROVISIONS JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES YUDKIVSKA, TSOTSORIA AND VEHABOVIĆ I.     Introduction II.     General comments III.     New approach IV.     Concrete circumstances of the present case 1.     Case of the investigation into the death of former Prime Minister Zhvania 2.     Case of former President Saakashvili V.     Conclusion CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES I.     INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION – PLURALITY OF PURPOSES OF RESTRICTIONS A.     Text and character of Article 18 of the Convention (textual or literal interpretation) B.     Object and purpose of Article 18 of the Convention (purposive or teleological interpretation) C.     Analysis of the judgment’s approach II.     CONCLUSION JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES RAIMONDI, SPANO, KJØLBRO, GROZEV, RAVARANI, PASTOR VILANOVA, POLÁČKOVÁ AND HÜSEYNOV In the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President ,   Angelika Nußberger,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Robert Spano,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos,   Faris Vehabović   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Yonko Grozev,   Georges Ravarani,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 8 March and 20 September 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1 .     The case originated in an application (no. 72508/13) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Georgian national, Mr Ivane Merabishvili (“the applicant”), on 20   November 2013. 2.     The applicant alleged that his arrest and pre-trial detention between 21   May 2013 and 17 February 2014 had been unlawful and unjustified, that on 25 September 2013 he had not obtained a proper judicial review of his detention, and that the restriction of his right to liberty had been applied for purposes other than those for which it had been prescribed. 3 .     The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 24 May 2016 a Chamber of that Section, composed of the following judges: András Sajó, President, Vincent   A. De Gaetano, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Nona Tsotsoria, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Egidijus Kūris and Iulia Motoc, and also of Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, declared the application admissible. In its judgment, delivered on 14 June 2016, the Chamber found that there had been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and no breach of Article   5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the initial decision to place the applicant in pre-trial detention, but a breach of Article 5 § 3 on account of the lack of any reasons for a decision of 25 September 2013 rejecting a request for release by the applicant. The Chamber found that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Lastly, it found a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article   5 §   1 of the Convention. 4.     On 14 September 2016 the Georgian Government (“the Government”) requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article   43 of the Convention. On 17 October 2016 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. At the final deliberations, Faris Vehabović, first substitute judge, replaced Helena Jäderblom, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 3). 6.     The applicant and the Government both filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1 read in conjunction with Rule 71 § 1). 7 .     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 8 March 2017 (Rule 59 § 3 read in conjunction with Rule 71 § 1). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   A. Baramidze , First Deputy Minister of Justice ,   Counsel , Mr   B. Dzamashvili ,   Agent , Ms   M. Bilikhodze , Head of Litigation Unit ,   Department of State Representation to   International Courts, Ministry of Justice , Ms   N. Tchanturidze , Legal Adviser of Litigation Unit ,   Department of State Representation to   International Courts, Ministry of Justice , Mr   R. Bagashvili , Deputy Head of Investigation Unit ,   Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office , Ms   E. Beradze , Head of Department of International   Relations and European Integration ,   Ministry of Prisons ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   P. Leach , Ms   J. Sawyer ,   Counsel , Mr   O. Kakhidze , Mr   D. Kakoishvili , Ms   A. Khojelani ,   Advisers .   The Court heard addresses by Ms Sawyer, Mr Leach and Mr Baramidze, and replies by Mr Leach and Mr Baramidze to questions put by a judge. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicant was born in 1968 and is now serving a sentence of imprisonment in Tbilisi. A.     Background 9 .     In 2003 the so-called “Rose Revolution” erupted in Georgia, after elections perceived as rigged. It consisted of twenty days of peaceful protests, and caused the then President, Mr Eduard Shevardnadze, former First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party and former Soviet foreign minister, who had led Georgia since 1992, to resign. New presidential and parliamentary elections were held in 2004. They were won by the United National Movement (“UNM”), led by Mr Mikheil Saakashvili, one of the Rose Revolution’s protagonists. 10 .     The applicant was an active participant in those events, a close collaborator of Mr Saakashvili, and a leading figure in UNM. 11 .     Until 1 October 2012, when UNM lost the parliamentary elections to the coalition Georgian Dream, led by Mr Bidzina Ivanishvili, the applicant was a member of the Georgian Government: from 2005 to 2012 he was Minister of Internal Affairs and then, from July to October 2012, Prime Minister. 12 .     On 15 October 2012, two weeks after the parliamentary elections, the applicant was elected Secretary General of UNM, which became the chief opposition party in Georgia. 13 .     Shortly after his term of office came to an end, after the presidential election on 27 October 2013, Mr Saakashvili, who had been President of Georgia since 2004, left the country. B.     The incident at Tbilisi Airport on 30 November 2012 14.     Between 1 November 2012 and 21 May 2013, when he was arrested (see paragraph 26 below), the applicant had made five trips abroad, always returning as scheduled. 15 .     According to the Government, on 30 November 2012 the applicant had attempted to cross the border at Tbilisi Airport using a fake passport. 16 .     After checking the passport against the official electronic database, an officer of the Border Police spotted a discrepancy between the photograph in it, which matched the applicant’s appearance, and the other data, including the name, Levan Maisuradze, which differed from the information about the applicant in the database. The officer returned the passport to the applicant’s personal assistant, asking for clarification. The assistant then brought from the applicant’s office another passport, issued in the applicant’s real name and matching all his identification data. After a check of that passport’s authenticity, the applicant was allowed to cross the border. 17 .     The same day the Border Police opened a criminal investigation into the incident. The head officer immediately went to Tbilisi Airport to interview the officer who had discovered the allegedly fake passport. According to evidence gathered in the course of the ensuing investigation, while he was at the airport the head of the Border Police received a call from the applicant on his mobile telephone. Relying on his status and long-standing personal connections within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the applicant demanded that the incident not be investigated and that the border-police officer not be asked to give evidence in relation to the incident. According to statements later given to the investigating officers by the head of the Border Police, the applicant had threatened him personally and with regard to his career and used obscene language during their telephone conversation. 18 .     When interviewed on 1 and 7 December 2012 in relation to the incident, the applicant denied having presented a passport under the name of Levan Maisuradze, and said that he only had four passports, two ordinary ones and two diplomatic ones, all issued under his real name. C.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the State Programme for Job Seekers and the house in the village of Kvariati 1.     The initial phase of the proceedings 19 .     On 13 December 2012 the Prosecutor’s Office of Western Georgia in Kutaisi opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and Mr Z.T., the Minister of Health, Labour and Social Affairs in his government (who immediately after the October 2012 elections had been appointed governor of the Kakheti region), for alleged embezzlement and abuse of official authority, in relation to a “State programme for job seekers” put in place by the applicant’s government between July and September 2012. 20 .     The same day the applicant and Mr Z.T. appeared before the prosecuting authorities and were interviewed as witnesses. 21 .     On 18 January 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic opened separate criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of official authority in relation to a private house in Kvariati, a resort on Georgia’s southern Black Sea coast. 22 .     On 13 February 2013 the applicant was examined as a witness in the context of those separate criminal proceedings. 23 .     On 20 May 2013 the two sets of proceedings were joined. 2.     The applicant’s arrest and placement in pre-trial detention (a)     The arrest 24 .     On 21 May 2013 the applicant and Mr Z.T. were summoned by the investigator attached to the Prosecutor’s Office of Western Georgia in Kutaisi, which was dealing with the joined case, for an interview that day. The same day the applicant’s wife left Georgia. 25 .     The applicant appeared for the interview, which took place from 12.25 p.m. to 3.05 p.m. on 21 May 2013. 26 .     Three-quarters of an hour after the interview, at 3.50 p.m., the investigator arrested the applicant under Article 171 § 2 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 144 below). She noted that the arrest was being made because, faced with a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and a possible punishment, the applicant might try to flee. That risk was corroborated by his attempt to cross the border with a fake passport in 2012 (see paragraphs 15-18 above), as well as by his many trips abroad, which showed that he would have no difficulties getting out of Georgia. The investigator also noted that the applicant had held high office for many years, and was still an influential figure. There was hence a risk that he would obstruct the investigation. 27 .     Shortly before that, at 3.31 p.m., the investigator had also arrested Mr   Z.T. 28 .     Later that day, at 9.50 p.m., the applicant was charged. 29 .     The first charge was that between July and September 2012 he had devised, and Mr Z.T. and the director of Georgia’s Social Service Agency had implemented, a scheme creating fictitious public-sector jobs for 21,837 persons whereby they were unduly paid a total of 5,240,880 Georgian laris (GEL) (at that time equivalent to 2,421,953 euros (EUR)) of budgetary funds for carrying out campaign work for UNM in the run-up to the October 2012 elections. According to the authorities, the applicant had thereby bought votes contrary to Article 164 1 of the Criminal Code, misappropriated property in large quantities, acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to Article 182 §§ 2 (a) and (d) and 3 (b) of the Code, and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to Article 332 § 2 of the Code. 30 .     The second charge was that after 2009 the applicant had systematically used the house in Kvariati, which belonged to a limited liability company under investigation by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for family vacations, that in 2011 and 2012 he had had work costing GEL   131,884.60 done on that house with funds of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and that he had caused GEL 25,784.70 to be spent on the salaries of staff servicing the house, thus depriving the State budget of a total of GEL   157,669.30 (at that time equivalent to EUR 73,216). According to the prosecuting authorities, the applicant had thereby infringed the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to Article 160 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, misappropriated property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to Article 182 §§ 2 (d) and 3 (b), and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to Article 332 § 2 of the Code. 31 .     In their observations, the Government set out the witness and other evidence on which those two sets of charges were based. Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the first set of charges were current or former officials of the Social Service Agency, of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Affairs, or of other ministries or government departments; some were UNM party officials. Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the second set of charges were former officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 32 .     In the meantime, the prosecuting authorities searched the applicant’s flat. They discovered and seized GEL 29,000 (at that time equivalent to EUR   13,812), 33,100 United States dollars and EUR 54,200 in cash. (b)     The placement in pre-trial detention (i)     Proceedings before the Kutaisi City Court 33 .     On 22 May 2013 the district prosecutor’s office of Western Georgia asked the Kutaisi City Court to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. It described the offences with which the applicant was charged and cited the witness and other evidence supporting the charges. It also argued that there was a risk that the applicant would flee and a risk that he would obstruct the gathering of evidence, and that those risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure. 34 .     In the prosecution’s view, the risk of flight was borne out, firstly, by the applicant’s having established, by dint of his having held high public office for several years, many contacts abroad and in Georgia, which would facilitate his departure from the country. Since 2009 he had crossed the border more than sixty times. Secondly, the applicant’s wife had left the country on 21 May 2013, immediately after the applicant had been served with the summons to appear for his interview with the investigator in Kutaisi. Thirdly, the search of the applicant’s flat on 21 May 2013 had revealed large sums in cash. It was reasonable to suppose that the applicant had amassed that money in order to be able to leave the country. Fourthly, the applicant had a fake international passport that had been issued to him at the time when he had still been Minister of Internal Affairs. Lastly, the seriousness of the charges which the applicant was facing and the severity of the possible sentence also had to be taken into account. 35 .     The risk of obstructing the gathering of evidence was, for its part, borne out by the applicant’s having held a number of high political posts and by his uncivil attempt to put pressure on the head of the Border Police during the incident on 30 November 2012 (see paragraph 17 above). 36 .   The prosecution requested that the applicant’s co-accused, Mr Z.T., also be placed in pre-trial detention. 37 .     Counsel for the applicant opposed the prosecution’s request. In their written submissions to the Kutaisi City Court they argued that since the applicant had been a member of the Government, by law only the Minister of Justice could institute criminal proceedings against him. Yet he had been arrested by an investigator from the district prosecutor’s office of Western Georgia, and charged by a prosecutor from the same office. His arrest and the criminal proceedings against him were therefore unlawful. Moreover, his arrest had been in breach of Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 144 below). The alleged risk that he would flee was not supported by concrete evidence, and was belied by his repeated appearances before the investigating authorities and his public pledge that he would cooperate with them. Also, he had been out of Georgia many times and had not once tried to flee, including after the opening of the investigation. On the day of his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning. There had therefore been no need to detain him without a judicial warrant. The alleged risk of his obstructing the investigation was also not specifically borne out. Moreover, the investigation had already lasted several months without any instances of his having interfered with it being reported. Counsel for the applicant also invited the court to take into account the applicant’s achievements in combating crime and police reform during his time in office. 38 .     The Kutaisi City Court heard the prosecution’s request at a public hearing held on the same day, 22 May 2013. Both parties made oral submissions. 39 .     After the hearing, the court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention, but to release Mr Z.T. on bail. It briefly noted that, according to the materials in the case file, there had been no serious procedural breaches in the applicant’s arrest or the bringing of charges against him. In particular, by law only acting, not former, members of the Government had to be prosecuted by the Minister of Justice rather than a regular prosecutor. The court went on to say that there was enough information to show that there   was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and Mr Z.T. The other pre-requisites for placing the applicant in pre-trial detention were also in place. A number of investigative steps were yet to be carried out, and as was apparent from the prosecution’s request, there was a risk that the applicant would tamper with the evidence or put pressure on witnesses. That was borne out, in particular, by the applicant’s having already tried to put pressure on a witness against him. Another factor which suggested such a risk was that the applicant had for many years held high public office and was still an influential figure in some circles of Georgian society, especially bearing in mind that the charges against him related to his time in office. Many witnesses were former subordinates of his or people under his professional or personal influence. The court also agreed with the prosecution that there was a risk that the applicant would flee. That was borne out, in particular, by his facing serious charges and the possibility of a severe sentence. Lastly, the court found that those two risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure. 40 .     The court fixed the pre-trial conference hearing for 15 July 2013. 41.     The applicant was remanded in custody in Prison no. 9 in Tbilisi. (ii)     Proceedings before the Kutaisi Court of Appeal 42 .     The applicant appealed to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal. He argued that on a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions the Minister of Justice alone was competent to prosecute offences committed by anyone in their capacity as member of the Government, not only someone who was such a member at the time when the prosecution was being brought. He also argued that the Kutaisi City Court had erred by not examining in detail the lawfulness of his arrest. That arrest had been in breach of Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular because on the day of the arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning. It was also hard to believe that the Kutaisi City Court, which had ruled on the prosecution’s request just three or four hours after it had been made, had really studied the evidence said to give rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. There were no facts or information in the case file to suggest that he had committed the offences. The lower court had also expected him to disprove the risks of flight and obstruction of justice alleged by the prosecution rather than require the prosecution to establish those risks. Its finding that the applicant had put pressure on a witness ran counter to the presumption of innocence. He had never called or threatened the head of the Border Police. The Kutaisi City Court had also disregarded the fact that in the months before his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning several times. Neither that court nor the prosecution had pointed to evidence showing that he would flee abroad. He had travelled out of Georgia many times since the investigation had been opened. The argument that his being an influential figure in some circles suggested that he could influence witnesses made it clear that he was a victim of political persecution. His character showed that there was not even a minimal risk of his fleeing, putting pressure on witnesses or destroying evidence. 43 .     On 25 May 2013 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, having examined the appeal on the papers, declared it inadmissible. It noted that the Kutaisi City Court had reviewed the materials in the case and the evidence submitted to it, and had checked whether the gathering of that evidence and the bringing of the charges against the applicant had complied with the Code of Criminal Procedure. When deciding to place the applicant in pre-trial detention, that court had taken into account his personality and the risk of his obstructing the proceedings. Since that court had already dealt with all the points raised in the appeal, as well as with all the important points concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, there was no reason to entertain the appeal. 3.     The two adjournments of the pre-trial conference hearing 44 .     On 2 July 2013 the prosecution, citing the need for additional investigative steps, asked the Kutaisi City Court to adjourn the pre-trial conference hearing until 11 September 2013. On 5 July 2013 the court partly allowed the request, adjourning the conference until 23 August 2013. 45 .     On 12 August 2013 the applicant, citing the volume of materials in the case file and the need for more time to prepare his defence, sought a further adjournment of the pre-trial conference. The prosecution objected, stating that the applicant was trying to protract the proceedings and leave less time for the examination of the case on the merits. On 14 August 2013 the Kutaisi City Court allowed the request in full and scheduled the pre-trial conference for 12 September 2013. 4.     The applicant’s request for release during the pre-trial conference hearing 46 .     The pre-trial conference hearing took place on 12, 19 and 25   September 2013. 47 .     At the session on 25 September 2013 the applicant requested to be released from pre-trial detention. He pointed out that he had publicly pledged to cooperate with the investigation, that before his arrest he had always duly appeared for questioning, and that he had been abroad many times and had always returned as scheduled. He also offered to hand in his passport. He went on to say that since the investigation had already been concluded and the authorities had secured all witness and other evidence, there was no longer a risk of his influencing witnesses, which in any event did not exist since he no longer held the high posts which he had occupied previously. 48 .     The prosecution argued that the applicant’s high political status and connections abroad and his possession of two diplomatic passports and a fake passport made it easy for him to leave Georgia. It was also possible that he had other unidentified passports, a device used by other former officials to get out of the country. The surrender of his passport would therefore not obviate the risk of flight. The risk of his influencing witnesses was also still present. He had already done so on 30 November 2012, when no longer occupying an official post. Moreover, the witnesses were still due to testify at trial, which was by law the only way of adducing their evidence. 49 .     The Kutaisi City Court examined and rejected the request for release the same day. It gave its decision orally. As evidenced by the audio record of the hearing, the judge said, without further explanation, that the “request for termination of the pre-trial detention [wa]s to be rejected”. 5.     The applicant’s request for release of 7 October 2013 50 .     The applicant’s trial started on 7 October 2013, and he again sought release from pre-trial detention. He pointed out that before his arrest he had always appeared freely before the investigating authorities, had repeatedly declared that he had no intention of fleeing, had been abroad and back even after the proceedings against him had started, was the secretary general of a major political party, and had a wife and two children. All those factors showed that there was no real risk of his fleeing. Nor was there any risk of his influencing witnesses. The prosecuting authorities had already questioned a considerable number of witnesses, and there was no risk that those witnesses would change their statements, as they could incur criminal liability if they did so. 51 .     The Kutaisi City Court rejected the request in a written decision of the same day. It noted that the applicant had failed to point to, or provide evidence of, new circumstances calling for a reconsideration of the decision to place him in pre-trial detention. In that decision, the court had already dealt with all the points raised in his request. The fact that the trial had already started had no bearing on the justification for the applicant’s detention. 52 .     The court went on to say that its decision could be appealed against at the same time as its final judgment on the merits of the criminal case. 6.     The applicant’s conviction and sentence and his appeals against them 53 .     On 17 February 2014 the Kutaisi City Court found the applicant guilty of buying votes contrary to Article 164 1 of the Criminal Code, and of misappropriating property in large quantities, acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to Article 182 §§ 2 (a) and (d) and   3   (b) of the Code, in relation to the fictitious-jobs scheme (see paragraph   29 above). The court also found the applicant guilty of infringing the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to Article   160 § 3 (b) of the Code, and of misappropriating property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to Article 182 §§ 2 (d) and   3   (b) of the Code, in relation to the house in Kvariati (see paragraph 30 above). The court dismissed the charges of abuse of power under Article   332 § 2 of the Code as superfluous. It sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment and banned him from holding public office for one and a half years. 54 .     The applicant appealed against that judgment, but on 21 October 2014 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld it in full. 55 .     On 18 June 2015 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s ensuing appeal on points of law inadmissible. D.     The other criminal cases against the applicant 56 .     On 28 May 2013 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence, contrary to Article   333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, in relation to his role in a police operation to disperse a rally on 26 May 2011. On 30 May 2013 the Tbilisi City Court placed the applicant in pre-trial detention in relation to that charge, and on 27 February 2014 convicted him of it. The applicant appealed against that judgment, but on 11 August 2014 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld it. An appeal by the applicant to the Supreme Court on points of law was declared inadmissible on 27 February 2015. 57 .     On 24 June 2013 the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with abusing his power as a public official holding a political post, contrary to Article 332 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The case concerned the applicant’s role, in his capacity as Minister of Internal Affairs, in the alleged cover-up of a 2006 murder implicating high-ranking officers of the Ministry and the applicant’s wife (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia , no.   25091/07, §§ 15-22, 26 April 2011). Two days later, on 26 June 2013, the Tbilisi City Court refused the prosecution’s request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in relation to that charge. The applicant was later additionally charged with forging official documents in his capacity as an official, contrary to Article 341 of the Criminal Code. On 20 October 2014 the Tbilisi City Court convicted him of the two offences, and on   4   August 2015 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. 58 .     On 28 July 2014 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence, contrary to Article   333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, in relation to his role in the planning and supervision of a police raid on a private television and radio company, Imedi Media Holding, on 7 November 2007, and the ensuing withdrawal of the company’s broadcasting licence (see Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 6-8, 9 April 2013). The case is apparently still pending before the Tbilisi City Court. 59 .     On 5 August 2014 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence, contrary to Article   333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, in relation to his having allegedly ordered high-ranking police officers to have a member of parliament subjected to ill-treatment in reprisal for having made insulting public statements about Mr Saakashvili’s wife. The prosecuting authorities later also charged the applicant with wilfully causing that person grievous bodily harm, acting in concert with others, contrary to Article 117 § 5 (e) of the Criminal Code. On 22 September 2016 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of those offences. On 24 February 2017 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. E.     Alleged covert removal of the applicant from his prison cell on 14   December 2013 and investigations into that allegation 1.     The applicant’s allegations 60 .     On 17 December 2013, during a court hearing in the trial against him, which was being broadcast live on television, the applicant stated that at about 1.30 a.m. the previous Saturday, 14 December 2013, he had been taken out of his prison cell, put in a car with his head shrouded in his jacket, and driven from Prison no. 9 in Tbilisi, where he was being held in custody, to what he believed to be the Penitentiary Department building. There, he had been taken to an office where, having had the jacket removed from his head, he had seen two men. The first had been the then Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr O.P. The applicant was not certain of the identity of the second, as he had left the office shortly after his arrival, but surmised that he had been Mr D.D., the head of the Penitentiary Department. Mr O.P. – who had been appointed as Chief Public Prosecutor on 21 November 2013 and resigned on 30 December 2013 over allegations that he had a criminal record in Germany – had requested the applicant to provide information about the death in 2005 of Mr Zurab Zhvania, the then Prime Minister, and about the bank accounts of the already former President of Georgia, Mr   Saakashvili. If the applicant did that, he would be allowed to leave Georgia with “the money that he [had] made during his time in office”. 61 .     Mr Zhvania was one of the protagonists of the Rose Revolution (see paragraph   9 above). Shortly after it, in February 2004, he became Prime Minister. In December 2004 the applicant became Minister of Internal Affairs in his government. Mr Zhvania died in February 2005. On 3   February 2005 his dead body was found along with the dead body of Mr   R.U., a deputy regional governor, in a flat in Tbilisi. According to the official version of the events, the two had died accidentally from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty ventilation in a gas heater. The circumstances of Mr Zhvania’s death are still a subject of heated debate in Georgia, and Georgian Dream made it one of their campaign promises in the October 2012 elections to elucidate them. Shortly after those elections, in November 2012, the investigation into Mr Zhvania’s death was renewed and is apparently still pending. The applicant was questioned as a witness in the course of that renewed investigation on 21 March 2014. During the hearing before the Grand Chamber, the Government stated that while no one had asked the applicant anything about Mr Zhvania’s death on 14   December 2013, there was still a “huge question” to him in relation to that death, in view of the lack of credibility of the version that he had put forward at the time when it had happened: that it had been due to an accident. 62 .     According to the applicant, he had replied to Mr O.P. that it made no sense to accuse Mr Saakashvili of corruption. As for Mr Zhvania’s death, the investigation into it in 2005 had been comprehensive, and there was no further information that he could provide in relation to it. Mr O.P. had then threatened the applicant that if he did not cooperate, his detention conditions would worsen and he would not be able to get out of prison “until [Mr Irakli Garibashvili]’s government was in power”. Mr Garibashvili had become Prime Minister of Georgia on 20 November 2013, succeeding Mr   Ivanishvili, who had become Prime Minister on 25 October 2012, following the parliamentary election won by Georgian Dream (see paragraph   11 above). 63 .     According to the applicant, he was then taken back to Prison no.   9, arriving in his cell at about 2.30 a.m. 64 .     The applicant went on to say that he could describe the office where the meeting had taken place and identify the two men who had taken him from Prison no. 9 to that office. 65 .     At the end of his statement, the applicant suggested that the authorities could verify his allegations by checking the footage from the surveillance cameras in Prison no. 9. He also requested an examination of the footage from the road-traffic cameras situated along the road allegedly taken by the car transporting him from the prison to the Penitentiary Department. 66 .     In the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the applicant submitted that he had first discussed the meeting with the Chief Public Prosecutor with his lawyers when they had visited him in prison two days later, on Monday 16 December 2013. According to him, he could not have voiced his allegations earlier, as he was not allowed to receive visitors during the weekend and did not have free access to a telephone. For their part, the Government submitted that the applicant could have telephoned his lawyers or the Public Defender at any time, including at weekends and during the night. 2.     The authorities’ initial reaction to those allegations 67 .     The applicant’s allegations prompted public reactions from several high officials. 68 .     On the same day, 17 December 2013, the Prime Minister stated that the allegations were an attempt to discredit the Government and a provocation, and that “questions should be rather put to psychologists and psychiatrists” in connection with them. In an official statement put out the same day, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office described the allegations as “absurd and untrue”, and surmised that the applicant had made them to manipulate public opinion and the criminal trial against him. 69 .     For her part, the Minister of Justice stated that, while the allegations appeared “unbelievable”, they were to be addressed seriously. 70 .