CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s21B1FE17 { width:12.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC38D9B28 { width:156.85pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 8157/09 Vazha GHERKENASHVILI against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 February 2009, Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2011 to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”) for information, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Vazha Gherkenashvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1966. He was represented before the Court by Ms   Ts.   Javakhishvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     The applicant submitted various complaints in the context of events relating to the conflict in August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §   14, 20   November 2018). COMPLAINTS 3 .     The applicant raised various complaints under Articles 2, 8, 13 and   14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention in respect of the events relating to the conflict in August   2008. To support his claims, the applicant submitted to the Court an identity card concerning an individual other than himself, with no explanation as to its relevance. THE LAW 4.     The Court has already dealt with similar complaints and made findings regarding the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article   35 §   1 of the Convention and a duty incumbent on applicants to substantiate their grievances by supplying evidence in support of their claims in the previous cases against Georgia which concerned events relating to the conflict of August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §§   23-30, 20   November 2018; Naniyeva and Bagayev v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   2256/09 and 2260/09, §§   19-26, 20 November 2018; and Kudukhova v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   8274/09 and 8275/09, §§   21-28, 20 November 2018). These considerations also apply in the present case. 5.     In particular, the Court would reiterate that it is not a tribunal of facts and cannot, without appropriate assistance on the part of the applicants, establish the factual account of complex events, such as situations of armed conflict (see Naniyeva and Bagayev, cited above, §   39). In this connection, the Court observes that the applicant failed to submit any evidence relevant to his grievances (see paragraph   3 above). 6.     Accordingly, it follows that the application is unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2020.   Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal   Deputy Registrar   President