CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s60C44206 { font-family:Symbol } .sCFEF29CB { width:11.41pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCFD24F21 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB66B0814 { width:32.22pt; display:inline-block } .s72E62D63 { width:149.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s188C0F3B { width:91.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2D8BB0A7 { height:12.55pt } .s5ED6B251 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s45660679 { margin-left:20.39pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA228C6E8 { margin-left:25.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7D2F4A12 { height:5pt } .s10577CED { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s28412B5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sDDD834DF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s492E704C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s67A25064 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4B46122D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s46049353 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s424B8FD3 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B1F13C8 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s46938418 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .sAE1E17E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC3BC7037 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF WOMEN’S INITIATIVES SUPPORTING GROUP AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Applications nos. 73204/13 and 74959/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 and Art 11 (+ Art 14) • Positive obligations • Degrading treatment • Effective investigation • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Discrimination • State’s failure to take operational preventive measures to protect applicants from homophobic and/or transphobic violence, conduct an effective investigation and ensure LGBT rally proceeded peacefully • Indications of official acquiescence, connivance and active participation in individual acts motivated by prejudice   STRASBOURG 16 December 2021   FINAL   16/03/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v.   Georgia , The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Jovan Ilievski,   Lado Chanturia,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: applications nos.   73204/13 and 74959/13 against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the thirty-five Georgian nationals (“the individual applicants”) and two legal entities (“the applicant associations”) listed in the appendix, on 15 and 16 November 2013 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present two cases concern the respondent State’s alleged failure to protect the applicants’ public rally from homophobic and/or transphobic acts of violence by counter-demonstrators and to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. The applicants relied on Articles 3, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The names of the applicants and their dates of birth/registration as legal entities are set out in the appendix. The thirty-five individual applicants are all Georgian nationals, and the two applicant associations are registered under Georgian law. 3.     The applicant associations (applicants nos. 1 and 17) are Georgian non ‑ governmental organisations (NGOs) set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Georgia. The individual applicants are either staff members of the applicant associations or members and supporters of the LGBT community. 4.     The sixteen applicants in application no. 73204/13 were represented by three Georgian lawyers (Ms T. Abazadze, Ms N. Jomarjidze and Ms   Ts.   Ratiani) and three British lawyers (Mr Ph. Leach, Ms J. Evans and Ms   J. Gavron). 5.     The twenty-one applicants in application no. 74959/13 were represented by four Georgian lawyers (Mr L. Asatiani, Ms N. Bolkvadze, Ms   T. Abazadze and Ms N. Jomarjidze). 6.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   L.   Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice. 7.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. peaceful demonstration of 17 may 2013 Prior arrangements 8 .     On 24 April and 1May 2013 the two applicant associations informed the Ministry of the Interior of their intention to hold a peaceful public rally on 17 May 2013 in the centre of Tbilisi to mark the International Day Against Homophobia. The planned event would take the form of a silent twenty ‑ minute flash mob (“the IDAHO event”). The organisers indicated that the event would take place on Rustaveli Avenue, on the grounds of the former Parliament building, and that some fifty people would be taking part. In view of the violence committed by radical groups during a similar event held the previous year (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia , no. 73235/12, §§ 10-19, 12 May 2015), the applicant associations asked the Ministry to invest more time and energy in the upcoming event in devising an efficient plan to protect the public rally from possible violence. 9.     On 9 May 2013 the applicant associations informed the Ministry of the Interior of serious threats posted on the Internet by various identifiable individuals. The threats, targeting the lives and health of staff members of the two applicant associations, were aimed at dissuading the organisers from staging the IDAHO event. 10.     On 13 May 2013 reports were published by various media sources that a number of ultra-conservative NGOs and clergymen were planning to hold a counter-demonstration on 17 May 2013 in order to demand a ban on the “popularisation and promotion of sexual minorities”. The counter ‑ demonstration was mainly being organised by three identifiable individuals – G.G., a member of the NGO Former Prisoners for Human Rights, E.M., the President of the Georgian National Front, and Father J., a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church. 11.     On the same day G.G. gave official notice to Tbilisi City Hall of the organising committee’s intention to hold “a prayer rally” on Rustaveli Avenue, on the grounds of the former Parliament building (the same location previously chosen by the applicant associations for holding the IDAHO event, see paragraph 8). The notice stated that priests and parishes from various churches in Tbilisi would be participating in the prayer rally. 12.     In addition, a number of interviews with priests were published in various national newspapers in which several clergymen, including Father J., openly and repeatedly stated that the aim of the “prayer rally” was to prevent the IDAHO event from taking place. In addition, a number of other clearly identifiable individual participants in the forthcoming counter-demonstration intensified the hate speech campaign on social media directed at the two applicant associations’ staff members. Various national newspapers and social media reported at the time that “thousands of people” were expected to join the “prayer rally”. 13.     On 13 and 15 May 2013 senior officials from the Ministry of the Interior held meetings with the two applicant associations organising the IDAHO event. During the meetings, in reply to the organisers’ concerns that there was a high risk of demonstrators being attacked by participants in the counter-demonstration, that is to say “the prayer rally”, the Ministry officials made formal assurances that no efforts would be spared to guarantee the safety of all the participants in the IDAHO event. It was specified that Old Tbilisi police unit no. 7 would be in charge of the associated security arrangements. The Ministry further stated that, according to the latest intelligence information, more than 10,000 people were planning to take part in the counter-demonstration. That being so, the Ministry proposed that the applicant associations move the IDAHO event from the grounds of the former Parliament building a few hundred metres away, to Pushkin Square, in order to avoid a direct confrontation with the counter-demonstrators. It promised to deploy sufficient manpower to the scene to create strong police cordons between the two opposing groups. The two applicant associations accepted the Ministry’s proposal. 14.     On the day of the IDAHO event, the Ministry of the Interior deployed some 2,000 police officers, who were tasked with creating cordons separating Pushkin Square, where the applicants were to gather, from all the streets leading to the adjacent Rustaveli Avenue, where the “prayer rally” was to be held (see paragraph 16 below). Pushkin Square incident 15.     Clergymen, their parishes and other participants in the “prayer rally” already started gathering outside the former Parliament building on the evening of 16 May 2013. By the early afternoon of 17 May 2013, some 35,000 to 40,000 counter-demonstrators were already there. 16 .     On 17 May 2013, at around 12 noon, participants in the IDAHO event started gathering at Pushkin Square. Seeing an enormous and aggressive crowd of counter-demonstrators only a few hundred metres away, from whom they were only separated by removable metal fences and a thin cordon of unarmed and unequipped police patrol officers, the arriving LGBT demonstrators started having serious doubts about their safety. The counter ‑ demonstrators were chanting homophobic insults and physical threats. No riot squads could be seen. 17.     Applicants nos. 15, 19, 21-23, 25, 29, 31-33, 35 and 37 (hereinafter “the group of twelve individual applicants”), who were the first to arrive at Pushkin Square at 12 noon, decided to wait until 12.45 p.m. in order for all the other participants to join them before starting the flash mob. The remaining twenty-three individual applicants were, at the time, outside Pushkin Square, either on the other side of the police cordons, amongst the counter-demonstrators, or elsewhere. 18.     At some point between 12.30 and 12.40 p.m., a group of clergymen went through the police cordons to meet with senior officials from the Ministry of the Interior, including the Deputy Minister, G.Z. They were all standing in Pushkin Square, near the above-mentioned group of twelve individual applicants. As can be seen on video footage of the ensuing negotiations between the officials and priests recorded by independent journalists, the latter urged, on behalf of the participants in the “prayer rally”, the police not to let the IDAHO event take place, as it would cause a clash with the counter-demonstrators. Some of the priests can be heard repeating that “people might get killed”, and a priest, identified by the applicants as Father E., can be heard telling Deputy Minister G.Z. that if the police attempted to protect the participants in the IDAHO event, the clergymen would start civil disobedience and ask the Georgian army to join their side. 19.     Another piece of video footage filmed by independent journalists shows the clergymen returning from the meeting with the Ministry of the Interior’s senior officials (see paragraph 18 above) to the counter ‑ demonstrators’ side of the police cordon. The recording continues with images of the same clergymen leading the crowd to break through the cordon with no resistance from the police. It appears from the images filmed that the participants in the IDAHO event were still in Pushkin Square when the clergymen and counter-demonstrators started passing through the police cordons. 20.     Another video-recording, filmed by journalists, shows a number of police officers disassembling cordons and removing metal fences installed to protect the LGBT demonstrators from the counter-demonstrators (see paragraph 16 above). A journalist can be heard asking the police officers “why are you letting them go through?”. This footage also contains scenes of police patrol officers discussing an order from the deputy head of the State Security Agency – a structural unit of the Ministry of the Interior under G.Z.’s direct supervision at the material time – to remove metal fences separating the location reserved for the IDAHO event – Pushkin Square – from Rustaveli Avenue, where the counter-demonstrators were gathered. The video footage further shows certain other police patrol officers, who were supposed to block the counter-demonstrators by standing in cordons, opening up gaps for the counter-demonstrators, saying things such as “go!” and “pass one by one!” as they passed through. 21.     Another video-recording shows a journalist standing in an area adjacent to Pushkin Square and police patrol officers saying “have [the counter-demonstrators] run over the cordon or it has been opened [by the police]?” to which one of the officers replies “it has been opened.” 22.     Additional video footage of the events shows that eventually hundreds of counter-demonstrators, led by clergymen, get through the police cordons and head towards the group of twelve individual applicants and a number of other participants in the IDAHO event gathered at Pushkin Square. The closer the counter-demonstrators get to the scene of the IDAHO event, the more aggressive their behaviour becomes. Thus, their initial marching pace turns into a run; they yell insults and curses and shake wooden sticks and iron batons in their hands; some of the counter-demonstrators grab heavy stones on their way. 23.     Faced with the approaching mob, the group of twelve individual applicants at Pushkin Square retreated by boarding two buses that had apparently been provided by the police in advance for dispersal purposes. None of the applicants knew anything about that dispersal plan, and their efforts to reach the buses were chaotic despite some guidance being offered by the police. Some of the applicants heard some of the police officers, who were supposed to be coordinating their removal from the scene, themselves making homophobic jokes and insults during the commotion. 24.     Another piece of video footage of the events, again filmed by independent journalists, further captures images of several clergymen running through Pushkin Square in the direction of the two above-mentioned buses and proffering insults, with one of them shaking a footstool in a menacing manner and threatening to kill the participants in the IDAHO event. This footage further shows how frenzied counter ‑ demonstrators surrounded and blocked the buses containing the above-mentioned group of twelve applicants and other LGBT demonstrators, rocking the vehicles and throwing stones, wooden sticks and footstools at the windscreens. Even after the buses had made their way through the crowd, some of the counter-demonstrators got into their cars and chased the applicants across the city. According to the relevant individual applicants who were on the buses, for much of the journey, the buses were not accompanied by the police, and the applicants were not aware where the drivers were taking them. Images of the terrified applicants’ faces were filmed by journalists on the buses and broadcast a few hours later on a number of national television channels. Vachnadze Street incident 25.     At around 12.30 p.m. on 17 May 2013 applicants nos. 2-14, 16 and 36 (hereinafter “the group of fifteen individual applicants”), who were trying to reach the site of the IDAHO event at Pushkin Square via the narrow Vachnadze Street, were suddenly encircled by a large number of participants in the “prayer rally”. The counter-demonstrators, having identified the applicants as members of the LGBT community, started proffering homophobic insults and threats. The number of unarmed and unequipped police officers at the scene was insignificant in comparison to the mob and, according to the applicants, they were initially reluctant to help. 26.     It was only after active intervention by a staff member of the local United Nations office in Tbilisi that the police patrol officers near Vachnadze Street were eventually deployed and managed to remove the group of fifteen individual applicants from the mob by sneaking them into a house situated on the street, and guarding its doors until a police minibus arrived. However, once the trapped activists boarded the minibus, the counter-demonstrators, yelling “stone them all!” and “kill them all!”, surrounded it, breaking almost all the windows and the front windscreen with iron batons and stones in an attempt to pull the passengers out. After a few minutes of commotion, the driver of the minibus managed to get through the mob. 27.     As later documented in medical records, all fifteen individual applicants suffered severe stress on account of the assault on them on Vachnadze Street, whilst applicant no. 12 also had concussion from a stone thrown by the mob which had hit her in the head. Several of the police officers who took part in the dispersal of the relevant individual applicants also received physical injuries as a result of the counter-demonstrators’ aggressive actions. Rustaveli Avenue incident 28.     In the late afternoon of 17 May 2013 applicant no. 23, one of the twelve individual applicants who had been assaulted at Pushkin Square and removed from the scene by the police, returned to the city centre in an attempt to find out the whereabouts of some of his missing friends and colleagues. He hoped that he would not be identified as an LGBT activist. However, apparently due to the fact that images of him fleeing Pushkin Square on a bus had already been broadcast by journalists on various television channels (see paragraph 24 above), a group of counter ‑ demonstrators, a dozen or so people still on Rustaveli Avenue, near Pushkin Square, recognised him on the street. 29.     The counter-demonstrators encircled applicant no. 23 in the middle of Rustaveli Avenue and started punching and kicking him. Eventually, he managed to run away from the attackers, finding shelter in a supermarket on the same street. The attackers followed him inside but failed to find him. They then decided to block all the exits of the store, hoping to eventually capture him. After some time and apparently a telephone call made by the supermarket staff, approximately ten police officers arrived. After finding the applicant in the basement, they told him that, given that aggressive people were besieging the store, they could not ensure his safety. Instead, they suggested to him that he shave off his beard and dress in a police uniform so that he could escape in disguise. He agreed. 30.     The officers started shaving the applicant’s beard, but it took more than an hour. During the process, which was filmed by them on a mobile telephone, the officers made homophobic remarks and asked the applicant questions such as “whether or not he was gay” and “whether he had ever had sex with a woman”. Eventually, after his beard had been shaved off and he had dressed as a police patrol officer, applicant no. 23 was finally able to leave the supermarket. As regards the remaining applicants 31.     Applicants nos. 18, 20, 24, 26-28, 30 and 34 (hereinafter “the group of eight individual applicants”, who had remained on the counter ‑ demonstrators’ side of the police cordon before the commotion erupted (see paragraph 17 above), managed to mingle with the counter ‑ demonstrators and flee the scene on their own. 32.     It appears from the case material that the group of eight individual applicants were not identified by the counter-demonstrators as participants in the IDAHO event, and that no description of any type of alleged ill ‑ treatment against them was reported. subsequent investigation 33.     On 17 May 2013 the Ministry of the Interior launched of its own motion a general inquiry into the acts of violence committed during the clash between the participants in the IDAHO event and those in the “prayer rally”. Old Tbilisi Police unit no. 7 was placed in charge of the inquiry, which was conducted under Article 161 § 1 of the Criminal Code – interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly using violence. 34.     On 9 July 2013 the above-mentioned general inquiry was split into two separate criminal investigations, one of which culminated on 23   October 2015 with the Tbilisi City Court’s acquittal of the accused (see paragraph 42 below). 35.     On 25 July and 20 September 2013 the two applicant associations and thirty-three of the individual applicants (not applicants nos. 20 and 24), asked the Ministry of the Interior to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for the violence committed against them during the IDAHO event. The complainants, enclosing a copy of the above-mentioned pieces of video footage concerning the incidents at Pushkin Square (see paragraphs 18 ‑ 24 above), also requested the opening of a separate criminal investigation against the officials of the Ministry of the Interior who had been responsible for letting the counter-demonstrators pass through the police cordons and otherwise conniving in the latter’s illegal actions . No response was given by the Ministry. 36.     On unspecified dates in October 2013 applicants nos. 23 and 36 were interviewed by investigators from Old Tbilisi police unit no. 7 in relation to the incidents on Rustaveli Avenue and Vachnadze Street respectively. On 6   November 2013 the two applicants enquired with the Ministry whether any progress had been made in the investigation and whether they had been granted victim status. 37.     On 6 November 2013 applicant no. 23 filed another criminal complaint with Old Tbilisi police unit no. 7 in which he specified the name of one of the alleged assailants of the attack on him on Rustaveli Avenue (see paragraphs 28-30 above), providing the investigators with photographs and other contact details. In addition, the applicant asked to identify the police officers whom he had accused of degrading treatment, providing all the details – the insults to which he was allegedly subjected – of the beard-shaving incident. However, it appears from subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings in question that the police never followed up on the details provided by the applicant. 38.     On the same date both applicant associations and all the individual applicants enquired with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office about the progress of the investigation and whether they had been granted victim status. The prosecution authority responded on 27 December 2013 that there were no signs of illegality in the actions of the police who, on the contrary, had duly discharged their duties during the demonstration by preventing grave consequences which could otherwise have occurred given the disproportionately high number of counter-demonstrators. In addition, the prosecution authority updated the applicants on the developments of the general inquiry launched by the Ministry of the Interior on 17 May 2013. 39.     Thus, according to the prosecution authority’s response of 27   December 2013, and other material available in the case file, following the opening of the general inquiry by the Ministry, four counter ‑ demonstrators were sanctioned for disorderly conduct under Article 166 of the Code of Administrative Offences – a minor breach of public order – and fined 100 Georgian laris (some 45 euros (EUR)) each.   Furthermore, it appeared to the applicants from the same official response that criminal proceedings under Article 161 of the Criminal Code – unlawful interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly using violence, threat of violence or abusing official capacity – were pending, by December 2013, before a trial court against four other counter-demonstrators, including a clergyman. 40.     In April 2014 all the applicants, with the exception of applicants nos.   23 and 36 (see paragraph 36 above), were questioned as witnesses by investigators of Old Tbilisi police unit no. 7 in relation to the incident of 17   May 2013 for the first time. 41.     In October 2015 investigators of Old Tbilisi police unit no. 7 questioned, as witnesses, nine of its officers who had been personally involved in the security arrangements during the IDAHO event on 17 May 2013. 42.     On 23 October 2015 the Tbilisi City Court acquitted the four accused against whom charges had been pending under Article 161 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 above). The City Court stated that the investigation had failed to secure any evidence that would reliably prove the link between the violent dispersal of the IDAHO event and the actions of the accused that day. The City Court identified a number of further shortcomings in the investigation, such as the investigators’ failure to properly examine the relevant pieces of video footage of the dispersal (see paragraphs 18-24 above) – which, in the court’s opinion, were crucial pieces of evidence as they could have allowed for the proper identification of at least some of the perpetrators of the violent attacks – as well as the failure to commission a forensic examination of the buses that had been damaged by the mob during the dispersal process. 43.     According to the material available in the case file before the Court, the second set of criminal proceedings conducted in relation to the violent clashes during the IDAHO event (see paragraph 34 above) is still pending. None of the applicants, except applicant no. 23, were granted victim status, and it is unknown whether there have been any other developments in those proceedings. Proliferation of hate crimes after 17 May 2013 44.     According to applicant no. 17, one of the two applicant associations, which recorded such incidents as part of its activities, there were twelve and seventeen documented cases of physical aggression and hate speech, respectively, in the immediate aftermath of 17 May 2013 against people unrelated to the IDAHO event solely on the grounds of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. The relevant victims decided not to file criminal complaints with the law-enforcement authorities for lack of trust in the system and for fear of publicity and reprisal. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 45.     The relevant domestic law and international material concerning the situation of the LGBT community in Georgia is comprehensively summarised in paragraphs 29-39 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Identoba and Others (cited above). THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 46.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 14 OF THE CONVENTION 47.     Twenty-seven of the individual applicants (nos. 2-16, 19, 21-23, 25, 29, 31-33 and 35-37 – see paragraphs 17, 23 and 25 above) complained under Article 3 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14, that the violent attacks perpetrated by the counter-demonstrators on 17   May 2013 were imputable to the respondent State which, moreover, had failed to investigate effectively the incident by establishing, in particular, the discriminatory motive of the attackers. The relevant provisions read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Admissibility 48.     The Government did not submit any objection to the admissibility of the relevant individual applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention. 49.     The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicants 50.     The relevant twenty-seven individual applicants (see paragraph 47 above) contended that the respondent State had violated their rights under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention because, firstly, the police had failed to protect them from the mob; secondly, there had been clear indications of the authorities’ connivance in the counter-demonstrators’ hostility towards the IDAHO eve nt; and, thirdly, no effective investigation into the incident had been conducted. With respect to the first aspect, they submitted that, in the light of the previous year’s IDAHO event (for further details, see Identoba and Others , no. 73235/12, §§ 10-19, 12 May 2015) as well as certain other factual circumstances, it had been easily foreseeable to the relevant domestic authorities that the participants in the 2013 IDAHO event would also be in need of heightened protection from violent attacks by private individuals. Nevertheless, the State had failed to give due regard to the extreme homophobia prevailing in the country, conduct sufficient preparatory work beforehand and use adequate means on the day of the event to prevent the aggressive mob from breaking the law. 51.     As regards the alleged connivance of the authorities with the counter-demonstrators , the relevant individual applicants referred to the video-recordings available in the case file that clearly captured images of the negotiations between the clergymen, who were co-organisers of the counter-demonstration, and the senior officials of the Ministry of the Interior, chronologically followed by scenes showing counter-demonstrators passing through the police cordon not only without opposition but with the help of the police. The applicants also referred to the Rustaveli Avenue incident, which was an illustration of the fact that the police officers who had been deployed for the purposes of protecting the participants in the IDAHO event from homophobic and transphobic hatred had, in reality, shared the same discriminatory attitudes. The police had connived in the violence motivated by homophobic bias . 52.     Lastly, as regards the alleged inadequacy of the investigation, the relevant twenty-seven individual applicants submitted that the investigation had been neither expeditious nor independent and that the relevant authorities had not taken all reasonable steps to secure evidence. They emphasised in that regard that even the domestic court had acknowledged in its decision the inadequacy of one of the criminal investigations conducted into the violence committed during the IDAHO event (see paragraph 42 above). The relevant applicants also pointed out that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity had never been treated by the investigative authorities as a bias motivation and an aggravating circumstance, contrary to the relevant requirement set forth in the Criminal Code of Georgia ( Identoba and Others , § 77, cited above). (b)    The Government 53.     The Government observed that the police had used their best endeavours to protect the participants in the IDAHO event, including the twenty-seven individual applicants (see paragraph 47 above) from counter ‑ demonstrators. In particular, the Government justified the presence of an ill-equipped and outnumbered police force by the fact that the turnout of counter-demonstrators had not initially been expected to be so high. They also submitted that the police had chosen to remain relatively passive in the face of the aggressiveness coming from the counter-demonstrators and not to use any special anti-riot measures, such as water cannons, rubber bullets or tear gas, for fear of causing even more violence, which could have led to a high number of casualties. Given the particular circumstances, the police had decided that the best course of action would be to disperse the participants in the IDAHO event. The Government claimed that the dispersal plan had been discussed with some of the organisers prior to 17   May 2013, and that the buses that had carried the escaping participants had been accompanied at all times by the police. They also submitted that it was owing to the effective measures taken by the police that none of the relevant individual applicants had received any physical injuries during the clashes. 54.     The Government further submitted that the relevant individual applicants had not shown any proof of connivance by the police in the hate ‑ motivated violence or homophobic/transphobic discrimination. They objected to the applicants’ insinuation that the negotiations between the senior officials of the Ministry of the Interior and the clergymen could be interpreted as a sign of the authorities’ connivance in the counter-demonstrators’ subsequent violent actions . On the contrary, during the meetings in question the representatives of the Ministry had attempted to de ‑ escalate the situation. The Government further dismissed the various video-recordings available in the case file on the grounds that the majority of them had been taken after the participants in the IDAHO event had already fled on the buses from Pushkin Square, and that the recordings merely showed the police officers allowing the organisers of the counter ‑ demonstration to leave the scene of their demonstration after the clashes had already occurred. In general, the Government asked the Court not to consider the video-recordings the main evidence for establishing the facts, given that there was a risk of misinterpretation. As to the complaints of degrading treatment by the police made by applicant no. 23, the Government submitted that they were clearly unsubstantiated given that the applicant had failed to raise them with any of the competent domestic authorities. 55.     The Government argued that the investigation into the violence committed during the IDAHO event by the counter-demonstrators had been effective as it had resulted in the identification of four accused. In the course of the investigation, the authorities had conducted a number of investigative measures, such as questioning dozens of witnesses and conducting various crime-detection examinations. Furthermore, four other individuals had been sanctioned with administrative fines (see paragraph 39 above). All in all, the Government submitted that there was no reason to find a violation of Article   3 of the Convention, either alone or in conjunction with Article 14, given that the relevant domestic authorities had spared no efforts to comply with their positive obligations by protecting the relevant individual applicants from the hate-motivated violence and elucidating all the circumstances of the incident in the course of a meaningful investigation. The Court’s assessment (a)    Scope of scrutiny 56.     At the outset, the Court notes that the crux of the relevant applicants’ complaints is to hold the respondent State liable under both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3, as well as under Article 14 of the Convention, for the hate-motivated ill-treatment inflicted at the hands of private individuals. With respect to the substantive aspect of Article 3, having regard to the particular circumstances of the present cases, notably the Pushkin Square and the Vachnadze Street incidents (see paragraphs 15-27 above), the Court considers that it is mainly the State’s substantive positive obligations that ought to be examined (see, as a recent authority, I.E. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 45422/13, § 40, 26   May 2020, with further references therein). However, in so far as the Rustaveli Avenue incident is at stake, which concerned applicant no. 23 (see paragraphs 28-30), the Court notes the State’s substantive negative obligations must be addressed as well. 57.     As regards the interplay of the two provisions cited by the relevant applicants, having regard to the facts of the present cases, the Court considers that the most appropriate way to proceed would be to subject the applicants’ complaints to a simultaneous dual examination under Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia , no. 7224/11, §§ 35-36, 8   October 2020, with further references cited therein). 58.     Lastly, having regard, amongst other things, to the parties’ legal arguments, the Court finds that in its examination of the merits of the complaints under Article 3 (both the substantive and procedural obligations) and Article 14, the following questions of law have to be addressed in the order stated. First, the severity threshold of the alleged ill ‑ treatment has to be assessed. In the event that this threshold has been met, the Court will then, as a second step, examine the State’s compliance with its procedural obligations and, lastly, will inquire into the discharge by the State of its substantive obligations. (b)    Findings (i)       The severity threshold (α)      General principles 59.     In general, ill-treatment that attains a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 usually involves actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. However, even in the absence of these aspects, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, either in the eyes of others or in those of the victim, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition set forth in Article 3 (see, in the context of violence by private individuals, Identoba and Others , cited above, § 65, and, more generally, Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 86 and 87, ECHR 2015). Furthermore, discriminatory treatment as such can in principle amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3, where it attains a level of severity such as to constitute an affront to human dignity. Discriminatory remarks and in