CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 décembre 2023

.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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3707110D { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .sD8926F5B { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; color:#000000 } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sDF837F39 { 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; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9119587A { width:8.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8A67F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB0C17269 { width:6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s3638DB13 { width:93.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1BACADE0 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s14100AA8 { width:25.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA77E44E4 { width:29.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5694A294 { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC4852 { width:17.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s83A3169B { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD4428A52 { width:25.94%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC94598C1 { width:29.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC95DC137 { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF1A9128 { width:17.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 3963/18)     JUDGMENT   Art 1 • Jurisdiction of States • Killing of applicants’ relative by a border guard of the de facto Abkhaz authorities on Georgian-controlled territory • Applicant’s relative at the time of his death fell within the jurisdiction of Russia according to a combination between “spatial” and “personal” concepts of jurisdiction Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Life • Unlawful use of lethal force, which was excessive and not strictly necessary under the circumstances, attributable to the Respondent State • No effective investigation Art 38 • Non-compliance with State obligation to furnish all necessary facilities   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 December 2023   FINAL   19/03/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Matkava and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   3963/18) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Georgian nationals, as indicated in the attached table (“the applicants”), on 11 January 2018; the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see Kutayev v. Russia , no. 17912/15 , §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); the third-party comments received from the Georgian Government, who exercised their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule   61 § 2). Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ complaints that their close relative, who was respectively their son, husband and father, had been killed by a border guard of the de facto Abkhaz authorities and that there had been no effective investigation into the killing. The applicants complain of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants, who are the mother, wife and two minor children of Giga Otkhozoria (deceased), were born between 1956 and 2008 and live in Zugdidi. The applicants were represented initially by Mr G. Tabatadze, Ms   N.   Jomarjidze, Ms T. Dekanosidze and Ms T. Abazadze from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, as well as by Mr P. Leach, Ms   J.   Sawyer, Ms K. Levine, Ms J. Evans and Ms J. Gavron from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre in the United Kingdom, and later by Ms M. Chikadze and Ms T. Oniani from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Galperin, Representative of Russia to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, and not disputed by the respondent Government, may be summarised as follows.         Background 5.     Joint military units of the Russian Federation and the de facto Republic of Abkhazia (hereafter also referred to as “Abkhazia”, “the Republic of Abkhazia” or “Abkhaz territory”) were stationed at the relevant time as “border guards” near the bridge on the River Khaia, which separates the village of Khurcha, Zugdidi District, Georgia from the village of Nabakevi, Gali District, de facto Republic of Abkhazia. It had been reported that the populations on both the Abkhaz and the Georgian sides of the administrative boundary line (“ABL”) had limited freedom of movement. According to the State Security Service of Georgia (“the SSSG”), 190 cases of individuals being detained had been reported in the course of 2016 across the ABL with Abkhazia. While as a rule those apprehended were released after being detained for a short period of time and paying a “fine”, some detainees had been reportedly ill-treated. 6.     Following the armed conflict that occurred between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008, the Geneva International Discussions were launched in October 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland, in an effort to address the consequences of the conflict. In February 2009 the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (“the IPRM”) was created; its primary objective has been to discuss daily incidents on or near the ABL, address security concerns, and ensure the protection of human rights in the occupied territories. The IPRM comprises representatives of Georgia, Russia, the de   facto Republic of Abkhazia and the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia. Following a four-year break in its activities, the IPRM resumed its meetings in late May 2016. II. The killing of Giga Otkhozoria 7 .     On 19 May 2016 at around 2.15 p.m. Giga Otkhozoria travelled with his acquaintances, L.A. and R.K., by car from Zugdidi, Georgia to a point on the ABL located in the area of Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti, Georgia and the de   facto Republic of Abkhazia. The three of them had wished to take food for a funeral to the village of Nabakevi, which is located in Gali District, Abkhazia. 8 .     When Giga Otkhozoria, L.A. and R.K. arrived at the ABL, Giga got out of the car and walked towards Abkhaz territory across the bridge on the River Khaia in order to seek assistance from the “border guards” in moving the food across the bridge. The guards in question wore military uniforms (unmarked camouflage). Several of the guards – including their head, R.K. ‑ O.   – started a conversation with Giga Otkhozoria, which quickly grew into an argument. In order to avoid further escalation of the verbal conflict, Giga headed back to his vehicle, accompanied by his travel companions L.A. and R.K. Four guards (R.K.-O., A.K., B.K. and A.T.) ran after Mr Otkhozoria and caught up with him on Georgia-controlled territory – specifically, at the village of Khurcha, Zugdidi District. Then R.K.-O. shot Giga Otkhozoria with a firearm in his upper thigh, the front of his abdomen and his chest. As a result of these injuries, Mr Otkhozoria fell to the ground, following which R.K.-O. fired another shot directly into his head. The four guards then ran back into Abkhaz territory. 9.     Georgian police officers drove Giga Otkhozoria to the hospital in Zugdidi immediately after the shooting; however, Giga Otkhozoria died on the way to the hospital. According to the medical report drawn up in respect of his death, the cause of death was the gunshot wound to his head, which had damaged brain matter and inflicted multiple fractures of the face, cranial roof and skull base bones. III. Investigation into the killing      Investigation by the Georgian authorities 10 .     The Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia opened an investigation into the killing of Giga Otkhozoria on the same day that it happened. The Office charged R.K.-O. in absentia with murder, and with the illegal purchase, storage and carrying of firearms. R.K.-O. was declared a wanted person. 11 .     Within the context of the investigation, a forensic medical report was drawn up following a forensic medical examination. It recorded no traces of drugs or alcohol in the victim’s blood. It also confirmed the wounds, their size and shape, how they were inflicted, as well as the damage to the victim’s body. Other steps carried out, as reported on the official prosecution service website on 10 March 2017, included: the collection of physical evidence from the scene; the carrying out of a complex trace evidence examination, biological and chemical analyses, and a complex ballistic analysis; the collection of eyewitness evidence; the seizing and transcribing of a video tape, in respect of which a habitoscopy (portrait) examination was conducted. 12 .     On 27 May, 6 July 2016 and 24 January 2017, respectively, the Georgian authorities allowed the Abkhaz and Russian IPRM representatives access to various items contained in the case file compiled during the investigation into Giga Otkhozoria’s killing (including a video recording of the incident and forensic reports). The Georgian authorities also requested that R.K.-O. be arrested and handed over to them – to no avail. 13 .     On 3 October 2016 the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (hereafter “the GYLA”) approached the SSSG on behalf of the applicants, enquiring about the progress of the investigation. On 19 October 2016 the SSSG replied that the Georgian IPRM representatives had requested R.K. ‑ O.’s arrest and handover; the de facto Abkhaz authorities had replied that Abkhaz legislation did not allow the handover of a “citizen of Abkhazia” to another country. 14 .     On 26 December 2016 the Zugdidi District Court in Georgia found R.K.-O. guilty of the charges against him – the unlawful carrying of a firearm and ammunition,   the unlawful acquisition and storage of a firearm and ammunition, and premeditated murder – and sentenced him in absentia to twelve years’ imprisonment. The court delivered its judgment after a public hearing held in the absence of the defendant (R.K.-O.) and with the participation of a prosecutor and a court-appointed lawyer representing the defendant. That court relied on (i) thirty-six witness statements, of which fourteen were given by eyewitnesses ( including the two individuals, L.A. and R.K., who had accompanied Giga Otkhozoria in the car as far as the bridge) who had described in open court the circumstances in which the victim had been shot by R.K.-O.; (ii) experts’ witness statements given during the hearing regarding the injuries and the causal link between the injuries and death; and (iii) reports produced by five experts. The said reports concerned the bullets retrieved from the victim’s body, his clothes, the crime scene and the establishment of the cause of death. The eyewitnesses, who were local villagers, explained that they knew R.K-O., as he had been stationed along the ABL for some time and had crossed into Zugdidi on various occasions. Some stated that his name was easy to remember, as it was unusual. 15 .     In January 2017 the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia lodged an appeal with the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, seeking a longer sentence. The appellate court held a public hearing with the participation of the prosecution and the court-appointed lawyer for the defence, who requested that the prosecutor’s appeal be rejected. The appellate court allowed the appeal on 7 March 2017 and increased R.K.-O.’s sentence to fourteen years in prison. It upheld the remainder of the lower court’s judgment. The decision indicated that it was subject to appeal by R.K.-O for one month from the moment either of his arrest or of his voluntary surrender to the Georgian authorities. The decision has not been challenged before the Supreme Court of Georgia; nor has it been enforced, as the perpetrator has not been handed over to the Georgian authorities. 16.     At the request of the Georgian authorities, on 18 March 2017 Interpol issued a Red Notice against R.K.-O. The notice has remained not acted upon. 17 .     In June 2017, articles published in some Georgian and Russian media outlets reported that the investigation opened into Giga Otkhozoria’s murder in de facto Abkhazia had been terminated. Specifically, the Russian State ‑ owned news agency Sputnik reported on 1 June 2017 that the Abkhaz authorities had terminated their investigation into the killing, having returned the material provided to them by the Georgian authorities because it had been of no use; an article in the Georgian media of 2 June 2017 reported that the Georgian authorities had provided comprehensive material regarding Giga Otkhozoria’s murder, including photographic, video and other evidence to the authorities in Sokhumi, as well as to the international organisations participating in the IPRM meetings in Gali. 18 .     On 27 June 2017 the GYLA, as a representative of the applicants, asked the SSSG whether the Georgian authorities had requested the arrest and handover of the perpetrator of Giga Otkhozoria’s murder, and also enquired about the status of the investigation in de facto Abkhazia. On 11 July 2017 the SSSG replied that the de facto Abkhaz authorities had terminated the investigation into the murder of the applicants’ relative.    Investigation by the de facto Abkhaz authorities 19 .     On 20 May 2016 the de facto Abkhaz authorities opened an investigation into the killing of the applicants’ relative, and R.K.-O. was charged with his murder. On 22 June 2016 the de facto Military Court of Abkhazia authorised R.K.-O.’s placement under house arrest. He was also suspended from his post with the de facto State Security Service of Abkhazia. On an unspecified date the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia interrogated L.A. and R.K. (see paragraph 8 above), as well as the sister of the first applicant, as witnesses in respect of Giga Otkhozoria’s murder. 20 .     In May and July 2016, the Abkhaz IPRM representatives informed the other parties there that the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia was investigating the murder, that the suspect had been dismissed from his official position as a security officer in the de facto State Security Service of Abkhazia, that his service gun had been taken from him, and that he had been placed under house arrest. In August 2016 representatives of the de facto Abkhaz authorities to the IPRM provided an update on the progress of the investigation. 21 .     On 27 January 2017 the GYLA wrote to the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia and, specifying that it (that is, the GYLA) represented the mother and widow of Giga Otkhozoria, informed the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia’s Office that the Georgian authorities had conducted an investigation into the killing and that the first-instance court had found R.K.-O. guilty of murder, and had sentenced him to twelve years in prison. The GYLA then asked a number of questions related to the progress of the investigation in Abkhazia. No reply to that enquiry has been received. 22 .     On 21 April 2017 the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia terminated the investigation into the murder for lack of sufficient evidence. The Office specified in a statement to local media on 1 June 2017 that they had repeatedly asked the Georgian authorities to hand over all evidence collected by them – including video footage and medical expert reports. However, the only thing that the Georgian authorities had done was to send to them some documents in the Georgian language, without a stamp or a signature, and the Abkhaz authorities had returned those as not being useful for the investigation. R.K.-O. was released from house arrest on the same date that the investigation was terminated. 23 .     The Delegation of the European Union to Georgia issued a press release on 12 June 2017 deploring the decision of the de facto Abkhaz authorities to drop charges against the suspect in Giga Otkhozoria’s killing. Specifically, their statement read that “after one full year of intensive work and the handover of investigation materials at the IPRM meetings, this failure to bring justice was a great disappointment.” 24 .     The applicants have not been granted victim status; nor were they informed directly by the Abkhaz authorities of the termination of the investigation. 25 .     On 15 August 2017 the GYLA, representing late Giga Otkhozoria’s mother and wife, wrote to the de facto Military Prosecutor of Abkhazia, enquiring into the reasons for which the investigation into the murder of the applicants’ relative had been terminated in Abkhazia (see paragraph 18 above). The letter also asked whether the evidence provided by the Georgian authorities to the de facto Abkhaz authorities – which was gathered during the investigation conducted in Georgia into the killing – had been taken into account. Their enquiry has thus far gone unanswered.    Investigation by the Russian authorities 26 .     No Russian State authority has opened an investigation into Giga Otkhozoria’s killing. 27 .     In January and in March 2017 the GYLA wrote on behalf of the applicants to the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, asking about progress in the investigation being conducted in de facto Abkhazia. The GYLA also urged the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation to cooperate with the de facto Abkhaz authorities within the context of the investigation and, if the de facto Abkhaz authorities had not conducted an effective investigation, to do so itself without delay. 28.     The Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation replied on 21 March 2017 that Abkhazia was a sovereign State. It also stated that the jurisdiction of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation did not extend to that territory and indicated that the applicants should address all questions related to the investigation to the relevant Abkhaz authorities. 29 .     On 28 June 2017 the GYLA wrote to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation requesting confirmation of the status of the investigation in de facto Abkhazia. On 11 July 2017 that Committee replied that it had forwarded the enquiry to the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. On 25 July 2017 the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, in a letter replying to the enquiry of 28 June 2017, reiterated its comments made in its reply of 21 March 2017. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 30.     The applicants submitted the following information, which has not been disputed by the Russian Government, in respect of the relevant laws in Georgia, de facto Abkhazia and Russia. I. Georgian law 31.     According to Article 1 of the Constitution of Georgia: “Georgia is an independent, unified and indivisible State, as confirmed by the referendum of 31 March 1991 held throughout the territory of the country, including the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia and the Former Autonomous Region of South Ossetia, and by the Act of Restoration of the State Independence of Georgia of 9 April 1991”. 32.     Article 7 of the Constitution stipulates that criminal law and powers of investigation lie within the exclusive authority of Georgian State authorities. Only the Parliament of Georgia has authority to adopt laws such as the Criminal Code of Georgia and the Criminal Procedural Code (“the CPC”) of Georgia. 33.     Under Article 4 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, a person who has committed a crime on the territory of Georgia shall be held criminally liable under this Code. Article 2 § 4 of the CPC establishes a similar principle – namely that, regardless of the place of the commission of the offence, criminal proceedings are to be conducted on the territory of Georgia, in accordance with Georgian legislation. 34.     The Law on occupied territories, adopted by Georgia in late 2008, defined the status of Abkhazia and established a special legal regime that would be applicable there. Its section 7(1) provides that: “The occupied territories are an integral part of Georgia, to which the legislation of Georgia shall apply. Responsibility for a violation of the universally recognised human rights defined by the Constitution of Georgia in the occupied territories shall be laid on the Russian Federation, under the principles of international law.” 35.     Article 189 § 1 of the CPC deals with hearings in the absence of the accused. Specifically: “1. Proceedings may be held without the participation of an accused if the latter avoids appearing before the trial court. In such a case, it shall be mandatory that a defence lawyer of the accused participate in the proceedings.” 36.     Article 45 of the CPC provides for mandatory defence, inter alia , in cases where the accused fails to appear before law enforcement bodies. Under Article 46 of the CPC, the State covers the costs of defence, if the CPC provides for mandatory defence and no defence lawyer hired by the accused takes part in the criminal case. 37.     Under Article 292 of the CPC, a convicted person who has been sentenced in absentia may appeal the judgment within one month: of being detained; of appearing before the relevant authorities; or from the announcement of the judgment by the court of first instance, if a convicted person requests the review of the appeal without his/her participation. II. Law of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia 38.     Article 1 of the de facto Constitution of de facto Abkhazia declares the Republic of Abkhazia to be a sovereign democratic State. Under its Articles 36 and 47 § 5, legislative authority shall be exercised by the Parliament of the Republic of Abkhazia, which has the exclusive authority to enact a criminal code and a criminal procedural code. Article 75 of the de   facto Constitution stipulates that the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Abkhazia and the local prosecutors subordinate to him must supervise the legality of criminal investigations. 39.     The Criminal Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia provides, inter alia , for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, as well as the protection of property, public order and public safety, the environment, the constitutional system, and the ensuring of peace and the prevention of crime. 40.     Under Article 4 of the Criminal Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia: “... persons who have committed crimes are equal before the law and subject to criminal liability, irrespective of their sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religious and other beliefs, membership of public associations or other circumstances”. 41.     Article 99 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia stipulates that murder is the intentional causing of death to another person and that it is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of six to twelve years. Murder committed by reason of national, racial or religious hatred or because of a blood feud is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of eight to fifteen years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. 42.     Under the Criminal Procedure Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia, proceedings in respect of a criminal case conducted on the territory of Abkhazia, regardless of the place of the commission of the crime, are to be conducted in conformity with this Code, unless otherwise stipulated by an international treaty to which the Republic of Abkhazia is party. Prosecution on behalf of the State in criminal cases is carried out by a prosecutor, an investigator and an inquirer. Where there is a suspicion of a crime having been committed, the prosecutor or the other law-enforcement officials shall take measures aimed at establishing the facts and identifying the person(s) responsible. 43.     Under Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia, criminal proceedings shall be terminated in the event of: the absence of a crime; the expiration of the statutory limitation period for prosecution; the death of the suspect or accused; the absence of a related complaint by the victim in cases of private prosecution; or the absence of a court statement as to whether the elements of a crime had been present. The termination of a criminal case prompts the immediate ending of the criminal prosecution. 44.     Under Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia victims have the right to be recognised as such by a decision of the inquirer, investigator or prosecutor. Victims also have the right to: be informed of the charges brought against the suspect; provide evidence; refuse to testify against themselves, their spouse or other close relatives; have a representative; take part in the investigative measures (with the permission of the investigator or inquirer); make themselves acquainted with the records of the investigative measures and with experts’ conclusions; make themselves acquainted with and make copies of all or any of the material used to support the criminal case after the investigation into that case has been completed; receive copies of the decision to open criminal proceedings, to recognise their victim status, or to close the criminal case in question; receive copies of decisions given or sentences imposed by the courts; participate in the judicial proceedings; give evidence for the prosecution; make themselves acquainted with the record of the hearings and submit comments regarding that record; complain of actions undertaken by the investigators, inquirers or prosecutors. 45.     Article 421 § 1(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the de facto Republic of Abkhazia provides that individuals shall not be extradited if the person whose extradition is sought by a foreign State is a citizen of the Republic of Abkhazia. III. Law of the Russian Federation 46.     Article 105 of the Criminal Code of Russia establishes criminal responsibility for murder. Article 105 § 1 stipulates that the crime of murder consists of the intentional causing of the death of another person, which is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of six to fifteen years. Article   21 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that responsibility for criminal prosecution on behalf of the State lies with the prosecutor, the investigator and the inquirer, who have to undertake the measures stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code in order to establish the fact that a crime has taken place and to identify the person, or persons, guilty of committing that crime. IV. international law 47.     The European Convention on Extradition of 13   December 1957 (“the Extradition Convention”) was ratified by Russia on 10   December 1999 and entered into force on 9   March 2000. This Convention obliges the Contracting Parties to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in the Convention, “all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.” A Contracting Party has the right to refuse extradition of its nationals, but section   6(2) provides that where that is the case the requesting Party may ask it to submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. THE LAW         compliance with Article 38   of the convention 48.     The Court has on many occasions held that it is of the utmost importance that the Contracting States furnish all necessary facilities to the Court (see, among many others,   Timurtaş   v. Turkey , no.   23531/94 , § 66, ECHR 2000-VI). It is inherent in proceedings relating to cases of this nature, where an individual applicant accuses State agents of violating rights under the Convention – his own or someone else’s – that in certain instances only the respondent Government have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. A failure on a Government’s part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well ‑ foundedness of the applicant’s allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (ibid.,   §§ 66 and 70). 49.     The obligation to furnish the evidence requested by the Court is binding on the respondent Government from the moment that a   request   has been   formulated (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia , no.   25091/07 , §   296, 26 April 2011). The Court   has previously   found that a respondent Government fails to comply with the requirements of Article 38 in cases where they   do   not provide any explanation for their refusal to submit documents   that have been requested   (see, for instance, Maslova and Nalbandov v.   Russia , no.   839/02 , §§ 129-131, 24 January 2008;   Bekirski v.   Bulgari a , no. 71420/01, §§ 115-116, 2 September 2010, and   Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia , no.   75472/01 , §§   64-65,   16   September   2010). 50.     Furthermore, it is not   required that the Government’s alleged interference   should have actually restricted, or have had any appreciable impact on, the exercise of the right to individual petition (see, mutatis muitandis,   McShane v. the United Kingdom , no.   43290/98 , § 151, 28 May 2002). The procedural obligations of the Contracting Party in question under Article 38 of the Convention must be enforced irrespective of   the   eventual outcome   of the proceedings in question, and in such a manner as to avoid any   actual or potential   chilling effect on the applicants or their representatives. 51.     In the present case the applicants alleged that their relative had been killed by a de facto Abkhaz agent and that no proper investigation had   taken place.   In view of those allegations, at the time the Russian Government were given notice of the application, the Court asked the Government to produce a copy of the entire case file compiled during the investigation into the criminal investigation opened by the de facto Abkhaz authorities in respect of the killing of Giga   Otkhozoria. 52.     The Government did not, in response, provide a copy of the investigation file. Nor did they give any reasons for their failure to do so. 53 .     Reiterating the importance of a respondent Government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings, the Court finds that the respondent State failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38   of the Convention to furnish all necessary facilities to assist the Court in its task of establishing the facts, and the Court will draw appropriate inferences from the Government’s failure to produce the documents (see Carter v. Russia , § 94; and Kogan and Others v.   Russia , § 54).       PRELIMINARY ISSUES 54.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see   Fedotova and Others v Russia   [GC], nos.   40792/10   and 2 others, §   73, 17 January 2023, and   Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia   (dec.) [GC], nos.   8019/16 ,   43800/14   and   28525/20 , § 389, 25 January 2023). 55.     The Court also refers to its decision in the case of Georgia v.   Russia   (IV) ((dec.), no. 39611/18, 20 April 2023), which primarily concerned allegations of administrative practices incompatible with the Convention. In that case the applicant Government asked the Court to consider the case of the murder of Giga Otkhozoria (together with two other individual cases) – not only as an illustration of the administrative practices alleged, but also as individual violations of the Convention. In its decision in that inter-State case the Court held that it would only examine the allegations of administrative practices made by Georgia and would consider the three individual cases identified by the Georgian Government as constituting alleged illustrations of such practices (see   Georgia v. Russia (IV) , cited above, § 21). The Court accordingly will examine below the complaints made in the present individual application, which do not form part of the examination by the Court in the said inter-State case. Principles relating to the admissibility of evidence and the Court’s assessment of the facts 56.     The Court reiterates that, as master of its own procedure and its own rules, it has complete freedom in assessing not only the admissibility and relevance but also the probative value of each item of evidence before it (see, inter alia , Carter v. Russia , no. 20914/07, § 97, 21 September 2021). The Court is not bound, under the Convention or under the general principles applicable to international tribunals, by strict rules of evidence, and there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence in the proceedings before it (ibid., with further references). 57.     The Court also reiterates that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. It adopts the conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence – including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. Proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for a summary of the Court’s approach to the issue of evidence and proof,   Hassan v. the United Kingdom   [GC], no.   29750/09 , §   48, ECHR 2014). 58 .     The Court’s reliance on evidence obtained as a result of a domestic investigation and on facts established within domestic proceedings will depend on the quality of the domestic investigative process, and the thoroughness and consistency of the proceedings in question (see Finogenov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   18299/03   and   27311/03 , §   238, ECHR 2011; Tagayeva and Others v.   Russia , nos.   26562/07   and 6 others, §   586, 13   April 2017, and Carter , cited above, § 98). 59 .     In the instant case, the Court observes that the establishment of the impugned facts was based on investigative and judicial proceedings conducted in Georgia (see paragraphs 10-11 and 14-15 above). It notes in particular that the judicial proceedings were adversarial in nature (see Article   9 § 1 of the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure, and contrast with Carter , cited above, § 79) and that the accused was represented by a court ‑ appointed lawyer (in accordance with Article   189 § 1 of the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure). The proceedings were conducted by professional judges, who are not appointed by the executive authorities (contrast, in the context of inquiries in the United Kingdom, Carter , cited above, § 80) and are fully independent from them (compare Carter , cited above, § 101). The procedure followed during the criminal proceedings in Georgia was in strict compliance with the rules provided for in detail in the Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure (contrast Carter , cited above, § 81). The judicial proceedings comprised public hearings (compare Carter , cited above, § 101) during which numerous witnesses gave statements (compare Carter , cited above, § 105). The judges examined all available evidence obtained from a variety of sources, and the judgments finding the defendant guilty specifically referred to that evidence. The judges were precluded from considering the evidence obtained by the de facto Abkhaz authorities, since the latter had not shared any material with them but had instead terminated the investigation (see paragraph 22 above). Importantly, the Russian Government did not contend that the proceedings in Georgia or their conclusions were “one-sided” in the absence of the accused (contrast Carter , cited above, § 107); they asserted instead that the applicants’ “request to ... extradite the Abkhazian board guard to Georgia are unsubstantiated”. Also, the Georgian authorities duly requested the arrest and handover of the suspect (see paragraph 13 above), who in any event was represented during the judicial proceedings by a court-appointed lawyer (see paragraphs 14-15 above) and, according to the appellate judgment, retains the right to appeal against it should he be apprehended (see paragraph 15 above). While the Court had no access to the actual elements of evidence collected by the Georgian authorities, apart from a copy of a video recording purporting to have captured the killing of the victim, it is satisfied on the basis of the above that the national decision-making process incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of all persons concerned (compare, mutatis mutandis , Carter , cited above, § 108). As there is no reason to doubt the quality of the investigative process followed by the Georgian authorities, or the independence, fairness and transparency of the judicial proceedings in Georgia, the Court considers that it cannot disregard the findings in those proceedings in respect of the killing of Giga Otkhozoria, despite the lack of participation in the proceedings of the convicted agent of the de facto Abkhaz authorities (see paragraphs 14-15 above; also compare, mutatis mutandis , Carter , cited above, § 110). Accordingly, the Court finds that the judgments delivered in the proceedings in Georgia should be admitted as evidence (ibid.).     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 60.     The applicants complained that their relative had been killed as a result of unlawful use of force by an agent of the de facto Abkhaz authorities and that no effective investigation had been conducted into the killing by either the de facto Abkhaz or Russian authorities. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”    Admissibility      The Russian Government’s submissions 61 .     The Government stated that they maintained before the Court the position that they had set out within the context of the inter-State case Georgia v. Russia (II), no. 38263/08 – namely, that Abkhazia was an independent State and that Russia’s relations with it were based first and foremost on the principles of non-interference and cooperation. They specified that in that inter-State case they had comprehensively explained their position in respect of jurisdiction and the effective control allegedly exerted by Russia over Abkhazia, and they reiterated to the Court the main points that they had made. 62.     Specifically, the Russian forces were stationed in Abkhazia with a view to deterring and if necessary repelling any Georgian aggression; they were absolutely not there to exercise police powers over the population or in general – they did not have the time, training or language skills for that. The support that Russia had been providing to Abkhazia had been in its capacity as an intermediary and facilitator in efforts to resolve the ethnic conflict in Georgia, which had flared up even before the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. Abkhazia’s economy had been growing as a result of the State’s own efforts. Russia had not been interfering with Abkhaz policies in the fields of education, border contro