CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 mai 2024

.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 } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; 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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s327CD7AC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74825D0C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sC84D7D15 { margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6C418745 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .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 } .s599F5480 { 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; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { 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-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; 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 } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s716C64EA { 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; list-style-position:inside } .s68B6BA14 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 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 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TSAAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Applications nos. 13186/20 and 4 others)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective criminal investigation, still ongoing for more than four and half years, into injuries sustained by demonstrators and journalists from rubber bullets fired by the police and from alleged ill ‑ treatment during the dispersal of a demonstration in front of the Parliament building Art 3 (substantive) • Art 10 • Art 11 • Court refrained from taking a decision in view of scope of ongoing investigation and need for further elucidation of factual elements at domestic level • Importance of principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Individual measures indicated by the Court   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 7 May 2024   Referral to the Grand Chamber   23/09/2024     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tsaava and Others v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Carlo Ranzoni,   María Elósegui,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: five applications against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty-six Georgian nationals (“the applicants”, whose personal information and other details are set out in the appended table); the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the respective complaints under Articles   3, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 February and19 March 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the allegedly excessive use of force by the police during the dispersal of a demonstration on 20-21   June 2019, and the allegation that no effective criminal investigation was carried out in this regard. All applicants relied, explicitly or in substance, on Article   3 and Article   13 of the Convention. Applicants in applications nos.   20175/21 and 39382/21 additionally complained of a violation of Article   11 of the Convention, while applicants in applications nos.   13186/20, 16757/20, 20129/21 and 39382/21 raised complaints under Article   10 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The details of the applicants and their representatives are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. DEMONSTRATION OF 20-21 JUNE 2019 Background 5 .     On 20 June 2019 a session of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (IAO – an interparliamentary institution based in Athens, set up to foster relations between Christian Orthodox lawmakers) was held in the Parliament building. S.G. – a member of the Russian State Duma and, at the time of events, President of the General Assembly of the IAO – sat in the chair reserved for the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament and delivered a speech in the Russian language. This turn of events sparked widespread civic and political protest and was criticised as unacceptable (see Melia v. Georgia , no.   13668/21, §§   6-8, 7 September 2023). Initial phase of the demonstration 6 .     A number of civic activists started to gather at the entrance of the Parliament building immediately following the above developments. Some were allowed to enter the building with visitors’ passes issued by opposition members of parliament. A demonstration to protest about the events of the day (see paragraph 5 above) was apparently announced in the afternoon. Individuals started gathering in front of the Parliament building soon afterwards. By 7   p.m. the demonstration had started and its participants – politicians, civic activists and ordinary citizens – occupied the entire space in front of the Parliament building and the avenue alongside it. According to media accounts, the demonstration was initially peaceful, with approximately 12,000 people gathered at the site. 7.     Police formed a cordon above the stairs leading to the Parliament building, blocking access to the main entrance of the building. A number of ordinary policemen, riot police officers and other officers of the Special Assignments Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) were additionally stationed inside the yard of the Parliament building, behind the gate of the main entrance. 8 .     At about 8.53 p.m. a politician addressed the protesters and presented the main demand directed at the ruling party: the resignations of the Speaker of the Parliament, the Minister of the Interior and the Head of the State Security Service. Another demand voiced during the demonstration was for snap parliamentary elections and a transition to a system of proportional representation. The ruling party was given until the end of the day to comply with those demands. At 9 p.m. another politician addressed the protesters and stated that “civil disobedience” would be inevitable in the event of the authorities’ failure to heed the protesters’ demands. In a video-recording of a discussion among the opposition politicians, the phrase “A revolution is about to begin” is heard. It is unclear who uttered it. 9 .     At 9.09 p.m. one of the leaders of the opposition stated that if the demands of the demonstrators were not met within an hour, they would enter the Parliament building peacefully and stay there until the relevant officials resigned.   Apparently, at 9.17 p.m. the same politician addressed the protesters again. He asked why it was that S.G. had had the right to sit in the seat of the Parliament’s Speaker yet Georgian people could not even stand in the yard of that building. He stated that in the event the authorities failed to respond within ten minutes, “[they would] enter the yard of the Parliament building peacefully and very constructively, with raised hands”. The speech was followed by cheers from the protesters located in the immediate vicinity. First episode involving tensions 10 .     The events were filmed by different journalists, including those who provided uninterrupted live coverage of the demonstration and its subsequent dispersal. The facts relating to tensions at the demonstration are disputed by the parties. The summary below is primarily based on the media coverage of the events. 11 .     By 9.49 p.m. several hundred individuals who had gathered immediately below the stairs leading to the main entrance of the Parliament building started pushing their way towards the gate. They attempted to break the police cordon located just above the stairs. The footage of the events shows that several participants cried out that there was a risk of people in the crowd being crushed, and police officers shielded some journalists standing there, warning them against the risk of crushing. 12.     Several protesters threw plastic bottles at the officers. Others started dismantling metal constructions which had been placed at the building’s entrances to keep the protesters out. Multiple demonstrators managed to seize the police officers’ protective shields and rubber batons and passed them back along the line of protestors.   Several police officers were split off from the cordon by the demonstrators and led away, apparently in a calm manner. The video material relating to the incident shows the police telling the demonstrators to retreat and not push forward. 13.     The police cordon was briefly broken, but it was reinforced by the riot police officers stationed inside the Parliament courtyard. They used batons and shields to contain the demonstrators. 14.     Around 10 p.m. the Minister of Internal Affairs gave a brief interview to journalists as he was entering the Parliament building. According to him, the events unfolding there constituted an attempted storming of State institutions and the demonstrators had to obey the demands of the police or face consequences. At 10.07 p.m. the MIA circulated the following official statement via media outlets and its website: “The [MIA] calls on the demonstrators gathered in front of the Parliament building to stop [their] unlawful and violent actions, not yield to provocation, [and] comply with the lawful request[s] of the police and leave the premises. Otherwise, the police will take necessary measures provided for by the law.” 15.     Eventually, at approximately 10.30 p.m. the tension was somewhat defused and the riot police managed to push the demonstrators back to the bottom of the stairs. 16.     During this incident involving tensions, the majority of the journalists gathered near the building were located behind the police cordon, and they appear to have left the area with the help of the police officers. 17.     As is apparent from the material available in the case file, including reports by non-governmental organisations relating to the event in question, a large number of the demonstrators gathered in the area in front of the Parliament building, away from the stairs, may have been unaware of the developments at the Parliament’s main entrance. Interim period 18.     At 10.30 p.m. the mayor of Tbilisi issued a televised warning against escalating the circumstances on the ground. Around the same time, the Minister of Internal Affairs gave a brief interview to journalists located inside the Parliament building. He stated that even where there were justified grounds for protest, an assault on State institutions, including policemen and Parliament, was an unacceptable act and would entail strict consequences under the law. He called on citizens to respect the orders of the police officers who had been trying to uphold public order. Other leaders of the ruling party, including the Prime Minister, also condemned the demonstrators’ actions (via the media) and called on them to respect the law and avoid lawful sanctions. 19.     Between approximately 10.30 and 11.22 p.m. the situation on the ground was somewhat tense but calmer, with some politicians making statements to condemn the earlier events of the day (see paragraph   5 above), criticising the ruling party. On several occasions during this period some individual participants in the demonstration attempted to push through the police cordon, asking to be let inside the Parliament building and/or courtyard. They were pushed back by officers who used shields and batons. Second episode involving tensions and the dispersal of the demonstration 20 .     The situation at the demonstration escalated again from 11.22 p.m. onwards. 21.     At 11.22 p.m. multiple individuals in the front rows of the demonstration restarted joint attempts at forcibly breaking through the police cordon. 22 .     Various accounts estimated that between 300 and 1000 individuals had attempted to forcibly break through the police cordon and had behaved in an aggressive manner. 23 .     The scuffle between the demonstrators gathered in the front rows and the officers forming the cordon on the stairs of the Parliament building continued until 11.55 p.m. and included incidents where police gear was taken away, various items (water bottles, but apparently stones as well) were thrown at the officers, and individual officers were split off from the cordon and led away. Some of these officers appear to have been physically assaulted. According to some journalists’ reports, politicians gathered on the ground told the demonstrators not to use force against the police. Some protesters managed to overcome the police cordon and the metal constructions located in front of the Parliament building. People gathered in the middle and back rows of the demonstration appear to have been standing in a relatively calm manner. 24 .     At 11.55 p.m. the sounds of shooting were heard during the live broadcast of the events. Smoke started to rise on Rustaveli Avenue, with the journalists reporting that it had been tear gas or pepper spray. A large number of the demonstrators and journalists moved away towards the nearby Freedom Square, but individuals located in front of the police cordon stayed there. The shooting was not preceded by a warning. 25.     At 12 midnight some demonstrators started returning to the area in front of the Parliament building. Tensions and scuffles around the police cordon continued. Water bottles and other items were thrown at the officers. Minutes later, additional tear gas projectiles were fired. Individuals in the middle and back rows started leaving the area. Paramedics helped those who felt unwell. While demonstrators located in front of the police cordon stayed there and continued with their attempts to break through it, the area in front of the Parliament building was largely cleared, with a few demonstrators attempting to return. 26.     At 12.11 a.m. a journalist reporting on the events commented that rubber bullets were being shot. A moment later another journalist showed small rubber bullets he had apparently picked up from the ground. Around the same time several officers holding guns (apparently loaded with rubber bullets and/or tear gas projectiles) were seen being stationed on the top landing of the stairs leading to Parliament, behind the police cordon, overlooking the cordon and the demonstrators. 27 .     By 12.21 a.m. many demonstrators who had left for Freedom Square had returned to the area in front of the Parliament. Individuals in the front rows kept demanding to be let into the Parliament building. People gathered in the back rows appeared to stand calmly. By then, various demonstrators and police officers appear to have been injured. Soon thereafter more tear gas was fired and many demonstrators left again for Freedom Square. During this period tear gas and rubber bullets were shot simultaneously or in close sequence. The live broadcast of the events showed injured individuals being helped by paramedics.   The demonstrators kept returning to the protest site in front of the Parliament building. The sounds of shooting were heard, and there were signs of tear gas being fired every time this happened. All this time a small group of individuals remained in front of the police cordon and kept attempting to break through it, using the shields and batons previously seized from the police. 28 .     By 12.43 a.m. the area in front of the police cordon had been cleared of all demonstrators, and the officers moved several steps down the stairs. 29 .     At 12.45 a.m. the officers located above the stairs, behind the police cordon, fired certain projectiles towards the demonstrators who had been located further away from the area in question. 30 .     The demonstrators’ attempts to return to the protest area continued. At 1.02 a.m. the majority returned, with some minutes of calm until another attempt to break through the police cordon was made and the police used tear gas. At 1.27 a.m., while the police attempted to disperse the demonstrators again, at least one officer was shown by journalists as he was loading his rifle and aiming at the crowd. His face was clearly identifiable. Some demonstrators were seen with blood stains. Around that same time the efforts to break through the police cordon became particularly intense in the front rows of the demonstration, and the sounds of shooting also intensified. 31 .     By 1.42 a.m. loud sirens could be heard and riot police, with a water cannon behind them, started moving from the Freedom Square area towards Rustaveli Avenue. They started clearing the area with the use of tear gas and the water cannon. At 1.47 a.m., while the water cannon and tear gas were being used, the reporters commented that rubber bullets were also being fired. 32.     Once the protesters had receded, water cannons were used to lead them away from the Parliament building. Several protesters continued throwing different items at the riot police. Others attempted to return to the Rustaveli Avenue area with protective gear seized from the police officers. 33 .     A warning to disperse was sounded at 2.59 a.m., while tear gas and the water cannon were being used. The message transmitted via sound amplifying equipment was “please disperse, otherwise measures provided for by the law will be used in order to restore public order and peace. Please take children, women and the elderly away from the areas of unrest.” The message was repeated several times, as the riot police proceeded to clear Rustaveli Avenue and the remaining demonstrators kept retreating while throwing various items at the police. Journalists kept filming and reporting on the events as they unfolded, mostly from the pavements of Rustaveli Avenue. 34.     While retreating, some individuals engaged in acts of vandalism. The dispersal and the clashes continued until approximately 6.45 a.m. on 21   June 2019. In total, 342 individuals were arrested. 35.     Over 200 individuals were injured during the events of 20-21   June 2019, including approximately eighty police officers and forty journalists.   In early March 2020 approximately fifteen individuals admitted to having committed violent acts against the police. They were convicted by means of plea-bargain agreements. Other individuals also appear to have been convicted in respect of the violent behaviour against the police. APPLICANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES 36.     The applicants in applications nos.   13186/20, 16757/20 and 20129/21 were reporting on the demonstration in their capacity as journalists, camera operators and/or photographers. 37 .     At the material time, the eleventh applicant in application no.   20129/21 was wearing a badge showing that he was a journalist accredited by Parliament. 38.     The applicants in applications nos.   20175/21 (except for the eighth applicant) and 39382/21 were participants in the demonstration. Medical and non-medical expenses (such as transportation and accommodation costs) related to the treatment (including outside Georgia) of injuries sustained during the demonstration were covered by the State. Application no. 13186/20 Video material depicting the applicants’ circumstances 39.     On 10 and 11 March 2021 the investigation unit of the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) assessed video material which it had obtained on different dates in July 2019. The resulting report described the applicants’ behaviour and the moment when they had received their injuries in the following terms: “It has been established, on the basis of the analysis of the video file, that Merab Tsaava [the first applicant] was standing in front of the administrative building of the Georgian Parliament, on the pavement ... [He was] standing calmly and [was] not dangerous to the individuals located there. [He had] his hands directed towards the Parliament [building] and [was] presumably making a photo/video recording, at which moment ... his right hand [was] presumably hit with the so-called ‘rubber bullet’, following which he [went up] to the individuals located next to the fountain and within seconds it appeared that he [was] looking for something, [and then] he disappear[ed] from view. ... It has been established, on the basis of the analysis of the video file, that Beslan Kmuzov [the second applicant] was moving from the pavement towards the stairs of the administrative building of the Georgian Parliament ... [He was] holding [what was] presumably a tablet in his right hand, [w]ith his left hand held out, presumably in the direction of the law-enforcement officers stationed at the entrance of the ... Parliament building, addressing them[.] Beslan Kmuzov [was] moving calmly and [was not] dangerous to the individuals located [in that area]. [He was] standing facing the ... Parliament building when ... he [was] presumably hit in the head with the so-called ‘rubber bullet’, following which he join[ed] the mass of people [and] disappear[ed] from view. ...” 40.     The reports did not specify the exact point in time during the events when the applicants were hit by rubber bullets. Medical documents regarding the injuries received by the applicants 41.     According to medical material obtained by the authorities in June and July 2019, the first applicant received an open wound to a finger and to his chest. The medical note also mentioned the “toxic effect of an unspecified substance”. On 10   March 2021 the National Forensic Bureau (NFB) classified the wound on the finger as a minor bodily injury entailing a short ‑ term deterioration in his health. The other injury was classified as a minor bodily injury entailing no deterioration in his health. 42.     According to the medical material obtained by the authorities in June and July 2019, the second applicant sustained an open wound to the upper right side of the head, necessitating stitches. On 11   March 2021 the NFB found that this had constituted a minor bodily injury entailing a short-term deterioration in his health. Application no. 16757/20 Video material depicting the applicant’s circumstances 43.     On 9   March 2021 the GPO assessed video material which it had obtained in June and July 2019. The applicant’s behaviour and the moment when he had received an injury were described as follows: “It has been established, on the basis of the analysis of the video file, that Zaza Svanadze [was standing] in front of the administrative building of the Georgian Parliament ..., he [was] moving calmly and [did] not pose any danger, as is apparent from the video, he raised his hands in the air (and on the basis of his gesticulation, [it appears that] he attempted to call on the law-enforcement officials and the demonstrators to remain calm), at which moment he was hit in the area of the left thigh, presumably with the so-called ‘rubber bullet’. He put his hand on his left leg and disappeared from view.” Medical documents regarding the injuries received by the applicant 44.     According to the medical material obtained by the authorities in June and July 2019, the applicant sustained four open wounds to the inner left thigh and two open wounds to the inner right thigh. On 23   July 2020 the NFB found that this had constituted a minor bodily injury entailing no deterioration in his health. Application no.   20129/21 Video and photo material depicting the applicants’ circumstances 45.     The first applicant: according to the GPO’s report of 15   December 2022 concerning the examination of the video material available in respect of the first applicant, she was injured while standing on the right-hand side of the stairs leading to the Parliament’s entrance. It was noted that at that time some demonstrators had been clashing with the police. According to the report in question, the applicant did not pose any threat to the law-enforcement officers or other individuals when she was injured. 46.     The second applicant: the video material available in the domestic criminal case file showed her filming the events. The related report by the GPO of 2 September 2021 described a moment when the applicant had moved her left leg in an unusual manner and grabbed it suddenly. During the official examination of that video-recording, the applicant explained that her movements had been caused by a rubber bullet which had ricocheted hitting her shin. 47.     The third applicant: while the applicant appeared in some videos from the demonstration, they do not appear to have depicted the moment she was injured. 48 .     The fourth and fifth applicants: the two applicants were reporting on the events of the demonstration together. The video material available in relation to them showed that the fourth applicant had filmed the moment when a rubber bullet had hit the fifth applicant and the latter had picked it up and shown it to the camera. The fifth applicant was then heard saying that the bullet had also hit the fourth applicant. The fourth applicant took photographs of herself with round bruises on her body. 49.     The sixth applicant: An examination report produced by a prosecutor on 25 June 2019 in respect of some media coverage of the events noted that according to the material in question, the applicant had been injured by rubber bullets. The applicant also presented the authorities with photos of his back showing open wounds. He also submitted video material filmed by him from the area where other journalists had also been located, showing the tensions at the stairs of the Parliament building and what appears to be the shooting of rubber bullets. The video ends with the applicant screaming, apparently owing to pain. The material assessed by the GPO in 2019 and later on 28   February 2023 showed that the applicant had been standing near the stairs leading to the entrance of the Parliament building, taking photos and making video-recordings of the events, while wearing a press badge. He did not pose any threat to the law-enforcement officers or other demonstrators when he was injured, “presumably with a rubber bullet”. He was located within several metres of the police cordon. 50.     The seventh applicant: the video material available in respect of the seventh applicant showed him filming the events, including the shooting of rubber bullets during the demonstration. At the end he was heard saying “something hit me.” 51.     The eighth applicant: a photo featuring the eighth applicant showed him with a round haematoma on the stomach. He also submitted video material showing one masked officer standing at the entrance of the Parliament building, while a scuffle was going on just below the entrance, aiming a rifle in the applicant’s direction (it does not appear from the case file material that the officer shot at the applicant). The applicant was standing in an area where people were either standing calmly or walking away from the Parliament building. 52.     The ninth applicant: in a video file uploaded by the ninth applicant online, he was heard saying “presumably they fired rubber bullets, because two have hit me personally”. After the sound of shooting, he was also heard to say: “We are journalists, what are you doing? ... Despite the fact that I am showing you the T-shirt I am wearing [with the word Press printed on it], ... I was hit in the chest, just several minutes ago, [and] it can be said that I was shot on purpose. This was not a random shooting, because I will now show you that nobody was standing there [the ninth applicant turned the camera around to show that no people were standing at the memorial known as the 9   April Memorial], and I was standing there with a journalist from Netgazeti when they shot in my direction.” 53.     A report by the GPO dated 17   March 2021 regarding the video material available in respect of the tenth applicant noted the following: “It has been established, on the basis of the analysis of the video file, that ... presumably Ekaterine Abashidze [the tenth applicant] was standing at the stairs in front of the administrative building of the Georgian Parliament, [and] presumably [she] did not pose a danger to the individuals gathered there. She was presumably ... making a video-recording and/or taking photographs when her left hand was hit, presumably by the so-called ‘rubber bullet.” Another recording was said to contain a statement by the tenth applicant, recorded after she had been injured: “I have also been hit by a bullet, I can show you ..., it is a stray bullet, but still.” 54 .     The eleventh applicant: a video taken by the applicant and submitted to the GPO in 2019 shows that he was livestreaming the events via his mobile phone from the inner yard of the Parliament building, where riot police had been positioned. The sounds of shooting, possibly from guns containing rubber bullets and/or tear gas, could be heard coming from outside the area. The applicant was heard coughing. The video contains images of policemen moving around in the yard and the applicant’s running commentary stating that journalists had been stationed outside the entrance when tear gas had been used by the police, and that he had been helped by a policeman and led into that yard. At that moment he was addressed by a male who cannot be seen on the video, who demanded to know his identity and asked what he was doing there. The applicant responded that he was a journalist, instructing the said individual to look at his badge, at which moment it appears that a scuffle broke out, with the applicant yelling “What are you doing? I was live ...”, with the phone being lowered and movements suggesting that he was being pushed out of the inner yard. “Why are you breaking the equipment?” the applicant was heard shouting, and the same male voice was heard saying “What am I breaking? I will break it over you (დაგალეწავ)”. He was then heard shouting “Kick him out” and “Take him out” and telling the applicant to leave. The applicant was heard repeating that he was a journalist and that it had been a police officer who had let him inside. The scuffle lasted slightly over a minute. Medical documents regarding the applicants 55 .     No medical documents were made available in respect of the ninth applicant. He refused to undergo a forensic examination by the NFB. 56.     As regards the remaining applicants, the content of the available medical documents relating to them can be summarised as follows. 57 .     The first applicant: a medical certificate dated 21   June confirms that she was taken to hospital by paramedics. It describes the injuries she sustained as “a wound to the [top] part of the left shoulder” and “an open fracture of the left shoulder bone”. A discharge certificate indicates that the injuries necessitated a surgical intervention, and the first applicant was discharged from hospital two days later. An NFB report dated 27   January 2023 noted that the injuries in question were to be classified as grave and life ‑ threatening. According to the NFB report, it could not be excluded that they might have been inflicted by some sort of projectile, but determining the type of weapon used to inflict the injury went beyond the NFB’s remit. On the basis of the documents presented for examination, the expert was unable to determine from what distance the shot in question had been fired. 58.     The second applicant: according to the medical material from June 2019, and subsequently an NFB report dated 4   August 2021, the applicant received a bruise on her left shin inflicted by some blunt object, and it could have been received on the date indicated by the GPO (20-21   June 2019). 59.     The third applicant: according to the medical material from June 2019, and subsequently an NFB report of 26 October 2021, the third applicant “suffered from the toxic effect of an unspecified substance”. It was also noted that she had had bruises on her right shin which must have been inflicted by some blunt object. The injuries were classified as minor, entailing no deterioration in her health. 60.     The fourth applicant: according to a medical certificate issued on 21   June 2019, the fourth applicant suffered from the toxic effect of an unidentified substance and sustained bruises on her lower back and thigh. The NFB report obtained at some point in 2022 confirmed those findings. 61 .     The fifth applicant: on 6 July 2019 the NFB expert examined the applicant and did not find any signs of injuries. No other medical documents are available in relation to him. 62 .     The sixth applicant: the medical certificate dated 21   June 2019 diagnosed the applicant with eleven open wounds on his back and “one open wound on the left shoulder, inflicted by a rubber bullet”. The NFB report of 21   December 2022 concluded that each injury, taken in isolation, belonged to the category of minor injuries entailing no deterioration in his health. On the basis of the documents presented for examination, the expert was unable to determine from what distance the shot in question had been fired. 63.     The seventh applicant: a medical note produced by paramedics on 21   June 2019 describes open wounds received by the applicant on his cheek and temple. An NFB report of 26 July 2021 found that these injuries could have been inflicted by some blunt object, potentially on the date indicated by the applicant, and that they were to be classified as minor injuries. 64.     The eighth applicant: an NFB report of 19 August 2021 stated that on the basis of photographs taken by the applicant on 22 June 2019, he did not have a “mechanical injury”, but he had a pinkish area on his stomach. 65.     The tenth applicant: medical documents of 21 June 2019 and an NFB report of 26 October 2021 described the applicant’s injury as “a superficial wound with burnt borders to the middle section of the upper left shoulder, measuring 1 centimetre in diameter, and a superficial wound measuring 1   centimetre in diameter to the middle (upper) section of the ... front part of the shoulder”. The NFB classified the injuries as minor, entailing “some or no” deterioration in her health. It was noted that it had been impossible to determine the possible cause of the injuries and when they had been sustained, because their description in the medical certificates was incomplete. 66 .     The eleventh applicant: on 21 June 2019 the applicant applied to the NFB to have his injuries recorded. It was established that he had sustained bruises on his right and left forearms, right shoulder, and between the shoulder blades. On 4 August 2021 the NFB found that the injuries recorded in respect of the eleventh applicant could have been inflicted by some blunt object, potentially on the date indicated by him, and that they were to be classified as minor injuries entailing no deterioration in his health. Application no.   20175/21 67.     All but the eighth applicant were demonstrators. The eighth applicant went to the site of the events to search for his brother-in-law, and he was injured soon thereafter. 68.     All the applicants sustained injuries. The third, fifth and seventh applicants alleged that they had been physically ill-treated. The remaining applicants alleged that their injuries had been inflicted by rubber bullets. 69 .     The third, fifth and seventh applicants were arrested and charged with administrative offences of disorderly conduct and disobedience to lawful orders of the police. The third and seventh applicants were acquitted of the charges for lack of evidence. The fifth applicant was convicted as charged. It was established that he had been arrested at 5 a.m. on 21 June 2019 for swearing and disobeying a police order to leave the area. He was sentenced to three days’ administrative detention. Video and other material depicting the applicants’ circumstances 70.     The first applicant: an examination report produced by a prosecutor on 24 June 2019 in respect of some media coverage of the events noted that the first applicant appeared to have been injured by a rubber bullet. A report on an examination of the video material carried out with the applicant’s participation noted the location where the applicant had been injured and the fact that at that moment he had posed no threat to anyone. 71.     The second applicant: a photo of the applicant’s injuries was made available at domestic level. 72.     The third applicant: an examination report produced by a prosecutor on 14   November 2019 in respect of a video-recording noted that the applicant’s wife had confirmed that the recording in question depicted the moment of the third applicant’s arrest and ill-treatment. The report did not give any details of the ill-treatment described by the third applicant’s wife. 73.     The fourth applicant: one video-recording was identified at domestic level in 2019. It apparently showed the applicant after he had been injured. 74.     The fifth applicant: a report produced by a prosecutor on 18   November 2022 noted that video and photo material depicting the applicant’s arrest existed. It apparently showed the applicant lying handcuffed on the ground face down, and later being escorted to a police car. 75.     The sixth applicant: a report produced by a prosecutor on 24   June 2019 in respect of some media coverage of the events noted that the sixth applicant had lost an eye during the events of 20-21 June 2019. A report produced on 6   November 2019 noted that the sixth applicant had been led away from near the left side of the stairs leading to the Parliament building, with a bleeding injury to her left eye which she had been covering with her hand. 76.     The seventh applicant: an examination report produced by a prosecutor on 28 June 2019 in respect of a video-recording of the applicant’s arrest noted that the applicant had explained that he had been ill-treated, apparently when the camera had been directed elsewhere. 77.     The eighth applicant: video material featuring the eighth applicant appears to have been made available at domestic level. It is unclear what that material showed. 78.     The ninth applicant: an examination report produced by a prosecutor on 24 June 2019 in respect of some media coverage of the events noted that the ninth applicant had lost an eye during those events, without elaborating on the matter. 79 .     The tenth applicant: an official report produced on 28   December 2021 in respect of video and photo material noted that the applicant had actually been injured at 12.16 a.m., rather than at 1 a.m. as he had indicated. At one point, prior to being injured, he could be observed standing in front of the police cordon holding a shield which had apparently been seized from a police officer. It was noted that in one of the incidents caught on camera, the tenth applicant had been “actively resisting, with his hand movements” the police officers located on the stairs leading to the Parliament building. He had then turned around and gone down the stairs, “presumably owing to the effect of tear gas”. In another video it appeared that the applicant had kicked a police officer’s shield with his leg and waved his own shield in the direction of the officer. Photo material obtained from a witness showed that the applicant had been kneeling down either when he had apparently been injured or immediately thereafter. 80.     The eleventh applicant: an official report produced on 25   June 2019 in respect of video material, with the eleventh applicant’s participation, noted that the applicant had indicated to an investigator the segments in the video material in which he could be identified, and that they had confirmed the circumstances described in his witness statements produced at domestic level. An examination report of 17 November 2022 noted