CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 22026/10 Giorgi AKHVLEDIANI against Georgia and 9 other applications (see list appended)   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES     1.     Were the applicants’ complaints about their alleged ill-treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and interference with their right to respect for their private life during the police raid on Imedi on 7 November 2007 lodged with the Court with the expedition required by the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bulut and Yavuz v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Aydin and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005)?   -     What is the significance and explanation of the fact that the applicants waited for more than two years before requesting, on 4 and 22 December 2009, the domestic authorities to initiate a criminal probe into the alleged violation of their various rights during the police raid on 7 November 2007?   -     What is a statute of limitations set under the Georgian criminal law, if any, for the offences allegedly committed against the applicants by the police during the raid on Imedi on 7 November 2007?   -     If the relevant domestic authorities launched an investigation on the basis of the applicants’ criminal complaints of 4 and 22 December 2009, what are the results of this investigation?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of the above-mentioned complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants suffer ill-treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and interference with their right to respect for their private life, in breach of Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, during the police raid on Imedi on 7   November 2007?   4.     Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     Did the applicants have effective domestic remedies at their disposal for their complaints under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill-treatment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?