CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } THIRD SECTION Application no. 21300/09 Lasha KASRADZE against Georgia lodged on 23 February 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Lasha Kasradze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Nikolaishvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant 3.     On 8 November 2006 the applicant, a minor at the material time, was charged with committing an aggravated armed robbery, an offence under Article 179 §§ 2 (b) and 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The charge concerned an incident on 4 November 2006 when the applicant had allegedly stripped a fourteen-year old B.CH. of his mobile phone. According to the bill of indictment, the applicant had acted with two unidentified accomplices and had threatened the victim with using a knife. 4.     On 14 May 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The total prison sentence, which included the unserved part of the applicant’s previous sentence, was set at eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was mainly based on the victim’s statement and the pre-trial testimony of the eleven year old G.M., the victim’s relative, who had witnessed the incident. According to the applicant, despite his lawyer’s request, the first-instance court judge refused to question G.M. in court. 5.     It appears from the case file that the applicant was kept in a metal cage during the entire proceedings before the Tbilisi City Court. 6.     On 13 June 2007 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against his conviction. He maintained in his appeal that the only piece of direct evidence against the applicant was the testimony of the victim, which was contradictory. In particular, there were some major inconsistencies as regards the timing of the incident and the physical appearance of the alleged perpetrator. Furthermore, the key elements of the prosecution case were missing: the cell phone and the knife. With respect to the cell phone, the applicant’s lawyer noted that the prosecution had simply disregarded it: they had not even tried to obtain information about the latest incoming and outgoing calls made from the cell phone concerned. The defence further complained about the failure of the first-instance court to question the key witness, G.M. in court. 7.     On 19 September 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, whilst rejecting one of the aggravating circumstances, upheld the applicant’s conviction and the sentence in full. The appellate court did not examine G.M. By a decision of 25 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia confirmed the applicant’s conviction, though reduced his final prison term to ten years, eleven months and twenty-eight days. 2.     The applicant’s state of health 8.   In February 2008 the applicant’s father complained to the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia about the conditions of detention of his son. He claimed that the applicant, whilst being kept in Rustavi no. 2 Prison, had not been allowed to have daily outdoor exercise. As a result his medical condition had worsened and he had been suffering from frequent fever. On 19 February 2008 the Public Defender requested the Governor of Rustavi no. 2 Prison detailed information about the applicant’s state of health and the material conditions of his detention. In reply, by a letter of 14 March 2008, the prison Governor claimed that the applicant’s medical condition was satisfactory; he had underwent a course of treatment for his acute respiratory disease and had been placed under medical supervision on an outpatient basis. 9.     On 23 March 2009 the applicant’s father requested up-to-date information about his son’s state of health. The case file does not contain any information at to the outcome, if any, of the above-mentioned request. COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicant complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, about the material conditions of his detention and the alleged lack of adequate medical care for his various diseases in prison. He also complained of being kept in a “metal cage” during the first-instance court proceedings. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention the applicant further denounced the domestic courts’ failure to question the key prosecution witness in court. He also claimed that his conviction was solely based on the victim’s statement, which was insufficient for the conviction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies with respect to his complaint about his placement in a metal cage during the court hearings? If so, was this compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was there a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, given the refusal of the domestic courts to examine G.B. in court?