CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 60909/08 Tengiz CHKOTUA and Eliso ARKANIA against Georgia lodged on 4 September 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1. The first applicant, Mr Tengiz Chkotua, was a Georgian national, who was born in 1964 and died in 2009 (see paragraph 5 below). The second applicant, Mrs Eliso Arkania, his wife, is similarly a Georgian national born in 1964. She is represented before the Court by Ms Rusudan Korchilava, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2. On 16 November 2006 the first applicant was arrested in relation to a drug offence. Allegedly, the police subjected him to ill-treatment upon the arrest, but he never filed a criminal complaint in that respect. 3. On 28 March 2007 the Zugdidi District Court convicted the first applicant, who had been placed in pre-trial detention since his arrest, of drug trafficking. The conviction was based on the results of a search of the applicant’s home and a number of crime detection examinations as well as on the statements of various relevant witnesses. It was upheld by the Kutaisi Court of Appeals on 24 April 2007. On 5 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia, rejecting the first applicant’s cassation claim as inadmissible, finally terminated the criminal proceedings against him. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 4. At the time of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and his consequent detention, he had already been infected with pulmonary tuberculosis, viral hepatitis C and suffered from certain other diseases. The medical documents available in the case file do not disclose as to what type of treatment was provided for the first applicant’s various health problems in prison, if any. 5. On 5 March 2010 the second applicant informed the Court that her husband had died on 26 December 2009 as a result of the lack of care for his diseases in prison and that a criminal investigation had been opened in that respect. She stated her intention to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her own name as well as on behalf of her late husband. 6. The available case materials do not account for any other details concerning the progress of the investigation into the first applicant’s death in prison, if any. COMPLAINTS 7. Citing, in substance, Article 2 of the Convention, the second applicant complained, in her own name as well as on behalf of her late husband, about the prison authority’s failure to protect his health and life in prison.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1. Did the respondent State took all reasonable measures, including adequate medical treatment, to protect the first applicant’s life in prison, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia , no. 35254/07, § 74, 22 November 2011)?   2. Furthermore, did the respondent State conduct an adequate enquiry into the cause of the first applicant’s death in prison, as required by the procedural obligation emanating from Article 2 of the Convention   ( idem , §§   74 and 89)?