CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .sEE8FA83B { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2DE2E6E8 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E9AE8E6 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s85CAF366 { margin-left:17.85pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sD85BBB70 { width:24.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 4769/10 and 54110/09 Alexsander KHACHIROV against Georgia and Revaz LALIASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 15 January 2010 and 1 September 2009 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicants are Georgian nationals (see the appendix). The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Khachirov v. Georgia, application no. 4769/10 2.     The applicant convicted of various crimes on 9 February 2004 was serving prison sentence in Ksani Prison, where prisoners with tuberculosis were housed. 3.     On 18 February 2008 during a cell inspection the applicant had a verbal altercation with one of the prison officers, following which he was allegedly severely beaten by some five prison officers. He was thereafter transferred to a punishment cell and despite his reiterated requests was not allowed to see a doctor. 4.     Later on the same date the applicant was transferred to Rustavi no. 6 Prison, where he wrote a complaint concerning his ill-treatment and requested a medical examination, to no avail however. Before his transfer, the applicant was visually examined by a doctor on duty who noted a small abrasion on his jaw and a bruise on his forehead. 5.     On 22 Aril 2008 the applicant was charged with disobedience and attack on prison officers, an offence under Article 378 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. His complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment was included in the criminal case file against him. Whilst being questioned as an accused, the applicant described in detail the incident of 18 February 2008, naming some of the prison officers involved and requesting the questioning of two   prisoners who had eye-witnessed his alleged beating. The applicant’S request was refused. A separate request for an initiation of criminal proceedings into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment was also dismissed. 6.     As disclosed by the case file, the applicant and his lawyer have subsequently filed several complaints requesting an investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s ill-treatment on 18 February 2008. The requests were refused, however. 7.     On 11 September 2008 the Mtskheta District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The final sentence, which included the unserved part of the applicant’s previous sentence, was set at fifteen years, five months and nineteen days. The trial court, whilst refusing to question the two eye-witnesses on the applicant’s behalf, concluded that the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations were made up with the sole purpose of evading criminal responsibility. 8.     The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 18 November 2008. The appeal court, whilst subscribing to the statements of the prison officers concerned, similarly dismissed the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations as unsubstantiated. Despite the applicant’s reiterated requests, the appeal court did not examine the two eye-witnesses on his behalf. 9.     By a decision of 15 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. B.     Laliashvili v. Georgia, application no. 54110/09 10.     The applicant, convicted of various crimes on 18 November 2005, was serving prison sentence in Tbilisi no. 1 Prison. On 16 January 2007 during a cell inspection he had a physical altercation with one of the prison officers, following which he had been allegedly severely beaten by some six prison officers. 11.     On the same date criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for disobedience and attacking a prison officer, an offence under Article 378 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The applicant underwent a visual medical check-up, which established bruises on his back, left arm, nose and the upper lip. The doctor concluded that the injuries belonged to the category of light injuries and were caused by a hard blunt object. The applicant claimed that as a result of his ill-treatment the second finger on his left arm had also been broken. 12.     The investigation was conducted by the investigative department at the Ministry of Justice, the authority in charge of the prison system at the material time. As it appears from the case file, the prison officers claimed that the applicant had self-inflicted injuries during the incident. Notwithstanding the fact that some twenty prisoners had eye-witnessed the incident concerned, none of them were questioned during the pre-trial investigation. 13.     On 20 October 2008 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eleven years and two months’ imprisonment. The final sentence, which including the unserved part of the applicant’s previous sentence was set at fourteen years, three months and eighteen days. The court whilst relying on the statements of the prison officers involved in the incident, concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been made up with the sole purpose of evading criminal liability. The trial judge questioned but dismissed as contradictory four prisoners’ statements made in support of the applicant’s version of events. As regards the applicant’s injuries, it concluded that the bruises on his face had been self-inflicted whilst the injuries to the body could have been caused during the physical altercation with one of the prison officers. 14.     The applicant appealed against his conviction on 14 November 2008, claiming that the investigation into the incident had been subjective and one-sided. He dismissed as untrue the trial court’s conclusion that his injuries had been self-inflicted. At the appeal hearing the applicant reiterated his ill-treatment allegations and requested the questioning of several additional witnesses on his behalf. The appeal court met in part the applicant’s request, although after having examined them, dismissed the testimony of the prisoners as contradictory. By a decision of 27 February 2009 it confirmed the applicant’s conviction in full. 15.     On 14 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia, whilst slightly modifying the qualification of the offence, confirmed the applicant’s conviction and reduced his prison sentence by one year. COMPLAINTS A.     Khachirov v. Georgia, application no. 4769/10 16.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment in Ksani Prison. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention he further claimed that the criminal proceedings conducted against him had been unfair; that the domestic courts had disregarded his ill-treatment allegations and failed to examine key witnesses in this regard. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to launch an investigation into the circumstances of his alleged ill-treatment. B.     Laliashvili v. Georgia, application no. 54110/09 17.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He claimed that the domestic courts whilst disregarding his ill-treatment allegations had based their decisions on the contradictory statements of the prison officers involved. In this connection, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by prison officers and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS 1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2. Did the failure of the competent domestic authorities to initiate a criminal probe into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention?   3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular,   (a) Did the decisions of the domestic courts contain sufficient reasoning for the finding of the applicants’ guilt?   (b) Did the domestic courts duly examine the applicants’ allegation of having been ill-treated by prison officers? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Khachirov v. Georgia, application no. 4769/10 Was there a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, given the refusal of the domestic courts to examine two eye-witnesses on the applicant’s behalf? No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by                    54110/09 01/09/2009 Revaz LALIASHVILI 18/11/1970 Tbilisi   Otar SUKASHVILI                    4769/10 15/01/2010 Alexander KHACHIROV 08/05/1988 Village Ksani   Ioseb KHATIASHVILI APPENDIX