CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     Communicated on 8 July 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58228/09 Emzar KOPADZE against Georgia lodged on 9 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Emzar Kopadze born in 1980, is a Georgian national and is currently serving a sentence in prison No.   6 establishment in Rustavi. He is represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Botchorishvili and Mr   I.   Khatiashvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant was serving a prison sentence for his previous conviction in prison No. 7 establishment in Ksani. According to the official version of the events, on 3 March 2009, while the prison guards were conducting a search in one of the cells, a group of inmates, including the applicant, attacked them and a fight erupted between the prisoners and the prison guards. As the result of the fight, several prison guards were injured, for which several prisoners, including the applicant, were subsequently prosecuted and convicted. 4.     According to the applicant’s version of the events, on 3 March 2009, he, along with other prisoners, witnessed beating of Mr K.M. in his cell by the prison guards. The applicant expressed a verbal protest against the beating of his fellow inmate, but he never attacked the prison guards and no fight ever took place. As a retribution for him witnessing the beating and voicing his protest against it, later, on the same day, the applicant was severely beaten by the prison guards: first, he was beaten in his cell, then – in the guards’ room, and finally – in the administration offices of the prison   No.   7 establishment. Three men were involved in the first two beatings whereas around fifteen men were beating him on the third occasion. 5.     At the request of the investigation department of the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Aid, an expert from the National Forensics Bureau examined the applicant on 6 March 2009. In his report the expert briefly noted that the applicant complained of headaches and had no signs of physical abuse. 6.     On 9 March 2009 a doctor employed under the auspices of the Public Defender of Georgia also examined the applicant in prison. The medical report compiled by this doctor reads that the applicant had serious bruises along his left eye, nose, head, right thigh, and ribs. His nose was swollen and deformed. He also had certain difficulties with breathing. The doctor concluded that the first applicant suffered from multiple bruises all over his head and body and required doctor’s supervision. 7.     On 10 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint in the investigation department of the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Aid, requesting investigation of the acts of ill-treatment against the applicant and his recognition as a victim in the case. His requests were rejected on 13   April 2009. 8.     On 23 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer sent a letter of complaint to the Chief Prosecutor’s office, reiterating the requests about the initiation of an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant and his recognition as a victim. 9.     On 5 May 2009 the applicant, in his preliminary testimony as an accused, gave a detailed account of the circumstances of his alleged ill ‑ treatment on 3 March 2009 before the investigator in charge of his case. 10.     On 22 June 2009 the applicant’s lawyer filed another complaint addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia in which he, inter alia , again raised the issue of alleged ill-treatment of the applicant and the lack of adequate investigation thereof. 11.     In course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, his lawyer also raised the same issue before the national courts. Namely, on 15   July 2010, during the trial at the Mtskheta Regional Court, the applicant’s lawyer motioned to the presiding judge to look into the alleged acts of the applicant’s beating. The similar request was included in the applicant’s appellate complaint dated 21 January 2010. COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant invokes Article 3 of the Convention, taken separately as well as in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, complaining about the beating inflicted on him by the prison guards of prison No.   7 establishment in Ksani, and the lack of adequate investigation thereof. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligations vis-à-vis the applicant with regard to the procedural limb of the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000 ‑ IV)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?