CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 15 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37662/11 Vladimer DOLIDZE against Georgia lodged on 8 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Vladimer Dolidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1983 and is currently imprisoned. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Abuladze, a lawyer practicing in Tbilisi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 2.     According to a decision to bring charges dated 15 April 2010, as amended on 28 May 2010, the applicant was charged with the offence of resisting police officers with the intention of obstructing them in the course of their duties committed as part of a group (Article 353 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and with the offence of unlawful purchase, possession and carrying of firearms (Article 236 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code). The police version of the events stated that on 12 April 2010 at around 10.00 p.m. in the course of a verbal altercation between three police officers and two young men a fight had erupted involving about twenty people. Several shots had been fired, although no one had been wounded. The police had called for backup and, after several colleagues arrived as reinforcements, several persons had been arrested, while others, including the applicant had managed to escape. Seven police officers were granted victim status in the above proceedings. 3.     The applicant was arrested on 20 April 2010 and remanded, on the basis of a court decision, in pre-trial detention. 4.     On 1 June 2010 the applicant’s lawyer filed an application with the responsible investigator claiming that his client had been physically assaulted by police during the 12 April incident. He relied in this connection on the statements of his friend and wife, who had witnessed the incident and requested for the organisation of an identification parade with their participation. The request was dismissed by the investigator as unsubstantiated. 5.     On 7 June 2010 the investigation was completed and the case-file was forwarded to the first-instance court along with the bill of indictment against the applicant and his seven co-accused. 6.     On 15 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request this time with the first-instance judge. He complained that the investigation was conducted in a biased and one-sided manner, given that the Vake-Saburtalo police department in charge of the investigation was the one for which the “victim” police officers were working. The applicant further requested several investigative actions to be conducted, which could substantiate his version of the events – that he had not been there at the moment the fight had erupted and that he had been assaulted. His request was rejected as unsubstantiated. 7.     During the trial proceedings the applicant repeatedly voiced his concerns over the one-sidedness and incompleteness of the investigation. He alleged that not only had the police department of the “victim” police officers investigated the case, but that one of the “victim” police officers had been involved in the investigation as such. He further called into question the validity of the record on his photo identification by the “victim” police officers, questioning the timing of the procedure and the accuracy of the photo used. He alleged that the police had used, for the purposes of the identification, his photo from teenage years when he had not had a beard. 8.     By a decision of 29 December 2010 the Tbilisi City Court found the applicant along with three other co-defendants guilty as charged and sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment. According to the case-file, the proceedings with respect to four other defendants were first separated and then suspended for unknown reasons. 9.     The applicant appealed his conviction. He claimed his innocence by maintaining that he had not been at the place of the incident when the fight had erupted; and that he had intervened later only to halt the violence, but instead had got beaten himself. He complained again about the various procedural irregularities that had taken place during the police investigation of his case and dismissed the whole process as biased and subjective. 10.     On 1 April 2011 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. In connection with the applicant’s version of events as supported by the testimony of his wife and several other defence witnesses, the court concluded that it was not supported by the evidence gathered during the investigation. The appeal court did not answer the applicant’s argument concerning the bias of the investigation. He did however reject the applicant’s allegations concerning various procedural irregularities as unsubstantiated. As to the facts, the court concluded that the police officers’ statements were consistent enough to prove the official version of the incident. 11.     On 18 July 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the appeal of the applicant on points of law as inadmissible. COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him on account of the allegedly biased and partial pre-trial investigation and various procedural failures resulting therefrom. He denounces in particular the way his photo identification procedure was conducted.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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? In this connection,   (i)     Did the conduct of the investigation by the Vake-Saburtalo police department hinder the principle of equality of arms and render the proceedings unfair contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were there procedural safeguards to ensure the conduct of an objective and neutral investigation?   (ii)     Did the circumstances in which the photo identification of the applicant was conducted cast doubt on its accuracy and reliability? In this connection, when and on the basis of which photo of the applicant was his photo identification conducted?