CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2016
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-166881
- Date
- 1 septembre 2016
- Publication
- 1 septembre 2016
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 1 September 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2291/10 Levan GOGICHAISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 22 December 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Levan Gogichaishvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Jangirashvili, a lawyer 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.     On 8 June 2009 a young man was stabbed during a fight that took place after a birthday party in village Tskneti. 4.     The applicant, an active member of the opposition movement at the time, was arrested as a suspect on 17 June 2009.   The incident received wide media coverage especially after his arrest. 5.     On 17 June 2009 the First Channel of the Georgian Public Broadcaster and a private television channel Rustavi 2 reported about the applicant’s arrest in relation to the incident as part of their respective news programmes. During the news coverage by Rustavi 2 the journalist read out an excerpt from the victim’s statement identifying the applicant as a person behind the stabbing. Additionally, the programme broadcast fragments of the statements given by the victim’s mother and sister as well as an intercepted telephone conversation all explicitly identifying the applicant as the culprit. The journalist stated that “the materials were disseminated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia.” 6.     On the same day, 17 June 2009, a television police chronicles Patrol produced by the press office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and aired on Rustavi 2 reported about the incident in a further detail. The programme reconstructed what was termed as “the crime committed by the member of the 7 November Movement, Levan Gogichaishvili.” It was noted that “intentional infliction of harm, fleeing from the crime scene, leaving the victim in distress and covering up of the crime are the articles [of the Criminal Code] that will probably form the basis of Levan Gogichaishvili’s conviction if his guilt is confirmed.” While the investigator briefly interviewed for the report referred to the applicant as a “suspect” the narrator stated that “the representative of the opposition that has become known to the public by criticizing the government and his vigorous fight against injustice inflicted a fatal injury upon a 17 year-old D.L.” It was further noted that “[unlike one of the witnesses] the victim D.L. remembers Levan Gogichaishvili’s face and criminal act well” while an extract from the victim’s statement describing the incident and identifying the applicant as a culprit was shown in the background. Excerpts from the witness statements and an intercepted telephone conversation pointing to the applicant’s involvement in the incident were also broadcast. 7.     Additionally, administrative fines issued against the applicant for minor hooliganism, drunken driving and violation of traffic rules were listed to state that they “also indicate Levan Gogichaishvili’s problems with respecting public order.” It was noted that “as regards D.L. gravely injured by Gogichaishvili, his condition is stable.” The report ended with a statement that posters started appearing with the “suspect’s” photo and a text underneath that read “dangerous killer” while demonstrating the reconstructed posters. 8.     On 19 June 2009 the President of the country stated the following while speaking about the use of excessive force by the police in a political talk show on Rustavi 2:   “The day before yesterday I heard a radical activist saying ... he was arrested as an accused person in relation to a grave crime ... they tried to politicise this ... that the police attacked by surprise at night and kidnapped this person. This is a statement by a person who has no idea about what a state is. What does “the police attacked him” mean? The police went to a criminal’s house. Of course there were probably many of them. Of course there was no advance warning ... otherwise he would have escaped. ... This is not an attack but an arrest and taking him in accordance with the law and not a kidnapping.” 9.     On 26 June 2009 the Chairman of the Defence and Security Committee of the Parliament of Georgia appeared in a political talk show on Rustavi 2. He stated that: “The person who probably most frequently reminded us about Girgvliani’s murder ... this person himself did not spare a young 17 year-old boy’s life ... I mean Gogichaishvili, who is an active fighter of this opposition and who inflicted an injury to his artery and practically set him aside for death but [the victim] was spared by fate. ... this fact does not astonish them [the opposition], to the contrary, everyone tried to cover this crime to the maximum effect possible and up to date nobody is cooperating with the law enforcement officials on this issue ... such double standards are not normal.” 10.     On 9 and 11 September 2009 the applicant’s representative filed several motions concerning the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence as part of the criminal proceedings pending at the district court. The motions were rejected on the ground of being submitted beyond the formal deadline.   On 8 December 2009 the applicant’s representative requested the Court of Appeals to question certain witnesses and to admit the relevant video recordings as evidence in relation to the alleged violation of the applicant’s presumption of innocence. The request was rejected as unsubstantiated and irrelevant. 11.     The applicant was convicted on 22 September 2009. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on 15 January 2010. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia was declared inadmissible on 22 April 2010. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     Article 40 § 1 of the Constitution of Georgia provides that “a person shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and by a final decision of the court.” COMPLAINT 13.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the dissemination of the criminal case materials by the authorities and the contents of a video report prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs after his arrest portrayed him as guilty and that the statements by a Member of Parliament and the President of the country reflecting an opinion about his guilt before a final determination by the domestic courts amounted to an infringement of the presumption of innocence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case as regards, in particular,   (a) The dissemination of the criminal case materials by the government authorities to the media outlets at an early stage of the investigation?   (b) The contents of the video report produced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs?   (c) The statements by the Chairman of the Security and Defense Committee of the Parliament of Georgia and the President of the country?  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 1 septembre 2016
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-166881
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel