CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2017

.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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 }   Communicated on 23 June 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 33056/17 Taliko TKHELIDZE against Georgia lodged on 13 April 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Taliko Tkhelidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Tbilisi. She is represented before the Court by Ms   M. Kurtanidze, Ms B. Pataraia and Ms S. Gogishvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background The applicant’s daughter, M.T., was born on 14 February 1981 and lived in Tbilisi, Georgia when she was murdered. At that time she had a six ‑ year ‑ old daughter, A.K., from her previous marriage. In August 2013 M.T. moved in with L.M. in Rustavi, Georgia. Although their marriage was never registered, under domestic law and practice they were still considered as spouses. M.T. had constant conflicts with her husband. On 29 April 2014 M.T.’s father-in-law called the police because she was being abused by his son. The police came on the spot and drafted a report stating that L.M. was heavily intoxicated and had threatened M.T. with murder out of jealousy. M.T. asked the police to warn her husband never to act in a similar way again. An investigation was never opened into this matter. On 22 September 2014 M.T. called the police and related that L.M. had abused her verbally and physically. Subsequently a beat police officer arrived at the spot and drafted a report indicating that M.T. had been physically assaulted by her husband, as a result of which she had called an ambulance and received medical aid. M.T. also stated that she had been subjected to systematic verbal abuse and threats. On the same date M.T. was interviewed by an inspector-investigator, the report of which reclassified L.M.’s beating of M.T. to a less serious “nudge”, adding that “M.T. state[d] that she [did]n’t need any kind of medical treatment”. An investigation was never opened into the said matter. On 23 September 2014 M.T. left L.M. and moved in with her mother in Tbilisi. On 26 September 2014 M.T. called the police and reported that L.M. had been threatening to kill her. A beat police officer’s report of that day states that M.T. submitted that she had been receiving insulting messages and threats from L.M. and she asked the police to help her end this aggression. However the report issued by an inspector-investigator reclassified L.M.’s threats to verbal abuse and demands to return to him. The applicant alleges that the police officers explained that they could arrest L.M. only if he were caught at the scene. Furthermore, one police officer offered to escort M.T. to work the next day and said that he would talk to L.M. and tell him that he loved her. M.T. declined this offer. On the same day M.T. lodged a complaint with the criminal police unit. As a result L.M. was summoned and interviewed by the police officer. According to the report during the interview L.M. stated that he wanted to get back together with M.T. He was warned not to engage with M.T. in any kind of conflict, otherwise he would face the force of the law. An investigation was never opened into the said matter. On 28 September 2014 when M.T. was returning home she was ambushed by L.M. at the entrance of her block of flats. She managed to escape and reach her flat safely. She immediately called the police. The report drafted by the beat police officer on that day states that according to M.T.’s submissions L.M. was waiting for her near her house and tried to approach her. As she was scared she did not want to communicate with him and ran into her house. She further noted that for the past three days she had been receiving threat text messages on her mobile phone. Lastly the report notes that M.T. had already lodged a complaint with the criminal police unit about the above mentioned fact. An investigation was never opened into the said matter. The applicant alleges that police officers suggested that she tell her sons about L.M.’s violence so they would break his bones. On 15 October 2014 M.T. called the police and stated that L.M. had been at her place of work looking for her. She stated that she was afraid that L.M. would harm her and did not want to see him. A beat police officer arrived at her location and took M.T.’s statement. No further steps were taken by the police. On 16 October 2014 M.T. called the police and told them that when she had been driving to her daughter’s school she had been followed by L.M., who had tried to stop her and had almost crashed into her car. The report drafted by the police officer at the scene states that M.T. had submitted she had been disturbed by her ex-husband who had showed up at her workplace, engineered encounters with her in the street and interfered with her freedom of movement. The report ends with an explanation addressed to M.T. “to call the police when he approach[ed] and verbally insult[ed] her or if he issue[d] a threat.” No further steps were taken by the police. The applicant alleged that on the same day she had gone to the police and reported her unbearable situation and asked for help. The police officers had confined themselves to drafting some reports. The applicant alleged that during the conversation with the police officers one of them had ironically noted that he could “threaten a thousand people, but does this mean they should arrest me?” On 17 October 2014 L.M. came to M.T.’s workplace, asked her out for a conversation, and when she went outside shot her dead with an illegal firearm. Right afterwards he turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. 2.     Investigation into murder On the same day an investigation into premeditated murder and illicit purchase and carrying of firearms was opened. Domestic violence was added as the motive to the file some three days later. In the course of the investigation all the relevant investigative measures were performed including a)     examination of the crime scene; b)     questioning of seven witnesses (including the applicant, who was granted victim status); c)     medical, chemical, biological, firearms and ballistics forensic examinations; d) examination of security-camera recordings; e) examination of M.T.’s mobile phone; f) examination of L.M.’s criminal record. On 31 December 2014 the investigation into the case was terminated as the person liable for the crime had deceased. 3.     The applicant’s complaints to the domestic authorities On 8 April 2015 the applicant sent a letter to the prosecutor’s office, requesting that an investigation be opened into alleged negligence committed by the police officers dealing with the case. No reply was received. On 5 August 2015 the applicant’s representative addressed the Didube ‑ Chughureti district prosecutor’s office with the same request. No reply was received. On 21 October 2015 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the General Inspectorate of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office complaining that the district prosecutor’s office had refused to open an investigation. No reply was received. On 22 December 2015 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office complaining about the district prosecutor’s office’s refusal to open an investigation. The applicant also pointed out that she considered the failure of the police officers to open an investigation into the alleged domestic violence as gender-based discrimination. No reply was received. On the same date the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”), noting that she considered the inactivity of the police officers as gender-based discrimination and requesting that the matter of disciplinary liability of the police officers in question be assessed. On 18 January 2016 the applicant received a reply from the General Inspectorate of the MIA which stated that they had no general jurisdiction to open an investigation into a crime allegedly committed by a civil servant of the MIA, unless so granted by the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. On 21 September 2016 the applicant’s representative addressed the Prosecutor’s Office once again, drawing his attention to the prosecutor’s refusal to open an investigation. She submitted that notwithstanding the number of occasions on which the applicant’s daughter had reported to the police the physical violence and threats issued against her, the police had failed to ascertain the high probability of danger and to open an investigation, inaction which resulted in her murder. Furthermore, it was emphasised that she considered the latter to be an indication of gender ‑ based discrimination. No reply was received. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention of the failure of domestic authorities to protect her daughter’s life from domestic violence and their refusal to investigate the potential liability of the police officers involved. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s   complaint under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention concerning the inactivity of the domestic authorities in respect of preventing domestic violence and protecting her daughter’s right to life lodged with the Court with the expedition required by the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 (see Bulut and Yavuz v.   Turkey (dec.), no.   73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no.   46231/99, 26 May 2005)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, given the fact that the authorities were aware of the danger posed by the applicant’s son-in-law, did they comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps to protect the life of the applicant’s daughter, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural obligation of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In this connection, did the investigating authorities conduct an investigation into possible inactivity on the part of the police officers, as alleged by the applicant?   4.     Has the applicant’s daughter suffered discrimination on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 2 of the Convention? Did the applicant’s daughter belong to a particularly vulnerable group given the alleged lack of protection of women against domestic violence?