CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 20 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24964/09 Khadizat Sergeyevna DZHIOYEVA against Georgia lodged on 22 September 2008   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Did the facts of which the applicant complains in the present case occur within the jurisdiction of Georgia?   2.     Was the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case as a result of the activities of the Georgian army in the course of the hostilities in August 2008 in and around Tskhinvali?   3.     Has the applicant been, in the course of the same hostilities, subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     More specifically, did Georgian army conduct military operations in the area of the applicant’s residence? If so, the Court invites the Government to submit the following information: -     weapons used in the operation; -     targets of the operation and the manner of their identification; -     precautions taken with view to protect the lives of civilians; -     damage (both personal and material) suffered by civilians in the course of such operation.   5.     Did the applicant have access to effective remedy as provided for in Article 13 of the Convention for the respective violation of her rights guaranteed by Articles 3 of the Convention?   6.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention? If so, how many ethnic South Ossetians have used this remedy and with what result?