CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7E706D51 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC2E73220 { width:87.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s54F1E238 { width:8.26%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sCC037FAC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sF61BF5EC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sEA1ED66B { width:8.26%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6BE5E498 { width:22.94%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB268EDDE { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s816B3540 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 23 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 32245/19 Malkhaz MACHALIKASHVILI and Others against Georgia lodged on 6 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ relative (T.M.) as a result of the fatal wounds to the head he received in the course a security operation for his arrest, which took place in the early hours on 26 December 2017. The applicants complain of a violation of Article 2 and Article 13 of the Convention and allege, in particular, that the lethal force used by security forces against T.M. was unjustified, disproportionate and excessive and that the national authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the security operation and T.M.’s death. They further complain under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention about the particularly aggressive and degrading manner in which the security forces’ operation was conducted in their presence. The application was lodged by T.M.’s parents, grandmother, and sister.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did T.M.’s death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article?   2.     Was there a sufficient and adequate domestic legal framework regarding the use of lethal weapons by security forces in this type of security operations? Was the manner of application of the relevant provisions in the current case compatible with Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? What is the current state of the proceedings? Were the applicants given the opportunity to participate effectively in the investigation? The respondent Government are requested to submit a copy of the file of the prosecuting authorities’ investigation into the death of T.M. including documents relating to the planning and carrying out of the security operation. 4.     Were the applicants subjected, in connection with the circumstances of the security operation and the death of their relative, to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Malkhaz MACHALIKASHVILI 20/05/1968 Georgian Duisi 2 Elene MACHALIKASHVILI 15/03/1949 Georgian Akhmeta 3 Nata MACHALIKASHVILI 31/10/1989 Georgian Duisi 4 Aiza MARGOSHVILI 25/01/1971 Georgian Duisi