CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13186/20 Merab TSAAVA and Beslan KMUZOV against Georgia lodged on 29 February 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dispersal of a public demonstration held in Tbilisi in front of the Parliament of Georgia on 20-21 June 2019. Initially peaceful, it escalated into violent clashes between police and protesters. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons were used against the protesters, including allegedly from a short distance, as a result of which many were injured. Both applicants were journalists who were reporting the events. They allege that they were specifically targeted by the police with rubber bullets during the dispersal of the demonstration. The second applicant claims that he was hit by at least six rubber bullets. As a result he sustained a head injury which required stitches. As for the first applicant, he was injured in his right hand and had to undergo treatment in a hospital. Criminal proceedings were initiated into abuse of power by the police; however both applicants were refused victim status. They complain under Article 10 of the Convention that the relevant authorities, by employing disproportionate force and deliberately targeting journalists, prevented them from performing their professional duties. In this connection, they also complain in substance under Article 3 of the Convention about police violence that resulted in their injury. They further allege a breach of Article   13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies as the ongoing investigation has been inadequate.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicants and all other evidence, were they subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 20-21 June 2019? In this connection, have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies as regards their allegations under Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)? What is the current state of the proceedings? Were the applicants given the opportunity to participate effectively in the investigation? 3.     Having regard to the applicants’ allegation that the police used force against them while they were reporting the events as journalists, has there been an interference with their right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for their complaints under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13?