CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDD96566B { width:102.34%; border-collapse:collapse } .s50B07936 { width:7.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF7CE5168 { width:37.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF1F5C61F { width:20.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s18CE2F9D { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s90972FC4 { width:15.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s80B38151 { width:7.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6880C870 { width:37.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC1682326 { width:20.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68F9AFD5 { width:18.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D66CBE9 { width:15.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 28 June 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20129/21 Tamar BAGHASHVILI and Others against Georgia lodged on 7 April 2021 communicated on 7 June 2021 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 (see also applications nos. 8684/20, 13186/20, 16757/20, and 20175/21). 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. All eleven 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 eleventh applicant was allegedly beaten by the police. As a result, all applicants sustained various injuries, such as a fracture (the first applicant) multiple bruises and hematomas (the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh applicants), and open wounds (the sixth and seventh applicants). Criminal proceedings were initiated into abuse of power by the police; however, the applicants were refused victim status. They complain under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention that the police violence resulted in their injury and that by employing unnecessary and disproportionate force and deliberately targeting journalists, they were prevented from performing their professional duties. 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,   Was the use of rubber bullets in accordance with the applicable legislation? Was the manner of application of the relevant provisions of domestic law in the current case compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Kılıcı v. Turkey , no. 32738/11, §§ 32-35, 27 November 2018; see, mutatis mutandis, Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey , no.   44827/08, §§ 43 and 49-50, 16 July 2013, and Ataykaya v. Turkey , no.   50275/08, § 57, 22 July 2014)? The Government   are   invited to submit a copy of the applicable domestic statutory and regulatory provisions.   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?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file of the prosecuting authorities’ investigation into the circumstances of the dispersal of the demonstration on 20-21 June 2019. 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?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Date of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Tamar BAGHASHVILI 25/10/1975 Georgian Tbilisi 2. Ekaterine ABASHIDZE 10/02/1996 Georgian Tbilisi 3. Ioseb BOCHIKASHVILI 15/10/1947 Georgian Tbilisi 4. Giorgi DIASAMIDZE 05/02/1993 Georgian Tbilisi 5. Kote GRIGALASHVILI 23/06/1990 Georgian Tbilisi 6. Nino KHOZREVANIDZE 02/04/1987 Georgian Tbilisi 7. Tornike KOSHKADZE 23/07/1987 Georgian Tbilisi 8. Guram MURADOV 27/04/1986 Georgian Tbilisi 9. Gvantsa NEMSADZE 07/12/1990 Georgian Tbilisi 10. Giorgi TCHUMBURIDZE 30/10/1972 Georgian Tbilisi 11. Ana VAKHTANGADZE 01/09/1991 Georgian Tbilisi