CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6186A45 { width:104.38%; border-collapse:collapse } .sEDF7A3AF { width:6.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s187EED77 { width:35.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1756A479 { width:16.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s986D16D0 { width:16.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s536AFC25 { width:24.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FAEB576 { width:6.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sD51F2FAF { width:35.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3E51AAC { width:16.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2B73C6B { width:16.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCD65DE3B { width:24.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 June 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20175/21 David KURDOVANIDZE 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 20129/21). 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 applicants, except for the eighth applicant, who was a mere passer-by, were taking part in the protests. The first, second, fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh applicants were shot at with rubbers bullets, as a result of which they sustained serious injuries to the head and upper body (including the sixth and ninth applicants sustaining multiple severe injuries to their faces and both of them losing their left eye as a result). The third, fifth and seventh applicants were allegedly beaten by the police. Criminal proceedings were initiated into abuse of power by the police; however, the applicants, except for the sixth and ninth applicants, were refused victim status. The proceedings are still pending. The applicants complain under Article 3 and Article 11 (except for the eighth applicant) of the Convention that the police employed unnecessary and disproportionate force, including direct targeting with rubber bullets in the head and upper body. They claim, among others, that the dispersal operation was not adequately planned, that the police failed to make a dispersal warning and that no order was issued permitting the use of rubber bullets. The applicants 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 applicants’ 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.     With the exception of the eighth applicant, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 11 § 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 Article 3 (all applicants) and Article 11 (except for the eighth applicant) of the Convention, as required by Article 13?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Date of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. David KURDOVANIDZE 12/12/1998 Georgian Tbilisi 2. Lekso CHANKSELIANI 06/03/1985 Georgian Khoni 3. Irakli CHIKVILADZE 27/03/1980 Georgian Tbilisi 4. Teimuraz DIDBERASHVILI 18/03/1974 Georgian Tbilisi 5. Irakli GIORGADZE 31/10/1998 Georgian Tbilisi 6. Maia GOMURI 04/09/2000 Georgian Tbilisi 7. Irakli KHVADAGIANI 03/05/1988 Georgian Tbilisi 8. Dimitri POCHKHIDZE 01/01/1979 Georgian Tbilisi 9. Nikoloz SHARVASHIDZE 15/10/1986 Georgian Village Shalauri 10. David SHEKILADZE 06/02/1982 Georgian Tbilisi 11. Giorgi SULASHVILI 17/10/1991 Georgian Tbilisi