CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Published on 27 September 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39382/21 Vakhtangi BERIKASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 30 July 2021 communicated on 7 September 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, 20129/21, 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. The applicant was shot at with a rubber bullet, as a result of which he sustained an injury to his shoulder. Criminal proceedings were initiated into abuse of power by the police; however, the applicant was refused victim status. The proceedings are still pending. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 10 and 11 of the Convention that the police employed unnecessary and disproportionate force, including direct targeting with the rubber bullets in the head and upper body. The applicant further alleges a breach of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies, since the ongoing investigation has been inadequate.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Regard being had to the medical and all other evidence, was the applicant 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? Was the applicant 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.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and   11 of the Convention?   4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for his complaints under Articles 3, 10, and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13?