CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2024

.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 } Published on 6 January 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33355/24 L.I. and S.T. against Georgia lodged on 5 November 2024 communicated on 2 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ (two brothers six and eight years old at the material time) alleged ill-treatment and abuse in a closed-type Church-run boarding school in Ninotsminda (“the Ninotsminda Boarding School”) in the period between October – December 2011. Following their complaints criminal proceedings were launched on 23   December 2016 into an offence of violence under Article 126 of the Criminal Code. Soon after the applicants and their mother were allegedly pressured, albeit unsuccessfully, by several police officers (including the investigator in charge of the violence case) into withdrawing their criminal complaint. The incident led to the initiation of a separate set of criminal proceedings under Article 333 of the criminal Code (abuse of authority), which was apparently soon discontinued. According to the case file, the investigation into the applicants’ alleged inhuman and degrading treatment in the Ninotsminda Boarding School is still ongoing, and no one has been charged to date. The applicants were denied victim status in the proceedings. The applicants allege, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they were subjected to various forms of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, including corporal punishment, verbal and psychological abuse, food deprivation, cold showers, and a lack of access to toilets while in the Ninotsminda Boarding School, and that the relevant authorities have failed to conduct an effective criminal investigation into their allegations. They also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   3 due to the lack of effective domestic remedies for their Article 3 complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular:   (a) Were the applicants subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention?   (b) Can the respondent State be held responsible under Article 3 of the Convention for the applicants’ treatment in the Ninotsminda Boarding School ( Costello-Roberts v.   the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, Series A no.   247 ‑ C)?   (c) Did the respondent State in the present case comply with its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did it put in place and apply an adequate legal framework to ensure the applicants’ effective protection in compliance with its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention?   (d) In the latter respect, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic mechanism for establishing any liability of the State as well as for obtaining compensation in that respect (see O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no.   35810/09, § 177, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   (e) Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicants’ complaints? In this connection, what was the outcome, if any, of the criminal proceedings initiated into the alleged abuse of authority by police officers under Article   333 of the Criminal Code?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?