CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2987/24 Marina ALANAKIAN against Georgia lodged on 17 January 2024 communicated on 13 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the Georgian authorities to provide an adequate legal response to the alleged antisemitic motive underlying the murder of the applicant’s son. In particular, two men, who were tried and convicted for the applicant’s son’s murder, were sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The domestic courts rejected the allegation that the murder had antisemitic overtones as unsubstantiated. The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 that the Georgian courts refused to recognise the hate motive as a statutory aggravating factor in relation to her son’s murder. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, did the authorities take all reasonable steps to unmask the possible antisemitic motive behind the murder of the applicant’s son and did they adequately assess its seriousness (see, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia , no. 655/16, §§   75-77 and   84, 11 December 2018; see   mutatis mutandis ,   Sabalić v.   Croatia , no.   50231/13, §§ 93-95, 14 January 2021; Identoba and Others v.   Georgia , no.   73235/12, § 77, 12 May 2015; Balázs v. Hungary , no. 15529/12, §§   52 and   54, 20 October 2015; and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria   [GC], nos.   43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 160 ‑ 61, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII)?   2.     In this connection, did the domestic courts have regard to all relevant factors in determining the appropriate length of the sentence? Was the sentence imposed on the perpetrators proportionate to the seriousness of the offence for which they were convicted (see, mutatis mutandis, Vazagashvili and Shanava v. Georgia , no. 50375/07, § 92, 18 July 2019; see also Durdaj and Others v. Albania , nos. 63543/09 and 3 others, § 189, 7 November 2023)?   3.     Was the alleged failure of the Georgian courts to properly consider the antisemitic motive for the assault that led to the death of the applicant’s son in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   2 (see Stoyanova v. Bulgaria , no. 56070/18, §§ 63-64, 14 June 2022; Sabalić, cited above, §§ 97-98 (i); and Identoba and Others, cited above, §§ 67 in fine and   77)?