CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; 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 8 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4368/23 Neli KVIRIKASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 13 January 2023 communicated on 21 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suicide committed by the applicant’s son in November 2017, which occurred one week after he had been questioned at a police station, and the alleged ineffectiveness of the related criminal investigation. The applicant alleges that, during that questioning, her son was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment which caused him mental anguish and ultimately led him to take his own life. She further complains that the main investigative steps were carried out by officers from the same police station where the alleged perpetrators served, and that the prosecuting authorities, to whom the case was subsequently assigned, failed to remedy this procedural defect or to pursue certain obvious lines of inquiry and essential investigative measures. The investigation was opened on 4   November 2017, the day of the incident, and appears to be ongoing. The applicant relies on Articles   2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, stating that the authorities’ alleged ill-treatment of her son during his questioning led to his eventual decision to take his own life, and that the related criminal investigation had been ineffective.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s son’s right to life, as protected under Article   2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Mikayil Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 4762/05, §§   98-100, 17   December 2009)?   2.     Is the applicant’s complaint under Article   3 of the Convention compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae , in so far as it relates to the alleged ill-treatment of her son (see, for example, Karpylenko v.   Ukraine , no.   15509/12, §§   103-06, 11   February 2016, with further references)? If so, was the applicant’s son subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015)?   3.     Having regard to the relevant procedural obligations arising under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §§ 130-36, ECHR 2000-IV; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v.   Turkey [GC], no.   24014/05, 169‑82, 14   April 2015; and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, §§ 157-71, 25   June 2019), have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the allegations of ill ‑ treatment and incitement of the applicant’s son to commit suicide?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?