CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12860/24 Bezhani ABULASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 19 April 2024 communicated on 2 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment while in police custody and the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him on account of, in particular, the use of evidence allegedly obtained in breach of his right to remain silent and his privilege against self ‑ incrimination, as well as the alleged violation of his defence rights. On 4 October 2022 the applicant was questioned as a witness at the Tbilisi Police Department based on an operative information suggesting his potential connection to a woman’s murder. Shortly thereafter, on 5 October 2022 at 00.45 a.m. Z.N., a deputy head of an investigative division, made a report stating that the applicant had confided in him during their brief interaction at the department and that it was evident that he possessed crucial information about the case; however, the applicant was unwilling to disclose this information to the case investigator and was only willing to speak with Z.N. At 1.30 a.m. the prosecutor issued a decision ordering covert video recording of the applicant’s meeting with Z.N., without prior judicial authorisation, citing urgent circumstances. During the meeting, which took place at the same police department in Z.N.’s office between Z.N. and the applicant, the latter confessed to the murder. Immediately thereafter, the applicant gave a self-incriminating statement to the case investigator and took part in the investigative reconstruction conducted at the crime scene. It appears from the case file that the applicant was officially charged with the murder and arrested sometime later the same day. On 7 October 2022 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of the Tbilisi City Court, which had declared the covert investigative measure lawful. She argued that the applicant had been in police custody since the evening of 4 October 2022, and had, in essence, been questioned as an accused by Z.N. with the questioning covertly recorded in the absence of the necessary procedural safeguards. On 13 October 2022 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, noting that the applicant, at the time of the questioning by Z.N., had not yet been formally charged with any offence and that the covert investigative procedure had been justified. On 10 May 2023 a jury found the applicant guilty of murder. He was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the guilty verdict, arguing that the use as evidence of the covert video recording and his written self-incriminating statement had been unlawful, as they had been obtained under coercion, and in breach of the domestic procedural law. He also complained that his defence rights had been violated in two respects: first, by the pre-trial judge’s refusal to admit into evidence eleven defence witnesses who had found the victim’s body for an excessively formalistic reason; and second, by the trial judge’s refusal to postpone a court hearing in order to ensure the attendance and questioning of two defence witnesses, police officers who had arrived first at the crime scene. On 27   December 2023 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. In parallel, on 20 January 2023 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Special Investigative Service in which he reiterated his allegations from the criminal proceedings against him that he had been physically and psychologically abused while in police custody at the Tbilisi Police Department on 4-5 October 2022. On 23 January 2023 the Special Investigative Service opened an investigation into the alleged abuse of power and coercion to obtain a witness statement. According to the case file, the investigation is still ongoing. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment by the police and the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation in this respect. He also complains under Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (d) of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and the alleged violation of his defence rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), is the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Did the admission of evidence obtained through the covert investigation procedure and of the applicant’s subsequent self-incriminating statement comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the use at trial of the covert video recording and the applicant’s written witness statement of 5 October 2022 compatible with the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis , Allan v. the United Kingdom , no. 48539/99, §§ 42-44, ECHR 2002-IX; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3   others, §§   266-74, 13 September 2016; Bajić v. North Macedonia , no.   2833/13, §§   64-68, 10 June 2021; and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§   88-93, 10   March 2009; see also, Bandaletov v. Ukraine , no. 23180/06, §§   53-71, 31   October 2013) ?   (b)     Was the applicant afforded the opportunity to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as those against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see, for general principles, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§   139-68, 18   December 2018; see also, Kikabidze v. Georgia , no. 57642/12, §§   51-60, 16   November 2021)?