CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 9 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57215/11 Malkhaz AKHVLEDIANI and Others against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ apprehension along the administrative boundary line (ABL) between the breakaway region of South Ossetia [1] and the territory controlled by the Georgian government, their subsequent detention, alleged ill-treatment and unfavourable conditions of detention experienced at the hands of the de facto South Ossetian forces in Tskhinvali on various dates between 2009 and 2016 (see Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , no. 39611/18, §§   29-34, 9 April 2024). Some applicants appear to have been shot at and injured on 18   May 2011. Relying on Articles   3, 5, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention the applicants complained that they had been unlawfully arrested, detained in unfavourable conditions, and ill-treated by the de facto South Ossetian authorities, because of their Georgian ethnic origin, and that the Government bore responsibility for those acts and had failed to conduct an effective investigation. The applicants also complained that there had been a breach of their right to respect for their private and family life on account of the de facto authorities’ allegedly absolute ban on contact with family members or the outside world during their detention. Relying on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants in applications nos.   57215/11 and 77190/11 additionally complained that their convictions for crossing the ABL “illegally” had not been made by a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of that provision. The applicants in application no.   77190/11 further relied on Article   2 of the Convention and complained about having been shot at. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in application no.   77190/11 on account of the alleged shooting at the applicants and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in this regard (see Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , no. 39611/18, §§ 28-34, 9 April 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment during their detention, the unfavourable material conditions of that detention, and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in this regard (see Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , cited above, §§   38-46)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article   5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ arrest and detention (see Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , cited above, §§ 52-55)?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos.   57215/11 and 77190/11? In particular, were the applicants in those cases convicted by a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of that provision (see, for the general principles, Mozer v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   11138/10, §§   139-141, 23   February 2016, and Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia , nos.   29999/04 and 41424/04, §§   439-440, 7   March 2023)?   5.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the allegedly absolute ban on contact with family members or the outside world during the applicants’ detention (see, for the general principles, Khoroshenko v.   Russia [GC], no.   41418/04, §§   116-22, ECHR 2015)?   6.     Did the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints (see, for the general principles, Z and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29392/95, §   109, ECHR 2001-V) ?   7.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, on grounds of their Georgian ethnic origin (see, for the general principles, Ukraine v.   Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1181-82, 25   June 2024)?   8.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Article   5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by the said provision, in violation of Article 18 the Convention (see, for the general principles, Ukraine v.   Russia ( re Crimea) , cited above, §§   1351-52).       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 57215/11 Akhvlediani and Others v. Russia 11/08/2011 Malkhaz AKHVLEDIANI 1967 Georgian Beka TAKADZE 1991 Georgian Vazha TAKADZE 1985 Georgian Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association   Stichting Justice Initiative   2. 77190/11 Lomsadze and Others v. Russia 17/11/2011 Giorgi LOMSADZE 1994 Georgian Gaga BUSKHRIKIDZE 1987 Georgian Dato KHVEDELIDZE 1994 Georgian Shota SHUBITIDZE 1984 Georgian Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association   Stichting Justice Initiative 3. 56887/14 Midelashvili v. Russia 02/09/2011 Meri MIDELASHVILI 1950 Georgian Jemal MIDELASHVILI 1948 Georgian Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association   Stichting Justice Initiative   [1] The term “South Ossetia” refers to a region of Georgia which is currently outside the de facto control of the Georgian Government.