CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31293/23 Aleksandre TOGONIDZE against Georgia lodged on 4 August 2023 communicated on 28 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that he was ill-treated at a police station on 16   November 2019 and compelled to participate in a crime-scene reconstruction, making self-incriminating statements during the procedure without the assistance of a lawyer. The applicant also complained that the domestic courts based his conviction primarily on the evidentiary material obtained as a result of the impugned events and the related witness statements given by police officers, that the courts failed to meaningfully address his complaints in this respect, and that the criminal investigation regarding his injuries has been ineffective. The criminal proceedings against the applicant ended on 11   April 2023, when the Supreme Court declared his appeal inadmissible. The domestic courts reasoned, among other things, that the information given during the crime-scene reconstruction did not qualify, under the applicable procedural rules, as a self-incriminating statement. The applicant was convicted of aggravated homicide and sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. A criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment has been ongoing since 21   November 2019. The applicant relied on Articles   3 and 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§   81-90, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Having regard to the relevant procedural obligations arising under Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23, with further references), have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations?   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 (c) of the Convention?   In particular:   3.1.     Was the evidence against the applicant obtained as a result of the ill ‑ treatment he alleges, and did its admission into evidence render the proceedings as a whole unfair (see, inter alia , Ibrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, §   254, 13   September 2016)?   3.2.     Was the applicant informed by the police about opportunities to contact a defence counsel, to be appointed a legal aid counsel, and about his right to remain silent (see, inter alia , Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no.   36391/02, §   55, ECHR 2008; and Ibrahim and Others , cited above, §§   270-73)?   3.3.     Did the domestic courts’ reliance on the material derived from the crime scene reconstruction, together with the police officers’ accounts of the information obtained from the applicant when he did not have access to a lawyer, comply with the guarantees of Article   6 of the Convention? (see, inter alia , Salduz , §§   58-59, and Ibrahim and Others , §§ 266-74, both cited above)?