CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 mai 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 97 May 2007 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia - 71156/01 Judgment 3.5.2007 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations Violent assault on a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses by a group purporting to support the Orthodox Church and lack of an effective investigation: violation Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Violent assault on a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses by a group purporting to support the Orthodox Church: violation Article 14 Discrimination Comments and attitudes of authorities on being notified of a violent assault on a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses: violation Facts : The case concerns an incident in October 1999 in which a fanatical group of Orthodox believers led by a defrocked priest attacked a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. The group surrounded and entered a theatre in which 120 members of the congregation were gathered. Although some of the members managed to escape, 60 others, including women and children, were violently assaulted by the attackers, who punched and kicked them, struck them with sticks, iron crosses and belts and pushed them down staircases. One man's head was shaved by a group of chanting assailants. The Jehovah's Witnesses were then searched, their personal effects were removed and any symbols of their beliefs they were carrying were thrown into a fire. 16 people were admitted to hospital, mainly suffering from head injuries and headaches. Although attempts were made to alert the police, the officers on duty were initially reluctant to intervene. One of the applicants was even told by the officer in charge that he would have given the Jehovah's Witnesses “an even worse time”. The attack was filmed by one of the assailants. Recordings in which a number of the attackers were clearly identifiable were broadcast on national television and their names given to the authorities by the victims. However, although 42   applicants lodged criminal complaints, only 11 were granted civil-party status. The criminal proceedings were beset by various problems: they were repeatedly suspended, allegedly because the attackers could not be identified; the senior police investigator stated that his Orthodox faith prevented him from conducting an impartial investigation; and, when one of the applicants picked out two of the assailants in an identification parade, he was charged with public-order offences before eventually being acquitted. Little, if any action was taken to bring the assailants to justice: two of the attackers were placed under investigation on suspicion of having burned religious literature, while their leader, who claimed that he would inform the police in advance whenever his group planned to carry out an attack, was later charged in connection with separate incidents. Law : Article   3 – (a)     Treatment inflicted on the applicants : Allegations of inhuman treatment were upheld in the cases of 31 applicants in respect of whom there was corroborating medical or video evidence or a precise, unchallenged, description of ill-treatment. A further 6 applicants were held to have been indirect victims of inhuman treatment as a result of beatings administered to their children. 14 applicants whose statements did not specify the nature and gravity of their treatment were found to have been subjected to degrading treatment on account of the broadcasting of the images of the violence, including the religiously inspired debasement of the man whose head was shaved, on national television. No violation was found in the cases of 16 applicants who had escaped the attack and 37 applicants who had not lodged a complaint with the Georgian authorities. Conclusion : violation in respect of 45 of the applicants (unanimously). (b)     The authorities' response : It had not been shown that the authorities were aware that the attack was being planned. However, once it had been reported to them, the police had failed to act diligently. 31   applicants had received no response to their complaints and the proceedings instituted in respect of the 11 applicants who were granted civil-party status were unsuccessful. The case investigator had made clear his bias from the start. A victim who identified some of the assailants had ended up himself being charged. It was regrettable that the Government had continued to assert that the perpetrators of the violence could not be identified, particularly in view of the available video evidence. In sum, the police had refused to intervene promptly to protect the applicants and their children and the applicants had subsequently been faced with total indifference on the part of the authorities who, for no valid reason, had refused to apply the law. Such an attitude on the part of authorities was liable to undermine the effectiveness of any other remedies that may have existed. Conclusion : violation in respect of 42 of the applicants (unanimously). Article   9 – The applicants had been attacked, humiliated and severely beaten because of their religious beliefs. Their religious literature had been confiscated and burnt while they were forced to look on. One of the applicants had had his head shaved as religious punishment. The applicants were subsequently confronted with total indifference and a failure to act on the part of the authorities, who, on account of the applicants' adherence to a religious community perceived as a threat to Christian Orthodoxy, took no action in respect of their complaints. Deprived of any remedy, the applicants could not enforce their rights to freedom of religion before the domestic courts. As that attack constituted the first act of large scale aggression against the Jehovah's Witnesses, the authorities' negligence had opened the doors to a generalisation of religious violence throughout Georgia by the same group leaving the applicants to fear renewed violence on each fresh manifestation of their faith. In those circumstances, the authorities had failed in their duty to take the necessary measures to ensure that the group of Orthodox extremists tolerated the applicants' religious community and enabled them to exercise freely their rights to freedom of religion. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   14 in conjunction with Articles   3 and 9 – The police's refusal to intervene promptly was largely due to the applicants' religious convictions. The comments and attitudes of the officials alerted about the attack or subsequently instructed to conduct the investigation were not compatible with the principle of equality before the law. No justification for that discriminatory treatment had been put forward by the Government. The authorities had enabled the instigator of the attacks to continue to stir up hatred through the media and to pursue acts of religiously-motivated violence, accompanied by his supporters, while alleging that they enjoyed the unofficial support of the authorities. This suggested possible complicity on the part of State representatives. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – Various awards were made in respect of non-pecuniary damage up to a maximum of EUR   850 per applicant.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes