SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6643/10 by Gocha ARCHAIA against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Danutė Jočienė , Dragoljub Popović , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , Kristina Pardalos , Guido Raimondi , judges,

and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2010,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having regard to the letter submitted by the applicant ' s representative on 31 August 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gocha Archaia, is a Georgian national who was born in 1971. He was repre sented before the Court by Ms Maia Eloshvil i, a lawyer practising in Tbili si . The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

A. The domestic proceedings

On 23 May 2006 the applicant, a drug addict, was convicted of possession of a large amount of illicit drugs and sentenced to six years in prison. However, as he was suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), that disease being already in an advanced stage (category C3), his sentence was subsequently suspended.

On 5 August 2008 the applicant was arrested again on suspicion of carrying drugs, and on 18 November 2008 the Khelvachauri District Court convicted him of that drug offence, qualifying his action as recidivism. He was sentenced to nine years in prison. The conviction was based on the verbatim records of the search and seizure, the results of forensic examinations and the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution, which items of evidence established that 0,6 grams of an illicit opiate substance (acetylated opium) had been found on the applicant ' s person upon his arrest.

The applicant then appealed on points of fact. However, having examined and replied to all his major arguments, the Kutaisi Court of Appeal fully upheld his conviction by a judgment of 27 February 2009.

As disclosed by the records of his trial at the first and appellate instances, the applicant, acting through his lawyer, questioned all the witnesses for the prosecution, challenged the accuracy and relevance of the material pieces of evidence against him and obtained the examination of witnesses on his behalf as well.

On 20 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ' s cassation appeal on points of law as inadmissible.

B. The proceedings before the Court

In his application form, the applicant, referring to the alleged absence of adequate medical care and thus fearing for his life and well-being in prison, requested the Court to intervene urgently.

On 25 February 2010, as well as communicating the applicant ' s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the President of the Chamber , having examined the applicant ' s medical file, decided to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant be placed in a specialised hospital capable of dispensing adequate medical care for his various diseases, in particular for AIDS.

On 18 June 2010 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the communicated complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, reporting on the treatment provided to the applicant in prison both before and after the Court ' s intervention on 25 February 2010.

On 20 July 2010 the Court invited the applicant ' s representative to submit, by 31 August 2010, observations in reply to those of the Government.

In a letter of 31 August 2010, the representative briefly informed the Court, without giving any detailed explanation, that the applicant wished to withdraw his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The representative insisted, however, on the continuation of the examination of the remainder of the application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about a lack of adequate medical care in prison.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he also claimed his innocence, challenging, in his voluminous submissions, the domestic courts ' findings of fact, accusing them of a lack of impartiality and unfairness on account of the erroneous assessment of the witnesses ' statements and other pieces of evidence in the criminal case file. Article 13 of the Convention was invoked to reiterate the complaint about the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

THE LAW

A. The complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

Having due regard to the applicant ' s own request for the withdrawal of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, which was made in a clear and unambiguous manner, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this complaint , within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of this part of the application (cf. Murad Todua v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6024/10, 9 November 2010; Seidova v. Georgia (dec.), no. 16956/09 , 24 November 2009).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list in so far as the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is concerned .

B. The remainder of the application

Having due regard to the wording of the applicant ' s complaint s under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court notes that he essentially questions the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him , challenging the domestic courts ' findings of fact. In other words, the applicant requests the Court to act as an appeal court of “ fourth instance ”.

However, the Court reiterates that the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and for interpreting and applying rules of substantive and procedural law (see, amongst many authorities, Patsuria v. Georgia , no. 30779/04, § 86, 6 November 2007; Kobelyan v. Georgia , no. 40022/05 , § 14, 16 July 2009 ) . All of the applicant ' s arguments concerning the accuracy of the assessment of the evidence , including the witnesses ' statements, were voiced by his lawyer before the domestic courts without any impediment , and the courts then examined those arguments and gave answers; their reasoning does not disclose any manifest arbitrariness (cf., a contrario , Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic , no. 35450/04, §§ 52 and 53, 24 July 2008) .

Finally, the Court notes that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention on account of the applicant ' s disagreement with the outcome of the domestic proceedings.

Consequently, the Court considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to lift the interim measure previously indicate d on 25 February 2010 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Fran çoise Tulkens Registrar President