Communicated on 10 May 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 8827/19 Vladimer MTCHEDLISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 24 January 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment following his arrest for public drinking and alleged resistance to police officers on 15 May 2017. An external visual examination of the applicant made upon his placement at the temporary detention centre following his arrest revealed small haematomas on his face and bruises and redness around the ribcage. An ambulance was called twice during the applicant ’ s twelve-hour detention at the centre. He was given painkillers. On 16 May 2017 the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant resulted in a fine of 300 Georgian Laris (GEL, approximately 100 Euros (EUR)) for disobeying police orders. The relevant findings were based on the statements of the police officers who had arrested the applicant. On 17 May 2017 a criminal investigation was opened into the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment with regard to Article 333 of the Criminal Code (exceeding official powers). On 18 May 2017 an X-ray revealed multiple fractures of the applicant ’ s ribs. The investigation is ongoing. The applicant complains under substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) When and where were the injuries complained of by the applicant inflicted upon him?

(b) How many police officers arrested the applicant?

(c) Did the applicant show resistance to the police officers arresting him on 15 May 2017? If yes, what evidence exists in that respect?

(d) Could the applicant ’ s injuries, including fractured ribs, have resulted from a proportionate use of force by the police officers?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114 ‑ 23, ECHR 2015), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?