Communicated on 28 September 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 42174/11 Levan ASATIANI and others against Georgia lodged on 3 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all Georgian nationals who are rep resented before the Court by Ms T . Abazadze , Katsitadze , Mr Ph. Leach and Ms J. Evans, lawyers practising in Tbilisi and London.

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

A. Background

3. All applicants are officially acknowledged veterans of the armed conflicts which took place in two regions of Georgia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – in 1992-1993. In addition, some of them took part in the armed hostilities between Georgia and Russia in August 2008. Almost all of the applicants, having received war injuries of various gravity, have been declared as handicapped persons. All the applicants with the exception of nos. 2 and 7, are also members of a non-governmental organisation – Georgian Legion – which has been operating for the purposes of protection of veteran ’ s social and political rights since August 2010.

4. On 24 December 2010 the applicants informed the Tbilisi City Hall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law on public manifestations, of their intention to hold a sit-in action between 27 December 2010 and 7 January 2011 at the territory of Heroes ’ Square near the War Memorial, in Tbilisi. The purpose of the planned manifestation was to denounce drastic cuts in the war veterans ’ various social allowances and benefits by the Government.

5. On 27 December 2010 the Tbilisi City Hall acknowledged receipt of the applicant s ’ request and explained, in reply, the rights and responsibilities of demonstrators, as provided for by the relevant law.

6. On the same day the sit-in action started. Around twenty-five war veterans gathered at Heroes Square, sat up tents and mattresses. The protesters did no block the traffic, or the pavement. They used the nearby public toilet and regularly cleaned the area. The total number of protesters varied between 30 and 50 people as some supporters would join and leave the action each day. The protest was routinely monitored by various domestic and international observers, and it was due to end on 7 January 2011, as had initially been indicated in the prior notice addressed to the Tbilisi City Hall.

B. Dispersal of the sit-in protest on 3 January 2011

7. On 3 January 2011 the protest was held peacefully as on any other of the preceding days. All ten applicants were present on the site on that day. In the afternoon, according to the applicants, presumably a motorcade of the then President of Georgia, Mr Saakashvili, of several armoured vehicles, followed by a police convoy, drove slowly past the site of the demonstration.

8. Within an hour of the Presidential escort passing, several police patrol cars arrived on the site. The police ordered the applicants to dismantle their tents and vacate the lieu. When asked what the reason for such orders was, some of officers answered that the applicant ’ s sit-in event spoilt the appearance of the city. Wishing to avoid the tension, the applicants and other protesters agreed to dismantle the tents and remove the mattresses but refused to leave the territory, explaining that they had been given permission from the Tbilisi City Hall to demonstrate there until 7 January 2011.

9. In the light of the applicants ’ refusal to vacate the territory, suddenly a large number of plain-clothed agents of the Ministry of the Interior arrived. The applicants subsequently identified them as agents of a special State Security unit of the Ministry. After the arrival of those agents, the situation started to escalate. The agents allegedly started throwing insults at the applicants and other war veterans, as if intentionally provoking an escalation. During a verbal altercation with the protesters, one of those plain-clothed agents punched a protesting woman in the face, and the latter started to bleed from the nose. Witnessing to this incident, applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7 attempted to grab the impudent agent, but each of them was then separately encircled by many other plain-clothed agents who started punching, kicking and violently hitting these three applicants with rubber truncheons.

10. Whilst applicants nos. 9 and 10 managed to flee from the assailing police agents, and they were never remanded nor faced any charges afterwards, the remaining eight applicant who participated in the protest rally were forcefully handcuffed and put into police vehicles. They were transferred in police patrol cars to the short remand prison of the Tbilisi police headquarter. There, administrative charges of breach of public order and putting up resistance to police orders were brought against those eight applicants, and they were remanded in police custody overnight. The conditions of their detention in that prison were allegedly poor, but neither of the applicants raised that issue before the competent domestic authorities.

C. Trial on 4 January 2011

11. On 4 January 2011 at around noon applicants nos. 1-8 were brought from the Tbilisi police headquarters to Tbilisi City Court for a judicial review of the administrative charges against them.

12. The applicants were represented by three lawyers of their choice. During the hearing, the lawyers requested that a video recording of what had happened during the dispersal of the protest at Heroes ’ Square be admitted to the case file. The lawyer explained that there existed a significant disparity between the written explanations of the police officers who had effectuated the arrests and what had really happened and filmed by independent journalists. The judge rejected the applicants ’ request as ill-founded.

13. The trial judge, rejecting the evidence presented by the applicants as well as independent witnesses ’ statements who had attributed the blame for escalating the situation to plain-clothed police officers, confirmed its decision dated 4 January 2011 by reference to the statements of the police officers only. Thus, the judge found all ten applicants guilty of breach of public order and putting up resistance to legitimate orders of the police, sentencing each of them to a fine of 400 Georgian Laris (some 180 Euros).

14. All applicants appealed against their conviction of 4 January 2011, complaining about the lower court ’ s refusal to include a video recording of their clash with the police into the case file. By a decision of 21 January 2011, their appeal was rejected by the Tb ilisi Court of Appeals as ill ‑ founded.

D. Investigation into the alleged police abuses of 3 January 2011

15. On 10 March 2011 lawyers acting on behalf of the applicants requested the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office to inform them whether a criminal investigation was launched with respe ct to two separate episode: ( i ) the unlawful dispersal of the sit-in protest on 3 January 2011 by the police and (ii) the alleged infliction of bodily injuries to applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7.

16. By a letter of 23 March 2011 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicants that an agent of the Ministry who had hit the protesting woman on 3 January 2011 had been dismissed from the office for a breach of ethical norms.

17. On 26 April 2011 the applicants filed a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior, arguing that the dismissal of an officer was not a sufficient redress for the unlawful and abusive actions of the police. They again requested that a proper criminal investigation be lodged into the incident.

18. On 13 May 2011 the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicants that a criminal investigation had indeed been lodged into the fact of beating of a number of protestors, including the protesting woman and applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7, on 10 January 2011.

19. On 28 June 2011 the applicants ’ lawyers requested that victim status be granted to their clients within the framework of the pending criminal investigation. No reply followed at that time.

20. On 16 May 2013, with the exception of applicants nos. 9 and 10, the remaining eight applicants were finally granted victim status in the criminal proceedings initiated on 10 January 2011.

21. Subsequently, between September 2013 and May 2015, the applicants ’ lawyers enquired on several occasions as to which exactly investigative measures had been undertaken by the prosecution authority. In addition, the lawyers, referring to the fact that applicants nos. 1-8 had been granted victim status, requested on their behalf, as provided for by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be granted access to the available case materials. However, all these requests were rejected by the prosecution authority on various dates for different reasons.

COMPLAINTS

22. All ten applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention that that the dispersal of their sit-in protest by the police and the subsequent initiation of administrative liability proceedings against some of them unduly restricted their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

23. Applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7 additionally complain under Article 3 of the Convention about their alleged ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the sit-in protest and the absence of effective investigation in this regard.

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Were applicants nos. 4, 5 and 7 subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during the dispersal of the sit-in protest by the police on 3 January 2011?

2. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the three above-mentioned applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?

3. In view of the dispersal of the sit-in protest of 3 January 2011 by the police and the initiation of administrative liability proceedings against some of them , has there been an infringement of Article 11 of the Convention with respect to all ten applicants ?

Appendix

N o .

Firstname LASTNAME

Birth date

Place of residence

Mr Levan ASATIANI

(applicant no. 1)

26/12/1957

Tbilisi

Mr Levon ASATRYAN

(applicant no. 2)

18/12/1958

Tbilisi

Mr Ilia CHIGHOSHVILI

(applicant no. 3)

18/11/1973

Village Navazi

Mr Malkhaz TOPURIA

(applicant no. 4)

11/01/1968

Tbilisi

Mr Amur REVISHVILI

(applicant no. 5)

29/09/1969

Tbilisi

Mr Shota ZGHUDADZE

(applicant no. 6)

05/02/1971

Village Nabakevi

Mr Shota IAMANIDZE

(applicant no. 7 )

28/04/1986

Tbilisi

Mr Valerian DZEBISASHVILI

(applicant no. 8 )

11/10/1966

Tbilisi

Mr Teimuraz ELISASHVILI

(applicant no. 9 )

13/12/1957

Tbilisi

Mr Elguja CHKHAIDZE

(applicant no. 1 0 )

25/12/1956

Tbilisi