Communicated on 3 September 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36298/12 Giorgi OGBAIDZE and others against Georgia lodged on 8 June 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all Georgian nationals and are represented before the Court by Mr N. Kvaratskhelia and Ms T. Gabiani, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.

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

3. On 25 May 2011 hundreds of opposition supporters , including the eleven applicants, gathered in front of the Parliament building on Rustaveli Avenue. The authorities warned protesters that they would break up the demonstration in order to make way for the planned Independence Day military parade on Rustaveli Avenue on the following day .

4. The protesters had a permit to hold a rally on 25 May that expired at midnight, and opposition leaders stated that they intended to stay put. Tbilisi ’ s municipal authorities offered the protesters another rally venue, which they refused. At 12:15 a.m., fifteen minutes after the rally permit expired, riot police moved on the demonstrators using water cannons and teargas to disperse them, indiscriminately beating and detaining many .

5. All eleven applicants received physical injuries of different gravity which were inflicted either by rubber truncheons or plastic projectiles shot from non-lethal anti-riot rifles. They submitted individual accounts of the circumstances in which each of them had fallen victim to the police abuses.

6. Applicants nos. 1, 3, 5 and 10 were arrested by the anti-riot police during the dispersal of the rally and transferred to the police headquarters in Tbilisi, where administrative charges were brought against them and they stayed overnight. On the same day, the four applicants were convicted of the administrative misdemeanours of breach of public order and disobedience to police orders and sentenced either to 30 or 60 days of administrative detention. They were placed in remand centres either in Marneuli or Kvareli for the purposes of serving their administrative sentences.

7. Applicant no. 9 was also arrested and transferred to the police headquarters in Tbilisi where he was kept for several hours; however no administrative charges were brought against him.

8. According to statements of applicants nos. 1, 5 and 9, they were ill ‑ treated, either beaten or insulted, by police officers during their overnight detention in the police headquarters in Tbilisi .

9. Applicants nos. 1, 3, 5 and 10 further provide description of inhuman treatment by staff of the remand centres in Marneuli and Kvareli where they had been transferred to serve their administrative sentences. Thus, prison officers would intentionally deprive them of the possibility to sleep, eat properly or maintain personal hygiene.

10. On 19 July, 4 August and 17 October 2011 the applicants requested the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office and the Ministry of the Interior to launch a query into the disproportionate use of force by the police during the dispersal of the protest rally on 26 May 2011. Applicants nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9 also voiced their complaints about the inhuman treatment during their custody in the main police headquarters in Tbilisi , where some of them had been kept overnight on 26 May 2011, or in short remand prison centres in Marneuli and Kvareli remand centres.

11. On 17 October 2011 all of the applicants with the exception of applicant no. 10 (who lodged on that day a criminal complaint about his ill-treatment for the first time) enquired about progress in the investigation, if any. They were not given the procedural status of victim at that time.

12. On 22 December 2012 and 8 January 2013 applicants nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were interviewed by an investigative authority for the first time in the capacity of witnesses in relation to their complaints about their alleged ill ‑ treatment on 26 May 2011. After the interview, the prosecutor in charge of their cases informed them that a decision on whether they should be granted victim status would be made later.

13. On 28 May 2013 a former high-ranking official, Mr I.M, who had held the post of Minister of the Interior during the impugned events, was charged with abuse of official capacity. Notably, he was accused of having ordered a large-scale and intentionally violent police dispersal of the protest rally on 26 May 2011 as a result of which many civilians had received serious bodily injuries. However, none of the applicants, according to the latest information available in the case file, were granted victim status or otherwise involved in that criminal case.

COMPLAINTS

14. All eleven applicants complain under Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention about the disproportionate use of force by the anti-riot police unit during the dispersal of the protest rally on 26 May 2011 and the lack of an effective investigation.

15. Applicants nos. 1, 5 and 9 complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by police officers during their overnight detention in the police headquarters in Tbilisi on 26 May 2011 and that no effective investigation of that ill-treatment followed. Applicants 1, 3, 5 and 10 further complain under the same provision about their ill-treatment by staff of the Marneuli and Kvareli remand centres where they served their administrative sentences and the lack of an effective investigation in that regard.

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the eleven applicant s subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during the dispersal of the demonstration on 26 May 2011 ?

2. Were applicant s nos. 1, 5 and 9 subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during their custody in the police headquarters of Tbilisi on 26 May 2011 ?

3. Were applicants nos. 1, 3, 5 and 10 subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during their detention (serving administrative sentences of detention of either 30 or 60 days) in the remand centres in Marneuli and Kvareli ?

4. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate i nvestigation into the relevant applicant s ’ above-mentioned allegations of ill ‑ treatment (see questions nos. 1-3 above) , as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?

5. In view of the dispersal of the protest rally of 26 May 2011 by the police, has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right s to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?

Appendix