Communicated on 31 August 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 74113/11 Murman DUMBADZE and others against Georgia lodged on 24 November 2011

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 Ms T. Abazadze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.

2. On 25 May 2011 hundreds of opposition supporters, including the four applicants, gathered in front of the Parliament building on Rustaveli Avenue, the main thoroughfare in Tbilisi. 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.

3. 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

4. All four applicants received serious physical injuries which were inflicted either by rubber truncheons or projectiles shot from non-lethal anti-riot rifles . Those injuries were documented by relevant medical certificates. The most serious injury was inflicted by a projectile to the head area of the second applicant, he lost sight in one of the eyes as of it. The applicants submitted individual accounts of the circumstances in which each of them had fallen victim to the use of force by the anti-riot police .

5. After the dispersal of the protest rally, the applicants were taken into custody and transferred to the police headquarters in Tbilisi. The first applicant ’ s ill-treatment continued there: he was subjected to beatings and verbal insults by various numerous police officers for the duration of several hours. The administrative charges of breach of public order and disobedience to police orders were preferred against the first and fourth applicants. As to the second and third applicants, they were released from the police station in the early morning of 26 May 2013.

6. In the morning of 26 May 2011 the first and fourth applicants were taken from the police headquarters to the Tbilisi City Court which examined their case in a summary manner and found them guilty as charged. Each of them was sentenced to 30 days of administrative detention. As confirmed by the minutes of the trial, neither of the applicants raised any complaint relating to the procedural fairness of the administrative proceedings against them. After the conviction, the applicants were transferred to a short remand prison in Telavi, where they served the terms of their sentences.

7. Whilst the first applicant did not lodge an appeal against the conviction of 26 May 2011, the fourth one did so. As disclosed by the statement of his appeal, the fourth applicant focused on calling into question the lower court ’ s findings of fact and challenged the imposed sentence as disproportionate; he did not raise any other issue relating to the fairness of the proceedings, such as, for instance, the lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare for his defence or to appoint a lawyer . His appeal on points of fact was rejected as inadmissible by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals on 28 May 2011.

8. On 15 June and 6 July 2011 the first and second applicants, respectively, were interviewed by the prosecution authority for the first time in the capacity of witnesses in relation to their alleged ill-treatment by the police on 26 May 2011.

9. On 15 July 2011 the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office made a public statements that the Ministry of the Interior ’ s department of internal oversight was in charge of investigating the question of whether certain police officers had used disproportionate force during the dispersal of the protest rally.

10. On 28 November 2011 the applicants ’ advocates requested the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office to inform them whether a criminal investigation had been opened into all four applicant ’ s ill-treatment during the dispersal of the protest rally and during their detention in the Tbilisi police headquarters. The advocates appended the medical certificates confirming the existence of physical injuries to their complaints and requested that the applicants be granted victim status.

11. On 28 December 2012 the fourth applicant was interviewed in the capacity of a witness in relation to the events of 26 May 2011.

12. According to the case file, as of today, none of the applicants has been granted victims status, and no progress has been reached in the currently still pending investigation.

COMPLAINTS

13. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about their ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the protest rally on 26 May 2011 and in its immediate aftermath. The first applicant additionally complains about his ill-treatment during the subsequent custody in Tbilisi police headquarters on 26 May 2011. They further call into question the absence of an adequate investigation into those police abuses.

14. The applicants also complain that the police dispersal of the protest rally constituted a breach of their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention .

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Were all four applicants subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during the dispersal of the demonstration on 26 May 2011 as well as in its immediate aftermath?

2. Was the first applicant ill-treated during his subsequent custody in the police headquarters of Tbilisi?

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

4. In view of the dispersal of the protest rally of 26 May 2011 by the police, has there been a violation of the applicants ’ rights under Article s 10 and 11 of the Convention?

Appendix