Communicated on 6 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 60867/08 Shota Shanidze against Georgia lodged on 2 December 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Shota Shanidze , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by his mother, Ms N. Shanidze .

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

3 . In 2006 the applicant, who was a minor at the time, was charged with aggravated robbery and two other offences. On 18 September 2006 the Tbilisi City Court remanded him in pre-trial detention. On an unspecified date the applicant was placed in the prison medical establishment in Tbilisi.

4 . On 27 December 2006 the Tbilisi City Court ordered an expert medical examination of the applicant to be conducted by the psychiatrists of the National Forensics Bureau of Georgia. In their report of 31 January 2007, the experts concluded that at the time of commission of the incriminated offences, the applicant, who although had had the history of certain mental conditions, did not suffer from any kind of psychotic disorder and was in full control of his actions; however, after his arrest, he developed a temporary mental disorder – reactive psychosis; considering that he suffered from symptoms like, inter alia , hallucination, panic, destructive delusions, the experts concluded that the applicant was unable to give statements or participate in other meaningful way in the criminal proceedings; moreover, any possible sentence imposed on him would not have the intended correctional impact on him; thus, the experts recommended the applicant ’ s confinement in a custodial psychiatric clinic for mandatory treatment pending his recovery.

5 . On 17 March 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years in prison. Taking into consideration the applicant ’ s temporary mental disorder and the aforementioned expert medical report of 31 January 2007, the court suspended his sentence pending improvement of his medical condition and committed him to mandatory treatment in the Poti closed psychiatric clinic. 16 May 2007 the applicant was transferred there from the prison medical establishment in Tbilisi.

6 . On 17 September 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, finding the applicant innocent in the two other charges, upheld his conviction for the aggravated robbery and reduced his sentence to five years ’ imprisonment. Referring to the recent amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had removed the provisions on, inter alia , suspension of a sentence and confinement for mandatory medical treatment of a defendant who suffered from a mental disorder, the appellate court ordered the transfer of the applicant, who was already of full age by that time, to an ordinary prison – namely, No. 5 prison establishment in Tbilisi.

7 . At the motion of the applicant ’ s lawyer, a team of psychiatrist of a private clinic conducted second expert medical examination of the applicant. In their report of 13 October 2007 (“the second report”), assessing the applicant ’ s medical history, the experts concluded that when committing the incriminated offences, the applicant was unable to comprehend or take control over his actions due to his mental disorder; they also concluded that the applicant continued to suffer from this mental disorder to the date of the medical examination and confirmed the need for the applicant ’ s confinement in a custodial psychiatric clinic for mandatory treatment.

8 . On 20 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia found the applicant ’ s cassation claim inadmissible as being unsubstantiated and thus his conviction and placement in No. 5 prison establishment in Tbilisi became final. According to the applicant, the second medical report had been submitted to the Supreme Court before the decision on the inadmissibility was made.

COMPLAINT

9 . Invoking in substance Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the manner of execution of his sentence was incompatible with this invoked provision.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In which exactly custodial institutions did the applicant serve his sentence?

2. In view of the applicant ’ s mental disorder, was the manner of execution of the applicant ’ s sentence compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?