Communicated on 15 April 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 49448/08 Aleksandre MANUKIAN against Georgia lodged on 25 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Aleksandre Manukian , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Ms E. Fileeva , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

2 . The applicant was serving a prison sentence for various offences in Rustavi no. 1 Prison at the material time. According to the bill of indictment of 5 April 2006, he along with four other inmates attacked the head of the prison department (an authority in charge of prisons at the material time) – B. Akh ., the Governor of Rustavi no. 1 Prison – T. T. and three other representatives of the prison department while the latter were inspecting Rustavi no. 1 Prison early in the morning of 30 January 2006. The head of the prison department as well as his accompanying prison officials were formally granted victim status in the above criminal proceedings.

3 . On 1 August 2006 the Rustavi City Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants under Article 378 § 4 of the Criminal Code of Georgia ( disobedience, obstruction of prison activities and attacking prison officers) . The trial judge concluded that the applicant had attacked the victims by throwing bottles and other items in their direction, verbally insulting them and also inciting other prisoners to riot against the prison administration. The applicant was sentenced to eight years ’ imprisonment. The final sentence, which included the unserved part of the applicant ’ s previous sentence, was set at ten years and four months.

4 . In establishing the applicant ’ s guilt, the first instance court referred to the statements of the five victims, including the pre-trial statements of the head of the prison department and the Governor of Rustavi no. 1 Prison. The two, despite the defendants ’ repeated requests, had not been examined in court. The court further relied on the testimony of seven members of the special unit of the prison department (“the special unit”) who had been involved in the incident as well as on the statements of two prisoners who had eye-witnessed the events at issue.

5 . According to the applicant, while finding his guilty, the Rustavi City Court left unexamined his and his co-defendants ’ version of events. They allege, in particular, that on 30 January 2006, at around 5:00 a.m. they were woken up by the head of the prison department accompanied by the Governor of Rustavi no.1 Prison, several employees of the prison department and members of the special unit, who verbally insulted and humiliated them. The applicant was threatened by the head of the prison department and then ill-treated by several officers of the special unit. The prisoners protested and the head of the prison department together with his colleagues left. However, in a short while, at around 7:00 a.m. the special unit re-entered the prison, forced the prisoners out of their barracks and severely beat them. According to the applicant, they were made to pass through a so-called corridor organised by the special unit officers, who beat and insulted them. Then, a group of prisoners, including the applicant, was transferred to Ksani Prison, where they were put in a punishment cell and left there for a month in extremely poor conditions, without any medical assistance. In support of their version of events, the applicant along with his co-defendants requested the trial judge to examine several other prisoners on their behalf as well as a doctor, who recorded the injuries of the ill ‑ treated prisoners. The requests were, however, refused.

6 . The applicant appealed his conviction, protesting his innocence and stating that the statements of the prosecution witnesses had been contradictory, that his ill-treatment allegations had not been considered and that certain evidence given in his defence had been ignored.

7 . On 23 April 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, finding that the first instance court had properly established the applicant ’ s guilt and given the correct legal qualification to his actions. The appeal court failed to summon the two victims B. Akh . and T. T. to the proceedings. As for the defence witnesses, it only allowed the questioning of one prisoner who had witnessed the events of 30 January 2006. The appeal court dismissed the applicant ’ s allegation concerning his ill-treatment and subsequent incarceration in a punishment cell in Ksani prison as unsubstantiated.

8 . By a decision of 11 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law as inadmissible.

COMPLAINTS

9 . The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the head of the prison department, his accompanying staff members and officers from the special unit during the events of 30 January 2006, put subsequently in a punishment cell and left without required medical assistance in inadequate conditions; and that no adequate investigation had been conducted into his allegations of ill-treatment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention he further claimed that the criminal proceedings conducted against him had been unfair. He noted, in particular, that the investigation had not been independent, as it had been conducted by the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Justice, the very same Ministry which, had been, at the material time, through the prison department in charge of the prison system; that the domestic courts had examined the case in a one-sided manner, refusing to question witnesses in the applicant ’ s defence and rejecting requests for the in-court examination of key prosecution witnesses. As a consequence the decisions rendered were unsubstantiated.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention? If so,

2. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular,

(a) Was the applicant ill-treated during the events of 30 January 2006 in Rustavi no. 1 Prison?

(b) Was the applicant put in a punishment cell in Ksani Prison and left there without necessary medical assistance in inadequate conditions?

3. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV)?

4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

In particular,

(a) Did the fact that the investigation had been conducted by the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Justice have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

(b) Did the domestic courts duly examine the applicant ’ s version of events concerning the events of 30 January 2006?

(c) Was the domestic courts ’ failure to examine the head of the prison department and the Governor of Rustavi no. 1 Prison in-court compatible with the applicant ’ s defence rights and his right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?

(d) Did the domestic courts ’ refusal to examine witnesses on the applicant ’ s behalf in connection with his alleged ill-treatment have any consequences for his defence rights and his right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?