Communicated on 2 April 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 2146/10 Aleksandre MANUKIAN against Georgia lodged on 1 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

2 . At the material time the applicant was serving a prison sentence for various offences in Rustavi no. 6 Prison. On 18 January 2008 he was transferred to a prison hospital in order to have an X-ray of his eye. While there he had a verbal altercation with one of the doctors, following which he was allegedly severely beaten by the head and the deputy head of the prison hospital, A.M. and G.B. respectively, as well as by several prison officers, including A.P. Immediately thereafter, the applicant was transferred back to Rustavi no. 6 Prison, where he wrote a complaint about his ill-treatment and requested a medical examination, but to no avail. On the same date, criminal proceedings were initiated against him for physically and verbally insulting two prison officers – A.P. and D.N., an offence under Article 378 § 3 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Both of the prison officers had an immediate medical check-up; minor bruises were identified on A.P. ’ s face.

3 . On 21 January 2008 the applicant filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor of Georgia, describing in detail the incident of 18 January 2008 and requesting the initiation of criminal proceedings. The applicant claimed in his request that he had been subjected to electro-shock during his ill ‑ treatment. Similar request was sent to the Public Defender of Georgia.

4 . On 5 February 2008 the Public Defender of Georgia sent a letter to the deputy General Prosecutor of Georgia requesting to follow-up on the applicant ’ s complaint and to take any lawful action required. In support of his request, the Public Defender, whose representative had visited the applicant in prison, submitted a detailed statement of the applicant concerning the incident and also two statements of his co-inmates.

5 . On 6 February 2008 the applicant re-submitted his complaint with the General Prosecutor, denouncing the inactivity of the investigation and complaining about the relevant authorities ’ failure to conduct his prompt medical examination. On 20 February 2008 the above complaint was forwarded to the investigative department under the Ministry of Justice and was added to the criminal file pending against the applicant.

6 . On 7 March 2008 an investigator in charge of the applicant ’ s case questioned two of his co-inmates, D.K. and Z.M. who confirmed that upon his return to Rustavi no. 6 Prison the applicant had had clear traces of ill ‑ treatment on his body: his clothes had been damaged with obvious signs of footprints and he had had red spots over his back and also in the area of his eye.

7 . On 20 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged with disobedience and attack on prison officers, offences under Article 378 §§ 1 and 5 of the Criminal Code. The two prison officers – A.P. and D.N. were granted victim status. On the same date, while being questioned in the status of an accused, the applicant maintained his ill-treatment allegations.

8 . On 24 April 2008 the lawyers acting on the applicant ’ s behalf asked the acting head of the prison hospital to grant them access to the relevant video recordings made in the prison hospital on the day of the incident. The request was refused.

9 . On 19 June 2008 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant under Article 378 § 5 of the Convention for attacking prison officers and acquitted of disobedience charges. The applicant was sentenced to ten years and four months ’ imprisonment, which sentence was added to the unserved part of his previous sentence. The first instance court dismissed several requests of the defence, inter alia , the request for an in-court examination of three prisoners who on the day of the incident had been transferred to and from the prison hospital together with the applicant. The request for the questioning of the applicant ’ s co-inmates was also refused. As for the video recordings, in reply to the court ’ s query, the deputy head of the prison hospital claimed that the relevant recordings had already been destroyed.

10 . On 15 July 2008 the applicant filed an appeal, maintaining his request for the in-court examination of several witnesses on his behalf. He further denounced the failure of the investigative authorities to conduct his medical examination immediately after the incident. By a decision of 23 September 2008 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s requests and confirmed his conviction.

11 . On 16 October 2008 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law, complaining about the violation of his defence rights and requesting his acquittal. On 4 March 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

12 . On 8 January 2009 the applicant ’ s lawyer inquired with the Main Prosecutor ’ s office of Georgia about the progress of his complaints of 21 January and 6 February 2008. His letter has been left unanswered.

COMPLAINTS

13 . The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the head and deputy head of the prison hospital and several other prison officers and that no investigation had been conducted in this regard. He further complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. Notably, he claimed that the investigation had been one-sided and that none of the witnesses in his defence had been examined in-court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on 18 January 2008?

2. 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)?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

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 domestic courts duly examine the applicant ’ s version of events concerning the incident of 18 January 2008?

(b) Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses agai nst him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1?