Communicated on 12 March 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 7088/11 Giorgi GABLISHVILI and others against Georgia lodged on 25 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

2 . All four applicants were at the material time serving their respective prison sentences in Rustavi no. 1 Prison. On 30 March 2009 during their alleged attempt to escape from prison, the applicants were severely beaten by prison officers. They were then placed in a punishment cell where their ill-treatment apparently continued. Their subsequent medical examination identified multiple bruises and haemorrhages on the applicants ’ bodies and faces .

3 . On 13 November 2009 all applicants, except for Giorgi Mtchedlidze , complained with the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia about their alleged ill ‑ treatment and requested the initiation of criminal proceedings in line with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. On 1 February 2010 they inquired about the progress of the investigation, complaining that neither of them had been questioned in connection with their allegation of ill ‑ treatment. On 8 July 2010 they sent, acting via the Public Defender of Georgia, yet another complaint. In reply, by a letter of 30 July 2010 they were informed that preliminary inquiry had been opened on 22 July 2010 under Article 123 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (serious or less serious damage to health caused by excessive force).

4 . In the meantime, on 29 December 2009 the Rustavi City Court convicted the applicants of various offences, including an attempt to escape from prison. Their conviction was confirmed by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 25 March 2010. Before the first two instances, the applicants maintained their ill-treatment allegations, which were not, however, addressed by the courts. By a decision of 26 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected their appeal on points of law as inadmissible.

5 . On 15 December 2010 and 13 January 2011 all four applicants, acting via their lawyer, wrote again to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia inquiring about the progress of their case. In their letter of 13 January 2011, they in addition denounced the fact that their ill-treatment allegations against prison authorities were being investigated by the very same authorities – the investigative department of the Ministry of Prisons. The lawyer, further, inquired as to why Giorgi Mtchedlidze ’ s complaint was not part of the same investigation. On 31 March 2011 the above letter of the applicants was forwarded to the investigative department of the Ministry of Prisons, but was left unanswered.

6 . In parallel, the applicants ’ lawyer engaged the office of the Public Defender of Georgia (“the PDO”) to support their request for investigation. Following several inquiries, by a letter of 29 March 2012, the PDO was informed that the relevant investigation was still ongoing and that several witnesses, including the applicants, had been questioned in this regard.

7 . On 21 October 2013 the applicants wrote yet another letter to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia, but no reply followed. Hence, on 19 June and 7 August 2014 the applicants ’ lawyer sent two additional complaints.

8 . By a letter of 21 July 2014, the applicants were informed that a decision had been taken on 20 August 2012 to discontinue the relevant proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime.

COMPLAINTS

9 . The applicants claimed under Article 3 of the Convention that disproportionate force had been used against them during their alleged attempt to escape from prison; that subsequently they had been severely beaten by prison officers and that their ill-treatment allegations had never been a subject of an adequate and efficient investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on 30 March 2009?

2. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants ’ 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)? In that connection, did Giorgi Mtchedlidze act with due diligence in filing his complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment?

The Government are invited to provide the Court with a copy of the relevant criminal case file.

Appendix

N o .

Applicant name

Date of birth

Nationality

Representative

1Giorgi GABLISHVILI

29/12/1988

Georgian

B. Bochorishvili

2Romik KASYANOVI

25/01/1982

Georgian

B. Bochorishvili

3Zurab GACHECHILADZE

17/04/1984

Georgian

B. Bochorishvili

4Giorgi

MCHEDLIDZE

26/03/1987

Georgian

B. Bochorishvili