Communicated on 15 September 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 28297/10 Tengiz BERIDZE against Georgia lodged on 30 April 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Tengiz Beridze , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Batumi. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Bekauri and Ms Ts . Javakhishvili , lawyers practising in Tbilisi.

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

3 . Between early April and June 2009 thousands of opposition supporters held demonstrations in various parts of Tbilisi, as well as in a few other major cities of Georgia, on a daily basis, demanding resignation of President Saakashvili and his Government. Protesters set up overnight camps which were composed of small tent dwellings looking like jail cells. Those mocked-up cells were to symbolise, in the protesters ’ view, the country ’ s descent into a “Police State”.

4 . The applicant was one of those activists who had been dwelling, since 23 April 2009, in a protest camp situated in Ingorokva Street, Tbilisi, in front of the Office of the General Inspection of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry ’ s building”). Between 23 and 25 April 2009 the applicant and his other fellow protesters witnessed how certain persons standing on a balcony of the Ministry ’ s building were regularly firing from pneumatic rifles in the direction of the mocked-up cells; relevant pellets were then discovered on the territory of the camp.

5 . On 25 April 2009, at around 4:30 p.m., the applicant, whilst visiting his fellow protesters in one of the mocked-up jail cells of the camp, suddenly felt pain in the right cheek, which started bleeding. He was immediately provided with medical care for the open injury on his cheek, which was then confirmed, by a medical expert, to have been inflicted by a pellet fired from a pneumatic rifle. There was a number of protesters at the camp who witnessed how a person standing on the balcony of the Ministry ’ s building with a pneumatic rifle continued firing in their direction even after the applicant had been injured.

6 . The case file contains a video footage and photographs which show two persons, with more or less identifiable faces, standing on the balcony of the Ministry ’ s building with a pneumatic rifle in hands.

7 . On 25 April 2009 the Ministry of the Interior opened a criminal case for infliction of less serious bodily injury to the applicant. He was granted victim status. On the same day the applicant requested that a number of investigative measures be implemented, including interviewing him and several other eyewitnesses. He also requested that the video footage of the persons standing on the balcony of the Ministry ’ s building be added into the file. He reiterated his requests on 28 April 2009. However, both his requests went unanswered.

8 . On 23 July and 8 September 2009 the applicant, complaining about the absence of any progress in the investigation, requested the Tbilisi City prosecutor ’ s office to get involved into the it . He also denounced that there was no institutional independence between the investigative body, the Ministry of the Interior, and the suspects – agents of the General Inspection Office of the same Ministry.

9 . In reply, on 7 August and 15 October 2009 the Tbilisi City prosecutor ’ s office advised the applicant that there was no ground for recusal of the Ministry of the Interior from the investigation of the case at that stage. On the other hand, the prosecution authority acknowledged a need for speeding up the investigation.

10 . On 30 October 2009 the applicant attempted to appeal against the prosecutor ’ s answer of 15 October 2009 to a court, but, by a letter of 3 November 2009, the Tbilisi City Court advised him that it did not have competence to review a conflict of competence between the two investigative authorities.

11 . On 29 June 2010 the applicant enquired again with the Ministry of the Interior about a progress in the investigation. According to the case file, no reply followed

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was shot in his face from a pneumatic rifle by people standing on the balcony of the Ministry of the Interior ’ s building and that no effective investigation has been conducted in that connection.

13 . The applicant also complains that the regular shooting of the protest camp situated in the Ingorokva Street with pneumatic rifles from the direction of the Ministry of the Interior ’ s building between 23 and 25 April 2009, of which he ultimately fell a victim, was an attempt to impede his and other protesters ’ right to participate in a peaceful demonstration, in breach of Article 11 of the Convection.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the relevant circumstances surrounding the shooting of the applicant from a pneumatic rifle on 25 April 2009, was he subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

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

2. Having regard to the relevant circumstances surrounding the incident of 25 April 2009, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?