THIRD SECTION

Application no. 56080/10 Irakli SHANIDZE against Georgia and 2 other applications (see Appendix )

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicants are Georgian nationals (see the appendix). The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A . Shanidze v. Georgia, application no. 56080/10

2. The applicant was arrested on 19 February 2007 on suspicion of participating in the abduction of J.T. The on-spot personal search conducted by two police officers revealed drugs on his person. The applicant refused to sign the search report, claiming his innocence; he alleged that the drugs had been planted on him by police during the search.

3. On the same date the applicant was examined by a doctor who established several excoriations on his back. According to the medical report, the applicant claimed that he had received these injuries prior to the arrest.

4. On 20 February 2008 the applicant was formally charged with aggravated extortion, unlawful deprivation of liberty and unlawful drug possession. The applicant protested his innocence. On 21 February 2008 the Kutaisi City Court ordered his pre-trial detention.

5. On 28 October 2008 the Kutaisi City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to thirty years ’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant ’ s conviction as far as drug-related count was concerned, was based on the report of his personal search and the statements of the police officers, who had conducted the search. Despite the applicant ’ s reiterated requests, the trial court refused to question an investigator who had attended the search and E.K., the applicant ’ s sister in law, at whose place the applicant had been arrested and searched. The prosecution also failed to present to the trial court the video recording of the applicant ’ s personal search.

6. The applicant complained several times during the trial proceedings that he had been ill-treated by police after his arrest and that his mental condition had severely deteriorated as a result. He further noted that despite his reiterated requests he had not been provided with any medical treatment in prison.

7. On 24 November 2008 the applicant appealed his conviction, complaining about the unfairness of the first instance proceedings. In connection with the drug conviction, he reiterated that the drugs had been planted on him by police and requested the questioning of the investigator and E.K. as well as an access to the relevant video recording. On 6 July 2009 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, whilst rejecting the applicant ’ s requests, confirmed his conviction in full.

8. During the appeal proceedings the applicant reiterated his ill-treatment allegations and requested to arrange a forensic psychiatric examination capable of verifying a potential causal link between his alleged beating and the deterioration in his mental condition. The applicant ’ s requests were refused.

9. On 15 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia whilst dropping the charges for aggravated extortion and deprivation of liberty, confirmed the applicant ’ s drug conviction and reduced his sentence to thirteen years ’ imprisonment.

10. According to the case file, the applicant repeatedly voiced his ill-treatment allegations before various national authorities and also complained about the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. His requests were, however, left unanswered.

B . Gorgadze v. Georgia, application no. 57990/10

11. On 5 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful purchase, possession and sale of drugs. According to the record of his personal search, nine sachets with brownish substance were found in the right back pocket of his trousers. The search was carried out on the spot by two police officers, who rejected the applicant ’ s request for the attendance of independent witnesses, reasoning that there was a risk of him hiding or destroying the evidence. The applicant refused to sign the search record and specified that he had had no drugs on him.

12. According to the applicant ’ s arrest report, which was drawn up immediately after his search, multiple injuries were noted on the applicant ’ s body and face. When asked about the source of the injuries, the applicant, as noted in the report, claimed that he had fallen to the ground when running away from the police officers.

13. Later, after his transfer to the police department, an ambulance was called for the applicant. A doctor on duty, who had conducted his visual examination, concluded that the applicant had a hematoma on his left eye and multiple bruises in the chest area.

14. On 6 July 2009 the applicant was seen by a prosecutor in prison. In the presence of his lawyer, the applicant complained that he had been severely beaten by police officers immediately upon his arrest and also at the police department. A special note was drawn up detailing the applicant ’ s allegations, including the chain of events, the time, location, duration and methods of his ill-treatment. The applicant alleged that he had been threatened with rape.

15. On the next day, the police officers who had arrested the applicant, conducted an examination of the scene of his apprehension and concluded that the surface was uneven, with lots of rocks and holes.

16. On 17 November 2009 the Batumi City Court, whilst dropping the drug-dealing charges, convicted the applicant for unlawful possession of drugs in a particularly large quantity and sentenced him to eleven years ’ imprisonment and a fine. By a decision of 21 January 2010 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s conviction in full. The appeal court similarly to the trial court based its conclusions on the statements of the two police officers who had arrested the applicant and conducted his personal search. In connection with the applicant ’ s injuries, both instances concluded that the injuries had been the result of the applicant ’ s several falls to the ground during his attempt to escape.

17. On 17 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. As it appears from the case file, despite the applicant ’ s complaints, no criminal proceedings have been initiated into the circumstance of his alleged ill-treatment.

C . Danelia v. Georgia, application no. 56610/11

1 . The applicant ’ s arrest and criminal proceedings against him

18. The applicant was arrested on 17 November 2009 on suspicion of drug possession. According to the record of his personal search, two silver sachets with greyish substance were found in the back pocket of his jeans. As noted in the search record, the search was conducted by two police officers between 00.50 a.m. and 01.20 a.m.; the applicant rejected his right to invite independent witnesses to attend the search. At the same time, he made a note on the search record that the allegedly seized silver sachets had not been found on his person. A subsequent forensic expertise established that the greyish substance seized contained 0,046 gr. of heroin.

19. As revealed by the case file, on the same date the applicant confessed to committing an attempted armed robbery on 6 October 2009. According to the applicant, however, he was forced to make a confession since the police officers had ill-treated him and also threatened with arresting several of his family members.

20. On 9 January 2010 the pre-trial investigation against the applicant was completed and the case sent, along with a bill of indictment containing charges of armed robbery and unlawful drug possession, to the trial court.

21. On 25 June 2010 the applicant ’ s father filed a complaint with the prosecutor of Ajarian Autonomous Republic, alleging that the drugs had been planted on his son during the arrest and that he had been ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession from him into the episode of armed robbery. He identified several police officers involved by name and asked the prosecutor to act accordingly. A detailed statement of the applicant ’ s cousin concerning the applicant ’ s arrest and alleged ill-treatment had been submitted to the prosecutor in support of the request. According to that statement, the applicant ’ s cousin, who was taken by the police to the police department on the very night of the applicant ’ s arrest, saw the applicant severely beaten. He also personally heard a police officer, R.G. threatening the applicant and forcing him to confess to committing an armed robbery.

22. On 16 July 2010 the Batumi District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fourteen years and three months ’ imprisonment and a fine. The final sentence including the unserved part of his previous sentence was set at nineteen years and three months and a fine. At the trial the applicant reiterated his ill-treatment allegations and also implicated one of the police officers in planting drugs on him.

23. The applicant appealed his conviction. Whilst challenging the qualification of his actions as far the robbery episode concerned, he referred again to his ill-treatment allegations. Further, with respect to the drug-charges, he reiterated that the drugs had been planted on him during his personal search.

24. On 27 October 2010 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, whilst slightly modifying the qualification of the offences, confirmed the applicant ’ s conviction and the sentence. The appeal proceedings, despite the applicant ’ s several requests, were conducted in his absence.

25. On 10 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

2 . Criminal proceedings into the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment

26. According to the case file, on 17 June 2010 criminal proceedings were launched in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations concerning the unlawful conduct of the police and abuse of power.

27. On 1 December 2011 the applicant ’ s father wrote a letter to the prosecutor of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic complaining about the delay in the investigation. Another complaint was made on 13 December and then on 16 December 2011. At it appears from the case file, all letters have been left unanswered.

COMPLAINTS

A . Shanidze v. Georgia, application no. 56080/10

28. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police and that no investigation had been conducted in this regard. He also claimed that as a result his medical condition had deteriorated and that he had not been provided with any medical treatment whatsoever.

29. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention the applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings conducted against him had been unfair; the decisions of the domestic court had been biased and poorly reasoned; also the President of Georgia has violated his presumption of innocence and several key witnesses on his behalf had not been examined. In this connection he also relied on Article 14 of the Convention.

B . Gorgadze v. Georgia, application no. 57990/10

30. The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police and that no investigation had been conducted in this regard. He also alleged under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the drugs had been planted on him by police and that the domestic courts had based his conviction on unlawfully obtained evidence.

C . Danelia v. Georgia, application no. 56610/11

31 . The applicant alleged under article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police with the aim of extracting a confession from him and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this regard . He further claimed under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings conduc ted against him had been unfair. Notably, he alleged inter alia that the drugs had been planted on him by the police and that the domestic courts had entertained unlawfully obtained evidence and that the appeal hearings had been held in his absence. Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applica n t also complained about the lack of access to the Supreme Court.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the alleged failure of the competent domestic authorities to initiate a criminal probe (applications nos. 56080/10 and 57990/10) or to conduct an effective investigation (application no. 56610/11) into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts duly examine the applicants ’ allegations that the drugs had been planted on them by the police?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Shanidze v. Georgia, application no. 56080/10

1. Was the applicant provided with adequate medical treatment for his mental condition, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the investigator and E.K. in connection with the circumstances of the applicant ’ s personal search, amount to a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

Danelia v. Georgia, application no. 56610/11

1. Did the failure to provide for the applicant ’ s personal attendance at the appellate proceedings amount to a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?

Appendix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

56080/10

13/09/2010

Irakli SHANIDZE

01/08/1976

Kutaisi

Shalva KHACHAPURIDZE

57990/10

10/09/2010

Merab GORGADZE

12/07/1977

Batumi

Levan MAMULADZE

56610/11

10/08/2011

Giorgi DANELIA

14/11/1985

Rustavi

Tamaz KOKOSHVILI