THIRD SECTION

Application no. 40394/10 Maia SAKVARELIDZE against Georgia lodged on 18 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Maia Sakvarelidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Tbilisi. She is represented before the Court by Mr Davit Managadze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2. 22 and 23 November 2003 were the days when the so-called “Rose Revolution”, a sequence of events surrounding the change of power accompanied by widespread popular protests in Georgia , occurred. The relations between the relevant political actors being tensed at that time, various military and police units were mobilised, often roaming in their official vehicles in streets of Tbilisi.

3. On 22 November 2003, at around 5:30 p.m., an armoured fighting vehicle, which belonged to and was driven by an officer of a special military unit of the Ministry of State Security, whilst speeding in a street in Tbilisi, violently hit a private car, in which the applicant and her family members were travelling. As a result of the accident, the applicant ’ s son, who was the driver of the car, and her sister died, whilst the applicant and her nephews, minor children, received light bodily injuries.

4. On 23 November 2003 a criminal case was opened into the deadly road accident, which was initially investigated by a military prosecutor of the Ministry of Defence. Various investigative measures were conducted in the course of that investigation.

5. In particular, on 28 November 2003 experts from a forensic unit of the Ministry of Defence, after having examined the scene of the accident, issued a traceological report. The experts established that the military vehicle had been speeding on the wrong side of the road.

6. The same conclusion was reiterated by the results of the second traceological forensic examination, issued by experts of the Ministry of Defence on 16 January 2004. Notably, those second results confirmed that the cause of the deadly accident had been the military vehicle ’ s driving on the wrong side of the road, on that of the private car, and that, by doing so, the driver of the military vehicle, Mr A.M., had breached the relevant traffic rules.

7. Mr A.M. was then questioned by the investigation in the capacity of a suspect on 13 February 2004. He stated that it was the private car who had taken the wrong side of the road, and that he had thus been unable to prevent the accident from occurring. That statement was reiterated by other officers of the Ministry of State Security, who had been the passengers of Mr A.M. ’ s military vehicle when the accident had taken place.

8. In order to assess the veracity of Mr A.M. ’ s statements, forensic experts of the Ministry of Defence conducted, on 17 February 2004, a third traceological examination. Its results excluded any possibility of the accident occurring in the circumstances as described by the driver. On the contrary, the results confirmed again that it was the armoured fighting vehicle which had taken the wrong side of the road and had thus been the cause of the accident.

9. On 1 April 2004 another traceological examination was conducted, this time by experts from the National Forensic Bureau of the Ministry of Justice. According to it results, it was no longer possible to establish on which side of the road exactly the accident had occurred.

10. On 19 April 2004 the investigation of the case was transferred from the Ministry of Defence ’ s military prosecutor ’ s office to the investigative department of the Ministry of State Security (shortly afterwards, the Ministry of State Security was fused with the Ministry of the Interior, becoming the latter Ministry ’ s constituent part).

11. On 28 April 2005 the investigator of the Ministry of the Interior decided to discontinue the investigation for want of a criminal offence in the actions of the driver of the military vehicle during the accident of 22 November 2003. In its decision, the investigator referred to the results of the forensic examination of 1 April 2004 (see paragraph 9 above).

12. On 5 July 2005 the Tbilisi City Court annulled the Ministry of the Interior investigator ’ s decision of 28 April 2005, remitting the case for a fresh investigation. The court, referring, in particular, to the forensic traceological reports of 28 November 2003, 16 January and 17 February 2004 (see paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 above) as well as to the applicant ’ s statement that certain officers from the Ministry of the Interior had been trying to dissuade her from pursuing the criminal proceedings, stated that the completed investigation had not been adequate and that certain additional specific investigative measures were necessary. The Tbilisi City Court ’ s position was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals on 26 July 2005.

13. After the remittal of the case, it was re assigned from the Ministry of the Interior to the Tbilisi City public prosecutor ’ s office (“the TCPPO”). The latter authority , after having studied the case materials and conducted an additional investigative measure – confrontation between the applicant and the driver of the military vehicle – issued, on 23 February 2006, another decision on the discontinuation of the proceedings for want of a criminal offence.

14. However, on 22 May 2006 the Tbilisi City Court annulled the prosecutorial decision of 23 February 2006, reasoning that the conducted investigation still lacked in thoroughness. In the minutes of the relevant hearing, the court duly noted the applicant ’ s complaint that, after the transfer of the case from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of the Interior, the investigation had explicitly started lacking in candour . The City Court ’ s position was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals on 22 May 2006, and the case was thus again remitted to the TCPPO for an additional examination.

15. On 29 July 2008 the General Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, noting that the investigation in the case was still pending, instructed the TCPPO to expedite the proceedings.

16. In April and May 2010, the applicant enquired with the TCPPO about the progress in the investigation, if any. In reply, the prosecution authority advised her, on 19 April and 4 May 2010, that, despite the conducted investigative measures, it was impossible to establish the truth in the case.

17. According to the case file, the criminal investigation into the deadly accident of 22 November 2003 is still pending.

COMPLAINTS

Citing Articles 2, 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the implication of the State authority in the deadly road accident of 23 November 2003 and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing criminal investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the circumstances surrounding the road accident of 23 November 2003, has right to life of the applicant ’ s son and sister , which is ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case by implication of the State authority?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?