FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8978/09
Anastasia DATASHVILI
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Tim Eicke, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2009,
Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2011 to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”) for information,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Anastasia Datashvili, is a Georgian national who lives in Rustavi. She was represented before the Court by Ms T. Gabisonia and Ms A. Tvaradze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2. The applicant submitted various complaints in the context of events relating to the conflict in August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, § 14, 20 November 2018).
COMPLAINTS
3. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that between 10 and 22 August 2008 she had been detained in the Tskhinvali detention facility in poor conditions of detention. She also complained about damage to her property and the inability to access it under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant further raised complaints under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention.
4. To support her claims, the applicant submitted to the Court a handwritten statement by an individual, without any proof of his identity, alleging to have been the applicant’s neighbour, and to have been detained together with her. The applicant also submitted a certificate issued by a municipal authority confirming residence as well as ownership and destruction of property in the village of Tamarasheni in respect of an individual with the same name. However, the date of birth indicated on that certificate (a date in 1929) was different from the date of birth indicated throughout the application form (a date in 1930).
THE LAW
5. The Court has already dealt with similar complaints and made findings regarding the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and a duty incumbent on applicants to substantiate their grievances by supplying evidence in support of their claims in the previous cases against Georgia which concerned events relating to the conflict of August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §§ 23-30, 20 November 2018; Naniyeva and Bagayev v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 2256/09 and 2260/09, §§ 19‑26, 20 November 2018; and Kudukhova v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 8274/09 and 8275/09, §§ 21-28, 20 November 2018). These considerations also apply in the present case.
6. In particular, the Court would reiterate that it is not a tribunal of facts and cannot, without appropriate assistance on the part of the applicants, establish the factual account of complex events, such as situations of armed conflict (see Naniyeva and Bagayev, cited above, § 39). In this connection, the Court observes that the certificate submitted by the applicant, who was represented by lawyers, contained personal information which did not correspond to the one indicated in the relevant application form (see paragraph 4 above). It cannot therefore be said that this document relates to her grievances. As regards the handwritten statement, which contains no proof as to the author’s identity, it does not constitute prima facie evidence regarding the applicant’s whereabouts or her alleged detention in Tskhinvali.
7. Accordingly, it follows that the application is unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2020.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy