Communicated on 9 November 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 59333/16
Zizi EDZGVERADZE
against Georgia
lodged on 23 September 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Zizi Edzgveradze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Tbilisi.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 5 July 2013 the applicant’s late husband, Mr M.M., was questioned by the police and allegedly forced to give testimony against his friend regarding the latter’s possession of cannabis. Later he told his colleagues and his wife that the police officers had subjected him to physical pressure and forced him to sign a statement against his friend.
4. On 6 July 2013 Mr. M.M. told a friend in a telephone conversation about his failed attempt to commit suicide by drowning in the Tbilisi sea and that he had bought a rope in order to hang himself instead. The applicant and the friend in question went to the site and called the patrol police for help in their search efforts. They informed the patrol police officers about Mr M.M. being a suicide risk. The officers did not launch a search operation telling the applicant that she was required to go to the police station to formally initiate the relevant search proceedings. Information regarding Mr M.M.’s suicide was received while the applicant was lodging a formal request at the police station.
5. An investigation under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (bringing a person to the point of suicide) was opened on the same day. The investigating authorities discovered no signs of physical violence or pressure upon the applicant’s husband. Mr. M.M.’s convicted friend, who had been present during the questioning, testified that the police officers had not inflicted any form of pressure during the process.
6. The investigation was terminated on 25 March 2016 on account of the lack of a crime once no direct link between the police officers’ actions during Mr M.M.’s questioning and his suicide was found.
7. On 16 June 2016 the applicant appealed against the order to terminate the investigation. She complained about the inefficient response by the patrol police in view of the imminent risk to her late husband’s life. She further complained about the ineffectiveness of the investigation in that it had allegedly concentrated exclusively on the absence of signs of physical abuse while playing down the importance of the possible psychological pressure allegedly inflicted upon her late husband. The applicant referred to the witness statements of her late husband’s colleagues that upon his return from the police station Mr M.M. had told them that he had been forced to give a statement against his friend. She also alleged that the prosecution had failed to question some of the witnesses and had relied exclusively on the investigative actions carried out by the general inspection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
8. The appeal was dismissed on 22 June 2016 owing to a lack of standing under Article 106 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a termination order may only be appealed against by a victim and the applicant had not been granted victim status in the course of the investigation.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. Article 115 of the Criminal Code provides that:
“Bringing someone to the point of suicide or attempted suicide by intimidation or violent treatment, or by systematically abusing the honour or dignity of the victim, shall be punishable by up to three years’ restriction of freedom or by imprisonment for up to five years.”
COMPLAINT
10. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband’s death.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant’s husband’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular,
(a) In view of the States’ positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1, not only to refrain from the “intentional” taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III L), did the domestic authorities know or ought to have known that the applicant’s husband posed a real and immediate risk of suicide and, if so, did they do all that could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent that risk, this complaint being raised ex officio by the Court?
(b) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, §§ 101-105, 17 December 2009), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy