Communicated on 15 June 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 51158/08
Gocha GOBEJISHVILI
against Georgia
lodged on 6 October 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Gocha Gobejishvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1980 and is currently in prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Samushia and Mr L. Samushia, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 12 February 2007 the Tbilisi City Court found the applicant guilty on charges of murder and unlawful purchase, possession and carrying of firearms and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The first‑instance court concluded that on 9 September 2003 the applicant had murder G.J. in revenge for a murder of a friend of his. It based its finding of guilt on primarily the following evidence: (i) the pre-trial statement of a taxi driver who allegedly had seen the applicant descending from the apartment where the murder had taken place; (ii) the results of photo identification carried out with the participation of the taxi driver; (iii) the testimony of two owners of the apartment where the murder had taken place concerning the circumstances preceding the incident; and (iv) the pre-trial statement of P.K., an acquaintance of the applicant, concerning possible revengeful motive behind the murder.
4. During the trial, the taxi driver retracted his pre-trial incriminating statement against the applicant claiming that it had been given at the request of two police officers. He asserted that he had not been at the crime scene on 9 September 2003 and had respectively never seen the applicant and could not have identified him. The trial judge, after having examined the relevant police officers, dismissed the taxi driver’s in-court statement as untrue. He also dismissed the applicant’s alibi as unreliable, concluding that the defence witness’ testimony in this regard was unreliable.
5. The applicant appealed his conviction. He complained that despite his reiterated requests P.K., the only witness testifying in connection with the possible motive for the murder had been in prison at the material time and had not been brought for in-court examination. As for the taxi driver, the applicant submitted a note from the Ministry of Interior according to which no vehicle had been registered on the former’s name at the relevant time; also the number plates which he had indicated, had never been issued by the Ministry. The applicant also challenged the credibility of the statements given by the two owners of the apartment noting that separate set of criminal proceedings had been initiated against them at the material time for the sole purpose of pressurising them.
6. By a decision of 4 July 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. The appeal court simply concluded that the evidence in its entirety was sufficient to prove the applicant’s guilt. On 7 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the appeal of the applicant on points of law as inadmissible.
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the domestic court’s failure to give sufficient reasons for convicting him. He notes in particular that the courts dismissed the evidence in his defence superficialy; that the pre-trial statement of the taxi driver and the results of the photo identification should not have been taken into consideration; that the two owners of the apartment gave evidence under duress; and that the motive for the murder was only confirmed by P.K. who had not been brought to court for questioning.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular,
(i) Was the use of the taxi driver’s evidence against the applicant compatible with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In this connection, did the domestic courts provide adequate reasons in rejecting the taxi driver’s in-court statement as untrue?
(ii) Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s alibi?
2. Was the failure of the domestic courts to examine P.K. in court a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In this connection,
(i) Was there a good reason for P.K.’s non-attendance as a witness? Were all reasonable efforts made by respective national authorities to secure his attendance?
(ii) Was his untested pre-trial statement decisive for the conviction of the applicant?
(iii) Were there sufficient counterbalancing factors, including strong procedural safeguards, to ensure that the applicant’s trial, judged as a whole, was fair within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy