Communicated on 6 July 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 30680/09
Tamaz KARTSIVADZE
against Georgia
lodged on 3 March 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Tamaz Kartsivadze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1963 and is currently in prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Khatiashvili, Mr G. Gagoshidze, and Ms T. Nakashidze, lawyers practising in Tbilissi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The circumstances of the case
2. On 25 July 2007 the Batumi City Court convicted the applicant of murder, attempted murder of two or more persons, unlawful purchase, possession and carrying of firearms and violation of public order, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court established that on 12 September 1992 the applicant had gone to the apartment of D.M. and his father, G.M. There he had insulted and threatened D.M. and his family members and fired a gun twice in their direction, without wounding anyone. Then he had forced D.M. and G.M. out of the apartment into his car and left in an unknown direction. The next morning D.M. was found in a hospital with several gunshot wounds to his legs, while his father, G.M. was found dead. In finding the applicant guilty, the first-instance court relied, among other evidence, on the pre-trial statement of D.M.
3. The applicant appealed his conviction. He maintained his innocence in connection with the murder and attempted murder charges and requested the questioning of D.M. in court. He claimed that the only direct witness of the murder and attempted murder episode was D.M; he had given several contradictory statements during the pre-trial phase of the investigation; hence, the applicant should have been allowed to challenge his testimony in court.
4. On 28 November 2007 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. The appeal court dismissed the applicant’s reiterated request for D.M. to be questioned.
5. By a decision of 30 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia confirmed the applicant’s conviction.
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicant alleges under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings conducted against him were unfair. He particularly complains about the fact that the key prosecution witness in the case against him was not questioned in court.
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 this connection,
(i) Was there a good reason for admitting the untested pre-trial evidence of D.M.?
(ii) Was his pre-trial statement decisive for the conviction of the applicant?
(iii) Where 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