Published on 20 April 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 11698/24
Paata PETRIASHVILI
against Georgia
lodged on 8 April 2024
communicated on 2 April 2026
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and the alleged unfairness of the subsequent criminal proceedings against him, on account in particular of the use of evidence allegedly obtained under coercion and ill-treatment, in breach of his right to remain silent and his privilege against self-incrimination, as well as the alleged violation of his defence rights.
On 6 October 2022 the applicant was questioned as a witness at the Tbilisi Police Department based on operative information suggesting his potential connection to a woman’s murder. On 7 October 2022 Z.N., a deputy head of an investigative division, made a report stating that during their brief interaction at the department the applicant had confided in him and it was evident that he possessed crucial information about the case. However, the applicant was unwilling to disclose this information in writing and was only willing to speak with Z.N. At 1.30 a.m. on the same date, the prosecutor issued a decision ordering the covert video recording of the applicant’s meeting with Z.N., without prior judicial authorisation, citing urgent circumstances as justification. During the meeting the applicant confessed to the murder. Immediately thereafter, the applicant made a formal self-incriminating statement to the investigator in charge of the case and took part in an on-site reconstruction at the crime scene. He was formally charged with the murder and arrested later the same day.
On 10 October 2022 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of the Tbilisi City Court, which had declared the covert investigative measure lawful. He argued that the applicant had been unlawfully held in police custody since 11.00 p.m. on 6 October 2022, and had, in effect, been questioned as an accused by Z.N. with the questioning covertly recorded in the absence of defence counsel and other necessary procedural safeguards. He also alleged that the police had ill-treated the applicant in order to obtain his confession to the murder. On 13 October 2022 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, noting that the covert investigative procedure had been justified.
On 16 June 2023 a jury found the applicant guilty of murder. He was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the guilty verdict, arguing, among other things, that the admission of the covert video recording as evidence was unlawful, as it had been obtained under coercion and in breach of the domestic procedural law. On 21 December 2023 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible.
In parallel, in response to the applicant’s complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment in police custody, on 12 October 2022 the Special Investigative Service initiated a criminal investigation under Article 333 (abuse of power) and Article 335 (coercion to obtain a witness statement) of the Criminal Code. According to the case file, the investigation is still ongoing.
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment by the police and the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation in this respect. He also complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81‑90, ECHR 2015)?
2. Having regard to the relevant procedural obligations arising under Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid, cited above, §§ 114-23, with further references), have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations?
3. 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:
3.1. Was the evidence against the applicant obtained as a result of the ill‑treatment alleged, and did its admission render the proceedings as a whole unfair (see, inter alia, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 254, 13 September 2016)?
3.2. Did the admission of evidence obtained through the covert investigative procedure and of the applicant’s subsequent self-incriminating statement comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the use at trial of the covert video recording and the applicant’s written witness statement of 7 October 2022 compatible with the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, §§ 42-44, ECHR 2002-IX, and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, §§ 266-74, 13 September 2016; see also, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88-93, 10 March 2009, and Bajić v. North Macedonia, no. 2833/13, §§ 64-68, 10 June 2021)?
3.3. In this connection, was the refusal to examine the police officer Z.N., who had arranged the applicant’s covert video recording, compatible with Article 6 § 3 (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-19, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015)?