Communicated on 13 December 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7156/11
Shota SHANIDZE
against Georgia
lodged on 29 December 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Shota Shanidze is a Georgian national who was born in 1989 and is currently detained in Rustavi. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Shanidze.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. By a judgment of 11 May 2009 the Mtskheta District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder, aggravated attempted murder, illegally acquiring and carrying firearms and hooliganism. He was sentenced to thirty-three years and twenty-five days’ imprisonment.
4. According to the case file, during the pre-trial investigation stage the prosecution ordered an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant, as he was known to have a history of serious mental illness. The examination was to be conducted by experts of the National Forensics Bureau (“the NFB”). In their report they concluded that at the time when the alleged crimes had been committed, the applicant had been suffering from a personality disorder; however, he had not been suffering from a serious mental illness and had been capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions.
5. In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court the defence requested a comprehensive panel-based psychiatric examination of the applicant. They based their request on two grounds, namely that the prosecution (i) had failed to enclose important information concerning the applicant’s mental health with the file on the basis of which the NFB had carried out the examination at the pre-trial stage and (ii) had rejected the defence’s request concerning the participation of experts on their behalf in the examination process. The court dismissed the request, suggesting to the defence that they should challenge the conclusions of the NFB report by cross-examining the experts involved in court. Later, the defence obtained an alternative expert opinion from an independent organisation – the Psychodiagnostic and Psychotherapy Centre, which had carried out an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination. In their report two experts concluded that the applicant had been suffering from a mental disorder (similar to schizophrenia) and had been incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions at the time when the crime was committed; he had posed a threat to others and had needed compulsory psychiatric treatment. Given the conflicting conclusions in the reports of the two examinations, the defence again requested the court to order that the applicant be admitted to the NFB for an inpatient panel-based forensic psychiatric examination. The court again dismissed the request, concluding that it would cause a delay in the proceedings.
6. On 11 May 2009 the Mtskheta District Court convicted the applicant as charged, finding him mentally sound on the basis of the NFB report. It dismissed the alternative expert report, noting that it had been issued by a private expert organisation.
7. On 30 March 2010 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction of 11 May 2009 in full, confirming the reasoning of the first‑instance court with respect to the expert evidence.
8. On 1 July 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed as inadmissible an appeal by the applicant on points of law.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. Under Article 28 § 2 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the material time, a criminal prosecution had to be discontinued if the offence had been committed by a person who had been certified of unsound mind as a result of a State forensic psychiatric examination.
10. Under Article 364 the defence could arrange an expert examination of their own initiative and at their own expense. An alternative expert opinion had to be admitted into evidence and assessed alongside the other evidence.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings conducted against him were unfair. In particular, he complains about the way the domestic courts dealt with the expert evidence in his case.
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 of the Convention? In particular,
1.1. Was the Mtskheta District Court’s decision to accept one expert report and dismiss the other well-reasoned?
1.2. Having regard to the fact that there were two conflicting expert reports, was the applicant’s right secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention respected in so far as the trial court refused to order a comprehensive panel‑based psychiatric examination of him?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy