Published on 2 November 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 57816/21
Davit TCHALIDZE
against Georgia
lodged on 19 November 2021
communicated on 12 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant, a police officer at the material time, by several fellow police officers and the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted into the incident. In particular, the applicant alleges that a verbal altercation with one of his colleague officers on 31 July 2011 erupted into his physical and verbal assault. The applicant was convicted, in connection with the incident, of disobeying police orders and committing a minor beach of public order and sentenced to sixty days of administrative detention. During the administrative proceedings conducted against him, he maintained, with reference to the relevant medical evidence, that he had been physically and verbally abused by his colleagues. The criminal investigation, which had been initiated into the circumstances of the incident, was, however, discontinued for being time-barred. In 2018 the criminal proceedings were reopened at the request of the applicant, who had in the meantime obtained new relevant evidence, including secretly recorded statements of the police officers who were allegedly implicated in his ill-treatment. Since then, the criminal proceedings have been underway; the applicant was repeatedly refused the status of a victim; he has no access to the case file, and his requests concerning the progress of the investigation have remained unanswered. The applicant relies on Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV) has the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?