Communicated on 20 October 2020
Published on 9 November 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 8684/20
Gela TCHIGLADZE
against Georgia
lodged on 5 February 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the events which took place in Tbilisi on 20‑21 June 2019 and the ensuing administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant.
On 20 June 2019 a peaceful public demonstration was held in Tbilisi in front of the Parliament of Georgia, which escalated into violent clashes between the police and protesters. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons were used against the protesters as a result of which many were injured. The applicant, who had gone to the demonstration in search for his son, alleged that he had been arrested and ill-treated by two officers of the Special Forces about two kilometres away from the epicentre of the events. He was subsequently held liable under the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia for minor hooliganism and resistance to the police and sentenced to an administrative fine.
According to the available medical evidence, following the incident the applicant was diagnosed with bruises on his head and chest, a hematoma on the right thigh, and post-concussion syndrome accompanied by post‑traumatic stress disorder.
Criminal investigation was opened into the events of 20-21 June 2019; however, the applicant has been refused victim status. He has no access to the case file and claims that his allegations are not being investigated. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about his alleged ill-treatment and the lack of investigation in that respect. He also alleges, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that his right to a fair trial was violated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicant and all other evidence, was he subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during his arrest early in the morning on 21 June 2019?
2. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000‑IV)?
3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the administrative charges against him as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts examine all the relevant arguments invoked by the applicant? If so, did they provide adequate reasons for their judgments in response to those arguments (see, among other authorities, Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, § 207, 20 September 2018)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy