Published on 2 November 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 29727/21
Vladimer TETUNASHVILI
against Georgia
lodged on 27 May 2021
communicated on 11 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers, the unlawfulness of his administrative arrest, and the lack of effective investigation into the allegations. The applicant claims that on 17 April 2020 he was ill-treated by police officers from the Gori police department during his unlawful arrest, also in a police car during his transfer to the Gori police station and in the police station. Various injuries were found on his body according to the administrative arrest report and confirmed subsequently upon his medical check-up. The subsequent administrative proceedings conducted against the applicant on charges of minor breach of public order and police disobedience were discontinued by the Gori District Court. The latter concluded that the fact of the applicant committing the administrative offences in question could not be proven.
On 23 April 2020 an investigation was initiated under Article 333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code (abuse of power) into the circumstances of the incident of 17 April 2020. Since then, the proceedings are ongoing; the applicant was 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 Articles 3, 5 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), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the fact that the applicant voiced the grievances about the unlawfulness of his administrative arrest before the competent domestic court (compare with Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, § 54, 2 October 2012) and also in his criminal complaint, has he exhausted domestic remedies as regards his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. If so, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?