„ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოსა და გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის კომიტეტების მიერ საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ მიღებული გადაწყვეტილებების/განჩინებების აღსრულების მდგომარეობის შესახებ სამთავრობო ანგარიში".

საქართველოს მთავრობის 2016 წლის ანგარიში ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოსა და გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის კომიტეტების მიერ საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ მიღებული გადაწყვეტილებების აღსრულების შესახებ სარჩევი: I. ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს საქმეები .....................................3 ა) ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტის მიერ დახურული საქმეები .............3 1. „მარიამ ბათიაშვილი და ირინა ბათიაშვილი-გელაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ ..........................................................................................................................3 2. „დავით მირცხულავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ .................................................4 3. „ჯღარკავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“......................................................................6 4. „საქართველოს ლეიბორისტული პარტია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ ..........10 5. „ჯანიაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ ..............................................................12 6. „საღინაძე და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“................................................15 ბ) ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტში არსებული მიმდინარე საქმეები..19 გადაწყვეტილებები..............................................................................................................19 განჩინებები ...........................................................................................................................20 II.გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის სახელშეკრულებო ორგანოების გადაწყვეტილებები ...............................................................................................................22 ინდივიდუალური ღონისძიებები............................................................................23 ზოგადი ღონისძიებები...............................................................................................26 2 I. ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს საქმეები საქართველოს პარლამენტის რეგლამენტის 2283 მუხლის პირველი პუნქტის „ა“ ქვეპუნქტის შესაბამისად, უფლებათა ევროპული საქართველოს მთავრობა სასამართლოს წარმოადგენს ადამიანის გადაწყვეტილებების/განჩინებების აღსრულების შესახებ ანგარიშს იმ საქმეებთან დაკავშირებით, რომლებზედაც 2016 წელს მიღებულია ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტის საბოლოო რეზოლუციები. - ა) ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტის მიერ დახურული საქმეები საქართველოს მთავრობის მიერ გატარებული ინდივიდუალური და ზოგადი ღონისძიებების საფუძველზე, საანგარიშო პერიოდში, ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუციები და აღსრულებულად გამოაცხადა ექვსი საქმე (2 განჩინება და 4 გადაწყვეტილება), რომლებიც წარმოდგენილია განსახილველ ანგარიშში. - 1. „მარიამ ბათიაშვილი და ირინა ბათიაშვილი-გელაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი № 75737/11, 2015 წლის 30 ივნისის განჩინება 2016 წლის 20 იანვარს, მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა, მინისტრთა მოადგილეების 1245-ე შეხვედრაზე, მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია ევროპული სასამართლოს მიერ 2015 წლის 30 ივნისს გამოტანილ განჩინებაზე - „მარიამ ბათიაშვილი და ირინა ბათიაშვილი-გელაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დანართი 1). საქმე ეხებოდა მომჩივნების დაკავებას 2011 წლის 5 ივნისს პოლიციის მიერ, საქართველოს პარლამენტის შენობასთან, მშვიდობიან აქციაზე, რომელიც დაგეგმილი იყო ახალგაზრდა აქტივისტების მცირე ჯგუფის მიერ, 2011 წლის 26 მაისის აქციის დროს პოლიციის მიერ გამოყენებული ძალის დასაგმობად. 3 2011 წლის 5 ივნისს თბილისის საქალაქო სასამართლოში ჩატარდა სხდომა, რომელზედაც განიხილებოდა დაკავებულთა საქმე. დაკავებულებისა და პოლიციის თანამშრომლების, სასამართლომ ასევე მოწმეთა განცხადებების მოსმენის შემდეგ, ეროვნულმა მომჩივნები სამართალდამრღვევებად ცნო ადმინისტრაციულ სამართალდარღვევათა კოდექსის 166-ე და 173-ე მუხლების საფუძველზე. თითოეულ მომჩივანს დაეკისრა 400 ლარის გადახდა, ჯარიმის სახით, რაც უცვლელი დ არჩა თბილისის სააპელაციო სასამართლოს მიერ. განსახილველ საქმეში მთავრობამ აღიარა ადამიანის უფლებათა და ძირითად თავისუფლებათა დაცვის კონვენციის მე-11 მუხლის (შეკრებისა და გაერთიანების თავისუფლება) დარღვევა და ვალდებულება აიღო, რომ გადაეხდა თითოეული მომჩივნისთვის 1 000 (ათასი) ევროს ეკვივალენტი ლარში, მომჩივანთათვის მიყენებული მატერიალური/არამატერიალური ზიანის, ასევე ყველა ხარჯი სა და დანახარჯის ასანაზღაურებლად. მომჩივანი მხარე დაეთანხმა მთავრობის შეთავაზებას, შესაბამისად, მხარეთა შორის მიღწეული იქნა მორიგება და ევროპულმა სასამართლომ საჩივარი ამორიცხა განსახილველ საქმეთა სიიდან 2015 წლის 30 ივნისს, ევროპული კონვენციის 39-ე მუხლის შესაბამისად. მთავრობის მიერ თანხის ჩარიცხვა განხორციელდა სასამართლოს მიერ დადგენილ ვადაში, კერძოდ, მომჩივნებს თანხა ჩაერიცხათ 2015 წლის 6 ოქტომბერს, რის შედეგადაც საქმეზე დასრულდა სააღსრულებო წარმოება. - 2. „დავით მირცხულავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი № 18372/04, 2015 წლის 2 ივლისის განჩინება 2016 წლის 20 იანვარს, მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა, მინისტრთა მოადგილეების 1245-ე შეხვედრაზე, მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია საქმეზე „დავით მირცხულავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დანართი 1). მომჩივანი 1999 წლის დეკემბრიდან 2003 წლის აგვისტომდე იკავებდა საქართველოს ენერგეტიკის მინისტრის პოსტს. მის წინააღმდეგ 2003 წლის 24 დეკემბერს აღიძრა 4 სისხლის სამართლის საქმე სამსახურებრივი უფლებამოსილების გადამეტების გამოყენების ბრალდებით, რითაც დაირღვა სახელმწიფოს კანონიერი ინტერესები. 2004 წლის 16 იანვ არს მომჩივანი დააპატიმრეს ზემოაღნიშნული სისხლის სამართლის საქმის გამო, რის შემდეგაც მას წინასწარი პატიმრობა შეეფარდა. თბილისის საქალაქო სასამართლომ 2005 წლის 30 მარტის გადაწყვეტილებით მომჩივანი დამნაშავედ უფლებამოსილების სცნო გადამეტების თაღლითობისა ბრალდებით და სამსახურებრივი სახელმწიფოს ინტერესების საზიანოდ და ათი წლით თავისუფლების აღკვეთა მიუსაჯა. 2006 წლის 14 ივლისს თბილისის სააპელაციო გადაწყვეტილება და სასამართლომ მომჩივანს მიესაჯა შეცვალა 2005 წლის 30 მარტის ექვსი წლითა და შვიდი თვით თავისუფლების აღკვეთა. 2008 წლის 14 იანვარს მომჩივანი საქართველოს პრეზიდენტის მიერ შეწყალების შედეგად გათავისუფდა. დაკავების დღიდან (2004 წლის 16 იანვარი) გათავისუფლებამდე (2008 წლის 14 იანვარი) მომჩივანი შესაბამის ორგანოებში წარადგენდა საჩივრებს ჯანმრთელობის პრობლემების თაობაზე. საქმის მასალების დეტალური შესწავლის შედეგად, მთავრობამ 2015 წლის 3 აპრილს ევროპულ სასამართლოში წარადგინა ცალმხრივი დეკლარაცია, რითაც აღიარა, რომ მომჩივნის მიმართ დაირღვა ევროპული კონვენციის მე–3 ადეკვატური სამედიცინო მკურნალების არარსებობის გამო, მუხლი ციხეში კონვენციის მე-5 მუხლის პირველი და მე-3 პუნქტები, მომჩივნის მიმართ წინასწარი პატიმრობის შეფარდებისას არსებული ნაკლოვანებების გამო, ასევე, კონვენციის მე–6 მუხლის მე2 პუნქტი, ვინაიდან საქართველოს იმჟამინდელმა პრეზიდენტმა საჯარო განცხადებებით დაარღვია მომჩივნის უდანაშაულობის პრეზუმფცია. მთავრობამ დეკლარაციის ფარგლებში იკისრა ვალდებულება, გადაეხადა 5 000 (ხუთი ათასი) ევროს ეკვივალენტი ლარში ყველა მორალური ან მატერიალური ზიანის და ყველა ხარჯისა და დანახარჯის ანაზღაურების სახით. მომჩივანი დაეთანხმა მთავრობის შეთავაზებას, შესაბამისად მხარეთა შორის მიღწეული იქნა 5 მორიგება და ევროპულმა სასამართლომ საჩივარი ამორიცხა განსახილველ საქმეთა სიიდან 2015 წლის 2 ივლისს ევროპული კონვენციის 39-ე მუხლის შესაბამისად. მთავრობის მიერ თანხის ჩარიცხვა განხორციელდა სასამართლოს მიერ დადგენილ ვადაში, კერძოდ, მომჩივანს თანხა ჩაერიცხა 2015 წლის 12 ოქტომბერს, რის შედეგადაც საქმეზე დასრულდა სააღსრულებო წარმოება. - 3. „ჯღარკავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი №7932/03, 2009 წლის 24 თებერვლის გადაწყვეტილება 2016 წლის 8 მარტს მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა, მინისტრთა მოადგილეების 1250-ე შეხვედრაზე, მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია საქმეზე - „ჯღარკავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დანართი 2). საქმის ფაქტობრივი გარემოებების თანახმად, მომჩივანი, სოფ. ლეხაინდარაოში, სკოლის დირექტორი და ადგილობრივი გამგეობის წევრი იყო. 1995 წლის 29 ოქტომბერს ის დაიბარეს გენერალურ პროკურატურაში, სადაც ყოველგვარი დაკითხვისა და ახსნა-განმარტების გარეშე დააკავეს და შემდგომ, წინასწარი პატიმრობა შეუფარდეს. მომჩივანი წინასწარ პატიმრობაში 7 თვე და 8 დღე იმყოფებოდა. ციხის გაუსაძლისი პირობებისა და მის მიმართ განხორციელებული არასათანადო მოპყრობის შედეგად გამოწვეული ჯანმრთელობის მდგომარეობის გაუარესების გამო, 1996 წლის 8 თებერვალს თბილისის კრწანისი-მთაწმინდის რაიონულმა სასამართლომ გამოიტანა გადაწყვეტილება მომჩივნის გირაოთი გათავისუფლების თაობაზე. 1998 წლის 7 მაისის განაჩენით მომჩივანი პირველი ინსტანციის სასამართლომ დამნაშავედ ცნო მოხელის მოქრთამვის მიზნით, თანხის გამოძალვაში. 1998 წლის 20 ივლისს, თბილისის საოლქო სასამართლომ, საკასაციო ინსტანციით, გააუქმა 1998 წლის 7 მაისის განაჩენი და მტკიცებულებათა არარსებობის გამო საქმე შეწყვიტა. 2000 წლის 13 ივნისს მომჩივანმა მთაწმინდა-კრწანისის რაიონულ სასამართლოში, პროკურატურისა და მის მიმართ აღძრული სისხლის სამართლის საქმის 6 გამომძიებლის წინააღმდეგ შეიტანა სამოქალაქო სარჩელი. გამომძიებელი ირწმუნებოდა, რომ ვინაიდან სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებით მომჩივანი არ იქნა რეაბილიტირებული, მას ზიანის ანაზღაურების მოთხოვნის უფლება არ ჰქონდა. 2001 წლის 12 იანვარს, სასამართლომ მომჩივნის მოთხოვნა ნაწილობრივ დააკმაყოფილა და სახელმწიფოს მის სასარგებლოდ დაეკისრა 4 335 ლარ ის გადახდა იმ ხელფასის სახით, რომელიც მას უნდა მიეღო, დაკავების არარსებობის პირობებში. 2002 წლის 15 აპრილს თბილისის საოლქო სასამართლომ მთლიანად გააუქმა პირველი ინსტანციის სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილება და გამოიტანა ახალი გადაწყვეტილება. სასამართლომ მომჩივანს მიაკუთვნა 10 000 ლარი მორალური ზიანის ანაზღაურების სახით და 4 335 ლარი მიუღებელი ხელფასის სანაცვლოდ. 2002 წლის 25 სექტემბერს, უზენაესმა სასამართლომ უცვლელად დატოვა საოლქო სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილება იმ ნაწილში, რომელიც ეხებოდა 4 335 ლარის გადახდას, ხოლო მომჩივნის დანარჩენი მოთხოვნები უზენაესმა სასამართლომ უარყო. განსახილველ საქმეში 2009 წლის 24 თებერვლის გადაწყვეტილებით ევროპულმა სასამართლომ დაადგინა კონვენციის მე-6 მუხლის პირველი პუნქტის დარღვევა. დადგენილი დარღვევა გამომდინარეობდა ფაქტების დადგომის პერიოდში ჯერ ძველი და შემდეგ მოქმედებიდან. განხილვისას ახალი კერძოდ, მოქმედ სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსების ევროპულმა სასამართლომ განმარტა, რომ კანონმდებლობაში რეაბლიტაციასთან საქმის დაკავშირებით აუცილებელი დაზუსტებების არარსებობის პირობებში, უზენაესი სასამართლო მივიდა ისეთ დასკვნამდე, რომელიც არ იყო სათანადოდ დასაბუთებული და ნათელი. ევროპულმა სასამართლომ სამართლიანი დაკმაყოფილების სახით მომჩივანს თანხა არ მიაკუთვნა, ვინაიდან სასამართლოს მიერ განსაზღვრულ ვადაში მომჩივანმა არ წარადგინა პრეტენზია კომპენსაციასთან დაკავშირებით. 2016 წლის 15 თებერვალს საქართველოს მთავრობამ მინისტრთა კომიტეტს წარუდგინა აღსრულების სამოქმედო ანგარიში, რომელიც მოიცავდა საქმის 7 აღსრულების მიზნით სახელმწიფოს მიერ გატარებულ ინდივიდუალურ და ზოგად ღონისძიებებს. აღსრულების ანგარიშში, ინდივიდუალური ღონისძიებების თვალსაზრისით, ყურადღება გამახვილდა სამოქალაქო საპროცესო კოდექსში 2010 წლის 10 მაისს შეტანილ ცვლილებებზე, კერძოდ 423-ე მუხლზე, რომლის თანახმად „კანონიერ ძალაში შესული გადაწყვეტილება შეიძლება გასაჩივრდეს ახ ლად აღმოჩენილ გარემოებათა გამო საქმის წარმოების განახლების მოთხოვნით, თუ [...] (ზ) არსებობს ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს კანონიერ ძალაში შესული გადაწყვეტილება (განჩინება), რომელმაც დაადგინა ადამიანის უფლებათა და ძირითად თავისუფლებათა დაცვის კონვენციის ან/და მისი დამატებითი ოქმების დარღვევა ამ საქმესთან დაკავშირებით, და დადგენილი დარღვევა გადასასინჯი გადაწყვეტილებიდან გამომდინარეობს.“ აღსანიშნავია, რომ სამოქალაქო საპროცესო კოდექსის 423-ე მუხლის პირველი ნაწილის „ზ“ ქვეპუნქტი ვრცელდებოდა აგრეთვე იმ ფიზიკურ და იურიდიულ პირებზე, რომელთაც უარი ეთქვათ ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილების (განჩინების) საფუძველზე, ახლად აღმოჩენილ გარემოებათა გამო საქმის წარმოების განახლებაზე, თუ ისინი სასამართლოს ახლად აღმოჩენილ გარემოებათა გამო საქმის წარმოების განახლების მოთხოვნით მიმართავდნენ 2010 წლის 15 ივნისამდე. საქართველოს სამოქალაქო საპროცესო კოდექსის 444-ე მუხლით გათვალისწინებული ვადაში, კერძოდ, 2010 წლის 15 ივნისამდე, მომჩივანს გასაჩივრების აღნიშნული საშუალება არ გამოუყენებია. რაც შეეხება ზოგად ღონისძიებებს, აღსრულების ანგარიშში ყურადღება გამახვილდა სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსში განხორციელებულ ცვლილებებზე. კერძოდ, 176-ე მუხლის მე-5 ქვეპუნქტის თანახმად, იმის მიუხედავად, იქნება თუ არა დაკავებული მსჯავრდებული, მას უკანონო და დაუსაბუთებელი დაკავების შედეგად მიყენებული ზიანი სრული ბიუჯეტიდან სამოქალაქო მოცულობით აუნაზღაურდება სამართალწარმოების წესით. სახელმწიფო აგრეთვე, სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსის 276-ე მუხლის „ე“ ქვეპუნქტის თანახმად, გამამართლებელი განაჩენის სარეზოლუციო ნაწილში აღინიშნება, მათ შორის: 8 გამართლებულის უფლება, აუნაზღაურდეს მიყენებული ზიანი. სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსის 92-ე მუხლის თანახმად: 1.პირს უფლება აქვს, სამოქალაქო/ადმინისტრაციული მიიღოს უკანონოდ სამართალწარმოების ჩატარებული საპროცესო წესით მოითხოვოს მოქმედებისა და და უკანონო გადაწყვეტილების შედეგად მიყენებული ზიანის ანაზღაურება; 2. პირს უფლება აქვს, სამოქალაქო სამართალწარმოების წესით მოითხოვოს მიყენებული ზიანის ანაზღაურება. დამატებით, აღსრულების ანგარიშში ყურადღება გამახვილდა სამოქალაქო კოდექსის 1005-ე მუხლის მე-3 პუნქტზე, რომლის თანახმად: “რეაბილიტირებული პირისათვის უკანონო მსჯავრდების, სისხლის სამართლის პასუხისგებაში უკანონოდ მიცემის, აღკვეთის ღონისძიების ადმინისტრაციული სახით პატიმრობის პატიმრობის ან უკანონოდ გამასწორებელი გამოყენების, სამუშაოების სახით ადმინისტრაციული სახდელის არასწორად დაკისრების შედეგად მიყენებულ ზიანს აანაზღაურებს სახელმწიფო, გამოძიების, პროკურატურის ორგანოებისა და სასამართლოს თანამდებობის პირთა ბრალის მიუხედავად. განზრახვისას ან უხეში გაუფრთხილებლობისას ეს პირები სახელმწიფოსთან ერთად სოლიდარულად აგებენ პასუხს.” ხოლო, ამავე კოდექსის 1008-ე მუხლის თანახმად, დელიქტით გამოწვეული ზიანის ანაზღაურების მოთხოვნის უფლების ხანდაზმულობის ვადა არის სამი წელი იმ მომენტიდან, როცა დაზარალებულმა შეიტყო ზიანის ან ზიანის ანაზღაურებაზე ვალდებული პირის შესახებ. აგრეთვე, ზოგადი ღონისძიების სახით, ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილება ითარგმნა და გამოქვეყნებულია იუსტიციის სამინისტროს ოფიციალურ ვებგვერდზე, ასევე უზენაესი სასამართლოს პერიოდულ გამოცემაში, რომელიც მოიცავს ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებებს და განკუთვნილია საქართველოს საერთო სასამართლოების მოსამართლეთათვის. 9 - 4. „საქართველოს ლეიბორისტული პარტია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი № 9103/04, 2008 წლის 8 ივლისის გადაწყვეტილება 2016 წლის 30 მარტს 1252-ე შეხვედრაზე, მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია საქმეზე - „საქართველოს ლეიბორისტული პარტია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დ ანართი 3). საქმე ეხება მომჩივანი პარტიის უფლების დარღვევას 2004 წლის საპარლამენტო არჩევნებზე, რაც გამოიწვია ხულოსა და ქობულეთის საარჩევნო ოლქების ამომრჩეველთა მიერ მათი ხმის მიცემის უფლების განუხორციელებლობამ. კერძოდ, ე. წ. „ვარდების რევოლუციის“ შემდეგ, საქართველოს უზენაესმა სასამართლომ გააუქმა 2003 წლის ნოემბრის პროპორციული საპარლამენტო არჩევნების შედეგების ნაწილი. ხელახალი არჩევნები ჩატარდა 2004 წლის 28 მარტს. რამდენიმე საჩივრის მიღების შემდეგ, რომლებიც ეხებოდა 2004 წლის 28 მარტს ხულოსა და ქობულეთის საარჩევნო ოლქებში მომხდარ დარღვევებს, ცენტრალურმა საარჩევნო კომისიამ, 2004 წლის 2 აპრილის დადგენილებით, გააუქმა არჩევნების შედეგები ხულოსა და ქობულეთის ოლქებში და ხელახალი არჩევნები დანიშნა 2004 წლის 18 აპრილს. ამის მიუხედავად, დანიშნულ დღეს, საარჩევნო უბნები არ გაიხსნა და შედეგად, 60 000 ადამიანმა დაკარგა ხმის მიცემის შესაძლებლობა. მოგვიანებით, ხმათა უმრავლესობით მიღებული გადაწყვეტილებით, ცესკომ გამოაცხადა არჩევნების შედეგები ისე, რომ მხედველობაში არ მიუღია არჩევნების ჩაუტარებლობა ხულოსა და ქობულეთის საარჩევნო ოლქებში. განსახილველ საქმეში, ევროპულმა სასამართლომ დაადგინა კონვენციის დამატებითი ოქმის მე-3 მუხლის დარღვევა და აღნიშნა, რომ დარღვევის დადგენა მომჩივანი პარტიის მიერ განცდილი არამატერიალური ზიანისათვის საკმარის სამართლიან დაკმაყოფილებას წარმოადგენდა. ევროპულმა სასამართლომ მიუთითა, რომ საარჩევნო პროცესიდან აღნიშნული ორი საარჩევნო ოლქის გამოკლება ეწინააღმდეგებოდა სამართლებრივი სახელმწიფოს 10 პრინციპებს და მას შედეგადად მოჰყვა მოსახლეობის მნიშვნელოვანი ნაწილის დატოვება ხმის მიცემის უფლების განხორციელების გარეშე, რამაც განაპირობა კონვენციის დამატებითი ოქმის მე-3 მუხლის დარღვევა. სასამართლომ მთავრობას დააკისრა 10 043 ევრო, რათა მომჩივნებისათვის აენაზღაურებინათ ყველა ხარჯი და დანახარჯი. მთავრობამ შეასრულა ვალდებულება და დაკისრებული თანხა გადაურიცხა მომჩივან პარტიას. საგულისხმოა, რომ 2008-2013 წლებში ჩატარებულ საპარლამენტო/საპრეზიდენტო არჩევნებში მომჩივანმა გამომდინარე, პარტიამ საქართველოს მიიღო მთავრობა მონაწილეობა. მიიჩნევდა, ზემოაღნიშნულიდან რომ არავითარი სხვა ინდივიდუალური სახის ღონისძიების გატარების საჭიროება არ არსებობდა. ზოგადი ღონისძიებების თვალსაზრისით გატარდა მნიშვნელოვანი ღონისძიებები გადაწყვეტილებაში დადგენილი დარღვევის აღმოფხვრის მიზნით. კერძოდ, 2012 წლის 10 იანვარს ამოქმედდა ახალი საარჩევნო კოდექსი, რომელშიც დამატებითი ცვლილებები განხორციელდა შემდგომ წლებში. დღეს მოქმედი კოდექსის მე-14 მუხლის „კ“ ქვეპუნქტი ითვალისწინებს, საკუთარი ინიციატივით ან განცხადების/საჩივრის საფუძველზე, ცესკოს მიერ კომისიების, მათი თანამდებობის პირების გადაწყვეტილებებისა და აქტების კანონიერების შესწავლას და დარღვევის გამოვლენის შემთხვევაში განკარგულებით ბათილად ცნობის ან შეცვლის საკითხს. ასევე, ამავე მუხლის მიხედვით, ცესკო განკარგულებით იღებს გადაწყვეტილებას შესაბამისი საუბნო საარჩევნო კომისიიდან შემოსული პაკეტების გახსნისა და საარჩევნო ბიულეტენების/ამომრჩეველთა სიების ხელახლა დათვლის შესახებ. საარჩევნო ბიულეტენების ხელახლა დათვლის შემთხვევაში ცესკომ ეს უნდა აცნობოს ყველა საარჩევნო სუბიექტსა და დამკვირვებელ ორგანიზაციას, რომელთა წარმომადგენლებიც ესწრებოდნენ ბიულეტენების დათვლას საარჩევნო უბანზე, და მათი სურვილის შემთხვევაში უზრუნველყოს მათი წარმომადგენლების დასწრება ხელახლა დათვლის პროცესზე. ამასთანავე, აღსანიშნავია მოქმედი საარჩევნო კოდექსის 125-ე მუხლის მე-12 და მე 15 ნაწილები, რომლებიც განსაზღვრავს ცესკოს მიერ ხელახალი არჩევნების 11 დანიშვნის წესს იმ საარჩევნო ოლქში/უბანში, სადაც კენჭისყრის შედეგები ბათილად იქნა ცნობილი. ახალი საარჩევნო კოდექსის ფარგლებში, შემუშავდა სამართლებრივი დაცვის ეფექტური საშუალებები, ასევე დავების მოგვარებისა და საარჩევნო კომისიების გადაწყვეტილებების წინააღმდეგ შეტანილი საჩივრების სწრაფად განხილვის მექანიზმი (77-ე-78-ე მუხლები), რომლებშიც ცვლილებები განხორციელდა 2013 -2016 წლებში. ასევე, მთავრობის მიერ წარდგენილ სამოქმედო ანგარიშში განხილულია საარჩევნო პროცესთან მიმართებით სხვადასხვა ავტორიტეტული საერთაშორისო ორგანიზაციების ანგარიშებში ასახული პოზიტიური ტენდენციები 2013 წლის საპრეზიდენტო და 2014 წლის ადგილობრივი არჩევნების შესახებ. ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილება გამოქვეყნდა საქართველოს „საკანონმდებლო მაცნეში“ და საქართველოს იუსტიციის სამინისტროს ოფიციალურ ვებ-გვერდზე. გადაწყვეტილება ასევე გამოქვეყნებულია საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლოს პერიოდულ გამოცემაში, რომელიც მოიცავს ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებებს და განკუთვნილია საქართველოს საერთო სასამართლოების მოსამართლეთათვის. - 5. „ჯანიაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი № 35887/05, 2012 წლის 27 ნოემბრის გადაწყვეტილება 2016 წლის 27 აპრილს მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა, მინისტრთა მოადგილეების 1254-ე შეხვედრაზე, მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია საქმეზე - „ჯანიაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დანართი 4). საქმე უკავშირდება მომჩივნის წინააღმდეგ აღძრული სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ფარგლებში, წინასწარი პატიმრობის ვადის გაგრძელების შესახებ სასამართლო გადაწყვეტილებათა დაუსაბუთებლობას. კერძოდ, ევროპულმა სასამართლომ აღნიშნა, რომ მომჩივნის წინასწარი პატიმრობის ვადის გაგრძელების შესახებ 2004 12 წლის 13 აგვისტოს, 13 სექტემბრისა და 13 ნოემბრის გადაწყვეტილებები აბსტრაქტულად ფორმულირებული და არასაკმარისად მოტივირებული იყო, რითაც დაირღვა ევროპული კონვენციის მე-5 მუხლის მე -3 პუნქტი. მომჩივნის წინასწარი პატიმრობა დასრულდა 2005 წლის 3 მაისს, როდესაც, ასპინძის რაიონული სასამართლოს გამამართლებელი განაჩენის საფუძველზე, ის დაუყოვნებლივ იქნა გათავისუფლებული. ევროპულმა სასამართლომ საქართველოს მთავრობას მომჩივნის სასარგებლოდ დააკისრა 1 600 ევროს გადახდა , სამართლიანი დაკმაყოფილების სახით. თუმცა, მომჩივანმა 2013 წლის 2 აგვისტოს წერილობითი ფორმით უარი განაცხადა თანხის მიღებაზე. აღსანიშნავია, რომ ჯანიაშვილის გადაწყვეტილებაში მითითებულ წლებში (20042005), წინასწარი პატიმრობის ვადის გაგრძელების შესახებ გადაწყვეტილებათა დასაბუთებულობის პრობლემაზე ევროპულმა სასამართლომ უკვე იმსჯელა სხვა საქმეებში, მაგ.: „ფაცურია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (№30779/12, 2007 წლის 6 ნოემბრის გადაწყვეტილება), რომელთა აღსრულების ფარგლებშიც გატარდა შესაბამისი ინდივიდუალური და ზოგადი ღონისძიებები გამოვლენილი პრობლემის აღმოფხვრისა და პრევენციის მიზნით. 2011 წლის 14 სექტემბერს, ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია, რომლითაც ზემოაღნიშნული პრობლემა მოგვარებულად იქნა მიჩნეული. შესაბამისად, მთავრობის მიერ აღსრულების ანგარიშში მითითებულია ფაცურიას საქმეთა ჯგუფის საბოლოო რეზოლუციაზე. აგრეთვე, ანგარიშში აღნიშნულია, რომ დღეს მოქმედი სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსი, დეტალურად არეგულირებს აღკვეთის ღონისძიებებთან დაკავშირებულ საკითხებს. კერძოდ, კოდექსის 206-ე მუხლის მე-2 და მე -3 ნაწილების შესაბამისად, აღკვეთის ღონისძიების გამოყენების შესახებ შუამდგომლობით პროკურორი სასამართლოს მიმართავს დაკავებიდან არა უგვიანეს 48 საათისა. აღკვეთის ღონისძიების გამოყენების შესახებ შუამდგომლობას მოსამართლე განიხილავს მისი წარდგენიდან არა უგვიანეს 24 საათისა. აღკვეთის ღონისძიების 13 გამოყენების, შეცვლისა და გაუქმების საკითხები განიხილება ღია სასამართლო სხდომაზე, გარდა იმ შემთხვევებისა, როდესაც არსებობს სასამართლო სხდომის დახურვის ამ კოდექსით გათვალისწინებული საფუძვლები. მოსამართლე შუამდგომლობას განიხილავს ერთპიროვნულად, მხარეთა მონაწილეობით. ასევე, 206-ე მუხლი ავალდებულებს მოსამართლეს, დაასაბუთოს წინასწარი პატიმრობის შესახებ მიღებული გადაწყვეტილება. ამავე მუხლის მე-5 ნაწილის მიხედვით, აღკვეთის ღონისძიების გამოყენების შესახებ შუამდგომლობის განხილვისას მოსამართლე უფლებამოსილია სათანადო საფუძვლის მითითებით უარყოს შუამდგომლობაში აღნიშნული აღკვეთის ღონისძიება და ბრალდებულს შეურჩიოს სხვა, ნაკლებად მკაცრი აღკვეთის ღონისძიება ან საერთოდ არ გამოიყენოს აღკვეთის ღონისძიება. მთავრობის ინფორმაცია, მიერ მინისტრთა წინასწარ კომიტეტისათვის, პატიმრობასთან ასევე, მიწოდებული დაკავშირებული იქნა სტატისტიკური მონაცემების შესახებ, რომლის მიხედვითაც შემცირებულია აღკვეთის ღონისძიების სახით პატიმრობის გამოყენება. გადაწყვეტილება ითარგმნა და გამოქვეყნდა „საკანონმდებლო მაცნეში“ და იუსტიციის სამინისტროს ოფიციალურ ვებ-გვერდზე. ასევე, გადაწყვეტილება გამოქვეყნებულია საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლოს პერიოდულ გამოცემაში, რომელიც მოიცავს ადამიანის უფლებათა ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებებს და განკუთვნილია საქართველოს საერთო სასამართლოების მოსამართლეთათვის. 14 - 6. „საღინაძე და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, საჩივარი № 18768/05, 2010 წლის 27 მაისის გადაწყვეტილება (არსებითი ნაწილი) და 2015 წლის 13 იანვრის გადაწყვეტილება (სამართლიანი დაკმაყოფილება) 2016 წლის 4 მაისს, მინისტრთა მოადგილეების 1255-ე შეხვედრაზე, მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა მიიღო საბოლოო რეზოლუცია საქმეზე - „საღინაძე და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ (იხ. დანართი 5 ). 2004 წლის პირველ ნოემბერს, მომჩივანი გამოასახლეს შინაგან საქმეთა სამინისტროს კუთვნილი კოტეჯიდან, რომელშიც იგი, როგორც აფხაზეთიდან დევნილი პოლიციის მაღალჩინოსანი, 1994 წლიდან ცხოვრობდა ოჯახთან ერთად. 2006 წლის 4 ივნისს, მომჩივანი დააპატიმრეს. 2007 წლის 22 თებერვალს, პირველი ინსტანციის სასამართლომ იგი დამნაშავედ ცნო იარაღის უკანონო ფლობის, ოფიციალური დოკუმენტების მითვისების, არასათანადო მოპყრობის, მტკიცებულებების გაყალბებისა და სამსახურებრივი უფლებამოსილების ბოროტად გამოყენებისა და სხვა ფაქტების გამო და მას 7 წლით თავისუფლების აღკვეთა მიუსაჯა. 2005 წლის 27 აპრილს, მომჩივანმა და მისმა ოჯახის წევრებმა ევროპულ სასამართლოში შეიტანეს საჩივარი კოტეჯის ჩამორთმევასთან დაკავშირებით, ხოლო 2006 წლის 13 დეკემბერს, მომჩივანმა სასამართლოს ახალი საჩივრით მიმართა და მისი წინასწარი პატიმრობის კანონიერება გაასაჩივრა. ევროპულმა სასამართლომ დაადგინა კონვენციის მე-5 მუხლის მე-3 და მე-4 პუნქტების, მე-8 მუხლისა და დამატებითი ოქმის პირველი მუხლის დარღვევა. აღნიშნული გადაწყვეტილებით სასამართლომ მიიჩნია, რომ ზიანის ანაზღაურების საუკეთესო ფორმა იქნებოდა სადავო კოტეჯის მომჩივნისთვის დაბრუნება. ასეთი შესაძლებლობის არარსებობის შემთხვევაში, საქართველოს მთავრობას უნდა უზრუნველეყო პირისთვის, მომჩივნისთვის, შესაფერისი როგორც საცხოვრებელი იძულებით ფართის გადაადგილებული გამოყოფა ან ორმხრივი შეთანხმების საფუძველზე გონივრული კომპენსაციის გადახდა. ამასთან, მორალური ზიანის, ხარჯებისა და დანახარჯების ანაზღაურების სახით ევროპულმა სასამართლომ მომჩივანს მიაკუთვნა 15 752 ევრო. 15 ზემოაღნიშნული გადაწყვეტილების აღსრულების ფარგლებში, სასამართლოს მიერ დადგენილი სამართლიანი დაკმაყოფილების თანხა (15 752 ევრო) სახელმწიფოს მიერ გადახდილია 2010 წლის 28 ოქტომბერს. რაც შეეხება კოტეჯის დაბრუნებას, თბილისში ავჭალის ქ. №15 (17)-ში მდებარე კოტეჯში, 2005 წლიდან განთავსებულია შინაგან საქმეთა სამინისტროს მცხეთამთიანეთის განსაკუთრებულ დავალებათა სამხარეო განყოფილება, ხოლო შენობას ჩაუტარდა კაპიტალური სარემონტო სამუშაოები პოლიციის საქმიანობისთვის შესაბამისი პირობების შექმნის მიზნით. აღნიშნულ მიზეზთა გამო, კოტეჯის მომჩივნისათვის დაბრუნება შეუძლებელი გახდა. ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებით დადგენილი მეორე ალტერნატივის შესაბამისად, საქართველოს მთავრობამ, 2011 წლის 24 თებერვლის წერილით მომჩივანს, როგორც იძულებით გადაადგილებულ პირს, შესთავაზა, შესაბამისი საცხოვრებელი ფართი ხობის რაიონში, თუმცა აღნიშნულ შეთავაზებაზე მან უარი განაცხადა. შესაბამისად, ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილების ჯეროვნად აღსრულების მიზნით, 2014 წლის 14 იანვარს საქართველოს იუსტიციის სამინისტრომ მიმართა საქართველოს ოკუპირებული ტერიტორიებიდან იძულებით გადაადგილებულ პირთა, განსახლებისა და ლტოლვილთა სამინისტროს შემოგარენში მომჩივნისთვის ფართის გადაცემის თბილისში ან მის ალტერნატიული და ადეკვატური საცხოვრებელი შესაძლებლობის შესახებ. შესაბამისად, მიღებულ იქნა გადაწყვეტილება ქ. თბილისში (თემქის დასახლება, მე-3 მ/რ, მე-4 კვ. ყოფილი №142 რუსული სკოლა) მდებარე ორი, ორივე ოროთახიანი, გარემონტებული საცხოვრებელი ბინის მომჩივნის ოჯახისათვის გადაცემის შესახებ, რომელიც აკმაყოფილებს ყველა აუცილებელ საყოფაცხოვრებო მოთხოვნას. აგრეთვე, საქართველოს მთავრობამ მზადყოფნა გამოთქვა მომჩივნისთვის ex gratia, დამატებით, 3 000 ევროს გადახდის თაობაზე. 21 თებერვალს მთავრობამ აცნობა ევროპულ ზემოაღნიშნული შეთავაზების თაობაზე, რომელიც სასამართლომ 2014 წლის სასამართლოს სრულად 16 გაითვალისწინა 2015 წლის 13 იანვრის გადაწყვეტილებით. კერძოდ, ევროპული სასამართლოს გადაწყვეტილებით, მოპასუხე სახელმწიფოს უნდა უზრუნველეყო შეთავაზებული საცხოვრებელი ბინების მომჩივნისთვის გადაცემა და დამატებით, 3 000 (სამი ათასი) ევროს გადახდა კომპენსაციის სახით. სასამართლომ აღნიშნა, რომ მთავრობის მიერ ზემოაღნიშნული შეთავაზებით ნაკისრი ვალდებულებების აღსრულება წარმოადგენს მომჩივნის მატერიალური ზარალის ყველაზე შესაფერის ანაზღაურებას. საქართველოს მიერ ნაკისრი საერთაშორისო ვალდებულებების ჯეროვანი აღსრულების მიზნით, საქართველოს მთავრობამ გაატარა აუცილებელი ზომები და ოფიციალურად დაურეგისტრირა მომჩივანს ზემოაღნიშნული ქონება, 2015 წლის 9 თებერვალს. რაც შეეხება მთავრობის მიერ შეთავაზებული თანხის (3 000 ევროს) გადახდას, საქართველოს იუსტიციის სამინისტროს არაერთი წერილობითი მიმართვის მიუხედავად, მომჩივნის მიერ არ იქნა წარმოდგენილი საბანკო რეკვიზიტები (ლარში გახსნილი ანგარიშის ნომერი და პირადობის მოწმობის ასლი) თანხის ჩარიცხვის პროცედურების დასაწყებად. მთავრობა მზადყოფნას გამოთქვამს რეკვიზიტების წარმოდგენისთანავე, უზრუნველყოს მომჩივნისთვის მიკუთვნებული თანხის ჩარიცხვა. ზოგადი ღონისძიებების თვალსაზრისით, სამოქმედო ანგარიშში მთავრობამ მიუთითა ჭიჭინაძისა (დაიხურა 2014 წლის 16 აპრილს კომიტეტის 1197-ე სხდომაზე) და ბაისუევისა და ანზოროვის (დაიხურა 2015 წლის 10 სექტემბერს კომიტეტის 1134ე სხდომაზე) საქმეებზე, რომლებიც ეხებოდა მე-5 მუხლთან დაკავშირებულ მსგავს საკითხებს. გადაწყვეტილება თარგმნილი და გამოქვეყნებულია სამინისტროს ოფიციალურ ვებ-გვერდზე, ასევე საქართველოს „საკანონმდებლო მაცნეში“. 17 დასკვნა: საბოლოო რეზოლუციებით ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტმა 2016 დაასრულა ზემოხსენებული საქმეების განხილვა, რითაც დაადასტურა, რომ ევროპული სასამართლოს მიერ ამ საქმეებში დადგენილი დარღვევები საბოლოოდ აღმოიფხვრა მოპასუხე სახელმწიფოს მიერ გატარებული ეფექტური ინდივიდუალური და ზოგადი ღონისძიებების შედეგად. 18 - ბ) ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტში არსებული მიმდინარე საქმეები საქართველოს პარლამენტის რეგლამენტის 2283 მუხლის პირველი პუნქტის „ბ“ ქვეპუნქტის შესაბამისად, საქართველოს მთავრობა წარმოადგენს აღსრულების სამოქმედო გეგმებს/ანგარიშებს გადაწყვეტილებებთან/განჩინებებთან ევროპული სასამართლოს იმ დაკავშირებით, რომლებიც მიმდინარეა ევროპის საბჭოს მინისტრთა კომიტეტში და რომელიც გულისხმობს კომპენსაციის თანხის გადახდის გარდა, აღსრულების სხვა ღონისძიებების განხორციელებას. აგრეთვე, მინისტრთა კომიტეტის მიერ ამ საქმეებზე მიღებულ გადაწყვეტილებებსა და შუალედურ რეზოლუციებს (ასეთის არსებობის შემთხვევაში). - გადაწყვეტილებები „ღარიბაშვილის ჯგუფის საქმეები“, რომლებიც აერთიანებს ქვემოთ მითითებულ 6 გადაწყვეტილებას და 11 განჩინებას – (გადაწყვეტილებათა აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმები და მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 6-8 დეკემბრის გადაწყვეტილება (დანართი 6); 1. ღარიბაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 2. ცინცაბაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 3. ხაინდრავა და ძამაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 4. მიქიაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 5. დვალიშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 6. ენუქიძე და გირგვლიანი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - (დანართი 6), დამატებით ინდივიდუალური აღსრულების სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 7); 7. ალიევი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 2021 სექტემბრის გადაწყვეტილება (დანართი 8) და აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 9); 8. შამაევი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 9); 9. იდენტობა და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების სამოქმედო გეგმა და მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 6-8 დეკემბრის გადაწყვეტილება (დანართი 10); 19 10. გლდანის კონგრეგაციის 97 წევრი და ოთხი სხვა პირი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 6-8 დეკემბრის გადაწყვეტილება და აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 11); 11. ბეღელური და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 6-8 დეკემბრის გადაწყვეტილება და აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 11); 12. ნიკოლაიშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების ანგარიში (დანართი 12); 13. აპოსტოლი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების ანგარიში (დანართი 13); 14. მახარაძე და სიხარულიძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 14); 15. გ. ს. საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული ანგარიში (დანართი 15); 16. ნ. წ. საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების ანგარიში (დანართი 16); 17.ლაშა ჭიჭინაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების ანგარიში (დანართი 17); 18.ჭანკოტაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების ანგარიში (დანართი 18). - განჩინებები „ღარიბაშვილის ჯგუფის საქმეები“, რომლებიც აერთიანებს 6 გადაწყვეტილებას და ქვემოთ მითითებულ 11 განჩინებას (აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმები და მინისტრთა კომიტეტის 2016 წლის 6-8 დეკემბრის გადაწყვეტილება (დანართი 19); 1. ბაღაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 2. კიზირია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 3. სურმანიძე და ართმელაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 4. მზექალიშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 5. მოლაშვილი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 6. კოპაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 7. სტუდია მაესტრო საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 8. ჩანტლაძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 9. ლანჩავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 10. ბექაური და სხვები საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 11. გეგენავა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ; 20 12. ჩქოტუა და არქანია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 20); 13. ვაშაკიძე საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 21); 14. გამსახურდია საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული სამოქმედო გეგმა (დანართი 21); 15. დე პიტა საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ - აღსრულების კონსოლიდირებული ანგარიში (დანართი 15); 21 II. გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის სახელშეკრულებო ორგანოების გადაწყვეტილებები საქართველოს პარლამენტის რეგლამენტის 2282 მუხლის მესამე პუნქტის შესაბამისად, საქართველოს მთავრობა წარმოადგენს ინფორმაციას გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის კომიტეტების მიერ საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ ინდივიდუალურ საჩივრებთან დაკავშირებით მიღებული გადაწყვეტილებების აღსრულების შესახებ. ამ ეტაპზე, სააღსრულებო წარმოება ხორციელდება გაეროს სახელშეკრულებო ორგანოების მიერ განხილულ ორ საქმეზე: 1. შოთა რატიანი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ (კომუნიკაცია № 975/2001, გაეროს ადამიანის უფლებათა კომიტეტის 2005 წლის 21 ივლისის გადაწყვეტილება); 2. X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ (კომუნიკაცია №24/2009, გაეროს ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტის 2015 წლის 13 ივლისის გადაწყვეტილება). გაეროს ადამიანის უფლებათა კომიტეტმა 2005 წლის 21 ივლისს გამოიტანა გადაწყვეტილება საქმეზე - „შოთა რატიანი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, რითაც დაადგინა, რომ სახელმწიფომ დაარღვია მომჩივნის უფლება, გაესაჩივრებინა მისი მსჯავრდება და სასჯელი და, ამ თვალსაზრისით, დადგინდა „სამოქალაქო და პოლიტიკური უფლებების შესახებ საერთაშორისო პაქტის“ (შემდგომში - პაქტი) მე14 მუხლის მე -5 პუნქტის დარღვევა , რომელიც იცავს პირის უფლებას მისი განაჩენი გადასინჯულ იქნეს ზემდგომი სასამართლოს მიერ. 2015 წლის 13 ივლისს გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტმა მიიღო გადაწყვეტილება საქმეზე - „X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“. საქმის ფაქტობრივი მასალების შესწავლის შედეგად, კომიტეტმა დაადგინა, რომ სამართალდამცავი ორგანოები გულგრილად მოეკიდნენ ოჯახში ძალადობის ფაქტებს და მიიჩნია რომ ხელისუფლებამ ვერ შეძლო, გაეტარებინა ქალთა ძალადობისა და დისკრიმინაციისაგან დასაცავად შესაბამისი საკანონმდებლო და სხვა აუცილებელი ღონისძიებები. შესაბამისად, 2001-2006 22 წლებში სახელმწიფომ დაარღვია ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციის ყველა ფორმის აღმოფხვრის შესახებ კონვენციის მე-2(ბ) -(ვ) მუხლი, პირველ და მე -5(ა) მუხლებთან ერთობლიობაში, ასევე, კომიტეტის მე-19 ზოგადი რეკომენდაცია, რომელიც კრძალავს ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციას. კომიტეტმა მიიჩნია, რომ სახელმწიფომ ვერ უზრუნველყო ოჯახური ძალადობის ფაქტების შესახებ მომჩივნების პრეტენზიების თაობაზე ადეკვატური ზომების მიღება და მათი სრულყოფილი გამოძიება. - ინდივიდუალური ღონისძიებები აღსანიშნავია, რომ ზემოხსენებულ საქმეებში, გაეროს კომიტეტებმა მოპასუხე სახელმწიფოს მიუთითეს მომჩივანთათვის კომპენსაციის მინიჭების ვალდებულების თაობაზე, თუმცა 2016 წლამდე ეროვნულ კანონმდებლობაში არ არსებობდა გაეროს კომიტეტების გადაწყვეტილებათა აღსრულების სამართლებრივი მექანიზმი. 2016 წელს საქართველოს იუსტიციის სამინისტროს მიერ წარდგენილმა საკანონმდებლო ცვლილებების პაკეტმა სწორედ ეს ხარვეზები აღმოფხვრა ეროვნულ კანონმდებლობაში. კერძოდ, გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის კონვენციების საფუძველზე შექმნილი კომიტეტების მიერ შემუშავდა საკანონმდებლო გამოტანილი ცვლილებათა განჩინებების პაკეტი აღსასრულებლად (საქართველოს სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო, სამოქალაქო საპროცესო და ადმინისტრაციულ საპროცესო კოდექსებში), რომელიც ამოქმედდა 2016 წლის 13 მაისს. სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსის 310-ე მუხლსა და სამოქალაქო საპროცესო კოდექსის 423-ე მუხლში განხორციელებული ცვლილებების თანახმად, თუ არსებობს გაეროს ადამიანის უფლებათა კომიტეტის, ქალთა წინააღმდეგ დისკრიმინაციის ყველა ფორმის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტის, ბავშვის უფლებათა კომიტეტის, წამების წინააღმდეგ კომიტეტის ან რასობრივი დისკრიმინაციის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტის განჩინება, რომლითაც დადგენილი იქნა კომიტეტის დამაარსებელი კონვენციის 23 დარღვევა ამ საქმესთან დაკავშირებით და გადასასინჯი გადაწყვეტილება ამ დარღვევას ეფუძნება, პირს შეუძლია მიმართოს ეროვნულ სასამართლოებს ახლად გამოვლენილ/ახლად აღმოჩენილ გარემოებათა გამო განაჩენის/გადაწყვეტილების გადასინჯვის მოთხოვნით, 1 წლის განმავლობაში სისხლის სამართლის საქმეების შემთხვევაში, ხოლო 6 თვის განმავლობაში სამოქალაქო საქმეებზე. აგრეთვე, თუკი გაეროს კომიტეტი სახელმწიფოს მომჩივნის მიმართ კომპენსაციის გადახდას დააკისრებს, მომჩივანი უფლებამოსილი იქნება, მიმართოს ეროვნულ სასამართლოს კომპენსაციის მიღებასთან დაკავშირებით. კერძოდ, საქართველოს ადმინისტრაციულ საპროცესო კოდექსს დაემატა ახალი VII14 თავი, რომელიც ითვალისწინებს უფლებათა ადმინისტრაციული დაცვის სამართალწარმოებას სახელშეკრულებო ორგანოების გაეროს ადამიანის გადაწყვეტილებების საფუძველზე კომპენსაციის გაცემასთან დაკავშირებით. კოდექსის 2157-ე მუხლის თანახმად, ქონებრივი ან/და არაქონებრივი ზიანის ანაზღაურების მიზნით ფულადი კომპენსაციის მიღების შესახებ სარჩელით სასამართლოსთვის მიმართვის უფლება აქვს იმ პირს, რომლის მიმართაც არსებობს გაერთიანებული ერების ორგანიზაციის ადამიანის უფლებათა კომიტეტის, ქალთა წინააღმდეგ დისკრიმინაციის ყველა ფორმის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტის, ბავშვის უფლებათა კომიტეტის, წამების წინააღმდეგ კომიტეტის ან რასობრივი დისკრიმინაციის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტის გადაწყვეტილება, რომლითაც დადგენილ იქნა კომიტეტის დამაარსებელი კონვენციის დარღვევა ამ საქმესთან დაკავშირებით. პირი ან მისი კანონიერი წარმომადგენელი ფულადი კომპენსაციის მიღების შესახებ სარჩელს წარუდგენს რაიონულ (საქალაქო) სასამართლოს კომიტეტის მიერ გადაწყვეტილების მიღებიდან ექვსი თვის ვადაში. ფულადი კომპენსაციის მიღების შესახებ სარჩელის განხილვისას სასამართლო დადგენილად მიიჩნევს პირის მიმართ კონვენციის დარღვევის ფაქტს, რომელიც დასტურდება კომიტეტის გადაწყვეტილებით. ასევე, კოდექსის 2160-ე მუხლის მე-2 ნაწილის თანახმად ფულადი კომპენსაციის გაცემის თაობაზე გადაწყვეტილებას რაიონული (საქალაქო) სასამართლო იღებს პირის მიმართ 24 კონვენციით განსაზღვრული ადამიანის უფლებების დარღვევის სიმძიმისა და სხვა ობიექტური ფაქტორების გათვალისწინებით. აღსანიშნავია, რომ ახალი რეგულაციები კომპენსაციის მოთხოვნასთან დაკავშირებით გავრცელდა იმ პირებზეც, რომელთა მიმართაც უკვე არსებობს გაეროს ადამიანის უფლებათა სახელშეკრულებო ორგანოების გადაწყვეტილება, მათთვის სახელმწიფოს მიერ კომპენსაციის გაცემის თაობაზე. კერძოდ, 353-ე მუხლის თანახმად, პირი, რომლის მიმართაც ამ კოდექსის VII14 თავის ამოქმედებამდე გაეროს ადამიანის უფლებათა კომიტეტის ან ქალთა წინააღმდეგ დისკრიმინაციის ყველა ფორმის აღმოფხვრის სახელმწიფოს მიერ კომიტეტის მიერ მიღებულ კომპენსაციის გაცემის თაობაზე, იქნა გადაწყვეტილება უფლებამოსილი იყო კომიტეტის გადაწყვეტილების საფუძველზე ფულადი კომპენსაციის გაცემის მოთხოვნით მიემართა ეროვნული სასამართლოსთვის, VII14 თავის ამოქმედებიდან 3 თვის ვადაში. შესაბამისად, ზემოხსენებული შესაძლებლობა კომპენსაციის მიღების თაობაზე, გავრცელდა ბატონ შოთა რატიანზე და მომჩივნებზე, საქმეში - „X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“. ზემოაღნიშნული საკანონმდებლო ცვლილებების საფუძველზე, ბატონმა შოთა რატიანმა 2016 წლის 2 აგვისტოს მიმართა თბილისის საქალაქო სასამართლოს კომპენსაციის მინიჭების მოთხოვნით. აღსანიშნავია, რომ თბილისის საქალაქო სასამართლოს ადმინისტრაციულ საქმეთა კოლეგიის 2017 წლის 28 მარტის გადაწყვეტილებით, მოსარჩელის მოთხოვნა ნაწილობრივ დაკმაყოფილდა და მოპასუხე - საქართველოს ფინანსთა სამინისტროს, მორალური ზიანის ანაზღაურების სახით, მოსარჩელის სასარგებლოდ დაეკისრა 10 000 ლარის გადახდა. რაც შეეხება მოსარჩელეებს საქმეში - „X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, 2016 წლის 12 აგვისტოს საჩივრის ავტორებმა ადმინისტრაციულ საპროცესო კოდექსში განხორციელებული ცვლილებების საფუძველზე, კომპენსაციის მიღების მიზნით, მიმართეს თბილისის საქალაქო სასამართლოს ადმინისტრაციულ საქმეთა კოლეგიას. რაც შეეხება სხვა ინდივიდუალურ ღონისძიებებს, როგორც მოსარჩელეები სარჩელში 25 თავად უთითებენ, მათ მიიღეს ადამიანით ვაჭრობის (ტრეფიკინგის) მსხვერპლთა, დაზარალებულთა დაცვისა და დახმარების სახელმწიფო ფონდისგან შესაბამისი დახმარება. - ზოგადი ღონისძიებები ა) „შოთა რატია ნი საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“ აღსანიშნავია, რომ საქმის ფაქტობრივ გარემოებებს, რის გამოც კომიტეტმა განსახილველ საქმეში დარღვევა დაადგინა, ადგილი ჰქონდა 1995-1999 წლებში. კერძოდ, 1995 წლის 30 აგვისტოს პრეზიდენტ შევარდნაძეზე განხორციელებული ტერორისტული აქტის მცდელობის მეორე დღეს, მომჩივანი დააპატიმრეს 10 სხვა პირთან ერთად. 1997 წლის 21 აპრილს ის დამნაშავედ ცნო უზენაესმა სასამართლომ, რომელიც პირველი ინსტანციის წესით იხილავდა აღნიშნულ საქმეს და მიუსაჯა 7 წლით თავისუფლების აღკვეთა, რომლის გასაჩივრების შესაძლებლობაც მომჩივანს იმ დროს მოქმედი კანონმდებლობით არ ჰქონდა. აღნიშნული პერიოდის მნიშვნელოვანი შემდგომ, ღონისძიებები საქართველოს კანონმდებლობაში სახელმწიფომ არსებული გაატარა ხარვეზების აღმოფხვრისა და მომავალში მსგავსი დარღვევების აღკვეთის მიზნით. შესაბამისად, ეროვნული სამართლებრივი თვალსაზრისით, სისტემა შესაბამისობაში გასაჩივრების იქნა მექანიზმის მოყვანილი არსებობის კომიტეტის გადაწყვეტილებასთან. დღეს მოქმედი სისხლის სამართლის საპროცესო კოდექსი საერთოდ არ ითვალისწინებს ზემდგომი ინსტანციის მიერ პირველი ინსტანციით სისხლის სამართლის საქმის განხილვის შესაძლებლობას და საპროცესო კანონმდებლობით გარანტირებულია სასამართლოს შემაჯამებელი გადაწყვეტილების ზემდგომ ინსტანციაში გასაჩივრების შესაძლებლობა. 26 ბ) „X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ” აღსანიშნავია, რომ განსახილველი საქმის ფაქტობრივ გარემოებებს, რის გამოც კომიტეტმა დაადგინა ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციის ყველა ფორმის აღმოფხვრის შესახებ კონვენციის დარღვევა ადგილი ჰქონდა 2001-2006 წლებში. კერძოდ, საქართველოს მოქალაქეები, დედა და მისი გოგონა, რომლებიც დასკვნაში მოხსენიებულნი არიან როგორც X და Y, მუდმივად ხდებოდნენ X-ის მეუღლის მხრიდან, როგორც ფიზიკური, ასევე სექსუალური ძალადობის მსხვერპლი. მომჩივნებმა არაერთხელ მიმართეს სამართალდამცავ ორგანოებს, თუმცა, მათ მიმართვებს ეფექტიანი რეაგირება არ მოჰყოლია. ზოგად ღონისძიებებთან დაკავშირებით, კომიტეტმა მთავრობას მისცა შემდეგი სახის რეკომენდაციები: ბ) ზოგადად: (i) ოჯახში ძალადობის მსხვერპლებისთვის და მათი შვილებისთვის უზრუნველყოფილი იყოს დროული და ადეკვატური დახმარების მიწოდება, მათ შორის, თავშესაფარი და ფსიქოლოგიური დახმარება; (ii) გაძლიერდეს ცნობიერების ამაღლების კამპანიები და ქალთა წინააღმდეგ ძალადობასთან, უფრო კონკრეტულად, ოჯახში ძალადობასთან მიმართებით წარდგენილ იქნეს ნულოვანი ტოლერანტობის პოლიტიკა; (iii) განხორციელდეს ევროპის საბჭოს „ქალთა მიმართ ძალადობისა და ოჯახში ძალადობის აღკვეთისა და პრევენციის შესახებ“ კონვენციის რატიფიცირება; (iv) მოსამართლეთათვის, ადვოკატებისა და სამართალდამცავი ორგანოს წარმომადგენლებისათვის, მათ შორის, პროკურორებისათვის, უზრუნველყოფილ იქნას სავალდებულო ტრენინგის ჩატარება ოჯახში ძალადობის პრევენციის შესახებ კანონის გამოყენების თაობაზე; აგრეთვე, ჩატარდეს ტრენინგი ოჯახში ძალადობის განსაზღვრებასა და გენდერულ სტერეოტიპებზე, ისევე, როგორც კონვენციის, დამატებითი ოქმებისა და კომიტეტის ზოგადი რეკომენდაციების, კერძოდ, მე-19 ზოგადი რეკომენდაციის შესახებ. 27 კონვენციის დამატებითი ოქმის მე-7(4) მუხლის შესაბამისად, კომიტეტში 2016 წლის 31 მარტს გაიგზავნა მთავრობის აღსრულების ანგარიში (იხ. დანართი 22) საქმეზე „X და Y საქართველოს წინააღმდეგ“, რომელშიც მიმოხილულია ის ინდივიდუალური და ზოგადი ღონისძიებები, რაც მთავრობამ გაატარა კომიტეტის ზემოთ მითითებული რეკომენდაციების გათვალისწინებით. მთავრობის ზემოაღნიშნულ ანგარიშზე საჩივრის ავტორებმა 2016 წლის 2 სექტემბერს წარადგინეს შეპასუხება, რაზედაც 2017 წლის 10 თებერვალს გაიგზავნა მთავრობის დამატებითი კომენტარები, რომელშიც ასახულია პირველი ანგარიშის წარდგენის შემდეგ ქვეყანაში მიმდინარე პოზიტიური ტენდენციები ქალთა მიმართ ძალადობის აღმოფხვრის კუთხით (იხ. დანართი 22 ). მთავრობა აქტიურად გააგრძელებს მუშაობას ქალთა უფლებების დაცვისა და ოჯახში ძალადობის აღკვეთის მიზნით, რის თაობაზეც ინფორმაცია პერიოდულად მიეწოდება გაეროს ქალთა მიმართ დისკრიმინაციის აღმოფხვრის კომიტეტს. 28

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)1 Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Two cases against Georgia Application No. 75737/11 18372/04 Case Mariam BATIASHVILI AND Irina BATIASHVILIGELASHVILI Davit MIRTSKHULAVA Date of the decision 30/06/2015 02/07/2015 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 2016 at the 1245th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”), Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of the friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided to strike these cases from its list; Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State, DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and DECIDES to close their examination.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)25 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Jgarkava against Georgia Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 7932/03 JGARKAVA 24/02/2009 24/05/2009 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2016 at the 1250th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”), Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established; Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and - of general measures preventing similar violations; Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation; Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see document DH-DD(2016)195); Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted, DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof. SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 23/02/2016 DH-DD(2016)195 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1250 meeting (8-10 March 2016) (DH) Item reference: Updated action report (15/02/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Jgarkava against Georgia (Application No. 7932/03) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1250 réunion (8-10 mars 2016) (DH) Référence du point : Bilan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Jgarkava contre Géorgie (Requête n° 7932/03) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia Revised Action Report Jgarkava v. Georgia Application no. 7932/03, Judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009 I. Case summary 1. The case concerns the breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial because of the refusal, without valid reasons, to award compensation to the applicant despite the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings after his detention on remand for seven months. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Georgia criticized the applicant because he had not demonstrated that he had been rehabilitated. 2. On 13 June 2000 the applicant lodged the civil complaint and requested payment of the nonpecuniary damages and the reimbursement of the lost earnings during the period of his detention. The complaint has been examined by all instances at domestic level. According to the final decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 25 September 2002, the applicant’s claim was satisfied in part of the lost earnings based on the Labor Code of Georgia, but was rejected with respect to the non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court declared that according to Article 227 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (“CCP”) the applicant had not applied to the court with the request to render him rehabilitated, which would have been the basis for awarding the compensation. 3. The European Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the ground of the lack of the reasoning given in the decision of the Supreme Court. 4. The Court noted that the cornerstone of the problem in the present case was that the proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaint before the domestic courts have been underway during the periods of validity of both old and new CCPs. The old CCP was repealed on 15 May 1995 after which the new CCP came into force. The old CCP did not envisage at all the possibility of restoration of violated rights following the termination of the criminal proceedings. On the contrary, according to Article 219 of the new CCP the termination of criminal proceedings was the basis for restoration of violated rights or, in other words, for rehabilitation of illegally or unreasonably accused or convicted persons. In addition, Article 227 § 4 of the new CCP was setting six months time limit for claiming compensation after issuing decision on the termination of criminal proceedings, which should have contained the respective indication in this regard. However, the new CCP did not envisage in its transitional provisions the time limits which should have been applied regarding the claims for compensation in the cases where the decisions on termination of criminal proceedings were taken pursuant to the old CCP. 5. The European Court held that the Supreme Court failed to explain the reasons why was not the applicant held rehabilitated, since according to Article 219 of the new CCP the decision on termination of criminal proceedings in itself was the basis for rehabilitation. Thus, there was no need for a separate decision in this regard before requesting compensation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Supreme Court failed to clarify what was the triggering point for calculating the six months time limit. 6. The Court held that there was no ground for affording the just satisfaction to the applicant since he had not submitted any claims regarding the pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages or costs and expenses. II. Individual Measures 7. It is noteworthy that on 10 May 2010 the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia came into force, according to which a judgment/a decision of the European Court finding a violation of the Convention is a new circumstance that constitutes a ground for reopening of the proceedings. These amendments were introduced within the execution of the European Court’s judgment in the case of “FC “Mretebi” v. Georgia (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)163). 8. In particular, the Article 423 § 1 (g) reads as follows: “a final judgment may be subject to a request for re-examination upon discovery of a new circumstance: if there exists a judgment or decision of the European Court of Human Rights in which the Court has found a violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or of the protocols thereto having regard to the case to be re-examined and that the violation is the consequence of the judicial decision to be re-examined”. 9. Article 426 § 2 further provides that where the grounds set out in Article 423§1 (g) are established, the request for reopening of proceedings on grounds of a new circumstance must be submitted within three months of the date upon which the judgment or decision of the European Court became final. 10. The amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure also envisaged the possibility of reexamination of the cases which became final prior to the amendments of 10 May 2010. Particularly, Article 444 provides: “Article 423 § 1 (g) is equally applicable to both physical and legal persons who have been refused the reopening of proceedings on grounds of a new circumstance resulting from a judgment or decision of the European Court of Human Rights if they submit their request to reopen proceedings on grounds of a new circumstance before 15 June 2010”1. 11. In light of the above-mentioned, since the applicant had not applied to the court prior to the established time limit of 15 June 2010, the applicant is devoid of the possibility to have his case reexamined. 1 As regards the implementation of the mechanism of reopening of civil proceedings, the Committee of Ministers have already closed the supervision on three cases (FC Mretebi v. Georgia, CM/ResDH(2010)163, Okroshidze v. Georgia, Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)243 and Modebadze v. Georgia, Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)85). 2 12. Consequently, no other individual measures are considered necessary. III. General measures a) Legislative amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure 13. On 10 October 2010, a new CPP came into force. It took into account various innovations, among them it fundamentally changed the issue regarding the violation found in the case in question. In particular, in order to fill the gaps and improve the mechanism of restoration of violated rights following the illegal and unjustified detention, the new CPP has entirely excluded the notion of rehabilitation. 14. According to Article 176 § 5, it is clearly stated that regardless whether a detained person is convicted or not, he/she shall receive indemnity for damage inflicted due to illegal or unjustified detention that should be paid from the State budget in compliance with the rules of civil procedure. Article 276 (e) further lays down that the decision on acquittal shall indicate the right of the acquitted person to be reimbursed for incurred damage. 15. According to Article 92, “Everyone has a right to request and receive compensation for damages incurred due to illegal procedural actions and illegal decisions, via civil/administrative claim procedure. The person may also request compensation for damage, via civil claim procedure.” b) Provisions of the Civil Code 16. As regards the rules of civil litigation, according to Article 1005 § 3 of the Civil Code, rehabilitated person shall be compensated by the State regardless of the fault of the officials of investigative or prosecution bodies and court for unlawful conviction, unlawful prosecution, unlawful use of detention as the restraint measure and for the improper imposition of administrative detention or correctional labor in the form of the administrative penalty. In case of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, these persons shall be held jointly responsible together with the State for the damage sustained. According to Article 1008, the statute of limitation intended for the request for compensation of damage sustained by the delinquency is established as three years from the moment when the victim has been informed, about the damage or in respect of the person responsible for the damage. c) Provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure 17. The complaint regarding the compensation for damage shall be also brought on the ground of Article 24 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, according to which the claim can be raised in respect of the conduct of action. In particular, the complaint is admissible if the execution of action or refusal in respect of the execution of such action by the administrative 3 body inflicts direct or immediate (individual) damage on the applicant’s legal rights or interests. d) Publication / dissemination 18. The Court’s judgment was translated into Georgian and published on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The judgment was also published in the periodical of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and is intended for the Judges of the Common Court System. 19. Given the above mentioned, the Georgian Government consider that no other general measures are necessary. IV. Conclusion of the Respondent State 20. The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court of Human Rights and that Georgia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 4

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)42 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights The Georgian Labour Party against Georgia Application No. 9103/04 Case THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY Judgment of 08/07/2008 Final on 08/10/2008 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2016 at the 1252nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”), Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established; Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and of general measures preventing similar violations; Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation; Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2016)225); Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted, DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Internet : http://www.coe.int/cm SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 26/02/2016 DH-DD(2016)225 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1250 meeting (8-10 March 2016) (DH) Item reference: Revised action report (15/02/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Georgian Labour Party against Georgia (Application No. 9103/04) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1250 réunion (8-10 mars 2016) (DH) Référence du point : Bilan d’action révisé Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Georgian Labour Party contre Géorgie (Requête n° 9103/04) (anglais uniquement) DGI 15 FEV. 2016 The Government of Georgia Action Report SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia Application no. 9103/04, Judgment of 8 July 2008, final on 8 October 2008 I. Case summary The case concerns a violation of the applicant party's right to stand for legislative election in 2004, on account of the Central Electoral Commission’s (“CEC”) decision of 2 April 2004 to cancel the election results in Khulo and Kobuleti electoral districts without relevant and sufficient reasons: Article 105 §§ 12 and 13 of the Electoral Code, as worded at the material time, did not specifically grant the CEC the authority to annul the results in an entire district. The CEC cancelled the election results without hearing testimony, investigating the circumstances in each precinct or establishing if the number of votes at the annulled polling stations, and examining the electoral material. The Court concluded that, by annulling the election results in two electoral districts, the CEC not only apparently exceeded its authority but also acted in a manner which excluded the possibility of resorting to legal investigative measures and remedies (violation of Article 3 Protocol No. 1). II. Individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Name and application number The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses 10 043 EUR Total 10 043 EUR Paid on: 16/01/2009 The European Court does not discern any causal link between the only violation found in the present case and the pecuniary damage claimed. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, the Court stated that the nature of the violation found, namely the arbitrary departure from the principle of universal suffrage, constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the breach of the applicant party’s right to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. b) Other possible individual measures It is not possible to change the elections at issue in this case, which were completed in 2004 and their results were confirmed as final. Subsequent to the elections of 2004 the applicant party participated in the Georgian Parliamentary and Presidential Elections of 2008, Parliamentary Elections of 2012 and Presidential Elections of 2013. Given the above mentioned, the Georgian Government consider that no other individual measures are necessary. III. General measures 1. Legislative amendments In 2014 and 2015, a series of considerable amendments were introduced into the Electoral Legislation of Georgia. These amendments detailed criterion of invalidation of the election results by the CEC and its obligations in this regard. The new mechanism has also been put in place for the prompt dispute settlement and for the settlement of the complaints initiated against the decisions of the Precinct Election Commissions (“PEC”). The deadlines for the initiation of the complaints have been determined and the additional day for the submission of the complaints on the level of the PECs has been settled. a) Powers of the CEC and the summarisation of election results According to Article 14 (j) of the Election Code, the CEC shall check the legitimacy of the decisions and acts of the election commissions, their officials and, in the event of violation, invalidate or revise them by an ordinance1. Article 125 §§ 12-15 regulates the CEC’s right to invalidate as a consequence of gross violation of this Law polling results of election districts and call re-run election subsequent to the majoritarian and proportional elections, as well as the verification or invalidation of polling results by CEC as a result of the filed complaint2. b) The electoral dispute settlement Article 77 of the amended Election Code envisages strong mechanism of legal remedy. In particular, the decisions of the respective election commissions (PEC, District Election Commissions (“DEC”), CEC) are subsequently subject to the judicial review3.” “On its own initiative or based on an application/complaint, under the procedure determined in this Law for resolution of electoral disputes, the CEC verify the legality of decisions and acts of election commissions and their officials, and if any violation is identified, cancel or change the decisions and acts by its decree; decide by decree on opening of packages from the respective PEC and re-counting of ballot papers/lists of voters. If ballot papers are re-counted, the CEC shall notify thereof all the electoral subjects and observer organisations whose representatives attended the counting of ballot papers at an electoral precinct, and shall ensure, upon request, the attendance of their representatives at the re-counting process.” 2 12. If polling results of more than half of electoral precincts in any electoral district are declared void as a consequence of gross violations of this Law and that affects the election results, or if polling results of several electoral precincts, in which the total number of voters is more than half of the total number of voters in the electoral district, are declared void and that affects the election results, the majoritarian election results in the electoral district shall be deemed void and the CEC shall call for a re-run election in the electoral district. 13. If polling results are declared void during elections held under the proportional electoral system as a consequence of gross violations of this Law in more than half of or in several electoral districts, in which the total number of voters is more than half of the total number of voters in Georgia, the election results shall be declared void and the CEC shall call for re-run elections. 14. If an application/complaint is filed for the verification or invalidation of polling results, the CEC shall by decree decide on opening the sealed packages and re-counting the ballot papers received from the respective PEC, or the CEC shall assign that activity to the respective DEC/special group. If necessary, the CEC may summarize election results based on protocols drawn up by PECs. 15. In an electoral precinct in which the polling results have been declared void, the CEC shall call a repeat vote in that precinct, provided that the difference between the votes cast for the candidates with the best results in the electoral district is less than the total number of voters in the electoral precinct. If the polling results of the repeat vote are also declared void, the election results shall be summarised without giving consideration to the results from that precinct.” 3 1. Violation of the electoral legislation of Georgia may be appealed to the respective election commission. The decision of an election commission may be appealed only to a higher election commission or to the court under the procedure and within the time frames as defined in this Law, unless otherwise provided for hereby. 2. Decisions of PEC/head of PEC may be appealed to the relevant DEC within two days after decisions are made. The DEC shall examine the appeal within two days. The decision of the DEC may be appealed to the relevant district/city court within two days. The district/city court shall 1 2 Subsequent to the Parliamentary Elections of 1 October 2012, 70 appeals had been submitted to the domestic courts of Georgia. The decisions of the election districts were annulled by the domestic courts in four instances. Consequently, among others, the abovementioned led to the invalidation of the polling results in two election districts, namely in the districts of Khashuri and Tetritskaro. The national court annulled the decision of Akhaltsikhe election district in respect of the invalidation of the polling results of one of the PECs in that district.4 2. Summary of the evaluations of relevant International Organizations in respect of the Parliamentary Elections of 2012, the Presidential Elections of 2013 and the Local Elections of 2014 With regards to the Parliamentary Elections 2012 as a result of which new ruling coalition “Georgian Dream” came to power, OSCE/ODIHR stated in its final report of 21 December 2012: “The 1 October Parliamentary Elections marked an important step in consolidating the conduct of democratic elections in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments… The elections were competitive with active citizen participation throughout the campaign, including in peaceful mass rallies”.5 It should be mentioned that Georgia’s Presidential Election on 27 October 2013 was efficiently administered and transparent, and the electoral legal framework provided a sound basis for the conduct of democratic elections.6 The relevant report reads as follows: “The election took place in an amicable and constructive environment, with the fundamental freedoms of expression, movement and assembly respected throughout the campaign. The candidates were able to campaign without restriction. The media was less polarized than during the 2012 elections and presented a broad range of viewpoints. On Election Day, voters were able to express their choice freely”. 7 examine the appeal within two days. The decision of the district/city court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within one day after the decision is made. The Court of Appeals shall examine the appeal within one day. The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be final and may not be appealed. 3. If a DEC decision is appealed to the CEC based on the appeal of a PEC decision, an application/complaint shall not be considered. 4. Decisions of DEC/DEC head officers may be appealed to the CEC within one calendar day after decisions are made. The CEC shall examine the appeal within one calendar day. The decision of the CEC may be appealed to the Tbilisi City Court within one calendar day after its delivery. The Tbilisi City Court shall examine the appeal within two calendar days. The decision of the Tbilisi City Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within one calendar day after the decision is delivered. The Court of Appeals shall deliver its decision within one calendar day after filing the appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be final and may not subject to appeal. 5. A decision of the CEC/CEC head officers may be appealed to the Tbilisi City Court within two calendar days after the decision is delivered. The Tbilisi City Court shall examine the appeal within two calendar days. The decision of the Tbilisi City Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within two calendar days after the decision is delivered. The Court of Appeals shall deliver its decision within two calendar days after filing the appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be final and may not subject to appeal. In the case that the DEC decision is appealed to the CEC regarding the appeal of the PEC decision, an application/complaint shall not be considered. Decisions of the DEC/commission head officials, within 1 calendar day of their delivery, may be appealed to the CEC, which shall examine the appeal within 1 calendar day. The decision of the CEC, within 1 calendar day of its delivery, may be appealed to Tbilisi City Court. Tbilisi City Court shall examine the appeal within 2 calendar days. The Tbilisi City Court ruling, within 1 calendar day of its delivery, may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, which shall deliver its ruling within one calendar day of the submission of the appeal. The ruling of the Court of Appeal is final, and not subject to appeal. The decision of the CEC/head officials of the CEC may be appealed to Tbilisi City Court, within 2 calendar days of its delivery. The Tbilisi City Court shall examine the appeal within2 calendar days. The Tbilisi City Court ruling, within 2 calendar days of its delivery, may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, which shall deliver its ruling within 2 calendar days of the submission of the appeal. The ruling of the Court of Appeal is final, and not subject to appeal”. 4 Chapter 16 of the final report of 21/12/2012 prepared by the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR concerning Georgian Parliamentary Elections of 01/10/2012 5 Idem, Chapter I 6 The final report by the OSCE/ ODIHR released on 14/01/ 2014 - Chapter 1 and 15, pp. 1 and 20 7 Idem, Chapter I. 1. 3 “The electoral legal framework is comprehensive and provides a sound legal basis for the conduct of democratic elections. Numerous technical amendments were made to the electoral legislation ahead of the election, which addressed the majority of OCSE/ODIHR recommendations. The CEC managed the electoral preparations in a professional, transparent, and timely manner and enjoyed a high level of stakeholder confidence. CEC sessions and meetings were open to observers, nongovernmental organizations and the media. The CEC engaged in inclusive discussion with stakeholders on various election-related matters before making decisions. DECs and PECs performed competently and managed elections preparations without major difficulties”.8 As regards the Local Elections of 15 June 2014 Council of Europe Congress Rapporteur in its report declared: “Election – despite the reports we have received about local incidents and individual irregularities – were carried out in an overall calm and peaceful manner… we can also say that the election management steered by the Central election Commission has achieved further progress in respect of the technical side of polling in Georgia. And I congratulate CEC for this professional performance in a very difficult situation”.9 Consequently, the above-mentioned reports of the authoritative International Organizations clearly indicate the positive trend of the inevitable improvement process of the respective legislative framework and overall practice of the administration of election in Georgia. As demonstrated through the three successive elections 2012, 2013, 2014, free and fair elections where the electorate can freely make an informed choice between distinct political alternatives have become a standard practice in Georgia. 3. Council of Europe Action Plan for Georgia 2013 – 2015 Following the Progress Review Report of Council of Europe Action Plan for Georgia 2013 – 201510, the new Election Code was generally considered conducive for democratic elections, noting that some previous recommendations, by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission were implemented. The representatives of the DECs and administrative judges incorporate international best practices of election disputes resolutions into their work. Introduction of the training module on election dispute resolution in the regular curriculum of training for election commission and administrative judges contribute to the sustainability of the CoE intervention. All the more the Government wish to assure the Committee of Ministers that the permanent process of improvement of the relevant legislation and elimination of the shortcomings identified within the practice of administering of election will be proceeded in the future by all means available at the disposal of the State. c) Publication / dissemination The judgment was translated into Georgian and published in the Official Gazette of Georgia and on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. 8 Ibid The Preliminary Conclusions of Jos Wienen (Netherlands EPP/CCE), Head of Delegation and Congress Rapporteur of 16/06/2014. 10 GR-DEM(2015)12, 12 May 2015 9 4 The judgment was also published in the periodical of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and is intended for the Judges of the Common Court System. IV. Conclusion of the respondent State The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court of Human Rights and that Georgia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 5

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)82 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Janiashvili against Georgia Application No. 35887/05 Case JANIASHVILI Judgment of 27/11/2012 Final on 27/02/2013 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 April 2016 at the 1254th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”), Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established; Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and of general measures preventing similar violations; Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation; Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2016)194); Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted, DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Internet : http://www.coe.int/cm SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 23/02/2016 DH-DD(2016)194 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1250 meeting (8-10 March 2016) (DH) Item reference: Updated action report (15/02/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Janiashvili against Georgia (Application No. 35887/05) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1250 réunion (8-10 mars 2016) (DH) Référence du point : Bilan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Janiashvili contre Géorgie (Requête n° 35887/05) (anglais uniquement) Government of Georgia Action Report Janishavili v. Georgia Application no. 35887/05, Judgment of 27/11/2012, final on 27/02/2013 I. Case summary The case concerns the lack of reasoning of the decision ordering the applicant’s detention pending trial in 2004-2005 (violation of Article 5§3). The violation concerned the decisions regarding the detention pending trial framed in abstract terms. The domestic courts have not examined the particular circumstances which would have justified the extension of the period of pre-trial detention. Furthermore, the domestic courts have not considered the possibility of the invocation of alternative non-custodial pre-trial restraint measures as well. The decision basically relied on a stereotyped formula, merely paraphrasing the terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (“CCP”). II. Individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Name and application number Janishavili v. Georgia no. 35887/05 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage 600 EUR Costs and expenses 1 000 EUR Total 1 600 EUR By letter of 2 August 2013, the applicant informed the Government Agent, that he refused to take possession of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court. In consequence, the Georgian authorities would like to refer to the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2008)7 on “Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction: an overview of the Committee of Ministers’ present practice”, according to which (§42) “If the beneficiary refuses to take possession of the sums awarded by the Court, two solutions have been accepted at the government's wish: either the applicant is considered to have forgone his or her right (in this case renunciation has to be made clear in writing), in which case no payment is due, or one of the solutions provided for cases in which the applicant has disappeared is applied.” Therefore, since the applicant has clearly renounced, in written form, to take possession of the sums awarded by the Court, the Georgian Government do not have any further obligations in this matter. The applicant is no longer in detention. Consequently, no other individual measures are considered necessary. III. General measures Relevant general measures have been examined by the Committee in three cases 1, closed in 2011, concerning notably similar violations of Article 5§3 that occurred at the same period than in the present case (see final resolution CM/ResDH(2011)105). Notably, a new CCP entered into force in 2010. Article 206 of this code provides for an obligation for the judge to give reasons for a judgment on detention pending trial. It also provides that the judge may reject the measure requested by the prosecutor for appropriate reasons and apply another, less severe measure than deprivation of liberty. In addition, it can be noted that regular training courses are organised for judges on the implementation of the new CCP, and the case-law of the European Court on detention on remand is an integral part of the syllabus. All judges have been well informed of the present judgment that was translated into Georgian and published in the Official Gazette and on the official website of the Ministry of Justice, as well as in the periodical of the Supreme Court (which is intended for the Judges of the Common Courts System of Georgia). Finally, recent statistical data on the application of detention on remand as a restraint measure show a clearly decreasing tendency, which shows that unlike in the material fact of the present case, the national jurisdictions often apply alternative non-custodial pre-trial restraint measures. In 2011 the detention on remand has been used in 49.3% of cases, which has been decreasing gradually during the following years. In 2012 the figures have reduced to 41.9%. In 2013 the percentage of cases involving detention on remand has been only 26.8%. In 2014 the number amounted to 32,0%. The figure according to eight months of 2015 equals to 31.0%. (Source: Official website of the Supreme Court of Georgia). Given the above mentioned, the Georgian Government consider that no other general measures are necessary. IV. Conclusion of the respondent state The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court and allow to avoid new, similar violations, and that Georgia has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 1 Application No. 30779/04 (Patsuria), judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008; application No. 18145/05 (Gigolashvili), judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008; application No. 1704/06 (Ramishvili and Kokhreidze), judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009). 2

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)93 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Saghinadze and Others against Georgia Application No. 18768/05 Case SAGHINADZE AND OTHERS Judgment of 27/05/2010 13/01/2015 Final on 27/08/2010 01/06/2015 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 May 2016 at the 1255th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”), Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established; Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and of general measures preventing similar violations; Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation; Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2016)193); Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted, DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Internet : http://www.coe.int/cm SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 23/02/2016 DH-DD(2016)193 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1250 meeting (8-10 March 2016) (DH) Item reference: Updated action report (15/02/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Saghinadze against Georgia (Application No. 18768/05) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1250 réunion (8-10 mars 2016) (DH) Référence du point : Bilan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Saghinadze contre Géorgie (Requête n° 18768/05) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia Revised Action Report Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia Application no. 18768/05, the principal judgment of 27 May 2010, final on 27 August 2010 Judgment (Just satisfaction) of 13 January 2015, final on 1 June 2015 I. Case summary a) The principal Judgment This case concerns a breach of the right of the first applicant to the protection of property and of right to respect for his private and family life due to eviction and unlawful deprivation of the right to use his cottage (violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The case also concerns violations of the first applicant's right to liberty and security on the grounds that his prolonged pre-trial detention was not based on “relevant” or “sufficient” reasons (violation of Article 5§3) and that the decision of the prolonged detention was not taken following adversarial judicial proceedings (violation of Article 5§4). The Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress for the violations of Article 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 would be to have the cottage restored to the applicant's possession pending the establishment of conditions which would allow his return, in safety and with dignity, to his place of habitual residence in Abkhazia, Georgia. Alternatively, should the return of the cottage prove impossible, the Government was asked to provide the applicant, as an internally displaced person, with other proper accommodation or to pay him, under a mutual agreement, reasonable compensation. The Court also said that should the parties fail to reach agreement on the amount of the monetary compensation, it would determine itself the sum to be paid by the Government. Moreover, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for the non-pecuniary damage caused by all the violations found and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. b) Judgment (just satisfaction) In the absence of restitution of the cottage and of the agreement between the parties, the Court delivered a second judgment on 13 January 2015. It held that the Government of Georgia should ensure transfer of full ownership of two two-room apartments in Tbilisi to the applicant and pay him EUR 3,000 in respect of pecuniary damage as proposed by the Government. The Court considered that, in the particular circumstances of the instant case, this would be the most appropriate reparation for the actual pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of a breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 1 II. Individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Saghinadze and Others/n°18768/05 Judgment (Merits) of 27/05/2010 Judgment (Just satisfaction) of 13/01/2015 Pecuniary damage 3 000 EUR Non-pecuniary damage 15 000 EUR Costs and expenses 752 EUR Total 15 752 EUR Paid on: 28/10/2010 3 000 EUR Paid on: See below Due to internal regulations requiring the applicant’s prior agreement for the bank transfer of the just satisfaction, the authorities could not use the applicant’s bank details provided in 2010 (for payment of the sum awarded by the principal judgment) to pay the 3 000 Euros awarded by the Judgment of 13 January 2015. In this situation, the Government Agent informed the applicant by letters of 9 February and 19 March 2015 that the sum awarded to him was at his disposal and that the Government would transfer the just satisfaction once they receive his bank details. The applicant has not provided the requested information. However, the Government stresses that the sum awarded by the Court remain at the applicant’s disposal without limitation in time and will be transferred to him swiftly once he provides his bank details. As the sum have been at the applicant’s disposal since February 2015, the just satisfaction is to be considered as paid within the deadline set by the Court. b) Other individual measures The applicant is no longer detained. The Government did not await until the second judgment would become final and ensured to grant full property title to two two-room apartments to the applicant which measured 50 and 60 m2, in a recently constructed block situated in a populous district of Tbilisi (so-called Temka Settlement). Each of the two apartments was in a perfectly refurbished, new condition and comprised an entrance hall, a kitchen, a bathroom, a living room and a bedroom. Both apartments had all the necessary amenities, such as drinking water, canalization, electricity and so on. On 9 February 2015, in the relevant record of the National Agency of Public Registry, Mr Saghinadze was officially registered as the owner of the two apartments. Given the above, the Government of Georgia considers that no other individual measures are necessary. 2 III. General measures The case of Saghinadze and Others is of a repetitive nature. Concerning the protection of property, relevant measures have been examined in the case of Tchitchinadze v. Georgia, closed by the Committee at its 1197th meeting (16 April 2014) (final resolution CM/ResDH(2014)48). Concerning the pre-trial detention, relevant measures have been examined in the case of Baisuev and Anzorov v. Georgia, closed by the Committee at its 1134th meeting (10 September 2015) (final resolution CM/ResDH(2011)105). The facts of the Saghinadze and Others case predate the measures adopted in the above cases. The Judgments were translated into Georgian and published in the Official Journal. The Georgian versions of the judgments can be consulted on the Website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgments can also be found on the bulletin Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Georgia, published by the Human Rights Centre of the Supreme Court of Georgia - a compilation of all judgments rendered by the European Court against Georgia and which has been sent out to domestic courts. Given the above mentioned, the Georgian Government consider that no other general measures are necessary. IV. Conclusion of the Respondent State The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court of Human Rights and that Georgia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3

SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 16/11/2016 DH-DD(2016)1262 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1273 meeting (6-8 December) (DH) Item reference: Updated action plan (15/11/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the Gharibashvili group of cases against Georgia (Application No. 11830/03) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1273 réunion (6-8 décembre) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant le groupe d’affaires Gharibashvili contre Géorgie (Requête n° 11830/03) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN GHARIBASHVILI GROUP GHARIBASHVILI v. GEORGIA, no. 11830/03, final on 29/10/2008 KHAINDRAVA AND DZAMASHVILI v. GEORGIA, no. 18183/05, final on 08/09/2010 MIKIASHVILI v. GEORGIA, no. 18996/06, final on 09/01/2013 DVALISHVILI v. GEORGIA, no. 19634/07, final on 18/03/2013 TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA, no. 35403/06, final on 18/03/2011 ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA, no. 25091/07, final on 27/07/2011 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 14 November 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3 INDIVIDUAL MEASURES .....................................................................................................3 GHARIBASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°11830/03) ......................................................................3 KHAINDRAVA and DZAMASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°18183/05) ........................................7 MIKIASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°18996/06) ............................................................................9 DVALISHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°19634/07) ..........................................................................14 TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA (n°35403/06) ......................................................................16 ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI V. GEORGIA (n°25091/07) ............................................. 19 GENERAL MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 20 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................26 2 INTRODUCTION On 1 June 2016 the Government of Georgia (“the Government”) presented a consolidated action plan on individual and general measures adopted in the cases of Gharibashvili Group (DHDD(2016)701. Consequently, at 1259th meeting the Committee adopted its decision (7-8 June 2016). In accordance with the aforesaid decision, the Government submit renewed action plan on this group of cases. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES GHARIBASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°11830/03) Judgment of 29 July 2008, final on 29 October 2008 In order to rectify the aforementioned shortcomings found by the Court in the present case, the investigative authorities renewed the investigation and carried out all necessary investigative measures, among others, conducting relevant handwriting expertise and interrogation of all relevant witnesses. As noted in the Government’s letter of 1 March 2016 N01/23/06-6126 sent to the Department for Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights the investigative authorities exhausted all feasible investigative measures in line with the thoroughness requirement and no additional evidence could be collected in respect of the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations in custody. Hence, the evidence collected regarding the applicant’s claims do not prove that a criminal offence was committed against him and therefore, on 15 September 2015 the decision was made to terminate the investigation. In addition to the action plans submitted by the Government of Georgia on 16 July 2014 as well as on 1 June 2015, the Government would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the most significant investigative activities undertaken within the renewed investigation in order to demonstrate how the terminated investigation was in line with the Convention requirements. Independence of the Investigation The Government underline from the outset that the investigative bodies in charge of the present criminal case met all the requirements established in the European Court’s case-law regarding the independence and impartiality. In particular, the persons responsible for the investigation were hierarchically and institutionally independent from those involved in the events at issue. In particular, in the light of the judgment of the European Court, in September 2013 the decree on termination had been annulled and the investigation was reopened. The criminal case was assigned to the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia having no institutional affiliation to those implicated in the incident. Victim Involvement On 4 October 2013 and 20 May 2014 the applicant was interrogated. On 12 June 2014 the applicant got familiar with the criminal case files entirely and made some remarks on it. Apart from that, on 5 November 2014 and 5 March 2015 the applicant got acquainted with further criminal case materials collected as a result of an additional investigative activities. Thus, the applicant had been fully involved in the investigation process and the conducted procedural and investigative measures were entirely presented to him. In addition, the decree on termination of the investigation has been sent to the applicant on 15 February 2016. 3 Questioning of the relevant witnesses The Government underline that within the renewed investigation all relevant witnesses including the applicant, the respective experts and police officers have been questioned: a) The applicant The testimonies clearly demonstrate that the statements of the applicant are in contradiction with the statements of the key witnesses at issue. It addition, there are numerous materials revealed by the investigation which indicate that the facts presented in the testimonies of the applicant are highly doubtful in terms of their credibility. For instance in his testimony of 4 October 2013 the applicant clarified that on 24 May 2001 his index finger and middle finger had been broken (according to him, police officer L.G. took his pistol out of his pocket and loaded it. Subsequently, the applicant hit his head accidentally to L.G., due to this reason another officer G.R. became furious and broke his index and middle fingers). Furthermore, on 25 May 2001, while being interrogated, he managed to write three pages of testimony. The applicant maintained that he suffered pain while writing and that he wrote by using his thumb and little finger. Consequently, on 1 August 2014 the examination of his handwriting was conducted in order to elucidate whether the applicant had been under the influence of unusual factors (illness, old age, unusual posture, handwrite mimicking, deliberate handwriting alteration etc.) whilst writing. The examination confirmed that there was no unusual influence on his writing which was also confirmed by expert M.N. in her interrogation record. There are also serious discrepancies in the testimonies of the applicant in respect of the clarification of the particular persons who ill-treated him at the material time. For instance, during his initial testimonies from May 2004 until May 2006 the applicant maintained that, among others, L.G. then the Head of the MIA Second Division of Rustavi, participated in his ill-treatment (beating, breaking his jaw, teeth and fingers). However, later in his testimony of 4 October 2013 he stated that he was ill-treated by another individual with the same name and surname who did not work at the aforesaid division and who passed away in 2003. In respect of the question regarding these inconsistencies as well as concerning the reason of the absence of earlier indication of the correct details of L.G., in his testimonies, the applicant did not submit any explanations. b) Experts of National Forensics Bureau – Z.G. and G.M. Z.G. recalled that he had participated in the capacity of expert in the procedure of taking a swab test from the applicant, but he had not detected any injuries on him. Also, Mr Gharibashvili had not stated any claims. G.M. indicated that he had studied medical documentation of Mr Gharibashvili and subsequently, on 13 March 2007 he issued conclusion regarding his health condition. According to the surgeon’s medical notes Mr Gharibashvili had various injuries of less serious damage to health caused by blunt objects. In particular, he had hernia, problems with healing of left bone and with fractured fingers. The expert G.M. stated that he substantiated his concluding observations on the grounds of medical documentation submitted by the investigator. 4 c) Personnel of the Medical Department of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia as well as personnel of the no. 1 Penitentiary Institution, including Tbilisi no. 5 Prison (formerly no. 1 Penitentiary Institution) doctor on duty who had examined the applicant at the material time. Notably, some of the witnesses did not remember the applicant due to the passage of long time. As to the others, the witnesses noted that they had not observed any injuries (other than those reflected in the relevant medical documentation regarding his health problems) on the applicant during their interaction. Furthermore, according to the witnesses the applicant had not stated any complaints regarding his illtreatment. Doctor of Prison no.1 - G.E, confirmed that he had drawn up medical examination record of Mr Gharibashvili dated 26 May 2013. During his examination he did not detect any physical injuries on him. He made notification in the examination record regarding Mr Gharibashvili’s ill-treatment solely on the grounds of his verbal statements. d) Personnel of Rustavi District Prosecutor’s office – Z.M., A.A., G.L., N.T. and then head of Criminal Law Unit of Rustavi Division of the MIA – G.R. The witnesses firmly rejected any kind of physical/verbal abuse of the applicant and stated that during the investigative procedures the applicant had not had any kind of claims regarding his ill-treatment. In addition, they had not detected any kind of injuries on him. Furthermore, the witnesses Z.M. and A.A. indicated that they had known the applicant long before initiation of criminal case against him and they had been aware of his injuries sustained as a result of motorcycle racing. e) Court Secretary M.E., who denied witnessing ill-treated applicant at the court hearing. f) Personnel of the Rustavi Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - S.P., T.R., L.G., A.B., R.K., G.B., G. K., K.Z., D.R., SH.Z. and Z.A., who declared that they had no interaction with the applicant and had never been involved in his ill-treatment; g) Lawyer, spouse and sister of the applicant The only witness corroborating the applicant’s version of the events was her spouse speaking for herself and on behalf of the applicant’s sister. However, the applicant’s spouse is an indirect witness as she got information regarding the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment from his former lawyer D.S. Since the latter is deceased, this testimony cannot be verified. Also, no further investigative activity can be carried out in respect of the applicant’s sister due to her severe health condition, in particular due to her inability to speak and move which is confirmed by relevant heath certificate and by the spouse of the applicant. As to the applicant’s second lawyer M.Ch. she recalled no signs of the physical abuse on the applicant whilst meeting him at the prison. Besides, M.Ch. added that she had not been informed regarding alleged ill-treatment of the applicant from his family members. Notably, the following witnesses could not be interrogated by the investigative authorities since they are already deceased: the judge of the City Court of Rustavi G.J., the lawyer of the applicant D.S., the nurse Z.G. who took the blood test from the applicant, the expert Z.K., Policemen L.G.. 5 As to the latter, two persons have been identified with this name and surname, however the applicant denies participation of one of them (police officer) in his ill-treatment, while another person with the same name/surname - L.G. he passed away in 2003. Medical Examination of the applicant According to the medical examination N001756414 dated 15 April 2014 conducted by Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau, the injuries detected on the applicant were sustained to him in the past, however they could not be undeniably linked to the date of his alleged ill treatment (23-25.05.2001). The applicant was additionally interrogated surrounding the aforesaid conclusion of the forensic expertise. As for the cicatrices detected on his right cheek, the applicant noted that some of them dated back to his childhood while some others were inflicted when he was ill-treated in the police. He also testified that he had not mentioned the fractures of left radial bone and ridge of the elbow bone in his interrogations since he had forgotten them, also he had forgotten to indicate that fracture of the ridge of his elbow bone were inflicted by G.R. due to his state of anxiety. Regarding the fracture of left radial bone he noted that he could not recall how he sustained that injury. In order to verify the origins of apparent visual damages of the applicant, the investigative authorities interrogated the applicant’s neighbors and his acquaintances - R.B., T.M. and V.V. The witnesses stated that the applicant was passionate about bicycle and motorcycle racing. They confirmed that they saw frequently the applicant with traumas, as well as in a plaster cast. R.B. maintained that in personal conversations Mr Gharibashvili told him that he had received some injuries in the past due to his sporting activities. Subsequently, after the careful assessment of the results of the investigation the relevant investigative authorities came to the conclusion that the applicant truly sustained face injuries, however nowadays it is unfeasible to reveal the remoteness in time of the injuries and their origins. Outcome of the investigation Thus, the applicant and all persons implicated in the incident during the criminal proceedings against him were examined on the case. Consequently, as already noted above, the evidence collected regarding the applicant’s claims do not prove that ill-treatment was committed by the police officers. Hence, the Government asserts that the investigation was adequate since it was based on a thorough, objective, and impartial analysis of all relevant elements surrounding the case. Accordingly, having regard to thoroughness of the investigative measures in line with the Convention requirements, on 15 September 2015 the decision was made to terminate the investigation. In the light of the aforementioned, the Government kindly invites the Committee to close the examination of the case. 6 KHAINDRAVA and DZAMASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°18183/05) Judgment of 8 June 2010, final on 8 September 2010 In order to rectify the shortcomings of the investigation found by the Court, the investigative authorities carried out the following investigative measures: Independence of the Investigation In the light of the judgment of the European Court, the investigation has been renewed on 12 July 2013 by Imereti, Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti Regional Main Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, an independent body institutionally and in practice from those implicated or connected to the case, in particular Martvili Regional Prosecutor’s Office. Victim Involvement The applicant has been informed regarding the conducted investigative measures throughout the reopened investigation. He has been last updated on the progress of the investigation on 7 April 2015. Mr Khaindrava noted that he does not request anyone’s punishment and has no claims with regard to the investigation. The inspection of the alleged scene of the incident The investigative bodies carried out the inspection of the alleged scene of the incident (the applicants’ house) with the participation of Mr Khaindrava on 10 September 2013. The respective protocol was drawn up, the alleged scene of the incident was photographed and photo illustrations were created. Questioning of first applicant Mr Khaindrava refused to be interrogated at the initial stage of the proceedings (relevant protocol has been drawn up on 10.09.2013). Later, on 14 November 2013 he was examined on the case. He showed that back in 1997 he was attacked by G.T., G.Ch. and T.P. with an intention of murder. The underlying reason of the assault, was the deceased A.G.’s offer to pay the assailants for his murder/physical assault as A.G. was accusing the applicant of kidnapping his son. The applicant noted that he received injuries as a result of beating, though he did not address any medical establishment. The applicant confided the incident to his wife after some time passed. Questioning of the second applicant On 7 April 2015, the second applicant - Mari Dzamashvili declared that her husband told her about the assault after a month had passed since the incident. She did not know anything regarding the details of the incident as at the material time she was in another city. According to Mari Dzmashvili, the assault was organized by A.G. as the latter believed that his husband was involved in kidnapping of his son. She added that initially they did not address neither the law enforcement authorities nor the medical institutions for the damages sustained as a result of an assault. Questioning of A.G.’s children and then Head of Martvili Police a) On 7 April 2015 A.G.’s sons - K.G. and S.G. were examined on the case. They categorically denied their late father’s involvement in the applicant’s assault. K.G. and S.G. added that they believed that the assault should have been related to some kind of private disagreement between the applicant and his assailants. 7 b) On the same date, M.G. - the Head of Martvili Police at the material time showed that he was not aware of the details of the alleged assault on the applicant and as he recalled, the applicant had never addressed the law-enforcement authorities regarding the incident. In addition, he stated that all alleged incidents should have been related to the disagreements between the first applicant and A.G. Furthermore, the former deputy Minister of Internal Affairs (1995-99) T.M. stated that he was not aware of the alleged incident related to Mr Khaindrava. Questioning of other witnesses a) The alleged assailant - G.T. stated that in 1997 he met with Khaindrava at the applicants’ house where the first applicant accused him of kidnapping and extortion of T.S.. G.T. declared that subsequent to the meeting he informed his friends namely, G.Ch. and T.P. about the conversation. According to G.T., they decided to assault the first applicant in his house. During an assault in March 1997, G.Ch. and T.P. beat the applicant, though they did not have any intention to kill him. Furthermore, G.T. indicated that A.G. had not ordered him to assault the applicant and as noted above they were motivated merely by personal revenge. Also, due to psychological suppression exerted by the so called thief in law – “Guladi” who has been in close relation with Mr Khaindrava, G.T. was forced to write a letter to the investigative authorities in which he allegedly confessed that an assault had been organised by A.G. Although, as noted above, in fact they were acting solely by personal motives. b) The applicants’ neighbour - J. G. described the scene of the meeting at the applicants’ house with the acquaintances of Mr Khaindrava and declared that he could not remember at the meeting whether two persons whom the applicant accused of the assault verified the alleged facts. Furthermore, J. G. could not remember whether throughout the meeting the names of A.G. and G.T. have been mentioned as the alleged assailants. Outcome of the investigation It should be noted that since the facts of this case took place in 1997 almost 19 years had elapsed. Given the passage of time since the alleged incident, it is not possible for the authorities to undertake a number of further investigative activities and it is objectively impossible to rectify all the shortcomings of the original investigation. In particular, several key witnesses have already passed away. A.G. - the alleged organiser of the assault deceased on 31 August 2005. The alleged assaulters, namely G.Ch. and T.P. deceased on 7 January 1999 and 3 May 2011 respectively. The assistant to the prosecutor of Martvili District - V. B. deceased on 3 September 2006. Furthermore, it is not possible to change the fact that the initial investigation was not effective taking into account that the assault on the first applicant's life had sufficiently been brought to the attention of the public prosecutor's office, which had thus had an obligation to verify the information promptly, interrogate all important witnesses/alleged offenders (many of whom have already passed away) and if necessary to prosecute. In addition, among others, it would have been impossible to obtain any evidence through implementation of forensic expertise since the first applicant does not have any injuries nowadays. Furthermore, as noted above, Mr Khaindrava has no interest in the continuance of the investigation. Consequently, after carrying out all investigative measures, the investigation of the present case has been terminated on 20 July 2016 in the light of the principles of the European Convention. 8 As to the legal basis for the termination of the investigation, the investigative bodies concluded that the alleged assault on the applicant could not be assessed as attempted murder which bore an intentional character since the assaulters armed with automatic rifles could murder the applicant without any difficulties, if they had had such intention. Furthermore, the evidence obtained during the examination does not suffice to grant precisely the criminal classification to the alleged incident since no medical expertise was conducted at the material time and as to nowadays, the first applicant has no signs of injuries on his body which excludes any possibility of medical expertise. The investigation deduced that even the alleged incident has been classified as the most severe damage sustained to health (Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Georgia as it stood at the material time: intentional serious damage to health which is life-threatening and is committed through torture) it would have been impossible to initiate prosecution since according to Article 49 of the Criminal Code as it stood at the material time the statutory time limit of ten years has already passed for the crime envisaged by Article 110 (on 1 March 2007). As for the responsibility of the alleged law enforcers who did not take any actions to investigate the case promptly without undue delay (first in September 1998 when they learnt about the incident and further until 22 may 2001 when the applicant officially requested the investigation) the investigative bodies inferred that there is a clear lack of satisfactory evidence in order to bring charges regarding the aforementioned. However, even if such evidence existed the statutory time limit has already been passed since according to Article 49 of Criminal Code as it stood at the material time the time limit for paragraph 1 of Article 188 (Neglect of Official Duty) and paragraph 2 of Article 186 (Abuse of Official Authority) has already passed in 2001 and in 2003 respectively. Therefore, the Government submit that the aforesaid information regarding the investigative measures as well as the final outcome of the investigation is satisfactory to enable the Government to kindly invite the Committee to close the examination of the present case. MIKIASHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°18996/06) Judgment of 9 October 2012, final on 9 January 2013 1. Status of investigation (ill-treatment of the applicant on 29 October 2005) In the light of the judgment of the European Court, the investigation has been renewed on 20 February 2013 (after annulling the decree of 2006 concerning the termination of the criminal case) by Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office - independent body institutionally and in practice from those implicated in the incident, namely, police officers of the Patrol Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. Victim Involvement On 17 June 2014 the applicant has been summoned at the premises of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia and informed in respect of the resumption of the investigation in both episodes of his alleged ill-treatment. The materials of the case and the information with regard to the conducted procedural and investigative measures were completely presented to the applicant. Subsequent to the examination of the documents, the applicant stated that he had no claims in respect of the investigation at issue. 9 The thoroughness of the reopened investigation can be demonstrated with the reasonable and adequate steps undertaken by the investigative bodies that can be summarized as follows: Interviewing of all possible witnesses: a) The applicant The applicant has been summoned for several times at the Prosecutor’s Office and interrogated within the renewed investigation. The applicant has been informed by the investigative authorities regarding investigative steps carried out throughout the reopened investigation. In his testimony of 20 June 2013 the applicant stated that after leaving a gathering at his friend’s house on 29 October 2005, he stopped off the car at the lane of Balanchivadze street (not Dolidze street as it was mentioned in his previous testimonies) in order to meet his friends. According to the applicant, he saw his friend I.J. who was followed by his friends’ wives - T.G. and A.K.. Afterwards, he saw the police officers coming out of the patrol car and approaching his friends. Since the applicant heard screaming of T.G. and A.K., he got out of the car to understand the situation. According to the applicant, he had been severely beaten by the police officers (and fell down the asphalt) during his arrest and subsequently, while being at the so called “room” at the premises of Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). The applicant stated that he had punched the investigator A.Ts. in his face since the latter insulted him verbally and consequently, persons who were at the “room” (approximately 8-10 persons) started to beat him for some 30 minutes throughout which he got hit in the head by a coffee cup. The witness stated that the aforesaid investigator A.Ts. was beating him most severely. According to him, the police officers being in a “room” did not batter his friend D.B. however, he was verbally abused. Later, after his beating, the applicant was taken to the Temporary Detention Isolator. The applicant stated that he was not ill-treated there. Later in the Isolator he was examined by a doctor. As declared by the applicant, he was retelling the doctor, prosecutor, prison personnel and the judge that he had sustained the damages before arrest since he was afraid to tell the truth. According to Mr Mikiashvili, the wives of his friends - T.G. and A.Q. had witnessed his beating during his arrest. It should be noted that the assertions of the applicant are not attested by the testimonies of other witnesses. In particular, the applicant’s friend D.B. (see below) did not confirm the fact of placing them in a “room” with the applicant in the premises of Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA). In particular, as D.B. indicates after their arrest, they were directly transferred to Temporary Detention Isolator, where Giorgi Mikiashvili punched one of the police officers. Also the statements of the applicant that he had heard screaming of his friends (T.G. and A.Q.) are not confirmed by the statements of the witnesses (see below). As to the question regarding inconsistencies in his interrogation records, the applicant replied that the reason was his health deterioration. According to him, final interrogation record of 20 June 2013 reflects objective reality of the facts in question. 10 b) Police officers and the personnel of Temporary Detention Isolator (TDI) The police officers – N.J. and G.A. underlined that whilst they were trying to find out the suspicious circumstance of holding a mobile phone by I.J. (the applicant’s friend) who was running at the street, the applicant got out of the car and started physical/verbal abuse of the police officers. As police officers noted, the applicant and his friend (D.B.) were drunk. Due to the fight, N.J. as well as applicant and his friend D.B. fell down the asphalt. Afterwards N.J. and G.A. summoned additional police escort. After arrival of the police escort, the applicant and his friend were arrested and transferred to TDI which was protested by them and consequently, they behaved aggressively. Whilst fighting, N.J. and G.A. sustained some injuries and addressed to medical institution for treatment. Afterwards, they were informed that the applicant punched the investigator – A.Ts. at the Detention Centre. The police officers - G. O., R. K., A. A. and L. M. - who were summoned at the scene of the incident firmly rejected any fact of disproportional use of force by police officers against the applicant and his friend. In particular, they explained that during his arrest the applicant was involved in the fight with the police officers throughout which said officers, namely N.J. and G.A. sustained physical injuries which is confirmed by the forensic expertise presented in the case file. Furthermore, the aforesaid witnesses stated that as they found out later at the TDI the applicant punched the investigator – A.Ts. Notably, all the aforesaid police officers indicated that during the arrest, no other particular means (truncheons, walky-talkies etc.) were used except handcuffs. The investigator - A.Ts. declared that at the TDI the applicant was abusing police officers verbally. Since the applicant and his friend were drunk, A.Ts. planned to carry out investigative activities in respect of them next morning. However, in response to his request to collect their demographic details, the applicant punched him in his face (in his left eye). Since bleeding has started from his eye, A.Ts. was taken to the hospital. The witness rejected any fact of physical/verbal abuse towards the applicant and his friend by police officers at the Isolator. Also he excluded any chance of having a glass object (in response to the applicant’s allegations that he had been hit by a coffee cup) at the TDI since glass objects were prohibited at the Isolator by the internal regulations. The same testimony was given by other employees of the TDI - G.G., Sh.S., G.M and R.V. N. I. worked at the MIA’s Main Division Office of Tbilisi during 2005-2006 years. His main responsibility was the visual examination of the detainees. The witness confirmed the validity of his signature on the protocol in respect of the visual examination of the applicant. He stated that during the examination he detected certain injuries on the applicant’s body. According to N.I, the applicant clarified that he had sustained the injuries before his arrest. c) The applicant’s acquaintances present at the scene of the incident: D.B. stated that the applicant took his car after their friend’s party. When he departed from the party and went down to meet Giorgi Mikiashvili at the corner of Dolidze Street, he saw that there was a quarrel between the applicant and the police officers. According to the witness, he grabbed the police officer’s arm and in response the 11 officer punched him into his face. Later, he got into the car and drove away from the scene of incident. After a while, when he arrived to see his friends and wife, he was arrested by the police officers with Giorgi Mikiashvili. As D.B. states they were transferred to TDI. Whilst talking to a police officer in a room of Isolator building, he heard a voice of glass breaking and he saw how the police officers were beating Giorgi Mikiashvili. At the same time other police officers started to beat him for some 5-7 minutes. Afterwards, D.B. and the applicant had been transferred for drug test. According to the statements of I.J., T.G. (wife of I.J.) and A.K. (wife of D.B.) who were at the scene of the incident when the police stopped them and asked why I.J. was running away and to whom the mobile phone belonged to, I.J. explained that the mobile phone was his own and that one of the ladies running behind him was his spouse. At that moment when the police officers finally were convinced that there were no presence of any criminal activity, Mr Mikiashvili got out of the car and started to insult the officers as a result of which the conflict had been instigated. K. Zh. - friend of D.B.’s mother - was interrogated as well. She also visited the scene of the incident and accompanied the applicant and D.B. in the same police car whilst they were taken to the administrative premises of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. She rejected any facts of physical attacks from the police officers against the detained persons in the car. Thus, during the examination the investigative authorities rectified the deficiency identified by the Court, among others, interrogated all relevant witnesses and examined the applicant’s allegation concerning unjustified use of truncheons against him during his arrest. It should be noted that the police officers as well as the persons who witnessed the applicant’s arrest showed that during the arrest no truncheons or other such means were used except handcuffs. The witnesses also denied the fact of the applicant’s ill-treatment during his arrest. Outcome of the investigation Since the facts of this case took place in 2005, given the time passed after the alleged facts of illtreatment (almost 11 years), at this moment, it is not possible for the authorities to undertake a number of further investigative activities and rectify all the shortcomings of the original investigation. In particular, it is not possible to change the fact of delayed medical and psychiatric examination of the applicant. Nevertheless, the Government will further plan and implement relevant measures to fully comply with the judgment of the European Court in the present case and with the comments of the Committee elaborated in compilation notes for 1273 rd meeting (DH). 2. Status of investigation (Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 14-15 August 2006) In the light of the judgment of the European Court, the investigation has been renewed on 31 January 2013 by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia - independent body institutionally and in practice from those implicated in the incident, namely, prison personnel. Investigation of the witnesses The reopened investigation interviewed all possible witnesses to secure evidence concerning the facts of the case. 12 In particular, during the interrogation of the applicant on 11 April 2013, Giorgi Mikiashvili declared that he had been beaten by six members of prison administration. The applicant named three of them: G.B., the others called and identified as “I.” and “D.”. The applicant showed that he was kicked by feet and sustained blows to his face. The investigative bodies carried out the investigative experiment at the scene of the incident on 23 April 2013. In the course of the investigation the alleged assaulters (prison personnel) - G.B. (the deputy director of the prison hospital), I.L. and D.A. have been identified and interrogated. They denied physical abuse of the applicant. Furthermore, the identification parade has been held on 15 November 2013. The applicant was certain in identifying “I.” as his assaulter, but could not identify a person called “D.” The employees of the Institution, namely M.G., R.P., A.A., G.B., D.G., Y.S. and G.M. have been interrogated. They categorically denied physical abuse of the applicant. The employees of the Prison Hospital namely E.L., L.M., L.T., N.K. and K.I. have been questioned as well. They declared that they were not aware regarding any fact of physical abuse sustained to the applicant. The inmates R.M. and I.M. who presumably eye witnessed the incident in question stated that they were not aware or did not remember any incident of ill-treatment of the applicant by the prison personnel. The convict A.A. was interrogated in the context of the investigation. He declared that on 14 August 2006 at 18:00 he was in the yard of the Institution where he had been involved in a quarrel with the applicant. According to him, he got furious and during the quarrel kicked the applicant. Subsequently, the Prison employees and other convicts intervened in a fight and stopped them. A.A. declared that during the quarrel he had not sustained any kind of physical injuries. The applicant’s sister N.M. declared that she saw the beaten applicant at the premises of the prison hospital. She also added that, as her brother explained at the material time, G.B. had beaten him. The doctors of the “Empathy Rehabilitation Centre”, M.J., T.N. and K.T. showed that they had consulted the applicant on 15 August 2006 and observed various bruises on him. They confirmed the that applicant had named G.B. and “D.” and “I.” as his assaulters together with other persons whose names he had not identified. Furthermore, on 12 October 2016 the investigative authorities questioned M.G. – the head of the Social Department of the Medical Institution N18 at the material time. The witness explained that in August 2006 (he could not recall the exact date) he heard a noise coming from the yard of the Institution while he was working at his office. Subsequently, he saw the applicant and the convict A.A. who had been involved in a quarrel with each other. He parted them and saw that none of them had signs of injuries on their faces. The witness stated that at the material time he had not learnt anything regarding the injuries sustained to the applicant as a result of the physical abuse from the head of the Security Department of the Institution – G.B. nor from the other members of prison personnel. He added that in 2006 the persons named “I.” and “D.” certainly worked at the prison hospital. In particular, he recalled the aforesaid persons by names of - I.L. and D.G.. The witness stated that they worked in a capacity of supervisors (“controllers”). 13 Lastly, M.G. stated that due to lapse of time he could not remember anything regarding the battery of the applicant by the employees of the institution or by other prisoners. The Government assert that since the facts of this case took place back in 2006 almost 10 years had elapsed. Given the time elapsed after the alleged facts of ill-treatment it is not possible for the authorities to undertake a number of further investigative activities and it is objectively impossible to rectify all the shortcomings of the original investigation. In particular, it is not possible to change the fact that the inmate A.A. (who claimed that he had kicked the applicant only once, whereas the prison officers asserted, without providing any details, that there had been a fight between the applicant and A.A. and that they had had to intervene in order to stop it), was not given a medical examination at the material time to establish the nature of his injuries. In addition, among others, it would have been impossible currently to obtain any evidence through implementation of forensic expertise in respect of the applicant. At this stage, the investigative authorities have already exhausted all planned investigative activities. The final outcome on the case will be adopted shortly and communicated to the Committee. DVALISHVILI v. GEORGIA (n°19634/07) Judgment of 18 December 2012, final on 18 March 2013 On 5 June 2013 the First Deputy Chief Prosecutor annulled the decree of 24 May 2005 concerning the termination of investigation in the present case. The investigation has been renewed by the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia which is institutionally independent body from those implicated in the alleged events, namely, the personnel of Tskaltubo Division of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of Georgia. Victim Involvement On 18 June 2013 as well as on 7 August 2013 the applicant has been informed regarding the status and the conducted measures throughout the investigation. Investigative measures In order to rectify the deficiencies identified by the Court, every single person who might have had any information in respect of the circumstances of the case have been examined: a) The applicant in his testimony of 21 June 2013 stated that on 27 December 2005 he did not take taxi from Kutaisi to Tskaltubo and did not commit the crime of hooliganism. He alleged that he was ill-treated by the police officers. The applicant declared that he was taken to the premises of police where he was beaten and forced to plead guilty. b) R. K. and Z. A. - The police officers implicated in the incident confirmed anew that when they arrived at the place of the incident they saw two young men insulting orally and physically the taxi driver. Subsequently, the aforesaid persons tried to run away from the scene of the incident. The police officers declared that they chased the applicant when he crash into the wire fence of the garden located nearby, fell on the concrete slab inside the garden. The officers could not restrain themselves due to gained inertia while pursuing them and had fallen over the applicant. The officers 14 denied any kind of ill-treatment committed against the applicant and explained that all injuries had been sustained to him due to the aforesaid incident during his arrest. c) First aid doctor Kh.Ch. maintained that the applicant described her the same scenario of the events as the police officers, in particular, that he had sustained the injuries during his chase and subsequently, his falling down and that he had no claims against the police officers. d) Acquaintances of the applicant R.C. and D.O. R. C. confirmed the testimony of the taxi driver given within previous investigation. R. C. clarified that on 27 December 2005 he hired a taxi with the applicant and another person to get home. On their way to Tskaltubo he dropped off near the lane of the village Banoja. According to the testimony of R.C. he could not remember the third person into the car although he confirmed that prior to the incident he had been drinking beverages with Mr Dvalishvili and also with D.O.. Throughout the interrogation of D.O. he denied his presence with the applicant and R.C. on 27 December 2005 in the taxi. e) Person attending the applicant’s identification parade - D.T. D. T., the person who attended the identification parade with the taxi driver has been interrogated as well. He declared that taxi driver - G.S. identified the applicant and stated that there was another person as well who insulted him. The investigation could not interrogate anew the taxi driver, G. S. since he passed away according to the record of 6 January 2011 issued by the Agency of the State Service Development of Georgia. It should be noted that the investigative authorities within the renewed investigation carried out all necessary investigative measures which led the Court to find a procedural violation under Article 3, namely: a) Inspection of the alleged scene of the incident in light of the police officer’s and the applicant’s testimonies, in particular, the investigative authorities conducted the investigative experiment and subsequently, relevant photo materials were taken of the scene of his arrest. The investigation confirmed the existence of the garden, fence of 60-65 cm and concrete slabs (width - 1 meter, length - 2 meters) inside the garden, approximately 100 meters away from the scene of the applicant’s arrest; b) Comprehensive forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries. The investigative authorities obtained and assessed the case file of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The investigation established that the applicant’s conviction was based, amongst others, on the material evidence, in particular, on the conclusion of the criminalistic expertise of micro particles. According to the conclusion of the said examination, the cover of the taxi seat revealed the particles of the applicant’s jeans, confirming his presence in the taxi. The investigation found that the conclusion together with other evidence collected on the case dismisses the applicant’s claim that he took minibus on the arrest day. As already noted, the investigation could not interrogate the taxi driver, G.S. since he passed away on 6 January 2011. 15 On 25 May 2015 the former police officer B. Gh. has been interrogated by the investigative bodies. He declared the identical development of facts as the police officers R.K. and Z.A. (see above). In order to clarify whether the applicant’s injuries to different parts of his body could be explained by a single fall as maintained by the police officers, on 24 November 2013 the comprehensive forensic examination of the applicant’s injuries has been conducted. Furthermore, on 17 October 2016 the investigative authorities questioned G.Ts. - the Head of the MedicalForensic Department of Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau. The expert confirmed the conclusion of forensic examination dated 24 November 2013 according to which it is impossible to determine in what kind of circumstances the applicant sustained the injuries. On the basis of the conclusion, he also confirmed that the injuries had been caused by a multiple impact of a hard blunt object(s) and that he neither could exclude nor verify the development of injuries as it was indicated by the police officers (R. K. and Z. A.) in their interrogations. Status of investigation Since the facts of this case took place in 2005 almost 11 years had elapsed. Given the time passed after the alleged facts of ill-treatment it is not possible for the authorities to undertake a number of further investigative activities and at this moment it is objectively impossible to rectify all the shortcomings of the original investigation. In particular, among others it would have been impossible to obtain any exact evidence regarding injuries sustained to the applicant through implementation of forensic expertise. Also, the witness – G.S. (taxi driver) has already passed away. Thus, the investigative authorities have already exhausted all planned investigative activities. The final outcome on the case will be adopted shortly and communicated to the Committee. TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA (n°35403/06) Judgment of 15 February 2011, final on 18 March 2011 With a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into Mr Tsintsabadze’s death, on 5 March 2011 the decision concerning the termination of investigation on the case of District Prosecutor’s Office of Western Georgia had been annulled. The investigation has been renewed by the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia that is institutionally independent body from those implicated. The investigation team takes all appropriate and feasible measures to establish factual circumstances of the case. The steps undertaken by the investigative authorities up to date can be summarized as follows: Victim involvement The mother of Mr Zurab Tsintsabadze – S.T. has been recognized as a successor of the victim. According to the investigation S.T. left Georgia in November 2014 and has not returned to the country since then. The investigation was unable to contact any of the relatives of the applicant in order to finally inform S.T. about the measures conducted throughout the investigation. In the course of renewed investigation, the deficiency identified by the Court had been eliminated. In particular, on 24 May 2011 graphical examination of handwriting has been carried out on the final letter of Mr Tsintsabadze which was found in his pocket. According to the expertise conclusion the text of the letter had been written by him. 16 As the Committee is already aware, on 27 September 2011 the director of Khoni prison – A.L. was charged under first paragraph of Article 342 (Neglect of Official Duty) of Criminal Code of Georgia due to the failure to prevent destruction of evidence from the incident scene. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined with 5 000 GEL as well. The above-mentioned judgment has been submitted by the Government of Georgia to the Committee on 21 November 2012. Questioning of the witnesses For establishing the factual circumstances surrounding the allegations, following persons were interrogated in capacity of witnesses in the course of investigation: a) Inmates - (O.E, Z.E, N.Ch, K.Ch, V.D, A.S, B.T, I.G, A.E, G.L, S.Z, E.M, P.Q, O.T, G.Kh, D.M, T.Q, G.M, V.T, A.A, V.Y, Z.L.) The witnesses rejected Z. Tsintsabadze’s conflict with other inmates or with members of prison administration. They noted that at the material time there were no influential prisoners in the establishment and they were not collecting any “kitty”. Prison inmate O.E. stated in his testimony that he had met Z. Tsintsabandze in Khoni prison. O. E. noted that in the evening of 30 September 2005 he was nearby the church of the prison when he heard the inmates shouting that Z. Tsintsabadze had committed suicide by hanging himself in the storeroom of the prison. Prison inmate Z.L. noted that in 2005 he went to the prison storeroom to get a t-shirt. He had found the building locked from inside. Afterwards he entered the room through the window and found that the man was hanged over the ceiling. Nowadays, he does not remember it was a rope or a bed-sheet. He laid Z. Tsintsabadze down on the floor, but he had already no reactions. He then broke out the door of the storeroom from the inside and called for help the prison staff. The members of administration and doctor on duty arrived immediately at the storeroom and moved the corpse of the deceased to a medical unit. In addition, Z.L. stated that as he knew Mr Tsintsabadze had had some attempts to commit a suicide in the past. b) Administration members (N.Ch, D.G, B.J, A.K, G.A, A.K, K.B, G.Gh, I.G, L.Ch, T.Ts, M.K, R.M, G.S.) of Khoni no. 9 The witnesses declared that no “kitty” had been collected in the prison and that Z. Tsintsabadze had not been involved in a conflict with any other prisoner. With a view to carry out physical-technical commission expertise on the case, the investigative authorities requested crucial evidential piece - “the rope” from the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance by which according to the criminal case materials the applicant hanged himself. To this date, the aforesaid evidential piece cannot be found. Therefore, the expertise cannot be carried out due to the aforementioned objective obstacle. The relevant authorities in charge of investigation questioned additional witnesses in the course of the investigation. In particular on 8 September 2015, Senior Expert who had conducted the trace evidence (traseological expertise) and issued an expert conclusion on 13 October 2005 has been 17 questioned. He confirmed that he performed the expertise and stated that “the rope” presented on examination was not subjected to the examination since there was no indication or the question submitted in that regard. In order to elucidate the contradiction indicated by the Court, in particular that “there existed an inconsistency between the National Forensic Bureau’s (“NFB's”) autopsy report and the alternative autopsy report”, on 10 February 2016 the investigative authorities arranged the questioning of the forensic medical expert of the independent forensic center “Vector ". The expert confirmed the fact of the examination of the corpse of Mr Tsintsabadze with another expert N.T. on the basis of the request of the family. The expert stated that throughout the examination they could not notice any other injuries save for the “strangulation mark”. The witness has been presented the conclusion N54 (dated 01.10 - 08-11 of 2005) of the medical expertise performed by the Imereti Regional Expertise of LEPL National Forensics Bureau. He confirmed that the descriptive part of the corpse is accurately illustrated in the said conclusion and has identical contextual meaning along with the conclusion of forensic center “Vector”. Notably, the relevant authorities were not able to question the co-expert N.T. since he passed away on 6 October 2008. Also, the investigative authorities could not interrogate the medical orderly of Imereti Regional Expertise Service of LEPL National Forensics Bureau regarding the fact of finding the letter of Mr Tsintsabadze in the mortuary of Imereti Regional Expertise Service, since he passed away on 22 April 2007. On 27 March 2016 the former head of the Imereti Regional Expertise Service of LEPL National Forensics Bureau was questioned as well. He stated that he could not recall the fact of finding of the letter by medical orderly since almost 11 years has been passed after the fact in question. Although, the relevant official letter N202 of 10 November 2005 signed by the witness addressed to head of LEPL National Forensics Bureau Imereti Regional Examination Department reveals the fact of the detection of the above-mentioned letter by medical orderly during the cleaning of the mortuary. On 19 March 2016 the former expert of the Imereti Regional Expertise Service of LEPL National Forensics Bureau has been questioned as well. He declared that he could not recall medical orderly showing him any letter, due to the passage of 11 years. In addition he explained that the said fact of the finding of the letter possibly truly happened but nowadays he could not recall aforesaid circumstance and hence, was not aware of the context of the letter. On 12 March 2016, the former investigator who examined the scene of the incident and the corpse of Mr Tsintsabadze was also questioned. He testified that during the aforesaid examination the deputy warden of Khoni prison, at the material time, who also attended the examination, presented him the textile on which Mr Tsintsabadze allegedly hanged himself. Besides, the deputy warden gave to the investigator cigarette, lighter and “Analgene” (Analginum a non-narcotic analgesic which has a marked analgesic effect, also has antiinflammatory and antipyretic properties). The deputy warden of the prison clarified that the deceased had all the above-mentioned belongings in his pocket. The witness confirmed that he sealed the belongings and the shoes of the deceased in three packages. In addition, he stated that the corpse of Mr Tsintsabadze had the “strangulation mark” and that he could not notice any other injuries on his body except the old marks of excoriations. On 13 February 2016, the former deputy head in material support issues of Khoni prison has been questioned as well. He testified that on 29 September 2005 he was on duty. According to him, during his shift there were no incidents in the prison. The shift ended in the morning of 30 18 September 2005. On 1 October 2005 he learnt from the head of the prison that the prisoner, namely - Mr Z. Tsintsabadze had hanged himself in the storeroom of the institution. The head of the prison told him that the incident took place at 19:30. The witness clarified that he did not know personally Mr Tsintsabadze. In addition, he stated that in the prison there was one twostory building of the so called “barrack type” with two common rooms on the both floors without separate cells. The deputy head of security regime of Khoni prison has been interrogated as well. He stated that when the prisoner hanged himself he was not present at the prison since he was not on duty and had a day-off. He was informed later on that day regarding the incident. He requested to attend the examination of the body and also handed over the evidences gathered by the prison staff to the investigator. According to him, the following subjects were the pieces of evidence: the tied textile on which Mr Tsintsabadze allegedly hanged himself, cigarette, two stools and shoes. The witness declared that possibly there were other evidence as well that he could not remember. He mentioned that the deceased was not a quarrelsome person. The witness also testified that to his knowledge the deceased had not been in conflict with any other prisoner also as he learnt later from the prisoners Mr Tsintsabadze might have had a problem with his wife or with some other woman. Regarding the existence of “makurebeli”, he declared that Khoni prison was the so called “red zone” which means that only the former employees of the law enforcement bodies served their sentences and therefore, there was no “makurebeli” at the prison. In addition, he emphasized that no “kitty” had been collected in the prison. Notably, on 13 October 2016 the investigative authorities questioned the former prisoner of Khoni prison – D.Gh.. He maintained that there was “makurebeli” in the prison and “kitty” (in the form of monthly payment of 5-15 GEL) had been collected in the prison as well. The witness recalled that the applicant’s son took 80 GEL from “kitty” and since he had not returned the aforesaid sum he was battered by “makurebeli” namely by V.T. and Z.L. – the prisoners who controlled collection of “kitty”. On 30 September 2005 – the day when the applicant’s son allegedly passed away – the witness saw how the said “makurebeli” took him while he was in a state of unconsciousness into the store-room and then after couple of minutes they started to shout that the prisoner had hung himself. Planned investigative measures There is an active ongoing investigation in relation to the incident. Further investigative measures are to be implemented in order to check the validity of the testimonies delivered by the aforesaid witness (D.Gh.), namely the former prisoners of the institution will be interrogated. The investigation will conduct relevant operational and investigative activities to identify and interrogate the addressee of the letter – “Nino”. Moreover, the repeated examination of the handwriting of the aforesaid letter allegedly written by the applicant’s son will be conducted. The aforementioned planned investigative measures will be actively carried out during the last months of 2016 as well as during the first half of 2017. ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA, (n°25091/07) Judgment of 26 April 2011, final on 27 July 2011 The Government already provided the information in the previous communication (on 20 January 2015 and 1 June 2015) stating that the new investigation already resulted in seven 19 separate cases. Five of them have been concluded. The Government wish to reiterate that the former Minister of the Interior and four senior officials were convicted of unlawful deprivation of liberty, carrying out false investigations, or for affording the four persons convicted in the initial proceedings privileged conditions of detention. As it has been declared two cases remain pending before first instance court (Tbilisi City Court) since the accused persons (D.A. and D.CH.) fled the country and currently are declared as wanted. As for D.A. on 16 October 2014 the Appellate Court of Greece adopted a decision regarding the refusal to extradite him to Georgia despite of the motion made by the Chief’s Prosecutors Office of Georgia calling for his extradition. The above decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Greece on 24 April 2015. Furthermore, on March 9, 2016, the General Secretariat of the Interpol informed Tbilisi National Central Bureau that it has already canceled the Red Notice issued against D.A., based on which the latter had been searched for since 2012. As explained by the Interpol, D.A. was granted the protective status due to which the Interpol considered that search for D.A. would contradict the principle of non-refoulement. As to D.CH, on November 8, 2013, the Supreme Court of Greece dismissed the request for extradition submitted by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia on the grounds that the crimes subject to extradition were status-barred under the Greek legislation. On May 31, 2016, the General Secretariat of the Interpol informed Tbilisi National Central Bureau that it had canceled the Red Notice issued against D.CH., based on which the latter had been searched for since 2013. According to the Interpol, the existence of Red Notice Application in relation to D.CH. contradicted Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, in both cases referred to above, prior to the cancelation of the Red Notice Applications, the Interpol didn’t provide the opportunity for the competent Georgian authorities to submit their opinion concerning the disputed issues related to the notices and the decision was made unilaterally. In their communications with Interpol, competent authorities of Georgia expressed their concerns over the unilateralism in the decision-making process, lack of transparency and non-participation of the interested party in it. Subsequently, the Georgian side addressed the Interpol with the request to hold dialogues and discuss the aforementioned issues. The Government will keep the Committee informed of any development regarding the above issues. GENERAL MEASURES · Institutional Independence of Investigating Bodies In respect of the institutional independence of the investigative bodies, it should be underscored that Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia provides an exhaustive list of the bodies (investigators) authorised to pursue criminal investigations. According to this Article, criminal cases shall be investigated by the investigators of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, the Ministry of 20 Corrections of Georgia, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the investigative divisions of the State Security Service of Georgia. According to Articles 35-36 of the same Code, an investigative jurisdiction and the territorial investigative jurisdiction shall be determined by the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. Agency and territorial subordination of investigation is regulated by the Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued on 7 July 2013 concerning determination of territorial and investigative jurisdiction of criminal cases. Article 2 of the Order sets the list of cases which should be investigated by the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, among others, the crimes committed by the police officers. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Order the crimes committed under several Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia, among others, under Articles 332 (Abuse of official powers), 333 (Exceeding official powers), 334 (Unlawful discharge of the accused from criminal liability) and 335 (Providing explanation, evidence or opinion under duress) should be investigated by the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. In case of competition concerning the investigative subordination between the Prosecutor’s Office and some other investigative organs envisaged by this Order, the investigation should be carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (Article 10 of the Order). In addition, despite the norms regarding investigative subordination set out in Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, Georgian legislation – subparagraph “a” of paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code – allows the Chief Prosecutor or other person authorized by the Chief Prosecutor to take away a case from one investigation body and to assign it to the Prosecutor’s Office for the investigation regardless of normally applicable jurisdictional rules. As to the implementation of institutional independence in practice, according to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2013: “During the reporting period, the Public Defender received requests and applications from numerous prisoners alleging that they had been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the period preceding Fall 2012. The Office of the Public Defender responded to each case by forwarding relevant information and materials to the Chief Prosecution Office and followed up by requesting the Prosecution Office to provide information about actions taken. According to the replies received, the Prosecution Office had opened criminal investigation on a majority of applications through its territorial offices, according to their jurisdictional rules. […]”1 According to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2015: “According to information provided by General Inspectorate of MOIA, information obtained about offences committed by MOIA employees are sent to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. If the mentioned information relate to exceeding power by police officers, including beating and torture of citizens and other facts of gross human rights violations, Prosecutor’s Office investigates such cases […]. 1 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2013, p.12, available at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1934.pdf 21 Notably, given the system of investigation bodies in Georgia, the Public Defender welcomes the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office handles the above-mentioned criminal cases […]” 2 · Statistical data of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia regarding investigation and prosecution of ill-treatment (as to 2013-October 2016) It should be underlined that at the European Court of Human Rights Georgia reached friendly settlements or made unilateral declarations with regard to over 70 applications under Article 3 (all these applications concern the facts which took place before October 2012). It should be underscored that since parliamentary elections 2012, the Government has taken significant steps in regard to investigation and prosecution of the facts of ill-treatment. The statistical data of 2013-2016 provided below clearly illustrates that considerable number of criminal cases have been initiated against employees (among them senior officials) of Penitentiary Institutions and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in respect of the alleged facts of illtreatment taking place before October 2012. The articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia on the basis of which the criminal cases on ill-treatment were initiated during 2013-2016 are the following: 52 cases under Article 1441 (torture); 40 cases under Article 1443 (degrading treatment or ill-treatment); 35 cases under Article 333 (exceeding official powers); 7 cases under Article 332 (abuse of official authority); 7 cases under Article 147 (unlawful detention). As for the relevant statistical data by years it should be noted that: a. Article 1441 (torture) - 35 cases have been initiated in 2013; 9 cases in 2014; 7 cases in 2015 and 1 case in 2016; b. Article 1443 (degrading treatment or ill-treatment) - 36 cases have been initiated in 2013; 4 cases in 2014; No cases have been initiated in 2015-2016; c. Article 333 (exceeding official powers) -16 cases have been initiated in 2013; 13 cases in 2014; 3 cases in 2015 and 3 cases in 2016; d. Article 332 (abuse of official authority) - 7 cases have been initiated in 2013; No cases have been initiated in 2014-2016; e. No cases have been initiated under Article 147 (unlawful detention) in 2013; 7 cases in 2014; No cases have been initiated in 2015-2016. Accordingly the Government wish to assure the Committee that the offences relating to the ill-treatment are effectively and speedily investigated by the Government. Moreover the proof of the above-mentioned lies in the principal trend of the decrease in the number of initiated cases which is the result of effective investigation of the relevant cases of ill-treatment which created an operative as well as preventive mechanism against future occurrence of the similar violence. · Report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) - relevant extracts with regard to ill-treatment 2 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2015, p.188, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 22 On 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). The Action Plan envisages as one of the objectives - fighting against torture and illtreatment. It should be emphasized that in order to monitor the implementation process of the National Human Rights Action Plans, according to Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, the action plan coordination interagency council is responsible for drawing up progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan not later than March 15 of each year, which shall be submitted to the Government of Georgia and afterwards to the Parliament of Georgia not later than March 31. In the light of the aforesaid, on 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation of the Action Plan on the Protection of Human Right (2014-2015) which mirrors the implementation of Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) in practice. The implementation report, among others, contains the following relevant information about the activities carried out in the context of fighting ill-treatment. - - - - - In the context of the joint program (Human Rights in Prisons and Other Closed Institutions) of the Council of Europe and the European Union in summer 2015 the working group was established for further development of medical examination form which shall be completed while placing person in the custody. The initial version has already been developed which is fully based on the principles of the Istanbul Protocol. According to the report, Human Rights and Monitoring Main Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia conducts internal monitoring of municipal and regional detention isolators on regular basis. For this purpose, within the framework of the Main Division, the Monitoring Division was established, which performs unexpected visits to the temporary detention isolators throughout the whole country. In the context of the current reform process, the assessment of temporary detention isolator system was implemented. In addition installation of video control system was ensured. For the purposes of protection of detainees’ rights and their safety, video cameras have been installed in each temporary detention isolator. On June 16th, 2014, according to the decision of Interagency Coordinating Council implementing measures against torture, inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment the working group was established, which aims to strengthen the national preventive mechanism. The group is guided by the Public Defender's Office. In the beginning of 2015, Public Defender has developed draft amendments to the Prison Code which envisages the right of photography by the special prevention group members under certain requirements at the penitentiary establishment with the consent of Public Defender. On May 1, 2015, based on the amendment of Article 60 of the Prison Code, the Public Defender of Georgia and the representatives of national preventive mechanism were granted the right of photography at the penitentiary establishments. In particular, the above-mentioned persons, with the permission of the inmates, will be entitled to take the photos of the inmates/detainees, (including the activities provided outside of the cells). In 2015 the Prosecutor's Office has improved the statistics module which means comprehensive statistical records of criminal prosecution data on cases of ill-treatment. In particular, Human Rights Division has developed a detailed table of torture and illtreatment, which has separated the records of the facts of torture, degrading or inhuman 23 - - treatment conducted by the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, employees of the relevant establishment of Penitentiary Department and individuals. For improvement and refinement of statistics, from the beginning of 2014, statistics in the MIA Human Rights Protection and Monitoring Main Division is provided in a new manner. The implementation report involves thorough information regarding training of lawenforcement officers and representatives of judicial system regarding elimination on illtreatment in the light of the standards of European Convention. Furthermore, it should be underlined that on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017). The Action Plan foresees elimination of torture and ill-treatment as one of its goals and sets certain objectives/actions in that regard. · Supplementary comments on reforms of the Prosecutor’s Office In the action plan of 1 June 2016, the Government of Georgia have already presented to the Committee detailed information with regard to the reform of the Prosecutor’s office of Georgia. Furthermore, taking into account the relevant compilation notes of the Committee of Ministers for 1273rd meeting (DH) the Government wish to provide supplementary information. It should be underscored that in their preliminary joint opinion of July 7, 2015 (CDLPI(2015)014), the Venice Commission and other institutions gave positive evaluation of the Georgian Government’s efforts in reforming the prosecution service stating that “the Draft Law… is a very welcome step towards depoliticisation of the Prosecutor’s Office.” 3 They also gave a number of recommendations how to improve the proposed model. The MoJ accepted the overwhelming majority of recommendations and made respective changes to the draft law. As to the joint advisory opinion (CDL-AD(2015)039) of the Venice Commission concerning the internal functional autonomy of prosecutors, §90 of the opinion sets the following recommendation to the Government - The internal functional autonomy of prosecutors should likewise be reinforced. Thus, it would be appropriate to make it clear in the law that decisions regarding the pursuance and treatment of criminal cases are carried out without undue interference from the Government. For example, Article 8 Par 1 (b) of the current law could be read to imply that the Minister of Justice has the power to intervene in individual cases (“individual legal acts”), while Article 8 par 2 says that the Minister of Justice may not interfere in the actions performed and decisions made by the prosecutor in individual criminal cases. It should be clear from the law that Article 8 par 1 (b) applies to other individual legal acts, and that in all matters pertaining to prosecutors’ work on individual criminal cases, the correct rule expressed in Article 8 par 2 should prevail.4 Initially, it should be noted that first important step towards depoliticisation of the prosecution service was taken in May, 2013 when the Minister of Justice, a high-level political official in the Government, relinquished her prosecutorial powers, which step was then formalized by law. 3 See para. 32 of the Opinion at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-PI%282015%29014-e CDL-AD(2015)039-e Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission, the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), on the draft Amendments to the Law on the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, endorsed by the Venice Commission at its 104th Plenary Session (Venice, 23-24 October 2015), para 90 http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD%282015%29039-e 4 24 Article 8 of the law of Georgia “On The Prosecutor’s Office”, sets scope of authority of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. In particular, Article 8 Par 1 (b) authorizes the Minister to issue normative and individual legal acts – orders, instructions and directives based on and for the enforcement of law. Thus, this subparagraph authorizes the Minister to issue individual legal acts solely in the cases strictly envisaged by the law which does not vest the authority to the Minister to interfere in individual criminal cases. As noted in the aforesaid joint opinion, Article 8 par 2 sets the rule of non-interference of the Minister of Justice in the actions performed and decisions made by the Prosecutor’s Office concerning investigation of individual criminal cases or criminal prosecution. It should be also underlined, that exhaustive functions of the Minister of Justice are set out in the Statute of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The Statute reiterates the functions of the Minister set in the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office” in regard to the sphere of Prosecutor’s Office. The Statute does not authorize the Minister to be involved in determination of individual criminal cases, in particular Article 5 of the Statute explicitly states that the Minister does not interfere in the actions performed and decisions made by the Prosecutor’s Office concerning investigation of individual criminal cases or criminal prosecution. Thus, the aforementioned provisions plainly exclude the possible risks of interference in any matters pertaining to prosecutors’ work on individual criminal cases on behalf of the Minister of Justice of Georgia. It is noteworthy that the current Chief prosecutor of Georgia is appointed by prosecutors and investigators. The procedure of appointment of the Chief Prosecutor, the determination of his term of office by law for 6 years and new rules of removing him from his office automatically exclude any chances of political influences, since the political officials do not have the relevant legislative leverage to appoint, remove or interfere in the activities of the Chief Prosecutor. Undoubtedly it is reasonable to consider that independence of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office directly affects independence of the ordinary prosecutors. Furthermore, in order to strengthen the prosecutors’ independence on 11 January 2016 on the basis of the decision of the Chief Prosecutor a collegial body of Advisory Council of Prosecutors has been established. The said Council is composed of members of Prosecutorial Council and the senior officials of the Prosecutor’s Office. Moreover, together with the issues relating to the development of Prosecutor’s Office the Advisory Council examines the issues of encouragements, promotion and disciplinary sanctions. This system eliminates the possibility of imposing a disciplinary sanction arbitrarily and reduces the risks of unlawful influence on the prosecutor in order to force him/her to deliver certain decision. The format of Advisory Council is also important since the prosecutors with regard to whom encouragement, promotion and punishment issues are discussed are allowed to participate in meetings of Council as well as they are allowed to express their opinions. Notably the former system excluded the abovementioned novelties. Besides, till the end of this year the new system of the evaluation of prosecutors will be put in place. The said system enables to evaluate the activities of the prosecutors on the basis of the predetermined criteria. The encouragement, promotion and disciplinary liability of prosecutors will entirely be based on the evaluation system. Such a transparent system of the evaluation of the activities of the prosecutors on the basis of the predetermined criteria will minimize the subjective evaluation of the activity of prosecutors and the risks of unwarranted punishment or promotion. The above-mentioned improvements of 25 relevant mechanisms will ultimately influence the impartiality and independence of each prosecutor and as a result will further strengthen the institutional/practical independence of investigative bodies. · Witness Interview and Interrogation Prior to the implementation of the amendments regarding witness interview (20 February 2016), the trainings have been conducted for all employees of the Prosecutor’s Office among them prosecutors and investigators. As for the trainings in the interviewing and interrogating of witnesses it should be noted that 56 prosecutors, investigators as well as 62 interns of the Prosecutor’s Office took part in the relevant activity. Furthermore, in order to implement uniform practice 5 training activities have been held for the employees of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The implementation of the new rules of interviewing and interrogating of witnesses are being implemented in practice without any obstacles. As a result of a survey conducted by the Department of Prosecutorial Activities Supervision and Strategic Development of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia it has been established that majority of witnesses and victims voluntarily agree to be interrogated. There are only exceptional cases when the prosecutors request a magistrate judge to issue a subpoena for interrogation of the witness. Interrogation before the magistrate judge is conducted according to the respective rules of procedure. In particular, judge opens the sessions, the composition is declared and the matter of challenge of the judge is examined. Furthermore, the identity of witness is established and her/his rights and responsibilities are explained and subsequently prosecutor carries out the interrogation. Notably, the legal representatives of the witness can attend the court sessions with the right to pose questions. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the individual and general measures undertaken by the State authorities in terms of execution of the following cases: Mikiashvili v. Georgia, Khaindrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia, Dvalishvili v. Georgia, Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, Gharibashvili v. Georgia, Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia encompassed a number of significant initiatives. New investigations have been implemented in compliance with the European Court’s case-law, and Committee of Ministers practice. Independence and impartiality of the investigators/prosecutors are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigation is comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from the date when the events complained of allegedly took place. The relevant authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for effective and prompt investigation. Information and evidence obtained in the course of the investigation is assessed in thorough, consistent and objective manner. The Government of Georgia will submit additional information on individual/general measures to be adopted by the Government in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention. 26 1273rd meeting – 6-8 December 2016 Item H46-10 Gharibashvili group v. Georgia (Application No. 11830/03) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments DH-DD(2016)1372, DH-DD(2016)1371, DH-DD(2016)1262, DH-DD(2016)1206, DH-DD(2016)701, DH-DD(2016)324, DH-DD(2016)114, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2014)956, DH-DD(2014)955, DH-DD(2014)1099, Public Defender of Georgia Special Report, CommDH(2014)9, ODGProg/Inf(2013)15, CM/Del/Dec(2016)1259/H46-12 Decisions The Deputies Individual measures 1. noted with interest the updated information provided concerning reopening of the investigations in all the cases in this group and the current state of investigations, although the information in the cases of Surmanidze and Others and Molashvili was submitted so shortly before the present meeting that no detailed assessment thereof has been possible; 2. noted with interest that concrete results had been achieved in some cases but expressed concern that, in most cases (including the 11 friendly settlements mentioned in paragraph 10 below), the investigations remain pending; 3. noted the efforts engaged in face of this situation in order to ensure effective investigations and urged the authorities to accelerate pending investigations and to reinforce resources allocated; 4. invited the authorities to keep the Committee informed of developments and of steps taken to bring the pending investigations to an end in conformity with Convention requirements and to indicate if decisions to close investigations can be challenged and, if so, before what authority; 5. expressed special concern that in the cases Mikiashvili and Dvalishvili, the Court’s findings appear to be put into question by the Prosecutor’s Office and invited the authorities to provide clarification in this respect; General measures 6. noted with interest the information provided by the authorities on the reform of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, the involvement of victims in the investigation, including access to case-files, implementation of the new rules on witness interrogation and of the 2015-2016 Action Plan “on Combating Torture, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”; 7. invited the authorities to provide further information on how the institutional independence of investigating bodies, in particular the Prosecutor’s Office, is henceforth guaranteed in law and in practice; 8. invited the authorities to provide further information on the measures taken vis-à-vis the judiciary to demonstrate that the specific problems revealed in the present cases have been addressed: notably lack of adversarial public proceedings and decisions rendered in camera, court decisions based mainly on the testimony of the police officers involved in the incidents, lack of sufficient time and facilities to study the case materials, etc.; 9. also invited the authorities to submit further information on the measures to prevent excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and ill-treatment of persons in custody and on the results achieved, as well as on the measures to prevent violations of Article 38; Grouping of cases 10. in view of the above, and in accordance with the decision of June 2016, decided to transfer the 11 friendly settlements1 mentioned in this decision from the standard to the enhanced supervision procedure and to join them with the Gharibashvili group; 11. 1 decided to resume examination of this group of cases at the 1294 th meeting (September 2017) (DH). Kiziria (4728/08), Baghashvili (5168/06), Surmanidze and others (11323/08), Molashvili (39726/04), Mzekalishvili (8177/12), Kopadze (58228/09), Lanchava (28103/11), Studio Maestro Ltd and Others (22318/10), Chantladze (60864/10), Bekauri and Others (312/10) and Gegenava and Others (65128/10). 1273e réunion – 6-8 décembre 2016 Point H46-10 Groupe Gharibashvili c. Géorgie (Requête n° 11830/03) Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne DH-DD(2016)1372, DH-DD(2016)1371, DH-DD(2016)1262, DH-DD(2016)1206, DH-DD(2016)701, DH-DD(2016)324, DH-DD(2016)114, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2014)956, DH-DD(2014)955, DH-DD(2014)1099, Public Defender of Georgia Special Report, CommDH(2014)9, ODGProg/Inf(2013)15, CM/Del/Dec(2016)1259/H46-12 Décisions Les Délégués Mesures individuelles 1. notent avec intérêt les informations à jour fournies sur la réouverture des enquêtes dans toutes les affaires de ce groupe et l’état actuel des enquêtes, les informations concernant les affaires Surmanidze et autres et Molashvili ayant toutefois été soumises si peu de temps avant la réunion qu’aucune évaluation n’a pu en être faite ; 2. notent avec intérêt que des résultats concrets ont été obtenus dans certaines affaires mais expriment leur préoccupation quant au fait que dans la plupart des affaires (y compris les 11 règlements amiables mentionnés au paragraphe 10 ci-dessous), les enquêtes sont toujours pendantes ; 3. notent les efforts fournis face à cette situation afin de veiller à la tenue d’enquêtes effectives et invitent instamment les autorités à accélérer les enquêtes pendantes et à renforcer les ressources allouées ; 4. invitent les autorités à tenir le Comité informé des développements et des mesures prises pour mener à bien les enquêtes pendantes conformément aux exigences de la Convention et à indiquer si les décisions de clore les enquêtes peuvent être contestées, et dans l’affirmative, auprès de quelle autorité ; 5. expriment leur préoccupation particulière quant au fait que dans les affaires Mikiashvili et Dvalishvili, les conclusions de la Cour semblent être remises en question par le Parquet et invitent les autorités à fournir des clarifications à cet égard ; Mesures générales 6. notent avec intérêt les informations fournies par les autorités sur la réforme du Parquet de Géorgie, sur l’implication des victimes dans le cadre de l’enquête, y compris s’agissant de l’accès aux dossiers, sur la mise en œuvre des nouvelles règles relatives à l'interrogatoire des témoins et du Plan d'action 2015-2016 « de lutte contre la torture, les peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants » ; 7. invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur la manière dont l'indépendance institutionnelle des organes d'enquête, en particulier du Parquet, est dorénavant garantie en droit et en pratique ; 8. invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur les mesures prises à l'égard du pouvoir judiciaire pour démontrer que les problèmes spécifiques révélés dans les présentes affaires ont été remédiés : notamment, l’absence de procédure publique contradictoire et les décisions rendues à huis clos, les décisions des tribunaux fondées principalement sur le témoignage des policiers impliqués dans les incidents, le manque de temps et de facilités pour étudier le dossier de l'affaire, etc. ; 9. invitent également les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur les mesures visant à prévenir l'usage excessif de la force par la police lors des arrestations et les mauvais traitements de personnes en garde à vue, et sur les résultats obtenus ainsi que sur les mesures visant à prévenir des violations de l’article 38 ; Groupement d’affaires 10. compte tenu de ce qui précède et conformément à la décision du Comité de juin 2016, décident de transférer les 11 règlements amiables2 mentionnés dans cette décision de la procédure standard à la procédure soutenue et de les joindre au groupe Gharibashvili ; 11. (DH). 2 décident de reprendre l’examen de ce groupe d’affaires lors de leur 1294e réunion (septembre 2017) Kiziria (4728/08), Baghashvili (5168/06), Surmanidze et autres (11323/08), Molashvili (39726/04), Mzekalishvili (8177/12), Kopadze (58228/09), Lanchava (28103/11), Studio Maestro Ltd et autres (22318/10), Chantladze (60864/10), Bekauri et autres (312/10) et Gegenava et autres (65128/10).

SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Anna Austin Tel: 03 88 41 22 29 Date: 22/01/2015 DH-DD(2015)113 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1222 meeting (10-12 March 2015) (DH) Item reference: Updated action plan (20/01/2015) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Enukidze and Girgvliani (Gharibashvili group) against Georgia (Application No. 25091/07) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1222 réunion (10-12 mars 2015) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Enukidze et Girgvliani (groupe Gharibashvili) contre Géorgie (Requête n° 25091/07) (anglais uniquement) DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. DGI 2 0 JAN. 2015 SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Office o f State Representation to the International Courts of Hu man Rights Ministry of Justice of Georgia 20 January 2015 Revised action plan Gharibashvili group of cases against Georgia Case of Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia (Application no. 25091/07) DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Table of contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 Il. lndividual measures ........................................................................................................... 3 Just satisfaction claims ................................................................................................................ 3 Investigation of the case .............................................................................................................. 4 Circumstances of the case established as a result of the new investigation ................................ 7 Fui filling the obligation of in form ing the victim's next of kin about the process of investigation .............................................................................................................................. 12 Outcome of the criminal cases heard by the court.. ................................................................... 12 The criminal case against l.M-shvili .................................................................................... 12 The criminal case againsl D.K.-shvili.................................................................................... 13 The criminal case against 0.M.-ov ........................................................................................ 13 The criminal case against T.T.-ua and MG.-ia ..................................................................... 14 The criminal case against B.A.-aia ........................................................................................ 14 Pending court proceedings ........................................................................................................ 15 The criminal case against D.A. -aia ....................................................................................... 15 Criminai case against D. Ch. - dze .......................................................................................... 15 Asto the eradication of the violations found at the level of domestic courts ............................ 16 Asto the eradication of the violations committed by two prosecutors in charge of the case .... 17 III. General Measures ............................................................................................................. 17 Effective participation of a victim in cri minai proceedings ...................................................... 17 The placement of the four convicts into the same cell .............................................................. 19 IV. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 20 2 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 1. Introduction J. On 25 November 2012 the newly elected Govemment of Georgia expressed the will to effectively enforce the judgment in the case of Enukidze and Girgv/iani v. Georgia (application no. 25091 /07) withdrew the action plan of the preceding Government and submitted to the Committee of Ministers a new one. ln January 2013, the Committee ofMinisters was updated pursuant to the new plan. 2. On 11 July 20 14, the Government made an undertaking to inform later the Committee on the domestic investigation and the pending court proceedings. 3. Because of the complexity of the criminal case, on 4 January 2014, 20 January 2014, 21 January 2014, 6 March 2014 and 11 March 2014, various episodes of the crime were split into several separate cases. ln 5 cases the investigation and court proceedings have already been completed, 2 cases are sti ll pending before the court. 4. The present document is a detailed report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the abovej udgment pursuant to the action plan of25 November 20 12. It does account both for general and individual measures undertaken up to date by the a uthorities to remedy the violations found by the Court and prevent its recurrence. 5. The further information on the development and outcome of the pending domestic proceedings will be submitted to the Committee upon the next update. Il. Individual mcasures Just satisfaction claims 6. Within the time frame established under the Convention, EUR 50,000 as a compensation for non-pecuniary damages and EUR 388 for costs and expenses were paid to the applicant. The Georgian translation of the judgment was also published in the O fficial Law Gazette ofGeorgia - "Sakanonmdeblo Matsne" (Legislative Herald). 1 1 The translated version ofthejudgment is available al https://matsne.gov.gc/index. php?option=com ldmssearch&v iew=doc View& id= l 496930&1ang=ge 3 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Investigation of the case 7. On 26 November 20 12, following the statements made by A.Gh.-ava, one of the four persons previously convicted, a new investigation was opened (criminal case no. 07426 11 12802). As a priority given to thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation the case was opened at the lnvestigative Department of the Chief 1 Prosecutor's Office under Articles 144 (2)(a) (torture by an official or a person of an 1 equal rank), l44 1(2)(b) (torture using official position) and 144 (2) (d) (torture inflicted upon two or more persons )) and 333(3)(b) (excess of authority involving violence or arms) and 333(3)(c) (excess of authority offending human dignity) of the Crim inal Code. 8. ln full compliance with the action p lan of 25 November 20 12 a n experienced, impartial and qualified investigator was assigned to the case. On the basis of the order of the Chief Prosecutor, the investigator was assisted by a group of other skilled investigators who had been instructed to deal with verification of the separate episodes of the crime. 9. T he investigator had promptly made a number of steps. lt was already on 26 November 20 12 that he conducted the first interrogation of A.Gh.-ava. The examination of A.A.-uri and M.B.-dze was held on 28 November 20 12 (see para. 13 of the action plan of 25 November 2012). Thereafter, in the course of the investigation the above persons had been questions several times. 1O. Their testimonies helped the investigation to uncover the circumstances that did entirely contradict the previous version of the investigation. As regards G.A.-ia, he had tled the country several days after the new political force came to power on 1 October 2012. The investigative authorities are therefore still prevented to question him. However, currently, he is declared wanted through the Interpol Channels (see § 13 (a) of the action plan). 11. On the basis of the investigative measures which fo llowed questioning of the three convicts and the court proceedings it was established that initially fraudulent and 4 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. various other illegal actions were carried out by the previous authorities to prevent justice from being done in this criminal case (see also para. 276 of the j udgment). 12 . As ascertained after the reopening of the case in late 20 12, various vital pieces of evidence had been removed from the case-file, such as the list of the tele phone calls of 10 persons, the data obtained fro m the mobile companies, the compact dise contain ing an hour-long video recorded by the surveillance camera on the road from Tbilisi to the Okrokana cemetery. 13. T he Government submit that since November 20 12, investigation of the case has been conducted in fu ll compl iance with the State's positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention and the Government's action plan of 25 November 20 12 which is demonstrated below. 14. ln total approximately 200 witnesses were questioned. The investigator questioned ail the participants of the gathering at Café Chardin except for D.A-aia. Since he fled the country, the existing mechanisms of international legal assistance and cooperation are being used to secure his return . 15. T.S.-aia, the lnterior Minister's wife, O.M.-ov, G .D.-dze, V.S.-dze, A.K.-dze and Th.M.-dze, ail confirmed their presence at the café Chard in on 27 January 2006, though rejected the existence of any conflict between the Ministry officiais and Mr Gi rgvliani. T hat was also the main point of the criminal case conducted by the previous authorities - no link should have been revealed between those officiais present at the café and those who arrived later to punish Mr G irgviani (see paras. 98124 of the judgment). lt was only Th.M.-dze who noted that the conversation between her and Mr Girgvlian i turned tense and loud (see § 13 (b),(e) of the action plan). 16. D.A.-aia has been charged for his role in the case (see § 13 (c) of the action plan). Particu larly, he has been charged with abuse of authority, illegal depri vation of liberty of Mr Girgvliani and L.B.-dze, subsequent concealment of the mentioned crime and the mock investigation (for the detailed information, please see paras 69-72 below). 17. O.M.-ov, who had left the country in 2010, was interrogated on 10 September 2013 after his extradition from Ukraine. He confirmed that D.A. had instructed d ifferent officiais of the Ministry to corne to the Café to pun ish Mr Girgvliani. He confessed 5 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. that contrary to the previous investigation, he had left the Café just for the purpose of chas ing Mr Girgvliani and his friend L.8.-dze and to allow G.A.-ia to know who were to be punished (see § 13 (c) of the action plan). The new investigation found that O.M.ov d id not leave the café at any time for the purpose o f buying cigarettes for the Minister' s w ife, as portrayed previously. 18. L.Ch.-shvili, Y.S.-dze' s driver waiting outside the Café corroborated 0.M.-ov's testimony and noted that after leaving the Café Chardin, O.M.-ov got into his car and asked him, to follow the two young men. After the arrivai of G.A.-ia al the scene, O.M.-ov pointed at Mr Girgvliani and his fri end as those who were to be punished (see para. 13 (e) of the action plan). 19. As ascertained in the course of interrogation of M.B.-dze, A.A.-uri and A.Gh.-ava, besides them, O.K.-shvili, an official from the Constitutional Security Department ('CSO'), Ministry o f the lnterior, was also present at the Okrokana cemetery and participated in committing the crime. O.K.-shvili is not even mentioned in the cri minai case-fil e inherited from the previous authorities. The victim 's fami ly was also unaware o f that fact. O.K.-shvili was actually called by G.A.-ia upon the order of 0 .A.-aia. As noted below, O.K.-shvili drove G.A.-ia and A.Gh.-ava to the Café Chardin area. With the help of A.Gh.-ava, he grabbed Mr Girgvliani and L.B-dze and pushed them into the car, took them to the cemetery and severely beat them. This was confirmed by D.K.-shvil i at the stage when he pleaded guilty (see para.1 3 (g) of the action plan). 20. Within the scope of the new investigation, L.B.-dze, Mr Girgvlianïs friend, was questioned again (see para. 13 (h) of the action plan). 21. Under the new investigation the data about the telephone calls made by the participants of the birthday party at the Café was retrieved and analyzed. These efforts led to identify ing the real owner of the mobile phone number - 877 798960 referred to in para.ISO of thejudgment as being Y.M.-eli, an officer of the CSO. He was the first to receive the order and instructions from 0.A.-aia. (see para. 13 U), (k) and (1) of the action plan). 22. The investigative authorities verified, inter alia, the owners of the fo llowing mobile phone cards: 877 484845, 899 96000 1 and 899 751089, as having been used by the 6 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. officers of the CSD (see para. 169 of the judgment). lmportantly, the number 899 960001 was established to belong to D.K.-shvi li (see §13 (n) of the action plan) Circ u mstances of the case established as a r esult of the new investigation 23. The facts below, established during investigation in 2013-2014, are based on a high number of testimonies and other evidence that have been obtained by the investigation launched in November 2012. Approximately 200 witnesses had been questioned. Most of them could have been easily identified by the previous authorities though they entirely lacked wi ll for doing so as in this case the testimonies would contradict the version of events "construed" by the Minister of the lnterior and other high officiais at the material time. The competent investigator also re-examined those witnesses who had testified in the previous investigation. 24. The account given below describes some facts which had been submitted before the Court by the parties but mainly provides the new circumstances surrounding the case, as established in 2013-2014. The latter as well as interrogations and other investigative measures which were only undertaken during the new proceedings are presented in bold caracters. 25. On 27 January 2006, at around 11 p.m. a group of fri ends met to celebrate the birthday of Y.S.-dze, Director of the General lnspectorate, Ministry of the lnterior, at the Café Chardin in Tbilisi. The group also included T.S.-aia, wife of the Minister of the Interior l.M-s hvili, D.A.-aia, Director of the CSD, O.M.-ov, an operative employee of the CSD, G.0.-dze, Minister's spokesman and Head of Press, and A.K.-dze, a female friend of T .S.-aia. Another woman, Th.M.-dze, a fri end of A.K.-dze, was also present at the gathering. 26. Later on, Mr Girgvliani and his friend L.B.-dze appeared at the Café Chardin. Upon entering Mr Girgvliani noticed that his friend Th.M.-dze was sitting at the table together with the o fficiais of the Ministry of the lnterior. Mr Girgvliani, who had close relationship with T h.M.-dze, approached the table and star tcd spcaking loudly with her. He was irritated that Th.M.-dze had lied to him over the phone a moment earlier, saying that she was with some women friends in a bar. 7 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 27. Z.K.-shvili, a friend of Mr Girgvliani, who also happened to be in the Café, took him aside to a nea rby table in order to cairn him down. Later Th.M.-dze joined them at the table and the tense talk between her and Mr Girgvliani continued. ln the course of the conversation, Mr Girgvliani verbally insulted one of the Ministry officiais sitti ng at the other table. 28. As testified by O.M.-ov, D.A.-aia, having been irritated by Mr G irgvliani's behavior, instructed O.M.-ov to call G.A.,-ia, First Deputy Director of the CSD. O.M.-ov, on his part, called one of the officers of the CSD, V.M.-eli. D.A.-aia, who had personally talked to him on the phone, asked V.M.- eli to immedia tely inform G.A.-ia about his instruction to punish Mr Girgvliani. 29. G.A.-ia, acting upon D.A.-aia's instructions, asked A.A.-uri, M.B.-dze, A.Gh.-ava and D.K.-shvili (all of them being employees of the Ministry of the lnterior) to corne to the place of gathering. 30. D.K.-shvili drove the car with G.A.-ia a nd A.Gh.-ava. 3 1. M.B.-dze and A.A.-uri used another car of the Ministry of the Interior to drive to the Café. 32. By the time of arrivai of the officers, Mr Girgvliani and bis friend L.B.-dze had already left the Café. ln an effort to track them down, D.A.-aia instructed O.M.ov to pursue the two. O.M.-ov complied with the order, left the Café, sat in the car of V.S.-dze a nd told the driver L.Ch.-shvili to chase the two men walking down the street. 33. Meanwhile G.A.-ia's car approached the area. 34. As ordered by D.A.-aia, O.M.-ov identified Mr Girgvliani a nd L.B.-dze as those who had to be physically abused. 35. Mr Girgvliani and his friend were forcibly pushed into the Mercedes ML which had been driven by D.K.-shvili with G.A.-ia and A.Gh.-ava. The two were taken to Okrokana, the outskirts of Tbilisi. In the meantime A.A.-uri a nd M.B.-dze got another instr uction from G.A.-ia to change the course and go directly to Orkrokana. 8 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 36. Mr Girgvliani and L.B.-dze were brought to the Okrokana cemetery. Meanwhile, G.A.-ia continued to receive instructions over the phone from D.A.-aia. The permanent talking on the phone between G.A.-ia and D.A.-aia is confirmed by the testimonies of A.GH.-ava, M.B. -dze, A.A.-uri and D.K.-shvili. 37. The officiais of the Ministry of the Interior did ruthlessly beat Sandro Girgvliani and his friend and demanded them to take off their clothes in a severe cold. 38. Ali of the five employees of the Ministry then left Mr Girgvliani and L.B-dze at the territory of Okrokana cemetery and drove back to Tbilisi. 39. Next day Mr Girgvliani was found dead near the Okrokana cemetery. C urrently, the investigation for the verification of the exact circumstances of the death of Sandro Girgvliani is pending. 40. The witness testimonies and other evidence collected corroborate that a lready by 29 January 2006 the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior and the Minister himself were well aware of these circumstances and of the rotes of the persons implicated in the case. 41. Du ring the interrogation of M.B.-ia, then the Head of the Tbilisi Police (M.B.-ia had not been questioned during the previous investigation), testified that within two days after the crime was committed he personally visited the Minister of the Interior, reported on the crime and shared with him the names of suspects. He also did seek the Minister's approval to arrest ail those implicated in a crime, which he failed to get. 42. N.B.-dze, then the Chairma n of Parliament, also testified that within two days following the crime, the Minister of the lnterior was well aware of the concrete circumstances of the case and the persons involved in it. 43. Nevertheless, the Minister of the Interior attempted to fabricate a totally distorted version of the events and cover the participation of D.A.-aia, T.S.-aia, G.D.-dze and V.S.-dze in the crime. 44. lt has also been established that the first interrogation of the Minister's wife, D.A.-aia, O.M.-ov, G.D.-dze, A.K.-dze and V.S.-dze held on 16 February 2006, 9 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. had taken place at V.S.-dze' s office at the Ministry of Interior. 0.M.-ov and the interrogator who bad conducted the examination of tbe meotioned persons on 16 February 2006 bave confirmed that the interrogation had been conducted in each other's presence in a coordioated maoner (see paras. 44-46 of the judgment). 45. T he case was referred to the Prosecutor's Office only after the Minister approved the fabricated version of the events favorable to bim. This is confirmed by the testimooies of M.B.-ia, A.G h.-ava, A.A.-uri, M.8.-dze a nd other documents being classified at the material time. 46. Apart from the actual circumstances surrounding the crime, the new investigation also verified the details regarding the development of the events after the crime and the manner of imprisonment of the four people. 47. lt had been found that in agreement with the Minister of the Interior D.A.-aia persuaded G.A.-ia, A.Gh.-ava, M.B.-dze and A.A.-uri to go to prison in exchange for the financial and other benefits. D.A.-aia however excluded D.K.-shvili who was present at the crime scene at Okrokana from this arrangement as he lacked trust in him. D.A.-aia, with the assistance of I.M.-shvili (then the M inister of the Interior) ensured the mock execution of the judgment against the convicts and their early release. 48. The above-mentioned was testified by each of the three convicts - A.Gh.-ava, M .B.-dze and A.A.-uri - during their examination. 49. Particularly, A.Gh.-ava, M.B.-dze and A.A.-uri confirmed that as the situation around this criminal incident became tense and led to the public outcry in the country, D.A.-aia called A.A.-uri, M.B.-dze a nd A.Gh.-ava to the office and told them tbat " in the interests of their country [they) bad to go to prison." As he had noted, " (he) could not go to prison". He comforted them by saying that the Minister and other higb officiais knew everything and that be would take care of the case. He promised that tbeir families would be financially supported during their absence and themselves would be ensured favorable conditions in prison so that to stay there at maximum a year and a half. Conversely, if they did not obey, he threatened that they could get each 10 to 12 years prison sentence. He 10 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. additionally noted that be could not go to prison as be planned to take the post of a M inister soon and promised to give each of them USD 100,000. 50. As testified by the convicts, only A.Gh.-ava a nd M.B.-dze received the promised s um during the imprisonment. As regards A.A.-uri, be had received USD 12,000. 51. On 6 March 2006 the four people werc told that they would be detained. As planned they were detained exactly the day t hey were told and taken to the Prosecutor's Office. As they were informed by D.A.-aia, the investigators knew everything a nd they could trust t hem. 52. T he d etainees were given the text prepared in advance to write testimonies. 53. T he Mioister of the loterior visited them both duriog examination at the Prosecutor's Office and aftcrwards in the temporary detention isolator where a lavish "farewell feast" was thrown for the detainees. T his fact is a lso confirmed by M.B.-dze, A.A.-uri and A.Gh.-ava. 54. As found by the Court (see paras. 275-276 of the j udgment in the case Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia) the sentences as initially imposed upon G.A.-ia, A.A.-uri, A.Gh.-ava and M.8.-dze by the domestic courts and actually reduced afterwards did not constitute adequate punishment within the meaning o f Article 2 of the Convention. 55. ln this light, the new investigation revealed additional facts and circumstances as to the inadequacy of the very implementation of the sentences. 56. At the material time, the penitentiary departmeot was head ed by B.A.-aia, a brother of D.A.-aia, who ensured that the four convicts are put in the utmost privileged and luxurious conditions and enjoy favorable treatmeot w hite serving their sentence. By treating the convicts in such a manner, B.A.-aia managed to prevent them to implicatc his brother D.A.-aia in committing the crime. 57. Putting extra safeguards that the arrangement is followed B.A.-aia appointed T.T.-ua as a Director of the prison no. IO, w here the four convicted persons were serving their sentence. 58. M.B.-dze, A.A.-uri, A.Gh.-ava, the Director of the prison no. IO and bis d eputy, as well as a number of other witnesses confir m that as promised by D.A.-aia, 11 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. throughout the whole imprisonment term, both in prison no.7 and afterwards, in prison no.IO, the four convicts enjoyed ail the favorable conditions: the renovated spacious rooms isolated from other prisoners, refrigera tor, TV set, mobile phones, comfortable beds. T hey also benefited from the unlimited number of visits of family members, friends, and colleagues. T he convicts were receiving la te night guests, consumed alcohol and even enjoyed sexual services in violation of the internai regulations of the establishment a nd provisions of Law on lmprisonment. Neither the rooms they were placed in nor the visitors were ever been subject to any search. 59. The four convicts also did benefit from other illegal advantages, such as having a private chef and a person in charge of cleaning their rooms, access to internet and cable television, enjoying unrestricted use of mobile and land phones. Moreover, in violation of the provisions of Law on Imprisonment the convicts left the prison for a number of days on several occasions and with the help of D.Ch.-dze, Deputy Head of the First Unit of the CSD, who later became Deputy Head of the Genera l Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. 60. The samc witnesscs testify that during the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008, the four convicts were released from prison and returned only after 15 days. F ulfilling the obligation of informing the victim's next of kin about the process of investigation 61. The Government note that in conformity w ith its commitment under of 25 November 20 12 action plan, Mr Guram Girgvliani, the father of the deceased, was regularly informed of the conditions of the execution of the Court's judgment and the progress of the investigation into his son's death. Since 2 December 2012 the new investigator has held monthly meetings w ith Mr Guram Girgvliani to regu larly inform him of the progress of the investigation (see paragraph 22 of the Action Plan). Outcome of the criminal cases heard by the court The crimina/ case against l.M-shvi/i 12 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 62. The criminal case against J.M.-shvi li was submitted to the court for examination on 11 March 2014. 63. By the judgment of 20 October 2014, the Tbilisi City Court fou nd l.M.-shvili gui lty for the commission of abuse o f his official authority by ensuring the mock investigation of the case and covering those responsible, the crime under Article 332 (2) and fraud by official, the crime Article 341 of the Criminal Code. l.M.-shvili was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of three years. With the same judgment 1.M.shvili was deprived the right to hold a position in the public service or self-goveming bodies for the period oftwo years and three months. The criminal case against D.K.-shvili 64. By a j udgme nt of 18 March 2014 the court found D.K.-shvili guilty for the illegal deprivation of liberty committed by a group conspiracy, against two or more persons and with a view o f facilitating perpetration of another crime as provided under Article 143 (2) (a), (c) and (g) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. A plea agreement was concluded w ith D.K.-shvi li who had pleaded guilty in the deprivation of liberty o f Mr Girgvliani and his fri end on 27 January 2006. D.K.-shvili was sentenced to deprivation of liberty for the term of three years and nine months, two years out of which to be served at the pen itentiary establishment and one year and nine months as a suspended sentence, with a two-year probation period. The crimina/ case againsl O.M. -ov 65. The plea bargain agreement was concluded with O.M.-ov who had pleaded guilty in the complic ity to illegal deprivation of liberty of Mr Girgvliani and L.B.-dze, an offence provided under Article 25 and Article 143 (2) (c) and (3) (a) and (c) o f the Criminal Code of Georgia. He had also pleaded guilty in the commission of another episode of illegal deprivation of liberty not related to the present case. He was found guilty for the commission of crimes under Article 25 and Article 143 (2) (c) and (3) (a) and (c), Article 333 (3) (b) and (c) and Article 143 (2) (c) and (3) (a), (c) and (e) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. O.M.-ov was sentenced to deprivation of liberty for the 13 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. term of three years and nine months, two years of which to be served at the pen itentiary establishment, one year and nine months as a suspended sentence, with a two-year probation period. He was also stripped of the right to hold a post in the public service for one year. The criminal case againsl T.T.-ua and M.G.-ia 66. On 25 February 2014, the Tbilisi City Court, based on 27 witness statements and relevant other documentation, delivered judgment against the Director of the prison no. I 0, T.T-ua and his deputy - M.G.-ia. Both T.T.-ua and M.G.-ia had pleaded gui lty in the abuse of thei r authority by afford ing the four convicts - G.A-ia, M.B-dze, A.Ghava and A.A-uri - illegal privileges as ordered by B.A.-aia, then the head of the pen itentiary department. The court found them guilty for abuse of official authority under Article 332 ( 1) of the Cri minai Code of Georgia. T.T.-ua was sentenced to deprivation of liberty for the term of one year, eight months and 25 days to be served as a suspended sentence, with a three-year probation period. At the same time he was deprived of the right to hold a position in the public service fo r a year. As an additional sentence he was ordered to pay the fine in the amount of 3,000 Georgian Laris. 67. M.G.-ia was also found guilty for abuse of authority under Article 332 (1) of the C riminal Code of Georgia and was deprived of the right to hold a position in the public service for a year. As an additional sentence, he was ordered to pay a fin e in the amount of 1,000 Georgian Laris. The criminal case against B.A.-aia 68. On 22 October 20 14, after examination of the case file, the Tbilis i City Court delive red a judgment against B.A.-aia. He was found guilty for the abuse of official authority by putting and condoning the four convicts in the utmost privileged and luxurious conditions throughout their imprisonment (Article 332 ( 1) of Cri minai Code of Georgia). With the same judgment the court declared B.A.-aia guilty for other, unrelated to the present case crimes - the excess of official power (Article 333 ( 1) and 14 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. (3) (b) of the Criminal Code) and torture by a representative of the state with the use of his official duties (Article 1441 (2) (a), (d), (e), (z) of the Criminal Code). For ail the episodes deliberated by the court, 8.A.-aia was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of seven years and six months and deprived the right to hold a post in the public service for the period of three years. Pending court proceedings 69. As noted by the Govemment in the introduction, apart from five completed cases, two other cases submitted to the court are pending for examination. The criminal case against D.A.-aia 70. For the offences revealed by the new investigation and provided for by the Government above, D.A.-aia, then Director of the Department of Constitutional Security of the Ministry of lnterior was charged with the abuse of power w ith violence and insult on human dignity of the victim (Article 332 (3) (b) and (c)) and illegal deprivation of liberty of Mr Girgvliani and L.B.-dze, committed by a group conspiracy, w ith the threat and use of vio lence dangerous for or health and in order to facilitate the perpetration of another crime (Article 143 (1) and (2) (a), (c), (g) and (h)) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. 71. For subsequent concealment of the above mentioned crime and mock investigation D.A.-aia has additionally been charged with the crimes of fraud by official as provided under Article 341 and abuse of official power envisaged under Article 332 ( 1) of the C riminal Code of Georgia. 72. D.A.-aia has also been charged with other crimes unrelated to the present case, concerning the excess of official power, illegal deprivation of liberty and inhuman and degrading treatment. 73. Ali the mentioned crime episodes are pending before the court for examination. Criminal case against D.Ch.- dze 15 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 74. A revealed by the investigation, D.Ch.-dze (Deputy Head of the First Unit of the CSD throughout 2 1 November 2005- 20 December 2006 and the Deputy Head of General lnspectorate of the Penitentiary throughout 2 1 December 2006 - 5 January 2009) has been charged for ensuring the four convicts with illegal privileges throughout their imprisonment period. He particularly, illegally contributed that G.A-ia.- illegally leave the prison on two occasions and during the 2008 August war, he ensured that ail four convicts leave the prison. He has accordingly been charged with abuse of official power and exceeding of official power under Article 332 ( 1) and Article 333 ( 1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. 75. Any further development regarding the above proceedings will be communicated by the Government in the frames of the next updates on the execution of the above case. As to the eradication of the violations found at the level of domestic courts 76. As set out in the action plan of 25 November 2012 submitted to the Court a letter was addressed to the President of the Supreme Court, requesting the in formation on the measures intended to be undertaken in order to eliminate the serious violations directly committed by the persons responsible for administration of justice as stated in the judgment of the Court. 77. An official response was received on 19 December 2012. The President of Supreme Court of Georgia informed the Minister of Justice that with a view to el imination of the violations found by the Court in connection with the domestic courts, the High School of Justice had undertaken a special programme, which, amongst others, involved seminars targeted at acting judges on the subject of "Reason ing of the Court Decisions in line with the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights" . At the seminars on reasoning of criminal cases, special attention was given to the findings of the Court in the case of Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia. The said decision was also widely disseminated. 2 2 Annex- Letter of the President of the Supreme Court of Gcorgia dated 19 Dccember 2012. 16 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. As to the eradication of the violations committed by two prosecutors in cha rge of the case 78. As regards the investigators, who, according to the Judgment of the court carried out investigation in a m is leading manner and contributed to deviating the investigation form the right path (see, paragraph 253 of the Judgment), the Govemment wish to note that investigator Mr A. M-dze (since 12 November 20 12) and investigator Mr V. L-aia (since 23 May 2013) no longer serve at the prosecutor's office (see § 14-15 of the action p lan). lll. General Measures Effective participa tion of a victim in criminal proceedings 79. The Court found that Article 69 G) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure as it stood at the material time lead to the one of the most serious omissions as the deceased person's parents could not have any access to the relevant case materials during the investigation stage in order to safeguard their legitimate procedural interests (see para. 250 of the j udgment). 80. Article 57 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 1 October 20 10, reduced procedural guarantees available to the victim under former Article 69 G) even further. For instance, under Article 57 of the Code of Crim inal Procedure in force at the material time the victim was not entitled to be acquainted with the criminai case-file in the course of the investigation, to appeal the prosecutor's ordinance on the termination of investigation/cri minai prosecution, etc. 81. ln order to address these shortcomings, within the framework of the legis lative reform of July 2014, the Ministry of Justice elaborated amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to ensure victim 's involvement and effective participation in the process of investigation. These amendments were adopted by Parliame nt of Georgia on 24 July 2014 and entered into force on 6 August 20 14. 82. Under the new amendments the victim's rights have been substantially strengthened. The following procedural rights have been afforded to a victim: 17 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. • the right to request to be recognized as a victim (Article 56 § 5); • the right to appeal the ordinance on the refusai of the status of a victim(Article 56 § 5); • T he right to appeal the prosecutor's ordinance on the annulme nt of the victim status in the cases concern ing particularly grave crime (Article 56 § 6); • the right to obtain the information about the progress of the investigation and to be introduced with the criminal case materials unless this contradicts the interest of investigation (Article 57 § 1, " h"); • the right to get acquainted with the criminal case materials no later than 10 days before the holding of the pretrial confe rence (Article 57 § 1, "j"); • the right to appeal a prosecutor's ordinance on the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution (Article 106 § 11); • the right to appeal a prosecutor's ordinance on the refusai to initiate criminal proceedings (Article 168 § 2).3 83. Moreover, under the leg islative reform of July 2014 the amendments to para. 3 of Article 56 established the essential rights o f victim as the indispensable element of his/her authority which shall not be questioned by any other State official. Before the aforementioned amendment, there was merely a plain text indicating that when it concerned a c rime whic h resulted in a death of a victim, the rights of the victim were granted and the obligations were imposed on his/her next of kin. However, there was no suggestion that the investigator, prosecutor a nd judge were not entitled to refuse next of kin to enjoy these rights in the context of their discretion. According to the relevant practice the instances of the refusai have been widespread. 84. Currently, the paragraph 3 of Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly lays down that no investigator, prosecutor and j udge shall have the right to refuse the legal successor in respect of the use of the rights granted to a victim when it concerns a c rime resulting in a death of the victim. 3 Anncx - cxtracts from the Code ofCriminal Procedurc as amcnded 24 July 2014. 18 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 85. Furthermore, among others, the legislative reform of July 2014 envisaged the amendments to Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect o f the victim 's right to appeal to the court in the event a prosecutor rejects his/her complaint. 86. ln particular by virtue of Article 106 § 11 Code of Criminal Procedure a victim now has the right to file a hierarchical appeal against the prosecutor's ord inance to a supervising prosecutor conceming the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. ln case the supervising prosecutor does not satisfy the complaint, the v ictim has the right to appeal the decision of the prosecutor to the court.The reform created previously unavailable a two-tier system for appealing against the prosecutor's ordinance concerning the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. 87. T he Code of the Criminai Procedure as amended within the framework of July reform fully addresses the discrepancies identified by the Court in the Judgment and is in full compliance with general principles concerning the rights of the victim in the crim inal proceedings. The placement of the four convicts into the sa me cell 88. ln paragraph 257 of the judgment the Court found disturbing the failure of the a uthorities to ensure that the fo ur convicts are remanded in separate cells as it was clearly prohibited by section 86 § 2 of the Law on lmprisonment at the material time. For justification purposes, the previous Government amended the provision of Article 86 § 2 of the Law on lmprisonment and lifted the restriction on remanding the persans charged in the same criminal case in the same cell (see §§ 126 and 132 of the judgment). 89. The above deficiency was not redressed even with the adoption of the new Prison Code which came into force on 1 October 2010. 90. ln October 2012, the new Government initiated amendments to para. 4 of Article 74 of the Prison Code with a view to address the shortcomings in the Prison Code. The respective draft amendments were presented before the Committee together with the action plan on 25 November 20 12. 9 1. On 19 April 2013 Parliament of Georgia adopted the proposed amendments that e nte red into force on 10 May 2013. 19 DH-DD(2015)113 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 92. Presently, Article 74 (4) of the Prison Code stands as follows: "The persons accused in respect of the same criminal case should be placed separately. The Administration is obliged to Lake measures to exclude any kind of communication between them. By virtue of the decision of the investigator, prosecutor or the court this rule may be extended ta other accused persans as well. " IV. Conclusions 93. The information furn ished to the Court serves as a clear affirmation of the commitment of the Government in place to ensure thorough, independent and overall investigation of the case. 94. The Government assure the Committee of Min isters that the new investigations are implemented in compliance with the standards enshrined in the Convention and further developed by the Court in its case-law, as well as with the requirements set out in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. Independence and impartiality of the investigation groups are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigations are comprehensive to the extent possible. Ali reasonable steps are taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time that elapsed fro m date when the events occurred . The authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary di ligence required for appropriate and prompt establishment of the factual circumstances. The information and evidence obtained is assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner by the investigation. 95. The Government reserve the right to present before the Committee the updated information regarding instant cases in due course 20

1265th meeting – 20-21 September 2016 Item H46-12 Aliev v. Georgia (Application No. 522/04) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments DH-DD(2016)898 Decisions The Deputies 1. noted the action plan provided by the authorities in this case; Individual measures 2. noted that since the applicant is no longer detained and the just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage has been paid, no other individual measure is necessary to remedy the substantive violation of Article 3; 3. noted also that a new investigation has been initiated and that the Georgian authorities have undertaken to provide information in this regard by the end of November 2016; strongly invited the authorities to respect that deadline and to ensure that they make an assessment and inform the Committee of Ministers of what can be still done, what can no longer be done for practical or legal reasons, what means are deployed to overcome existing obstacles and what concrete results are expected to be achieved and within what time-limit; General measures 4. concerning the conditions of detention, recalled their Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)209 adopted in the Ghavtadze group against Georgia on the basis of measures taken after the facts of this case and welcomed the commitment of the Georgian authorities to continue their cooperation with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT); 5. concerning effective investigations, recalled that they are examined in Gharibashvili group of cases. 2 1265e réunion – 20-21 septembre 2016 Point H46-12 Aliev c. Géorgie (Requête n° 522/04) Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne DH-DD(2016)898 Décisions Les Délégués 1. notent le plan d’action fourni par les autorités dans cette affaire ; Mesures individuelles 2. notent que dans la mesure où le requérant n’est plus détenu et que la satisfaction équitable pour dommage moral a été payée, aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire pour remédier à la violation substantielle de l’article 3 ; 3. notent, par ailleurs, qu’une nouvelle enquête a été ouverte et que les autorités géorgiennes se sont engagées à fournir des informations à cet égard d’ici fin novembre 2016 ; invitent vivement les autorités à respecter ce délai et à veiller à évaluer et informer le Comité de ce qui peut être encore fait, de ce qui ne peut plus être fait pour des raisons pratiques ou juridiques, des moyens déployés pour surmonter les obstacles existants, des résultats concrets escomptés et dans quel délai ; Mesures générales 4. concernant les conditions de détention, rappellent leur Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2014)209 adoptée dans le groupe Ghavtadze contre Géorgie sur la base de mesures prises postérieurement aux faits de la présente affaire et saluent l’engagement des autorités géorgiennes à poursuivre leur coopération avec le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) ; 5. concernant les enquêtes effectives, rappellent qu’elles sont examinées dans le groupe d’affaires Gharibashvili.

SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 10/01/2017 DH-DD(2017)22 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1280 meeting (7-9 March 2017) (DH) Item reference: Action plan (02/01/2017) Communication from Georgia concerning the cases of Shamayev and Others and Aliev against Georgia (Applications No. 36378/02, 522/04) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1280 réunion (7-9 mars 2017) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action Communication de la Géorgie concernant les affaires Shamayev et autres et Aliev contre Géorgie (Requêtes n° 36378/02, 522/04) (anglais uniquement) DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. DGI - 2 JAN. 2017 The Government of Georgia Consolidated Action Plan SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Aliev v. Georgia Application no. 522/04, Judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009 Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia Application no. 36378/02, Judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005 1. Summary of cases The case of Aliev v. Georgia concerns inhuman and degrading conditions in which the applicant (Mr Aliev) was detained for a year and four months (06/09/2003 to 06/01 /2005) in Prison No. 5 of Tb ili si (substantive violation of Article 3). ln addition, the case of Aliev concerns the absence of effective investigation into the proportionality of the force used against the applicant by the state agents during a rebellion occurred on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, in the cell populated by 14 prisoners. The Court emphasized that the competent authorities should conduct an investigation without waiting for the applicant's formai complaint in this regard , especially since the medical expertise reports had confirmed the existence of important injuries on the applicant's body (procedural violation of Article 3). The case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia concerns unlawful detention of the thirteen applicants of Chechen origin in Georgia with a view to their extradition to Russia (violation of Arts. 5 and 3); ill-treatment intlicted on the applicants while in detention on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002 in Prison No. 5 of Tbilisi (violation of Art. 3); absence of effective remedy (violation of Art. 13) and violation of the right to individual petition in Georgia (violation of Art. 34). In the first case, the Court granted to Mr Aliev EUR 10.000 for non-pecuniary damage and 84.500 EUR (sum s which should have been paid by Georgia) altogether (non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses) to the applicants in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia. Il. lndividual measures and the payment of just satisfaction a. Details ofjust satisfaction Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary k:lamage l4liev v. Georgia 111°522/04 EUR 10.000 Shamayev and Others v. Georzia and EUR 80.500 Costs and ex penses EUR 4.000 Total 10 000 EUR Paid on: 08/07/2009 84.500 EUR Ail applicants DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. and their representatives have already received the respective sums granted by the Co urt and the informat ion with regard to payment has been subm itted to the Department fo r the Execution of Judgments of the Eu ropean Court of Human Rights Russia n°363 78/02 b. Other individual measures - Aliev v. Georgia Substantive violation of Article 3: The applicant is no longer detained (§ 29 of the judgment). The moral damage caused by the conditions of detention has been covered by the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (paid within the time-limit). - Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia On 06 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Georgia refused the extradition order of 28 November 2002 in respect of Mr Guelogaev . Consequently the applicant was released. - Information on investigative steps carried out into the alleged incident of 3-4 October 2002 With regards to procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the present document provides respective information regarding the fresh investigation launched into the facts occurring on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002 covered in both cases. Initially, it shou ld be underlined that in both cases the E uropean Court held the procedural violation of Article 3 due to total Jack of investigation into the applicants ' al legations of ill -treatment on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002. In order to fully comply with thejudgments of the European Court in the aforesaid cases, on 8 August 2016 the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia Iaunched an investigation by its own initiative in respect of the alleged facts of excess of official powers against the applicants by an official or a person equal thereto, with the use of violence or arms (the crime envisaged by Article 333 , paragraph 3, subparagraph " b" of the Cri minai Code of Georgia), in particular by the members of the Ministry of Justice Special Force Unit during the rebellion which occurred on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, in the cell N88 of Prison No. 5. The main focus of the investigation is to determine the proportionality of the force used against the applicants which had not been assessed by investigative authorities and which resulted in the violation of Article 3 of European Convention . As to the means deployed in order to collect relevant evidence, on 6 September 2016 the investigative authorities requested an information in respect of the criminal cases in itiated 2 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. against Mr Aliev and other accused persans. ln addition to interrogation of prison staff and Special Force Unit members (see below) who had been indicated in the present judgments as well as in the criminal cases initiated against the applicants, the investigative authorities further identified 10 relevant witnesses (prison staff members as well as members of Special Forces) who participated in the above-mentioned incident and who had not been known to the investigative authorities beforehand. Until present, the investigative authorities interrogated five of them, the remaining witnesses will be interrogated in the upcoming weeks. ln addition, the investigative authorities obtained the information from the Penitentiary Department with regard to the identities of the inmates placed in the cell N88 at the material time. The investigation established that Mr Aliev shared the cell with 13 other prisoners of Chechen nationality i.e. with the appl icants in the case of Shamayev amd Others v. Georgia and Russia. As regards the objective obstacles of the investigation, it should be noted that the Prison No. 5 of Tbilisi (where the applicants were detained) was demolished in April 2008 conditioning in particular difficulties in the recovery of the relevant information. Furthermore, it was objectively impossible for investigators to examine the cell (where the alleged facts took place), the damaged materials of the cell etc. Furthermore, the investigative authorities requested the identities and the dates of service of the members of Special Force Unit who participated in the events at issue. The Penitentiary Department responded that they had no information regarding their identities and the dates as well. Moreover, the investigative authorities requested information from the Penitentiary Department in respect of the identities of prisoners who were placed in the adjacent ce lis to the cell N88 for the purposes of their interrogation. However, the relevant authorities responded that there was no such information preserved in the Penitentiary Department. ln order to ensure the interrogation of objective witnesses (inmates) in the present case, the further investigative measures will be carried out for their identification. As noted above as a result of examination of the cri minai cases initiated against the app licants, the investigation identified the majority of persans involved in the events at issue and respectively carried out their interrogation. Jn particular, the investigative authorities identified approximately 25 persans (high-level officiais of the Penitentiary Department, staff members of Prison N5 as well as members of Special Force Unit) who participated in the alleged incident (as noted above 10 persans had been identified within the current investigation). Out of identified 25 persans, 14 persans have been interrogated from the period of 12 October 2016 to 7 December 2016. The witnesses confirmed their participation in the aforesaid events and explained that subsequent to the TV report on "Rustavi 2" (broadcast company) which concerned the extradition of several prisoners of Chechen nationality to the Russian Federation, the prisoners of N88 cell armed themselves with the materials of different types constructed from the cell inventory and with prohibited items as well. The witnesses explained that the prisoners did not comply with the prison personnel ' s repeated lawful demands to hand over the respective items and leave the cell for examination purposes. Subsequently, the prisoners physically resisted the employees of the institution in carrying out their duties. According to the witnesses, as a result of the said developments the normal functioning of the prison was endangered and also there was a real risk that the situation would go out of contrai and that the riot would extend to other prisoners . Bearing in mind the aforesaid circumstances in question , the Director of Prison N5 - J.B. ordered the Special Force Unit members (approximately 15 persans), who were mobilized at the stairs of 3 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. the Institution, to disarm the prisoners and take them outs ide of the cell. Subsequently, only 7-8 members of the Special Force Unit entered the cell and disarmed the prisoners in 10 minutes, they overcame their resistance and took them out of the cell. Consequently, the prisoners and the members of the Special Force Unit sustained light injuries during the operation in the form of apparent bruises on their body. Currently, there is an ongoing process of interrogation of remaining witnesses as well as identification of ail members of the Special Force Unit who participated in the aforementioned events. It should be also underlined that several officiais (o ut of 25) participating in the special operation could not be interrogated since they are already deceased, also some of them have crossed the state border of Georgia. In respect of Mr Aliev, it should be noted that in both cases (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, § 157; Aliev v. Georgia, § 102) it is mentioned that "A ccording to Mr Chikviladze ... the most violent prisoners had been the four individuals whose sealed files the governor had brandished; two other prisoners had attempted unsuccess.fully to calm them down" . The Court noted that in the absence of the proper investigation it is unknown whether Mr Aliev was one of the aforesaid two prisoners who only attempted to cairn others down , if he was armed or not and what was the level of his aggressiveness. ln order to clarify the aforementioned circumstances regarding Mr Aliev, within the new investigation it is planned to question Mr Chikviladze (head of security of prison) in order to clarify the exact circumstances regarding Mr Aliev's involvement in the alleged incident and whether the force used against Mr Aliev was proportional taking into account his own conduct. Asto the interrogation of former prisoners (the applicants) placed in the cell N88 of Prison N5 , the investigation established their nationalities and information regarding their border crossing. According to the official information received from the Ministry of Internai Affairs of Georgia, some of the applicants have not crossed the state border, however pursuant to the information provided by the applicants' relatives (protocols on telephone conversations are presented in the case files) the applicants are not present on the territory of Georgia. ln order to ensure the victim participation , the investigative authorities will continue to identify their current whereabouts. ln particular, it is planned to visit the villages where the applicants ' families reside and to interview them regarding the applicants' current whereabouts. Subsequent to the identification of the whereabouts of the applicants, in case it would be possible, the investigative authorities will employ respective legal mechanisms set forth by the ru les of mutual legal assistance treaties in order to secure active involvement of the applicants in the investigative proceedings . The additional information regarding respective investigative measures as well as information on the fi nal outcome of the investigation will be communicated to the Committee until the end of April 20 17. III. General measures: Aliev v. Georgia a. Substantive violation of Article 3: Concerning the conditions of detention, relevant measures have been examined in the group of five cases Ghavtadze v. Georgia concerning medical treatment in prison. 1 1 Final Resolution CM/ ResDH(2014)209, adopted by the Co mmittee on 12 November 2014 at its l 2 J J1h meetin g 4 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. In particular: - the Prison No. 5 of Tbilisi (where the applicant was detained) was demolished in April 2008 and replaced by a new building, equipped with a modern infrastructure, where the conditions are compliant with international standards; - since 2011, a new remedy to complain about poor conditions of detention has been available (after the entry into force of the new Penitentiary Code - on this point see also the findings of the Court in the judgment Goginashvili v. Georgia (4 7729/08) of 04110/2011, in particular, §§ 55 , 56, 58, 61). Concerning other general measures, please see the recent action plan of 18 July 2016 submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the Government of Georgia in the case of Aliev v. Georgia (522/04) (DH-DD(2016)898). b. Procedural violation of Article 3: general measures regarding effective investigations and eradication of ill-treatment are examined in the Gharibashvili group of cases ( 11830/03). ln particular: - In the context of the execution of this group, the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in July 2014 to en sure the right for a victim to be involved in the investigation procedure. ln particular, following this amendment, the persan who is recognised as a victim by the prosecutor has, in particular, the right to obtain information about the progress of the investigation (unless this would put the interest of the investigation at risk) and to be acquainted with the cri minai case materials. The new law also guarantees the right, in case of refusai or revocation of victim status and the termination of the investigation, to appeal to a superior prosecutor as well as the right, in cases concerning especially grave crimes, to appeal to a domestic court. - The Georgian High School of Justice ("HSoJ") introduced a special training programme for judges and assistants to judges. For more details please see the following documents with respect to Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03) - DHDD(2015) 113, DH DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2016)701. Other important developments in respect of combating ill-treatment On 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia' s first National Human Rights Strategy that set priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020. ln order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). The Action Plan envisages fighting against torture and ill-treatment as one of the objectives. Furthermore, the Government adopted on 13 June 2016 the report on the implementation of Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) which reflects the implementation of the aforesaid Strategy and Action Plan in Practice. Besicles, on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Hu man Rights Action Plan (2016-2017). The Action Plan foresees elimination of torture and ill -treatment as one of its basic goals and sets certain objectives/actions in that regard. On 18 May 2015 the lnter-Agency Council on Combating torture and ill-treatment approved national anti -torture action plan on combating torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment covering various fields. 5 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. The information introduced in the aforementioned submitted action plans clearly demonstrates that the overall situation in the penitentiary institutions reveals positive shift and that the steps taken by the Government are focused on eradication of ill-treatment. Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia a. Violation ofArticle 5 §§ 2 and 4 and Article 13 The alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 in the present case concerned the fact that the applicants had not received sufficient information regarding their detention pending extradition. As the applicants had not been informed that they were being detained pending extradition, and as they had not been given copies of any of the documents in the file , their right to appeal against their detention had been deprived of ail substance. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Court considered that the applicants extradited on 4 October 2002 and their lawyers had not been informed of the extradition orders made against them on 2 October 2002 and that the relevant authorities had unjustifiably hindered their exercise of the right to seek a remedy that should, at least in theory, have been available to them. Therefore, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 with regard to the five extradited applicants in that they had not had any opportunity of submitting to a national authority their complaints under Articles 2 and 3. As the Committee is well aware, in the context of violation of Article 5§§ 2 and 4 as well as Article 13 found by the Court in the present case, on 11 April 2011 the Georgian authorities presented the new Law on "International Cooperation in Criminal Matters" 2 , which had entered into force on 1st October 2010 with the new Code of Cri minai Procedure providing relevant guarantees for eradication of the shortcomings found by the Court in the extradition process. The new Act is in line with the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 and contains the content of several articles of the said Convention. lt should be underlined that Chapter Ill of the Law is dedicated solely to extradition issues . - Law of Georgia on "International Cooperation in Cri minai Matters" The Government provide a brief review of the key Articles of the Law on "International Cooperation in Criminal Matters" and provide an updated information. lnitially, it should be underscored that Chapter Ill of the Law, in particular Article 17 formulates the ru les of extradition of a persan to a third state. The second paragraph of the Article has been incorporated on 24 June 2013. The Article reads as follows : "J. A persan extraditedfrom aforeign state may not be transferred to a third state without the consent of the extraditing state. 2. For the purposes of this article, consent shall be requested by the Ministry of Justice qfGeorgia. " Furthermore, the Article 18 sets forth the crimes which are subject to extradition: "J. Unless otherwise providedfor by an international or individual agreement of Georgia, a persan shall be extradited to a foreign state for such crimes that both under the legislation of Georgia and that of the 2 Available at: http;,- lll<llSTh.: gm.~_J;A'_cl.\JSllllJ...<.:nt 'ic '' 112~94 6 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. foreign state concerned are punishable by at least imprisonment for one year or by a stricter punishment. ln the case of a convicted persan, it is necessary that the persan be sentenced to at least four months of imprisonment. 2. Unless otherwise provided for by an international or individual agreement of Georgia, a persan may also be extradited to aforeign state ifa requestfor extradition concerns several crimes that are punishable both under the legislation of Georgia and that of the foreign state and where some of those crimes do not meet the requirements established under paragraph J of this article with respect to the measure of punishment, but are punis hable by imprisonment or a.fine in the form of a sanction. 3. Paragraph 2 of this article shall also apply in the case of the extradition ofa personfrom aforeign state to Georgia. " In addition Article 25 which concerns the status, amnesty and pardon of a person subject to extradition have been amended on 24 June 2013 and already includes the paragraph regarding the pardon and its influence on extradition issues. In particular the Article is formulated as follows: "J. Extradition may not be conducted if a persan subject to extradition has been granted mylum in Georgia or re.fùgee or humanitarian status in Georgia except where extradition is requested by a third safe state. 2. Extradition may not be conducted if the crime for which a person's extradition is requested is subject to amnesty under the legislation of Georgia and Georgia has jurisdiction with respect Io such crime. 3. Extradition may not be conducted if an act of pardon has been issued with respect Io the crime for which the transfer of the persan is requested." The Government wish to clarify that on 1 February 2017 modified version of the first paragraph will be enacted (broadening the persons of protection) and a new paragraph 4 will be added to the aforesaid Article 25 which stipulates the following: "l. Extradition may not be conducted if a persan subject ta extradition has been granted asylum in Georgia or helshe has an international protection in Georgia except where extradition is requested by a third safe state; 4. The prosecutor in charge of the extradition procedures is obliged to inform the pers on who is subjected to the extradition procedures in a written form and in a language hel she understands, in respect of the procedural rights of access ta the asylum procedure and requesling international protection, which are sel forth by the Georgian Legislation. " Moreover, Article 29 of the Law which frames the additional circumstances excluding 1 extradition was amended as well. Particularly, subparagraph 4 was introduced on 24 June 2013. The subparagraph reads as follows: "i. Extradition may not be conducted if it contradicts the stale sovereignty, safety or essenlial interests of Georgia. " As for the Article 30 which stipulates the application of restriction measures to persons who are subject to extradition to a foreign state, it should be noted that additional paragraphs 5 1 and 5 2 were incorporated on 24 June 2013. The paragraphs are worded as follows: 1 "5 . The relevant competent authority of the foreign state shall be immediately informed through the Ministry of Justice of Georgia of the arrest of a persan subject Io extradition to the foreign state and the application ofprocedural restriction measures. 2 5 . ln the case of the cancellation of extradition detention or of any other restriction measure with respect to an extraditable pers on, the possibility of subjecting that persan ta extradition detention or to any other restriction measure again under a court decision shall not be ruled out. " 7 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Furthermore, Article 33 frames the issues of deferred extradition and temporary surrender. The Article has been amended on 24 June 2013 and the authority of the Minister of Justice to make a decision on deferring extradition of a person to a foreign state (paragraph 3) was incorporated as well. The Article is summarized as follows: "1. lf a persan whose extradition is requested is serving a sentence for any other crime committed in the territory of Georgia, the extradition of that persan may be deferred until such persan has served the sentence or until the persan has been released from serving the sentence. If a pers on who is subject to a request for extradition has been charged for a crime committed in the terri tory of Georgia, the extradition may be deferred unlil the judgment is delivered, or until the persan has served the sentence or until the persan has been released on other legal grounds. 2. The extradition of a persan to aforeign state may be deferredfor humanitarian reasons. 3. A decision on deferring the extradition of a persan to a foreign slate shall be made by the Minis Ier of Justice of Georgia. 4. 1f there is a relevant request, the persan who is subjecl to the request may be lemporarily surrendered to the requesting stale. A request for a temporary surrender shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedure for reviewing extradition requesls. A lemporary surrender may be carried out on the condition that the persan who is subject Io the requesl is returned Io Georgia after the expiration of specified lime limits. 5. The Ministry of Justice of Georgia may, in accordance wilh an international or individual agreement of Georgia, submil a request to the relevantforeign authority for the temporary surrender of a persan." Article 34 (decision on extradition and its appeal) was complemented and the relevant ru les have been laid down in more precise manner. Nowadays, Article 34 embraces the whole chain of respective procedures in order to bridge particular gaps after receiving an extradition request. The Article reads as follows: " J. After receiving an extradition requesl and supporting documents, the Minislry of Justice of Georgia shall check whether th e relevant documentation has been submitted in accordance with the form and procedure determined under an international or individual agreement of Georgia. 2. The Ministry of Justice of Georgia may, where necessary, request additional iriformation and/or documents/rom the compelenl aulhority oftheforeign state concerned. 3. If lhere are circumslances clearly precluding the extradition of a persan Io a foreign state be/ore the completion of addilional procedures specified in this article, the Minisler of Justice of Georgia shall issue an order denying the requestfor extradition. 4. lf a requesl for extradition is consistent with the provisions of an international or individual agreement of Georgia, the Minislry of Justice of Georgia shall immedialely forward the documents provided by the foreign state to the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia. 5. After receiving the extradition materials, the duly authorised prosecutor shall communicale the relevant documents to the extradilable persan and shall inform himl her of his/her rights and dulies under the legislation of Georgia. 6. After receiving the extradition materials, the duly authorised proseculor shall, within a reasonable lime, apply to the relevant district (city) court for a decision on the permissibility «lextradition. 7. The district (city) court shall, not taler lhan 7 days after receiving the documents specified in paragraph 6 of this article, sel a date for a hearing on the permissibility of extradition. 8. After hearing the parties' opinions, the court shall make a decision on the permissibility of extradition. 8 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. 9. An extraditable persan shall enjoy al! the rights under the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, considering the characteristics of the extradition procedures. 1O. If there is a need to request additional information from the relevant foreign authority ta decide on the question of extradition, the relevant court shall apply with a request ta the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. 11. The ruling of a district (city) court on the permissibility of extradition may, within 7 days afier it is delivered, be appealed by the parties by way of a cassation appeal ta the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which shall set the date of the first hearing not later than 5 days afier receiving the appeal. 12. The Ministry of Justice of Georgia shall be notified of the final court decision on the permissibility of extradition within 5 days. 13. if the relevant court finds it impermissible ta extradite a persan ta a foreign state, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall issue an order denying the requestfor extradition. 14. if the court finds it permissible ta extradite a persan ta a foreign state, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall issue an order denying or granting the requestfor extradition. 15. ln exercising the powers under paragraph 14 of this article, the Minister of Justice of Georgia shall talœ into account the decision of the court on the permissibility of extradition, the consistency with Article 29(41) of this Law and the international hum an rights commitments of Georgia. The Minister of Justice of Georgia may also, for humanitarian purposes or in the light of other circumstances, deny a request for extradition. 16. if the relevant requesting foreign state submits an additional request for extradition a.fier a persan has been transported to custody, the relevant decision shall be made by the Minister of Justice of Georgia. " ln addition to the updated information with regard to the Law on "International Cooperation in Criminal Matters" the Government wish to present the information concerning the consolidation of the legal and institutional framework on mutual assistance within the criminal matters. The issue was underlined in the "First Progress Report on the Implementation by Georgia of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalization" (15.11.2013), in particular by the " Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council" 3 . T he said report particularly highlights that: "the Law on international Cooperation in Criminal Matters governing issues of international cooperation entered into force in October 201 O. The law covers international cooperation, including aspects such as mutual legal assistance, extradition, transfer of sentenced persans, tramfer of proceedings and the enforcement of criminal judgments. Georgia is also a party to a number of UN and Council of Europe conventions and bilateral agreements, which provide the legal base for cooperation with other states"4 . b. Violation ofArticle 34 lt should be underlined that violation of Article 34 in the present case concerned the fact that on 4 October 2004 the Court informed the Georgian Government that it had decided to indicate interim measures to ensure that the applicants would not be extradited. However, the Georgian authorities carried out extradition of some of the applicants. 3 4 Available at: http:! mi!!nl!ion cnmrnis\1011.gc lik:o, li1s1 progrc's rcpnrt rdl Ibid, p. 19 9 DH-DD(2017)22 : distributed at the request of Georgia / distribué à la demande de la Géorgie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. In that regard, the Government submit that since 2012 none of the interim measures have been indicated to the Government of Georgia by the Court which should be deemed as a positive development. IV. Publication and dissemination of the judgment Thejudgments were translated and published in the Official Gazette no.72 of21/10/2009 (Aliev v. Georgia) and Official Gazette no. 7 of 4th edition (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia) as well as on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice and of the Supreme Court. The Georgian translations of the judgments were sent to the relevant Governmental bodies. The judgments were also published in the periodical bulletin of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and is intended for the Judges of the Common Court System of Georgia. V. Conclusion The Government hold the view that the aforementioned individual and general measures implemented on the domestic level will contribute to the further prevention of violations similar to those identified by the Court in bath cases and will remedy the consequences of the violations of the Convention. The Government of Georgia will provide the Committee with the additional information regarding the progress of investigation in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention. 10

SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 16/11/2016 DH-DD(2016)1261 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1273 meeting (6-8 December) (DH) Item reference: Updated action plan (15/11/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Idendoba and Others against Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1273 réunion (6-8 décembre) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action mis à jour Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Idendoba et autres contre Géorgie (Requête n° 73235/12) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA No. 73235/12, judgment final on 12/08/2015 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 14 November 2016 I. Case summary 1. This case concerns the failure of the domestic authorities to provide adequate protection to 13 individual applicants, LGBT activists, from the homophobic bias-motivated attacks of private individuals during the demonstration of 17 May 2012 to mark the International Day Against Homophobia. 2. The Court emphasized that the police knew or ought to have known of the risks surrounding the demonstration of 17 May 2012. Nevertheless, only a limited number of police officers had initially been deployed that allowed the tension between demonstrators to develop into physical violence. 3. As regards the investigation, the Government failed to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment (violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14). The Court noted, that in the absence of such a meaningful investigation, it would be difficult for the respondent State to implement measures aimed at improving the policing of similar peaceful demonstrations in the future. 4. This case also concerns the failure of the domestic authorities to ensure that the march was conducted peacefully (violation of Article 11 taken in conjunction with Article 14). II. Individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction 5. The Court held that as a non-pecuniary damage Georgia was to pay between EUR 2,000 and 4,000 to the 13 applicants who had participated in the march and EUR 1,500 to the NGO Identoba. 6. In total, the Government has paid EUR 33,500 to the applicants within the time-limit set by the Court. 7. The information concerning the payment of the above sums to the applicants has been duly submitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR. b) Details of the activities carried out in the course of renewed investigation 8. Before presenting the activities carried out by the Government within the context of renewed investigation in the present case, it should be noted that on 19 May 2012 the investigation was commenced by the 7th Unit of Old Tbilisi Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (MoIA) concerning the hand injuries sustained to the applicant - Mariam Tsutskiridze during the demonstration of 17 May 2012. The criminal case was initiated under Article 124 of Criminal Code of Georgia (Grave or less grave bodily injury through negligence). 9. With a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into the incidents taking place during the demonstration, the investigation was renewed on the basis of the judgment of the European Court in the present case. In particular, on 4 2 July 2016 the prosecutor of Tbilisi Old Tbilisi District Prosecutor’s Office issued a decree according to which legal qualification of the present case has changed under Article 239, paragraph 2, subparagraph “a” of Criminal Code envisaging hooliganism committed by a group with the preliminary agreement. 10. On 7 July 2016 the case has been transferred to the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia for the aim of carrying out an effective investigation. - Independence and impartiality of the investigation 11. According to the European Court’s case-law for an investigation to be effective, the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation must be independent and impartial, in law and in practice. This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection with those implicated in the events but also a practical independence. 12. In order to comply with the aforementioned standard of independence and effectiveness of the investigation, the renewed investigation in the present case has been assigned to the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia which is entirely autonomous body and does not have any institutional or hierarchal linkage to the events in question. Persons responsible for the execution of the investigation are independent in law and in practice. - Circumstances of the case established as a result of the renewed investigation 13. Throughout the criminal proceedings number of investigative activities have been carried out – witnesses have been questioned, documentations and video footages have been examined. The information regarding the investigative steps is based on the evidence obtained in the context of renewed investigation. 14. Within the renewed investigation the following applicants - members of the organisation “C”, were interviewed in July-September 2016 in the capacity of witnesses: Mariam Tsutskiridze, Gvantsa Dzerkorashvili, Beka Buchashvili, Levan Berianidze, Irakli Vatcharadze, Magda Kalandadze, Tamta Melashvili, Elina Glakhashvili, Ketevan Tsagareishvili, Natia Gvianishvili, Guram Demetrashvili, and Tina Bilikhodze. They stated that organization - “Identoba” represents the interests of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people and protects their rights. The march organized by “Identoba” was dedicated to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia which started from the Tbilisi Concert Hall and was planned to proceed to Freedom Square. Whilst the LGBT marchers reached Rustaveli Avenue, adjacent to Georgian National Academy of Science, the counter-demonstrators - the Orthodox Parents’ Union and some members of the church blocked the marcher’s way by a chain which rendered it impossible for the demonstrators to continue their planned route. The counter-demonstrators were also joined by the passers, who were aggressive, which unexpectedly caused some physical confrontation and consequently, physical injuries were inflicted to the applicants - Mariam Tsutskiridze, Levan Berianidze and Guram 3 Demetrashvili. Therefore, the march could not be continued and as a result, the peaceful demonstration had been disrupted. 15. The investigative authorities could not interview the applicants - Mikheil Khalibegashvili and Levan Asatiani since they are not in Georgia. It has been established that the aforesaid applicants have crossed the border of Georgia and therefore, relevant investigative measures in respect of them could not be conducted. The respective protocols were drawn up regarding the aforesaid facts. 16. The following employees of the 7th Unit of Old Tbilisi Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (MoIA) have been interviewed in August-September 2016: T.Ts., G.O., L.J., D.G., U.J., T.M. The witnesses were police officers at the material time who secured public order during the demonstration and who arrested – T.K. and I.M. for the breach of the Code of Administrative Offences due to instigation of fight. The police officers stated that from the moment of physical abuse, they separated the fighters and two individuals who instigated the fight were departed by them from the scene of incident since there was a risk of further escalation of the conflict. Nevertheless, the police officers have returned promptly. Afterwards, they identified the instigators of the fight through the video footages - T. K. and I. M., who were arrested and fined for administrative misconduct by the Court. 17. Apart from the above witnesses, the investigative authorities interviewed in AugustSeptember 2016 the members of the Orthodox Parents’ Union: A.U., I.D., L.T., and A. D. The witnesses stated, that the main objectives of the organisation constitute moral education of future generation, protection of church doctrine and national traditions. For the aim of protection of the aforesaid objectives they organized counter-demonstration, which was joined by the passers. According to the witnesses, physical confrontation was initiated between passer citizens and marchers, in which the members of the Orthodox Parents’ Union did not participate. From the initiation of the fight the police officers intervened in the conflict, separated fighters and two instigators of the fight were departed by the police from the confrontation area. On 21 October 2016, the same testimony was given by another member of the Union – L.Z.. 18. Furthermore, on 7 November 2016 the investigative authorities questioned T.K. who stated that on 17 May 2012 whilst walking at the street (towards Freedom Square), he accidentally witnessed the demonstration of LGBT activists with some flags and posters. According to the witness, the members of Orthodox Parents’ Union had been obstructing the march and consequently, there was some disturbance. He decided to stay and to protest the march. Since T.K. could not endure the impudent and provocative activities of one of the LGBT activists, he had physically abused him, in particular had hit his hand which caused fight between them. The police officers had instantly involved into the quarrel, parted the fighters and departed T.K. from the scene of incident. He had been arrested by the police officers in the same evening and was fined (100 Georgian laris) for administrative misconduct. 19. Apart from interviewing the witnesses, the investigative authorities requested video footages of the demonstration from the national TV stations. The received files were examined and presented to the marchers and counter-demonstrators. The video footages enabled the complete description of the events and identification of the participants. 4 20. Also, the administrative case files in respect of T.K. and I.M. were requested by the investigative body from the Archive of LEPL - Department of Common Courts. 21. The investigative authorities continue further identification of the counterdemonstrators. - Outcome of the investigation 22. As demonstrated above, the individual measures undertaken by the State authorities in terms of execution of the case encompass a number of significant initiatives. 23. New investigation has been implemented in compliance with the principles enshrined in the Convention and further developed by the Court in its case-law, as well as with the requirements set out in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. Independence and impartiality of the investigation group are ensured to the fullest extent. The authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for appropriate and prompt establishment of the factual circumstances. Information and evidence obtained in the course of the investigation is assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner. 24. The Government reserve the right to present before the Committee the updated information regarding the outcome of the investigation approximately in a month. III. General Measures a) National policy for the protection of the right of freedom of assembly and promotion of the rights of sexual minorities 25. First and foremost, it should be noted that since the Court’s judgment in the present case finding specific violations, the Government of Georgia have implemented general measures in order to improve the realization of the right of freedom of peaceful assembly and protection/promotion of the rights of sexual minorities. 26. In particular, on 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020 through an inclusive participation of all State agencies, international and non-governmental organizations. 27. The main goal of the Human Rights Strategy is to consolidate institutional democracy, i.e. the system of functional institutions and thus to ensure that human rights obligations are implemented in everyday life through a multi-sector, unified, and consistent government policies. According to the Strategy, human rights based approach will be gradually integrated into the government policies and programming. It envisages legislative and institutional changes, as well as changes in practice for the State to meet their obligations to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. 28. The Strategy foresees as one of the objectives to ensure a high level protection of the internationally recognized and constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The Strategy aims to meet its objectives, inter alia, by preventing the violations, ensuring appropriate legal 5 responses and carrying out regular trainings for the aim of the enhancement of the professional qualifications of law enforcement agents in that regard. 29. The Human Rights Strategy and its accompanying Action Plans (see below) declare as one of the objectives to establish high standards of tolerance into society, through the prevention and condemnation of all forms of discrimination (inter alia, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity), as well as the consequences resulting from discriminatory actions. The Strategy envisages the obligation to conduct effective investigations into all reported cases of discrimination and ensuring greater participation and integration of minorities in civil society and public administration. 30. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). It should be emphasized that in order to monitor the implementation process of the National Human Rights Action Plans, according to Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, the action plan coordination interagency council is responsible for drawing up progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan not later than March 15 of each year, which shall be submitted to the Government of Georgia and afterwards to the Parliament of Georgia not later than March 31. - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia accompanied by relevant statistics 31. In the light of the aforesaid, on 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) which mirrors the implementation of the 2014-2015 Action Plan in practice. According to the report, during 2014-2015 the Government has taken steps, among others, for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the law enforcement personnel regarding prevention of violations of the freedom of assembly and manifestations (for more details, see below). 32. According to the implementation report, another important step undertaken by the Government was the adoption of the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination on 2 May 2014. The complex process of drafting the law was launched and implemented by the Ministry of Justice. Noteworthy, the draft law was presented to the CoE/ECRI, the OSCE/ODIHR and the UN/OHCHR for the review to incorporate the best international human rights standards. Most of the feedbacks and recommendations of the mentioned actors were reflected in the final text. 33. The anti-discrimination law extends the prohibition of discrimination to both public and private sectors while includes sex and gender identity as protected grounds. It prohibits any form of discrimination, being direct, indirect or multiple on the combination of two or more characteristics as vulnerable groups might be especially susceptible to multiple and concurrent forms of discrimination. Pursuant to the anti-discrimination law, any person considering himself/herself to be a victim of discrimination, may bring a court action against the person/institution which he/she considers to have committed the discrimination and may claim for moral and/or material damages. 34. The law also vests the authority to monitor its implementation with the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia (PDO). In particular, the Public Defender pursues the four directions in 6 order to ensure the implementation of his functions in that regard: examining cases of discrimination; developing legislative proposals; implementing public awareness raising campaigns; maintaining database of discrimination cases and preparing special annual reports. Notably, within the Public Defender’s Office Department of Equality was created in order to execute functions imposed by anti-discrimination law. In order to fulfill extended functions, the budget of Public Defender was increased by 68% in 2015 and by 12.5% in 2016. 35. The introduction of additional mechanism of monitoring and overseeing the implementation of antidiscrimination policy by the PDO together with the court further strengthens the fight against discrimination. 36. According to the information provided by the Office of Public Defender of Georgia, since adoption of anti-discrimination law (May, 2014) up to 11 October 2016, the Public Defender examined 247 cases related to discrimination. Out of the mentioned number the Public Defender initiated examination of 11 cases proprio motu. The total number of applications below might not correspond with the aforesaid figure as while issuing recommendations several cases were consolidated, also several cases were referred to the other departments. 37. In particular, the Public Defender issued 14 recommendations and 4 general proposals in cases related to discrimination. The proceedings were terminated in 74 cases since no facts of discrimination were discovered, 41 applications/claims were deemed inadmissible, 14 case proceedings were suspended, and 9 Amicus curiae briefs were submitted. Currently, 98 cases are pending. 38. Notably, out of aforementioned figures 20 applications were reviewed upon alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation and 8 applications based on gender identity. 1 39. In addition, according to the statistics provided by the Supreme Court of Georgia, since May 2014 until 1 October 2016 total number of 23 civil/administrative claims have been lodged at the common courts system on the basis of the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. Out of 23 applications, 11 cases have been decided on the merits – 1 claim has been decided in favor of the applicant, 2 claims have been partially satisfied and 8 claims have been rejected by the courts. 40. It should be also noted that as a result of the legislative amendments carried out to the Criminal Code of Georgia in March 2012, Article 53 (3 1) envisaged discrimination on the grounds of, among others, sexual orientation and gender identity as a bias motive and an aggravating circumstance in the commission of all criminal offences. According to the aforementioned implementation report, Division of Human Rights Protection of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia developed the recommendation for prosecutors on “Using 31 of Article 53 of Criminal Code of Georgia as aggravating circumstances in practice”. The recommendation also obliges structural units of Prosecutor’s Office to inform Division of Human Rights Protection regarding any case of hate crime. The recommendation was discussed by the experts of the Council of Europe and became accessible on 22 January 2016 within the system of the Prosecutor’s office of Georgia 1 Letter of Office of Public Defender of Georgia, № 13/12159, 11/10/2016 7 41. Following the circulation of the aforementioned recommendation within the system (22 January 2016), one of the grounds of discrimination was discussed in 8 criminal cases under 53 (31) of the Criminal Code (4 criminal cases – on sexual orientation, 1 criminal case - on gender identity, 3 criminal cases - religious intolerance). Notably, out of 8 criminal cases in 6 criminal cases 7 individuals have been found guilty by the courts. 42. It should be also underscored that the aforementioned progress – amendment to Article 53 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, adoption of 2014-2020 National Human Rights Strategy and the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination – has been positively assessed in ECRI report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle) adopted on 8 December 2015 2 and by the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES, Second Opinion on Georgia adopted on 17 June 2015. 3 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) 43. Notably, on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017). The Action Plan foresees the concrete measures in order to tackle the specific issues identified in the present case. In particular, it envisages developing the legislation in accordance with international standards with regard to freedom of assembly and association, effective and timely investigation, preventing violations of the right to assembly and manifestation through better preparation of relevant organs in dealing with mass demonstrations/crowd control, inclusion of the above subject matters into the various training programs of the MoIA Academy. 44. Action Plan also foresees combating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, inter alia, by initiating legislative amendments in law on the elimination of all forms of discrimination and other relevant legislative acts in order to strengthen anti-discrimination mechanisms, developing anti-discrimination policy and its effective implementation, ensuring effective enforcement of existing legislation against hate crimes (including Articles 53.31 and 142 of Criminal Code of Georgia) by effective and timely investigation, establishing practice to envisage possible motive of hate into decisions of a prosecutor on criminal prosecution, systematic trainings for the employees of law enforcement agencies, providing detailed statistics and analysis on hate crimes (regarding time-table for implementation reports, see para 30 above). b) Measures undertaken to eradicate the violations found by the Court 45. For the aim of effective implementation of the above-mentioned national machineries in practice, on 23 December 2014 the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia issued an instruction No. 47 on “Implementing special measures for the aim of prevention of 2 ECRI report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle) adopted on 8 December 2015, published on 1 March 2016, p. 9, available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-V-2016-002-ENG.pdf 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES, Second Opinion on Georgia adopted on 17 June 2015, Strasbourg, 11 January 2016, paras. 21, 22, 53, available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680590fb5 8 discrimination and providing effective responses to the offences committed on such grounds”. 46. The instruction introduces the special directives to the relevant authorities of the MoIA: to conduct prompt and effective investigations into the committed hate crimes, to carry out electronically the disaggregated statistics of such crimes (including the specific ground of discrimination), to form a specialized group on the issues of investigations into hate crimes and take into account the standards and requirements established by the new Anti-discrimination law. 47. Furthermore, following a thorough analysis of international regulations/practice and recommendations of international organizations as well as the ECHR standards, on 30 December 2015 the Minister of Internal Affairs approved order No. 1002 on “Instructions regulating the conduct of police officers during assemblies and manifestations”. In particular, the Order provides for duties and responsibilities of police officers during demonstrations while emphasizing the significance of the protection of human rights. The Order introduces the specific mechanisms of policing demonstrations and crowd control, such as, drawing security action plans of demonstrations by the police officers, carrying out negotiations with the participants to prevent the forthcoming violence, regulating counter-demonstrations and recourse to special measures by the police officers. 48. The aforementioned measures undertaken by the Government will serve as a prevention of similar violations found by the Court in future. · Trainings for Law enforcement personnel 49. The Government has taken steps for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the law enforcement personnel in combatting discrimination. Particularly, the MoIA Academy, which represents the authorized special professional educational institution in charge of training of the personnel of the law enforcement officials has introduced a new course on Anti-discrimination law within its special professional educational programs. The issues of investigation of hate crimes are covered by various programs. In total, 791 officers attended such courses in 2014 and 746 - 2015. 50. Apart from above mentioned, the MoIA Academy delivers special professional educational programs for police inspectors covering, among others, the issues of mass management and crowd control. 246 and 406 police officers had undergone the mentioned course in 2014 and 2015 respectively. 51. Furthermore, the course on “Human Rights and Police” is integrated within various educational programs of the Academy and covers the legal definition of freedom of assembly and manifestations according to domestic/international regulations; the conduct of police officers during demonstrations; recourse to special measures by the police; arrest/detention by the police etc. Such course has been completed by 976 officers in 2014 and 1844 – 2015. 52. Apart from the permanent courses within the curriculum of the Academy, periodic training sessions on the issues of discrimination are organized for the representatives of the MoIA and the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia. In February 2014, special training sessions were delivered by the foreign experts covering the issues of, among others, 9 gender identity and sexual orientation and the prohibition of discrimination in exercising the right of freedom of assembly. During May-October 2015 several training sessions took place covering the issues of discrimination in light of the European Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 53. Notably, in 2015 with the assistance of the European Union (EU), the Ministry of Internal Affairs published a bulletin on the prohibition of discrimination. 54. In 2015 the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (POG) commenced active process of training of its personnel on investigation of hate crimes. With the assistance of the Council of Europe (COE) and the EU, 90 personnel of the POG have been trained within 8 educational programs. The trainings have been delivered by Georgian and foreign experts and encompassed the issues of domestic and international legislation with regard to discrimination, collection of evidence and investigation tactics/strategies into the hate crimes. The trainings also covered the case-law of the ECHR concerning Article 14 of the Convention. 55. In 2016 prosecutors and investigators attended 3-day training sessions covering the standards of investigations into hate crimes and ill-treatment in accordance with the ECHR case-law. The trainings were held for two different groups and were attended by 42 representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office. 56. Moreover, in 2016 in cooperation with the COE 22 prosecutors and investigators will be involved in distance learning course regarding the issues of discrimination. The course will be carried out within the COE Human Rights Education or Legal Professionals (HELP) platform. 57. In 2016, in cooperation with the COE 2 trainings were held for managers of the POG on the elimination of all forms of discrimination. Such course has been completed by 43 participants. 58. Furthermore, in 2016 intensive two months training course covering issues regarding fight against discrimination was undergone by 62 trainees. 59. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia will continue their efforts to enhance the professional qualification of the law enforcement officers in order to strengthen combat against discrimination and hate crimes. c) International Reports · The Human Rights Committee, 19 August 2014 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” 60. The Human Rights Committee in its fourth periodic report of Georgia welcomes aforementioned legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party. The relevant excerpt from the periodic report reads as follows: “The Committee welcomes the following legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party: 10 (a) Adoption of the National Human Rights Strategy for 2014–2020 and of the National Human Rights Action Plan for 2014-2015, in April and June 2014, respectively; (d) The amendments and addition to the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, in July 2011; […]”4 · The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) – Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2015 61. It should be also noted that the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) positively assessed the steps taken by the Government of Georgia in order to improve the protection of the rights of sexual minorities in its 2015 (Annual) Review on the situation of the LGBT community in Georgia. The relevant excerpt read as follows: ”[…] Positively, the parliament adopted a new law against discrimination in all spheres, covering both sexual orientation and gender identity; a court agreed that gay and bisexual men shouldn’t be banned from donating blood; and the ombudsman proved supportive of LGBTI issues. The government and parliament also adopted comprehensive human rights strategies, and Georgia signed international treaties with both the European Union and the Council of Europe. […]”5 Therefore, in 2015 report of ILGA-Europe “Rainbow Europe”, which assess the national legislation and policy on ensuring rights of LGBT persons Georgia ranked 22nd place among 49 European countries. Georgia was upgraded with 9 positions compared with the previous year and the report marked that Georgia is among the top 5 countries with the highest progress. 6 · The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia - “Report on the Situation of the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia 2015” 62. The Government stress that the fact of introducing of the aforementioned national machineries resulted in tangible progress in relation to exercising peacefully the right of freedom of assembly. In particular, on 17 May 2015 on the Day against Homophobia and Transphobia the rally was held peacefully - without any disturbances and interferences. This fact was positively assessed by the Public Defender of Georgia in the special report. The relevant excerpt from the report reads as follows: 4 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 5 The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) – Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2015, p. 77, available at: http://www.ilgaeurope.org/sites/default/files/01_full_annual_review_updated.pdf 6 Rainbow Europe 2015, available at: http://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/2015 11 “The Public Defender of Georgia welcomes the peaceful celebration of the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia on 17 May, 2015. The proxies of the Public Defender of Georgia monitored the development of events in the country throughout the whole day. The monitoring of three demonstrations did not reveal any case of violence, obstruction of demonstrations or violation of human rights.”7 · The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia, 9 June 2016, “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality” „The marking of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia on 17 May 2015 in a peaceful environment was a welcoming fact. It should be stressed that interested persons were able to exercise their constitutional right to assemble and express their solidarity with LGBT representatives and to condemn violence. The action was held in the conditions of extraordinary mobilization of law enforcement bodies and special protection measures.“8 d) Publication and dissemination 63. The European Court’s judgment was translated into Georgian and published in the Legislative Herald and on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court. 64. The Georgian translation of the judgment has been sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutors Office of Georgia for further dissemination among law enforcement officers. IV. Conclusion 65. The Government hold the view that the aforementioned individual and general measures implemented on domestic level will contribute to further prevention of violations similar to those identified by the Court and will remedy the consequences of the violations of the Convention. 66. The Government maintain and strengthen their efforts to combat discrimination/intolerance. The effective implementation of legislation, conducting permanent trainings for the representatives of state organs and carrying out national awareness–raising campaigns will contribute to peaceful exercising of the right of freedom of assembly by everyone. 7 The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia - “Report on the Situation of the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia 2015”, p. 19, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3330.pdf 8 The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia, 9 June, 2016, “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, p. 37, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3722.pdf 12 67. It is noteworthy that similar incidents which were discussed in the present case by the Court has not occurred in 2014, 2015 and 2016 on 17 May marking the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia. 68. The Government of Georgia reserve the right to provide the Committee with additional information on individual/general measures to be adopted by the Government in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention. 13 1273rd meeting – 6-8 December 2016 Item H46-11 Identoba and others v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments DH-DD(2016)1303, DH-DD(2016)1261, DH-DD(2016)631, CRI(2016)2 Decisions The Deputies 1. given the similarities between the cases of Identoba and Others, Gldani Congregation and Begheluri and Others, decided to examine them jointly under the enhanced procedure as of the present meeting; Individual measures 2. noting that a new investigation has been opened in the case of Identoba and Others, invited the authorities to ensure that it is conducted in a prompt and effective manner and to keep the Committee informed of the progress accomplished in this respect; 3. invited the authorities to provide, without further delay, information on the individual measures taken or envisaged concerning the cases of Gldani Congregation and Begheluri and Others; General measures 4. noted with interest the information provided, notably on the legislative and training measures undertaken; 5. at the same time, bearing in mind the conclusions of the latest report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on Georgia and the concerns expressed by NGOs, invited the authorities to provide further information on the practical impact of these measures and on possible additional measures envisaged, notably in the light of ECRI’s recommendations. 1273e réunion – 6-8 décembre 2016 Point H46-11 Identoba et autres c. Géorgie (Requête n° 73235/12) Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne DH-DD(2016)1303, DH-DD(2016)1261, DH-DD(2016)631, CRI(2016)2 Décisions Les Délégués 1. compte tenu des similarités entre les affaires Identoba et autres, Congrégation de Gldani et Begheluri et autres, décident de les examiner conjointement en procédure soutenue à partir de la présente réunion ; Mesures individuelles 2. notant qu'une nouvelle enquête a été ouverte dans l'affaire Identoba et autres, invitent les autorités à veiller à ce que cette enquête soit conduite de manière rapide et effective, et à tenir le Comité informé des progrès réalisés à cet égard ; 3. invitent les autorités à fournir, sans plus tarder, des informations sur les mesures individuelles prises ou envisagées concernant les affaires Congrégation de Gldani et Begheluri et autres ; Mesures générales 4. notent avec intérêt les informations fournies, notamment sur les mesures législatives et de formation adoptées ; 5. dans le même temps, compte tenu des conclusions du dernier rapport de la Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance (ECRI) sur la Géorgie et des préoccupations exprimées par des ONG, invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur l'impact pratique de ces mesures et sur d'éventuelles mesures supplémentaires qu'elles envisagent de prendre, notamment à la lumière des recommandations de l'ECRI.

1273rd meeting – 6-8 December 2016 Item H46-11 Identoba and others v. Georgia (Application No. 73235/12) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments DH-DD(2016)1303, DH-DD(2016)1261, DH-DD(2016)631, CRI(2016)2 Decisions The Deputies 1. given the similarities between the cases of Identoba and Others, Gldani Congregation and Begheluri and Others, decided to examine them jointly under the enhanced procedure as of the present meeting; Individual measures 2. noting that a new investigation has been opened in the case of Identoba and Others, invited the authorities to ensure that it is conducted in a prompt and effective manner and to keep the Committee informed of the progress accomplished in this respect; 3. invited the authorities to provide, without further delay, information on the individual measures taken or envisaged concerning the cases of Gldani Congregation and Begheluri and Others; General measures 4. noted with interest the information provided, notably on the legislative and training measures undertaken; 5. at the same time, bearing in mind the conclusions of the latest report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on Georgia and the concerns expressed by NGOs, invited the authorities to provide further information on the practical impact of these measures and on possible additional measures envisaged, notably in the light of ECRI’s recommendations. 1273e réunion – 6-8 décembre 2016 Point H46-11 Identoba et autres c. Géorgie (Requête n° 73235/12) Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne DH-DD(2016)1303, DH-DD(2016)1261, DH-DD(2016)631, CRI(2016)2 Décisions Les Délégués 1. compte tenu des similarités entre les affaires Identoba et autres, Congrégation de Gldani et Begheluri et autres, décident de les examiner conjointement en procédure soutenue à partir de la présente réunion ; Mesures individuelles 2. notant qu'une nouvelle enquête a été ouverte dans l'affaire Identoba et autres, invitent les autorités à veiller à ce que cette enquête soit conduite de manière rapide et effective, et à tenir le Comité informé des progrès réalisés à cet égard ; 3. invitent les autorités à fournir, sans plus tarder, des informations sur les mesures individuelles prises ou envisagées concernant les affaires Congrégation de Gldani et Begheluri et autres ; Mesures générales 4. notent avec intérêt les informations fournies, notamment sur les mesures législatives et de formation adoptées ; 5. dans le même temps, compte tenu des conclusions du dernier rapport de la Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance (ECRI) sur la Géorgie et des préoccupations exprimées par des ONG, invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur l'impact pratique de ces mesures et sur d'éventuelles mesures supplémentaires qu'elles envisagent de prendre, notamment à la lumière des recommandations de l'ECRI. The Government of Georgia CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL AND GENERAL MEASURES IN RESPECT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE FOLLOWING CASES Identoba Group of cases Begheluri and Others, 28490/02 final on 07.01.2015 97 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses and 4 Others, 71156/01 final on 03.05.2007 I. Summary of cases 1. The cases concern the absence of protection by the state against inhuman and/or degrading treatment inflicted to a number of applicants by a group of extremist Orthodox believers and absence of any effective investigation being carried out in that respect (substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 separately and in conjunction with Article 14). 2. Furthermore the cases concern failure of the Georgian authorities in their duty to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the group of Orthodox extremists would tolerate the existence of the applicants' religious community and enable them to enjoy free exercise of their right to freedom of religion (violation of Article 9 separately and in conjunction with Article 14). 3. In the case of Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses in total the court granted to the applicants 42 123 (EUR). For non-pecuniary damage EUR 27 020 and EUR 15 103 for costs and expenses. 4. In the case of Begheluri the European Court held that Georgia was to pay each of those applicants with regard to whom it had found a violation of the Convention 350 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses. II. Individual measures a. Details of just satisfaction Name and application number Begheluri and Others v. Georgia Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 30 800 EUR 15 000 EUR 45 800 EUR Paid on: 02.04.2015 n°28490/02 Gldani Congregation of 27 020 EUR 15 103 EUR 42 123EUR Jehovah’s witnesses and Others v. Georgia See comment 2 below n°71156/01 5. Comment 1: 3 applicants in the case of Begheluri (their official representatives or legitimate heirs) have not provided their bank details and ID or passport copies until now, therefore the Government could not effect the payment of just satisfaction to them. The Government of Georgia express their readiness to pay the just satisfaction at the time of receiving the remaining applicants’ requisites. 6. Comment 2: As to the case of Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses, until present only part of the amount is paid (40 093 EUR). Despite several written reminders from the authorities addressed to the applicants' representative - Mr Tchabashvili - he was not able to present the full bank details. 7. On 19/10/2011 the Secretariat sent a letter to Mr Tchabashvili asking him to present the missing bank details within two weeks from the date of receipt of the letter. Since the authorities had not received any documents the Secretariat considered that the sum of the just satisfaction had been paid. b. Details of investigation of Begheluri case 8. In the context of fresh investigation, on 26 October 2016 the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched a preliminary criminal proceedings. The Government underline from the outset that the bodies in charge of the criminal cases meet all the requirements established in the European Court’s case-law regarding the independence and impartiality. In particular, the persons responsible for preliminary criminal proceedings are hierarchically and institutionally independent from those involved in the events at issue. 9. The investigative authorities contacted the representative of the applicants at the material time - M.K. who assisted the Prosecutor’s Office to obtain the contact details of the applicants. Subsequently numerous applicants have been interviewed by the investigative bodies. 10. According to the applicant - Mr Enriko Tabaghua (date of interview 27.10.2016) in June or July 2000 (could not recall the exact date) he was in the vicinity of Akhmeteli Theatre in Tbilisi with nearly 50 other members of Gldanula Congregation. They were planning to go on congress, to Marneuli by bus. While they were sitting in the bus the vehicle was surrounded by the group (20-30 persons) of Orthodox believers (parishioners) led by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (hereinafter “Father Basil”). The parishioners damaged the tires of the bus as well as started to insult verbally the members of the congregation and ordered them to leave the bus immediately. Several parishioners even entered the bus and tried to kick out the members of congregation by force. Subsequently the believers made a corridor near the exit of the bus and they were abusing verbally and physically the Jehovah Witnesses who were leaving the bus, moreover they were seizing religious literature from them. The witness recalled that he was physically abused. Due to the aforesaid events, most of the members of Gldanula Congregation could not manage to go to the congress. 2 11. The testimonies with similar contents were delivered by the following witnesses: Mr Vladimer Begheluri (date of interview 31.10.2016); Mr Iuri Janashvili (date of interview 02.11.2016); Mr Giorgi Todua (date of interview 04.11.2016); Ms T. L. (date of interview 04.11.2016). 12. In addition to the statements clarified by Mr Enriko Tabaghua, the aforementioned witnesses explained that the supporters of Father Basil beat them by cudgels and with massive crosses made of wood. Besides Mr Begheluri recalled another incident as well. In particular he stated that in autumn 2000 he and his fellow believer Mr Giorgi Todua headed to participate into the meeting of Jehovah Witnesses. On their way they were approached by 8-10 supporters of “Father Basil” who abused them verbally and physically with cudgels and deprived their religious literature which was destroyed later by orthodox believers. Subsequently they escaped the scene of the incident with the help of passers-by. Furthermore Mr Begheluri recalled third incident which took place during spring 2001, when he participated (together with nearly 7080 Jehovah Witnesses) in a meeting held in Mukhiani. According to the witness, the supporters of “Father Basil” forcibly rushed into the apartment, abused them verbally and physically and then escaped since the neighbours called the police who subsequently arrested several offenders. The witness sustained injuries on his hand as well as his clothes were torn up. The similar testimony was given in respect of first two episodes by the applicant - Mr Giorgi Todua. 13. Furthermore Mr Iuri Janashvili added that he was ill-treated during another incident. In particular he recalled that in 2000 or 2001 (could not recall the exact date) he and his friend Mr Vakhtang Burduli had conversations with passer-by about Jehovah’s teachings. At that moment a group (approximately 15 persons) of orthodox believers approached him and seized his literature and verbally abused him. The similar statement was given regarding the same episode by Mr Vakhtang Burduli (date of interview 02.11.2016). 14. Mr Vladimer Manikyan (date of interview 27.10.2016) who is another alleged victim of the incidents on religious grounds stated that on 3 August 2000 he was walking in the street of Gldani with another applicant – Sergo Barsegyani when three vehicles belonged to “Father Basil” stopped nearby. Afterwards nearly 20 persons got out of the cars and when they realized that applicants were Jehovah’s Witnesses, the supporters started their verbal and physical abuse and seized the religious literature as well. The incident lasted before one of the passer-by shot in the air for warning purposes. He called for the abusers to observe the order and helped the witness and his friend to stop passing car in order to reach the hospital. As the witness learned later he was a policeman. Later the witness and his friend gave statement to the police about the incident in question. The witness recalled another incident as well. He explained that in September 2000 he was in Marneuli in the house of Mr Ramaz Tsartsidze. The purpose of meeting was to hold the congress of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soon the supporters of “Father Basil” besieged the house. They could not manage to enter the house since the gate was locked. Nevertheless they started verbal abuse from the outside. Subsequently the police officers managed to take Jehovah’s Witnesses (including the witness) by their vehicles so as to avoid the escalation of the situation. Throughout the incident the witness did not sustain any kind of injuries. 15. Mr Lasha Nozadze (date of interview 31.10.2016) stated that in the middle of August 2000 the Court Session was appointed at Gldani-Nadzaladevi Regional Court in respect of the incident of ill-treatment of the members of Gldanula Congregation which as stated above had occurred in the vicinity of Akhmeteli Theatre. The witness and other Jehovah’s Witnesses (40-50 persons) appeared before the court in order to attend the session. Close to the court building they noticed “Father Basil” together with 100-120 parishioners holding large cudgels and wooden crosses. Once parishioners saw the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they verbally abused them 3 and started throwing stones towards their direction. Subsequently “Father Basil“ and his supporters entered the court building where they committed another act of physical and verbal abuse against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr Nozadze and other Jehovah’s Witnesses escaped the scene of the incident. 16. The similar testimony was given in respect of the episode concerning the Court Session by Mr Gocha Poladashvili (date of interview 09.11.2016). The witness noted that during that episode about 10 Jehovah’s Witnesses sustained injuries of various gravity. In addition the witness recalled another episode regarding the gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the house of their fellow believer throughout which they were assaulted by the parishioners of “Father Basil”. Similar to the previous episodes, during the last incident the witness and other Jehovah’s Witnesses sustained injuries of various gravity. 17. The applicant Mr Elguja Kakhelishvili (date of interview 04.11.2016) during his interview stated that in September 2001 he was travelling to Marneuli by his own vehicle where Jehovah’s Witnesses congress had to be held. In the vehicle there were his wife, his son and fellow believer (Ms M. Kh.). The road was blocked by “Father Basil” and his supporters (about 200 persons) to hinder the movement of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Subsequently the supporters of “Father Basil” besieged the vehicle of the witness and took him and other passengers out of the car by force and abused them verbally and physically. Ms M. Kh. was even wounded in the area of leg by so called “spoke of the wheel”. Assaulters left the witness and his companions only after the bus of Jehovah’s Witnesses (50-60 witnesses) approached the scene of the incident. Throughout this episode the witness and other persons sustained injuries of different gravity and the vehicle of the witness was damaged as well. The witness recalled another incident as well which occurred in the summer of 2000 at the Court Session of Gldani-Nadzaladevi Regional Court. During the session “Father Basil” and Orthodox believers verbally abused the Jehovah’s Witnesses and as a consequence of the turmoil the session was adjourned. 18. Mr Sograt Kintsurashvili (date of interview 10.11.2016) during his interview clarified that in September 2000 he was in the village of Zugdidi region, where they were planning to hold the religious congress in the yard of the house of one of the fellow believers. The special platform (stage) was prepared for the abovementioned congress. On 7 September, the interviewee was awaken as a result of the screaming of the housewife. Once he went outside he learnt that there had been two persons who had tried to burn the stage by using the gasoline and they even had thrown a grenade which subsequently did not explode and the persons left the crime scene. Afterwards the police arrived and warned the Jehovah’s Witnesses not to touch the grenade. According to them the sappers would arrive soon in order to take the grenade though. The witness stated that eventually nobody came there and even during the congress the grenade was laid under the stage. Next day there were several explosions which took place nearby the village Rukhi and the splinters of the shell fell in the yard of the neighbor. Despite the aforementioned the congress of Jehovah’s Witnesses with 500 members started at 10 o’clock. The congress should have been attended by 2000 Jehovah’s Witnesses but as the witness stated the roads were blocked by the police. At about 11 o’clock the head of the Zugdidi Police (the witness could not recall the name or surname) together with another person (as the witness recalled another person was the head of the Samegrelo Regional Police Division) visited the congress. They requested the Jehovah’s Witnesses to break up. The policemen explained that the village Rukhi was situated nearby the so called “occupation line” and that the commander of Russian Peacekeepers demanded to cease the large-scale meeting nearby the conflict zone. The Jehovah’s Witnesses expressed their consent and requested the provision of busses to leave the place. Subsequent to the dispersal of the congress the special force unit rushed into the yard, 4 burned the stage, damaged the equipment and seized numerous items from the house. According to Mr Kintsurashvili the assaults on the Jehovah’s witnesses were organized by the superior of the Khobi Church. The interviewee recalled another episode as well. According to him in 2000 or 2001 he was in Sachkhere in the house of fellow believer Mr A. I. where the religious event was carried out. The duration of event was 10 days and on second or third day 4 or 5 Jehovah’s Witnesses who were nearby the house were ill-treated by clerics and other civilians as well. Another day the clerics and other civilians led by Mr A. T. rushed into the house of Mr A.I. and ill-treated him and his family members as well as other Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the witness they damaged the equipment and household appliances and destroyed the religious literature. As for the witness he escaped from the crime scene without any serious harm. 19. According to the investigative authorities numerous other witnesses (the applicants) – Ms Lamara Gelashvili (date of interview 04.11.2016, according to the judgment involved in criminal case no. 20), Ms Tea Lukava (maiden name: Kolbaia, date of interview 04.11.2016, case no. 20), Mr Nugzar Butkhuzi (date of interview 09.11.2016, case no. 13), Mr Guram Markozashvili (date of interview 09.11.2016, case no. 9), Mr Valerian Dolidze (date of interview 10.11.2016, case no. 7), Mr Manana Bekauri (date of interview 10.11.2016, case no. 11), Akaki Toradze (date of interview 10.11.2016, case no. 11), Mr Samvel Bozoyani (date of interview 10.11.2016, case no. 2), Mr Levan Sabashvili (date of interview 10.11.2016, case no. 1), Mr Vakhtang Gabunia (date of interview 11.11.2016, case no. 2), Ms Gogona Gogia (date of interview 11.11.2016, case no. 8), Mr David Samkharadze (date of interview 14.11.2016, case no. 1) - who were interviewed noted various instances of persecution on religious grounds, inter alia: physical and verbal abuse, intimidation, home invasion, damage of property, destruction of religious literature, destruction of household appliances, etc. 20. Apart from interviewing the applicants, relevant information was requested and analysed from the territorial bodies of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. In particular, regarding investigation of the incident of 17 August 2000 taking place at Gldani-Nadzaladevi Regional Court (case no. 4), incident of 15 August 2001 related to the applicant Mr Z. Kvaratskhelia (case no. 18), Lanchkhuti incident of 19 April 2000 related to the applicant Mr Valeri Dolidze (case no. 7). c. Details of investigation of Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses case 21. In the context of fresh investigation in respect of Gldani Congregation case, on 30 November 2016 the Investigation Unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched a preliminary criminal proceedings. In particular as in the previous case, the investigative authorities contacted the representative of the applicants at the material time - M.K. who assisted the Prosecutor’s Office to obtain the contact information of the applicants. Subsequently number of applicants have been interviewed. 22. According to the Ms Phatman Tabagari (date of interview 30.11.2016) on 17 October 1999 she participated in the meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Gldani-South with her sons which took place in Tbilisi - in the old building of Akhmeteli Theatre. Soon the male members of the meeting locked the door and tried to evacuate the women and children from another exit. When the members of the meeting went down on the ground floor they saw crowd led by “Father Basil”, armed with massive crosses and cudgels. Once they saw Jehovah’s Witnesses the supporters of “Father Basil” started their physical and verbal abuse. The witness saw that a man was standing in the exit of the building and did not let anyone to leave the building except the children. At that moment the witness saw how four supporters of “Father Basil” were beating a Jehovah’s Witness. She approached them and begged to stop his beating. Once the abuser 5 realized that she had magazine of Jehovah’s Witnesses in her handbag he punched her in the face. As a result of the punch she began to bleed from her nose and lost her consciousness for a while. Once she regained her consciousness she saw that the supporters of “Father Basil” were still abusing her physically by pulling her hair and beating her. Subsequently her fellow believers took her to the hospital where she underwent medical treatment during 10 days. 23. On 30 November 2016 Ms Nora Lelashvili during her interview gave similar testimony about the events at issue as Ms Tabagari and added that she attended the meeting together with her daughter – Ms Nino Lelashvili. She explained that during the evacuation she saw how the supporters of “Father Basil” were physically abusing her daughter. She tried to help her daughter but at that moment she was hit in head by massive iron cross and lost her consciousness. Once she regained her consciousness she found herself in the guard’s room (located inside the building) with other fellow believers. According to the witness when they left the building the supporters of “Father Basil” seized their religious literature, burnt the books and destroyed the inventory of the meeting room. Subsequently Ms Lelashvili was taken by fellow believers. 24. Throughout the interview on 30 November 2016 similar statement has been given about the incident by another Jehovah’s Witness - Mr Mirian Arabidze. The witness added that he saw from the window of the building that approximately 300 orthodox believers led by “Father Basil” approached the building while holding flags and massive crosses. The witness warned fellow believers about the mentioned fact. Mr Arabidze confirmed that during the evacuation he was ill-treated by two persons: Mr M. N. and his son Mr Z. N.. In addition he saw how the Jehovah’s Witnesses were physically and verbally abused by the supporters of “Father Basil”. The witness also confirmed that during dispersal his fellow believer Mr Aleko Khitarishvili was forcibly captured by 6 supporters of “Father Basil” and his head was forcibly shaved by them. Mr Mirian Arabidze stated that the religious literature was seized from his fellow believers and burnt while the Jehovah’s Witnesses were forcibly made to watch this process. Consequently the witness stated that he was taken to the police station where he was visited by the supporters of “Father Basil” and verbally abused by them over again. Moreover he was verbally abused by the police officers and then finally released. 25. On 30 November 2016 throughout the interview Ms Phikria Tsarielashvili clarified that she participated in the meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses together with her daughter and son (5 and 6 years old children at the material time). The witness gave similar statements and described the events of the day of incident similar to the other witnesses. In addition she clarified that she saw how the supporters of “Father Basil” ill-treated the Jehovah’s Witnesses who tried to leave the building. The witness explained that she was allowed to leave the building together with her children. According to the witness, later she applied to the law enforcement organs but could not remember exactly to which organ she applied and whether any kind of reaction was followed. 26. Ms Lia Sidamonidze who is another witness of the events occurred at the material time was interviewed on 30 November 2016 as well. She gave similar statement as other witnesses about the incident at issue. Ms Sidamonidze further explained that there were approximately 100-120 Jehovah’s Witnesses gathered for the meeting. The witness confirmed that she was not illtreated and that she was allowed to leave the building with her two children whom she helped to escape the scene of the incident. She verified that supporters of “Father Basil” physically and verbally abused her fellow believers by means of massive crosses and cudgels. Ms Sidamonidze recalled that in relation to this incident she wrote statement which was taken by one of the 6 Jehovah’s Witnesses (could not remember the exact name), she is not aware what kind of reaction was followed to her statement. 27. Furthermore similar statements were given during the interviews conducted by the investigative authorities from 1 December 2016 to 7 December 2016 in respect of the incidents in question by the following witnesses: Ms Nato Phirtskheliani (date of interview 01.12.2016); Ms Elene Janashia (former surname – Mamukadze, date of interview 02.12.2016); Mr Vladimer Kokosadze (date of interview 05.12.2016); Mr Giorgi Mosulishvili (date of interview 05.12.2016); Mr Zakro Kochishvili (date of interview 06.12.2016); Ms Khatuna Kerdzevadze (date of interview 06.12.2016) and Ms Natia Milashvili (date of interview 07.12.2016). All the above-mentioned witnesses were participating in the meeting at the material time and confirmed the violent facts of ill-treatment by the orthodox believers led by “Father Basil” as a consequence of which a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses were hospitalized and respective medical services were rendered. According to the witnesses despite their efforts to seek help of the law enforcement bodies and to bring their attention to the factual circumstances occurred on the day of the incident the reaction had not followed at all. 28. The outcomes of the aforesaid preliminary criminal proceedings will be communicated to the Committee until the end of May. III. General Measures a. National policy to combat discrimination and intolerance 29. First and foremost, it should be noted that since the Court’s judgments in the present cases finding specific violations, the Government of Georgia have implemented general measures in order to improve the realization of the freedom of religion and protection/promotion of the rights of religious minorities. 30. In particular, on 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020 through an inclusive participation of all State agencies, international and non-governmental organizations. 31. The main goal of the Human Rights Strategy is to consolidate institutional democracy, i.e. the system of functional institutions and thus to ensure that human rights obligations are implemented in everyday life through a multi-sector, unified, and consistent government policies. According to the Strategy, human rights based approach will be gradually integrated into the government policies and programming. It envisages legislative and institutional changes, as well as changes in practice for the State to meet their obligations to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. 32. The Strategy foresees as one of the objectives to ensure a high level protection of the internationally recognized and constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and belief, equal rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Strategy aims to meet its objectives, by implementing effective measures to prevent discrimination on religious ground, as well as the consequences resulting from such discriminatory actions, ensuring the unrestricted operation of the activities of all religious associations, implementing relevant measures to prevent and conduct effective investigations into crimes motivated by religious intolerance. Also, among others, it aims to prohibit all forms of discrimination, whether in the public or private sphere, to ensure immediate and appropriate response to reports of discrimination – thus helping to avoid the consequences that would result from such 7 discriminatory actions, to provide adequate remedies/redress to victims of discrimination and to conduct awareness-raising campaigns relating to equality and tolerance issues. 1 33. As for the violation of Article 3 of the Convention found by the Court it should be noted that one of the main objectives of the Strategy is the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, the effective investigations into any reported cases of such treatment, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of victims.2 34. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) followed by its implementation report. On 21 July 2016 the Government approved new Human Rights Action Plan for 20162017. - Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia 35. The Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) aimed to foster religious tolerance and the prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds, inter alia, by establishing legislative guarantees against the discrimination of religious groups, preventing and effectively investigating crimes motivated by religious hatred/intolerance, reinforcing the principle of secularism in civil service, promoting religious equality through the education system and raising public awareness and level of tolerance.3 36. Moreover, with regard to fight against torture and ill-treatment, the Human Rights Action Plan, inter alia, envisaged conducting continued training of civil servants and development of their capabilities to prevent, redress and investigate cases of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as the protection of the interests of victims. It also envisages to conduct the full-scale, impartial, timely and meaningful investigations on reports of torture and other forms of illtreatment, the commencement of a criminal prosecution of offenders and the fight against impunity.4 37. It should be emphasized that in order to monitor the implementation process of the National Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), according to Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, the coordination interagency council is responsible for drawing up progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan not later than March 15 of each year, which shall be submitted to the Government of Georgia and afterwards to the Parliament of Georgia not later than March 31. 5 1 National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020, 30 April 2014, pp. 17, 18, available at: http://gov.ge/files/429_51454_924779_STRATEGYENG.pdf 2 Ibid, p. 13 3 Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia , 9 July 2014, pp. 34-38, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/NAP/Georgia-National-Action-Plan-on-Human-Rights.pdf 4 Ibid, pp. 20-24 5 The resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2391005 8 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia accompanied by relevant statistics 38. In the light of the aforesaid, on 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) which mirrors the implementation of the 2014-2015 Action Plan in practice. 6 39. As noted above, in its judgments the Court found violations of Articles 3 and 9 taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The Government stress that one of the main aspirations of the new national human rights policy is to combat discrimination in the country. 40. Firstly, the Government wish to emphasize that in order to tackle the problem of intolerance and discrimination and to respond to the recommendations of the international organizations, on 27 March 2012 an amendment to Article 53 of the Criminal Code of Georgia was introduced. According to the amendment, discrimination on the grounds of religion was recognized as a bias motive and an aggravating circumstance in the commission of all criminal offences envisaged by the Criminal Code. Pursuant to the aforementioned implementation report, Division of Human Rights Protection of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia developed the recommendation for prosecutors on “Using 3 1 paragraph of Article 53 of Criminal Code of Georgia as aggravating circumstances in practice”. The recommendation also obliges structural units of Prosecutor’s Office to inform Division of Human Rights Protection regarding any case of hate crime. The recommendation was discussed by the experts of the Council of Europe and became accessible on 22 January 2016 within the system of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. 41. Following the circulation of the aforementioned recommendation within the system (22 January 2016), one of the grounds of discrimination was discussed in 8 criminal cases under Article 53 (31) of the Criminal Code (3 criminal cases – on religious intolerance, 4 criminal cases – on sexual orientation, 1 criminal case - on gender identity). Notably, out of 8 criminal cases in 6 criminal cases 7 individuals have been found guilty by the courts. 42. In order to establish the legislative safeguards against the discrimination of religious groups, according to the implementation report, another important step undertaken by the Government was the adoption of the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination on 2 May 2014. The complex process of drafting the law was launched and implemented by the Ministry of Justice. Noteworthy, the draft law was presented to the CoE/ECRI, the OSCE/ODIHR and the UN/OHCHR for the review to incorporate the best international human rights standards. Most of the feedbacks and recommendations of the mentioned actors were reflected in the final text. 43. The anti-discrimination law extends the prohibition of discrimination to both public and private sectors. It prohibits any form of discrimination, being direct, indirect or multiple on the combination of two or more characteristics as vulnerable groups might be especially susceptible to multiple and concurrent forms of discrimination. Pursuant to the anti-discrimination law, any person considering himself/herself to be a victim of discrimination, may bring a court action against the person/institution which he/she considers to have committed the discrimination and may claim for moral and/or material damages. 44. The law also vests the authority to monitor its implementation with the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia (hereafter PDO). In particular, the Public Defender pursues the four directions in order to ensure the implementation of his functions in that regard: examining cases of 6 Report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), 13 June 2016, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 9 discrimination; developing legislative proposals; implementing public awareness raising campaigns; maintaining database of discrimination cases and preparing special annual reports. Notably, within the Public Defender’s Office, Department of Equality was created in order to execute functions imposed by anti-discrimination law. In order to fulfill extended functions, the budget of Public Defender was increased by 68% in 2015 and by 12.5% in 2016. 45. The introduction of additional mechanism of monitoring and overseeing the implementation of antidiscrimination policy by the PDO together with the court further strengthens the fight against discrimination. 46. According to the information provided by the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia, since adoption of anti-discrimination law (May 2014) up to October 2016 the Public Defender examined 247 cases related to discrimination. Out of the mentioned number the Public Defender initiated examination of 11 cases proprio motu. The total number of applications below might not correspond with the aforesaid figure as while issuing recommendations several cases were consolidated, also several cases were referred to the other departments. 47. In particular, the Public Defender issued 14 recommendations and 4 general proposals in cases related to discrimination. The proceedings were terminated in 74 cases since no facts of discrimination were discovered, 41 applications/claims were declared inadmissible, 14 case proceedings were suspended, and 9 Amicus Curiae briefs were submitted. 48. In addition, according to the statistics provided by the Supreme Court of Georgia, since May 2014 until October 2016 total number of 23 civil/administrative claims have been lodged at the common courts system on the basis of the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. Out of 23 applications, 11 cases have been decided on the merits – 1 claim has been decided in favour of the applicant, 2 claims have been partially satisfied and 8 claims have been rejected by the courts. Out of the cases which have been decided on the merits 2 cases concerned the discrimination committed on the ground of religious intolerance. 49. Furthermore throughout the period in question 9 criminal cases in respect of 11 individuals have been decided on the merits by the national courts on the grounds of religious intolerance (under Articles 155 - unlawful interference with the performance of divine service and 156 persecution of Criminal Code of Georgia). Please find enclosed illustrative examples of the relevant copies of the judgments rendered by the domestic courts. 7 50. For the purpose of the effectiveness of the above-mentioned national machineries in practice, on 23 December 2014 the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia issued an instruction No. 47 on “Implementing Special Measures for the Aim of Prevention of Discrimination and Providing Effective Responses to the Offences Committed on Such Grounds”. 51. The instruction introduces the special directives to the relevant authorities of the MoIA: to conduct prompt and effective investigations into the committed hate crimes, carry out electronically the detailed statistics of such crimes (including the specific ground of discrimination), form a specialized group on the issues of investigations into hate crimes and take into account the standards and requirements established by the new Anti-discrimination law. 52. As for the effective investigation of crimes motivated by religious hatred/intolerance, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and its territorial units provide procedural supervision over the investigation of the acts of religious intolerance and if needed, deliver instructions to the 7 Annex 1, judgment of the Senaki District Court dated 11.05.2016, judgment of the Tbilisi City Court dated 18.08.2016, judgment of the Tbilisi City Court dated 25.05.2016 10 investigative authorities in order to identify an offender, commence a criminal prosecution and render a justice. 53. In this regard the Government wish to inform the Committee that in 2013-2016 85 criminal cases have been initiated on the grounds of religion intolerance. Among them 26 cases in 2013; 19 cases in 2014; 22 cases in 2015 and 18 cases in 2016 (the statistics cover the data until October 2016). The Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia on the basis of which the criminal cases were initiated are the following: 3 cases under Article 151 (threat); 12 cases under Article 155 (unlawful interference with the performance of divine service); 33 cases under Article 156 (persecution); 23 cases under Article 187 (damage or destruction of property); 1 case under Article 188 (negligent damage or destruction of property); 1 case under Article 258 (disrespect to the deceased); 11 case under Article 125 (battery); 1 case under Article 177 (theft). 54. It should be underscored that the progress mentioned in the updated action plan – amendment to Article 53 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, adoption of 2014-2020 National Human Rights Strategy/Human Rights Action Plans and the Law on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination – has been positively assessed by the Human Rights Committee - “Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” dated 19 August 2014, 8 in ECRI report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle) adopted on 8 December 2015,9 by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Second Opinion on Georgia adopted on 17 June 201510 and by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - “Concluding observations on the sixth to eighth periodic reports of Georgia” dated 13 May 2016. 11 55. Furthermore, it should be underscored that apart from the general positive outlines, the ECRI draws its attention to the relevant civil and administrative legislative framework, namely to the provisions which have been drawn in the context of fighting intolerance. In particular the report articulates that: Article 56.3 of the Law on Broadcasting prohibits the transmission of programmes that contain material that incites hatred, discrimination, or are offensive to a person or a group on the basis of, inter alia, ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation. Programmes that are intended to illustrate and document problems of existing hatred or discrimination are exempt. Moreover, the Regulations on Service Provision and Customers’ Rights Protection in the Sphere of Electronic Communications oblige Internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect a user who disseminates hatred or incites particularly grave forms of violence. ISPs shall regularly check registered websites and, if necessary, inform website administrators to remove content, or otherwise block it. The national regulator, the Georgian National Communications Commission, can fine ISPs who do not shut down such sites. 12 8 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 9 ECRI report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle) adopted on 8 December 2015, published on 1 March 2016, p. 9, available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-V-2016-002-ENG.pdf 10 the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Second Opinion on Georgia adopted on 17 June 2015, Strasbourg, 11 January 2016, paras. 21, 22, 53, available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680590fb5 11 “Concluding observations on the sixth to eighth periodic reports of Georgia” adopted by Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination at its eighty-ninth session (25 April – 13 May 2016), (CERD/C/GEO/CO/6-8), Distr.: General 13 May 2016, para. 4, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f68&Lang=en 12 ECRI report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle) adopted on 8 December 2015, published on 1 March 2016, p. 13, available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Georgia/GEO-CbC-V-2016-002-ENG.pdf 11 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) of the Government of Georgia 56. It should be underscored that, on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017). The Action Plan foresees the concrete measures in order to tackle the specific issues identified in the present case. In particular, it envisages assessment of religious neutrality in public service, establishment of religious tolerance and non-discriminatory environment, including the prevention of crimes instigated by religious intolerance and investigation of religious hate crimes in an effective manner, protection of individual and collective rights guaranteed by the freedom of religion and belief, implementation of principles of secularism and religious equality within the education system. 13 57. As for the coordinating and monitoring of the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017), the Human Rights Secretariat with the expertise from partner organizations elaborated the decree on the establishment of Inter-Agency Council on Human Rights and its regulation which was approved by the Government on 13 December 2016. The Council’s objectives represent developing and implementing a uniform State policy of the Government in the area of human rights protection; Developing, discussing and submitting to the Government an action plan for the protection of human rights; Coordinating and monitoring the implementation of the action plan through relevant thematic working groups. 14 The progress report on implementation of Action Plan (2016-2017) will be presented according to the timeframe introduced in paragraph 37. b. Other Measures undertaken to eradicate the violations found by the Court 58. It should be underlined that the Tolerance Centre under the Office of the Public Defender has been functioning and actively working on development of the culture of tolerance and equal environment in Georgia since 2005. The Centre makes an important contribution to the protection of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. In this regard, it promotes conditions for a multilateral dialogue between the majority and minority groups, carries out educational activities, detects cases of religious and ethnic discrimination and xenophobia, and studies the existing trends and systemic problems in this field. 59. One of the main activities of the Centre is to coordinate the Public Defender's Councils of Religions and Ethnic Minorities, which represent a platform where religious and ethnic minorities have the opportunity to discuss and work on important issues. The Council of Ethnic Minorities currently unites about 100 organizations working on minority issues, while the Council of Religions combines more than 30 religious associations. Today the Councils represent the biggest minority consultative forums. 60. The Tolerance Centre constantly reports on its and the Councils’ activities, as well as on minority issues, on its website.15 61. It should be noted that on 19 February 2014 by the resolution №177 of the the Government of Georgia State Agency for Religious Issues was established. 16 The Agency, by its authority, represents a competent institution, which implements informational, research, scientific- 13 Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) of the Government of Georgia, para. 11, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350412 14 Regulation №551 approved by the Government Of Georgia on December 13th, 2016, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3465313 15 Available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/specializirebuli-centrebi/tolerantobis-centri 16 the resolution №177 of the the Government of Georgia dated 19 February 2014, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2253315 12 educational and recommendatory activities for the Prime Minister and the Government of Georgia. 62. In particular, according to the annual report of 2015 of the State Agency for Religious Issues, during the reporting period, several meetings were organized between the State Agency for Religious Issues and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The parties discussed several religious issues facing the Jehovah's Witnesses and a working format was planned. 63. In the reporting period, for proper implementation of its activities, the State Agency for Religious Issues formed and developed cooperation with various institutions. 64. In 2015 under the decision of the Agency, an open format for the dialogue was established - the Inter-religious Council, which brings together all religious communities, based on their will and interest. It is important that the Council is not a structural unit of the State Agency for Religious issues and it has no administrative linkage to the agency. Within the format of the Council the issues proposed by religious communities, as well as the issues initiated by the Agency are discussed. 65. It should be emphasized that the Interreligious Council, organized by the State Agency for Religious Issues, differs with its format from all projects of the same type, acting in parallel. In particular, Council combines religious minorities, as well as the religious communities belonging to majority religions and considers all their needs by its own essence. 66. It should be noted that in 2015 following the analysis of International human rights instruments the State Agency for Religious Issues presented a series of publications – Law and Religion. Within the scope of the mentioned series of publications two books were published: “Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the freedom of religion” and “the documents of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Venice Commission and the Oslo Coalition regarding the freedom of religion”.17 67. As noted above, one of the main objectives of the Strategy and its accompanying action plans is to conduct awareness-raising campaigns relating to tolerance and other relevant issues. According to the implementation report, informational campaigns of awareness-raising are conducted regularly. In particular, in 2014-2015 within the “Subprogram for School Competitions” the students of the General Education Institutions participated in relevant competitions. 68. Moreover, in 2014 long-term training course was conducted for the representatives of the educational system of Georgia. The mentioned course covered the main directions of civil education, including teaching of human rights. In total, in 2014 the training was undergone by 726 teachers and in 2015 - 198 teachers attended several modules of the course. 69. As for the promotion of religious equality through the education system in 2015, a self- assessment questionnaire was drafted within the scheme of Teacher Induction, Professional Development and Career Advancement. The mentioned self-assessment questionnaire foresees encouragement of tolerance, protection of equality during teaching, inter alia, by taking into account religious diversity. 70. In 2015 the contest of video clips “Europe in My Objective” was carried out within the mentioned “Subprogram for School Competitions”. The competition, inter alia, covered the issues of discrimination and tolerance. Moreover, in 2015 the Ministry of Education and 17 The State Agency for Religious Issues Annual Report 2015, available at: http://religion.geo.gov.ge/eng/documents/the-state- agency-for-religious-issues-annual 13 Science of Georgia together with the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee announced the essay competition “Young Human Rights Defender”. Furthermore, the Office of the State Minister of Georgia for Reconciliation and Civic Equality organized meetings, lectures, seminars and discussions with the youth of Kvemo Kartli and Kakheti. Also, the photo contest - “Our Diverse Homeland” was conducted. 71. As to the activities carried out for the aim of reinforcement of the principle of secularism in civil service the project of “raising awareness of public officials on issues of religious neutrality and secularism” should be noted. The project envisaged organisation of meetings with the participation of experts for local municipality employees on issues of freedom of religion and other fundamental rights. According to the implementation report several meetings were held and in total, 84 participants attended the meetings. 18 - Trainings for Law enforcement personnel 72. As for the trainings see the updated action plan submitted by the Government of Georgia in the case of Identoba and others v. Georgia on 15/11/2016.19 IV. Publication and dissemination 73. The European Court’s judgments were translated into Georgian and published in the Legislative Herald of Georgia and on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court of Georgia. 74. The Georgian translation of the judgments have been sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia for further dissemination among law enforcement personnel. V. Conclusion 75. The Government hold the view that the aforementioned general measures implemented at domestic level will contribute to further prevention of violations similar to those identified by the Court and will remedy the consequences of the violations of the Convention. 76. The Government maintain to strengthen their efforts to combat discrimination/intolerance on religious grounds through the effective implementation of legislation and conducting permanent trainings for the representatives of state organs inter alia the law-enforcement personnel. 77. The Government of Georgia will provide the Committee with additional information on individual/general measures to be adopted by the Government in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention in the present cases. 18 Report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), 13 June 2016, paras. 12.3., 12.5.3., 12.6., available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 19 Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806bdc33 14

Government of Georgia Action Report GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA (n° 37048/04) Judgment of 13 January 2009, final on 13 April 2009 I. Case summaries The case concerns breaches of the applicant's right to liberty and security on account of the circumstances of his arrest and detention on remand (violation of Art. 5 §1, 5 §1 (c), 5 §3 and 5 §4). In particular, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §1 on account of the applicant’s arrest in circumstances undermining right to security of person and a violation of Article 5 §1 (c) on account of the absence of a valid court order authorising Mr Nikolaishvili’s detention on remand for certain periods. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §3 on account of a lack of sufficient reasons for his detention on remand and a violation of Article 5 §4 due to the absence of an oral hearing during the judicial review of 24 January 2005. The case also concerned the infringement of the applicant's right to private life on account of the public posting of the photograph of Mr Nikolaishvili as a "wanted person" in a number of police stations (violation of Art. 8). The Court awarded EUR 8 000 (eight thousand euros) to the applicant in respect of nonpecuniary damage. II. Individual measures On 10 June 2009 the Government Agent of Georgia to the European Court of Human Rights sent the letter to the applicant requesting his bank requisites for the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court. However, according to the official information published at the website of Interpol Mr Giorgi Nikolaishvili is regarded as wanted by the judicial authorities of Georgia for prosecution/to serve a sentence,1 thus the Government have not been provided with the requested information which renders it impossible to effect payment of just satisfaction. On 17 March 2017, mother of the applicant has contacted the Ministry of Justice and stated that Mr Nikolaishvili has returned back to Georgia and currently he serves his sentence in the penitentiary system of Georgia. Furthermore, she submitted relevant bank requisites of the applicant. Consequently, the official proceedings of transferring of the sum of compensation to the applicant has been commenced. In respect of individual measures regarding violation of Article 8, according to the Court's judgment (paragraph 14 of the judgment), the applicant's photograph has been removed from police stations. 1 Source: Official website of Interpol - https://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted/2008-22525 1 III. General measures Violation of Article 5 §1, 5 §1c, 5 §3 and 5 §4 of the Convention In the cases of Patsuria v. Georgia (№30779/04) the judgment of 6 November 2007), Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia (№1704/06) the judgment of 27/01/2009), Gigolashvili v. Georgia (№18145/05) the judgment of 08/07/2008) the Court has already examined the issues at hand. In the context of the execution of the aforementioned cases as well as for the elimination and prevention of the identified problems the respective individual and general measures have already been conducted. Accordingly, on 14 September 2011 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a final resolution within the framework of which the said problems are considered to be resolved (for further details see the resolution CM/ResDH(2011)105).2 The recent resolutions of the Committee regarding closure of cases under Article 5 of the Convention concern the following cases – Baisuev and Anzorov v. Georgia (№39804/04) the judgment of 18/12/20123 and Janiashvili v. Georgia (№35887/05) the judgment of 27/11/2012.4 Considering the fact that the circumstances of the cases in question took place in 20042005 the provisions of the resolution of the Committee of Ministers are applicable to the present cases as well. It should be stressed that since the facts in question of the present cases took place several key legislative changes concerning the pre-trial detention has been conducted to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP). The aforesaid amendments are directly linked to the breaches of the applicants’ right to liberty and security found by the court in the present cases. In particular, Article 206 of the new Code provides that the prosecutor shall file a motion with the court requesting the application of a measure of restraint not later than 48 hours after the arrest. The judge examines this request within 24 hours. The hearing is public, other than in exceptional cases which are provided by the Code. The prosecutor’s request must contain the individual’s personal details, the charge and any information or evidence on which the charge is based and the measure of restraint requested. After verifying the reasonableness of the motion and the formal (procedural) and factual grounds for applying a measure of restraint, the judge shall render a reasoned ruling. When reviewing a motion for the application of a measure of restraint, the judge may, by providing relevant reasons, reject a measure of restraint indicated in the motion, or select another, less severe measure of restraint, or not use a measure of restraint at all. Article 198 §1 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “[…] remand detention or any other measure of restraint may not be applied against the accused if the purpose stipulated by this paragraph can be achieved through another less severe measure of restraint.” Another significant regulation is stipulated in Article 219 §4 of CCP which reads as follows: If an accused person has been sentenced to remand detention, the judge shall, on his/her own initiative, review, at the first preliminary hearing, the necessity to leave the remand detention in force, regardless of whether the party has filed a motion for change or annulment of the remand detention. After that, the court shall, on its own initiative, review, at least once in two months, the necessity to leave the remand detention in force; The detailed adjustment of the following novation is set forth in Article 2301 §1 of CCP. According to the aforesaid Article: If the accused has been remanded to custody, before delivering the judgement, periodically, at least once in two months, Adopted by the Committee of Minsters on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. Adopted by the Committee of Minsters on 10 September 2015 at the 1234th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22001-157865%22]} 4 Adopted by the Committee of Minsters on 27 April 2016 at the 1254th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=001-162838 2 3 2 the presiding judge shall, on his/her own initiative, review the necessity of leaving the accused in custody. This two-month period shall start from the day when the pre-trial judge makes a decision to leave the remand detention in force. When deciding the issue provided for by this paragraph, the court shall be guided by the procedure and standard established by Article 206 of this Code. Furthermore, according to Article 194 §2 of CCP any decision of the court must be substantiated. This rule alongside with the aforementioned regulations represents the guarantee for prevention of arbitrary and ill-founded detentions and/or detention in the term of absence of a valid court order. Violation of Article 8 of the Convention In the case of Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 on account of the public posting at various police stations of the applicant’s photograph as a “wanted person”, including the manner in which it was done and the aims pursued. Namely, the applicant was neither an accused nor a suspect in the murder case and, consequently, could not have been designated as a “wanted” person. Therefore, the interference was not in accordance with the law. It should be noted that subparagraph “n” of Article 33 §6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia stipulates that the prosecutor shall be authorized to issue a ruling on search of an accused (convicted); Therefore, only an accused or convicted person can be declared as “wanted”. As to the issues related to witness, Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia envisages the rights and responsibilities of a witness. In particular, the respective Article does not foresee the possibility of declaring a witness as a “wanted” in respect of a criminal case. The only “searching method” envisaged by the Code in relation to witness is the mechanism of compulsory appearance of a witness before the courts according to the rules of the aforementioned Code (Article 149 of CCP). Furthermore, subparagraph “c” of Article 3 of Operational Investigative Measures Act envisages operative-investigative activities, among others, - for the purpose of presenting him/her to a relevant state authority, locate a person who, despite having been summoned, fails to appear before an investigation or a court; to search for an accused or convicted person and ensure their appearance before a relevant state authority if such person avoids the application of an imposed measure of coercion or the serving of an imposed sentence. Thus, it has been shown that the domestic legislation comprehensively regulates the issues concerning search of an accused (convicted) and completely excludes declaring other persons as “wanted”. Moreover, it should be noted that the above incident constituted an isolated case. In particular, the violation of Article 8 of the Convention appears to be linked only to the specific circumstances of this particular case. In addition, subsequent to the said case the European Court have not rendered any judgment founding similar violation. Therefore, no other general measures are required in that regard. Statistical data with regard to the imposition of pre-trial detention Recent statistical data on the application of detention on remand as a restraint measure show a clearly decreasing tendency. The national courts often apply alternative non-custodial pretrial restraint measures. In particular, in 2011 the detention on remand has been used in 49.3% of 3 cases. In 2012 the figures have reduced to 41.9%. In 2013 the percentage of cases involving detention on remand has been only 26.8%. In 2014 the number amounted to 32 % whilst in 2015 it equalled to 29.6%. In 2016, the application of detention on remand corresponded to 29.1%5. Publication and dissemination The European Court’s judgments were translated into Georgian and published in the Official Gazette of Georgia (Legislative Herald of Georgia) and on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The judgment of Nikolaishvili case was also published in the periodical of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court and is intended for the judges of the Common Courts System of Georgia. IV. Conclusion of the respondent state The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court and that Georgia has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 5 Source: Official website of the Supreme Court of Georgia - http://www.supremecourt.ge/statistics/ 4

Government of Georgia Action Report CASE OF APOSTOL v. GEORGIA (n°40765/02) Judgment of 28.11.2006, final on 28.02.2007 I. Case summary 1. The case concerns Georgian national – Mr. Leonid Apostol who brought civil action against a private person. On 21 November 2001 Batumi City Court allowed his claim and ordered the debtor to pay him arrears for the costs and expenses associated with the court proceedings. Since the debtor refused to abide by the judgment, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice of the Adjarian Autonomous Republic, requesting the initiation of enforcement proceedings. The Ministry replied that, pursuant to Article 26 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, he had to pay “preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures”. Since the applicant was unable to pay the aforesaid preliminary expenses, the judgment was never enforced. 2. The European Court found the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to excessive restriction of his access to enforcement proceedings of final judgment of the domestic courts rendered in his favor (violation of Article 6§1). II. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction 3. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, respectively he was not granted any just satisfaction by the European Court. b) Individual measures 4. The Court held that the respondent State shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 21.11.2001. 5. The Government of Georgia acknowledge that the most appropriate form of redress in the case was to put an end to the situation of non-enforcement. Following the European Court’s judgment, enforcement proceedings were started and the applicant did not have to pay any expenses beforehand. 6. As the Committee is well aware subsequent to the delivery of the judgment in the present case, the Government of Georgia took all possible measures to find the applicant’s debtor. Despite the conducted measures it was impossible to locate him due to the following reasons: On 13 April 2007, the Enforcement Officer visited the apartment known as the residence of the debtor but nevertheless it was unable to locate him since the debtor had not been residing at the address mentioned in the writ of execution. In accordance with the protocol provided by the Enforcement Bureau, the person living in the apartment was unaware of the debtor’s whereabouts. 7. Furthermore, the Officer of the Enforcement Bureau obtained the information in respect of the movable and immovable property registered in the name of the debtor. The respective requests were sent to the Georgian banks as well. In addition, the Officer applied to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Tax Inspection Service, Public Registry in order to provide full information regarding the debtor’s property status. According to the obtained information, it has been established that there is no registered property in the ownership of the debtor. Furthermore, neither he was registered as a private entrepreneur nor owned any private accounts in the banking establishments. 8. Furthermore, according to the letter of the National Bureau of Enforcement dated 27 July 2016 the notification regarding the voluntary fulfillment of the decision was sent to the debtor. Also, the debtor was registered in the Debtor Registry, therefore the debtor has restricted use of his potential movable and immovable property and in case of registration any tangible assets the debtor will have no further authorization to dispose the property until the debt retirement. 9. In respect of the separate database of debtors who cannot be traced, according to the National Bureau of Enforcement there is no such database. Subsequently, pursuant to Article 30 of the “Law of Georgia on Enforcement Proceedings” the National Bureau of Enforcement addressed Batumi City Court with the motion, on the basis of which on 15 November 2011 Batumi City Court delivered the decision regarding the searching and bringing the debtor before the respective authorities by means of police. In spite of all the aforementioned efforts made by the Government of Georgia, the debtor’s whereabouts were still impossible to identify. 10. Furthermore, as stated in the letter of the National Bureau of Enforcement on the basis of the written referral of LEPL Public Service Development Agency (hereafter “PSDA”) dated 24 July 2014, on 22 January 2013 Mr. Leonid Apostol’s death record was registered and consequently the enforcement proceedings were suspended. Subsequently the Enforcement Officer repeatedly referred to the family of the creditor to establish the successor and submit the relevant writ of execution, but the family of the applicant has not submitted any relevant documents at all. 11. The given facts clearly demonstrate, that even if the violation had not been committed (i.e. if the applicant had had access to the enforcement proceedings from the beginning) it still may not have been possible to locate the debtor either. In addition the Government wish to emphasize that on the basis of the uncertainty flowing from the fact that the applicant had no access to execution proceedings for several years, the applicant could have requested just satisfaction from the Court, but he did not submit any such claim (§ 70). 12. It should be noted that under Article 34 “J” of Georgian Law on Enforcement Proceedings, enforcement is terminated, if 10 years have elapsed since the beginning of the enforcement proceedings on cases related to monetary levies, except the cases on the alimony, on labor relationships, on injury or the type of harm to health, on the cases about the reimbursement of the harm caused by the death of the bread winner, request about reimbursement of harm caused by a crime or administrative offence, as well as the enforcement cases in favor or against budgets of state, Autonomous Republic or local self-government. Bearing in mind the aforementioned provision, the impugned debt is not time-barred. III. General measures 11. The judgment was translated and published in the Official Herald of Georgia as well as on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. 12. In terms of general measures, the government wish to underline that the law on enforcement proceedings has been modified (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)1081 and the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2009)28). 13. The amendments and the developments in the enforcement proceedings make it possible to avoid problems similar to the Apostol case. 14. In particular, pursuant to Article 38§12 (B) of the “Law of Georgia on enforcement proceedings” upon considering the creditor’s material status, the following persons shall be exempt from the obligation to prepay the fee: a) a person filed in the integrated database of socially vulnerable families, as evidenced with the relevant certificate; b) a creditor under the court decision (considering the creditor’s material status, the court may exempt the creditor from prepayment of court costs in the cases and as provided by the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia for exemption); c) a creditor by the time of enforcement of the enforcement order. 15. According to the judgment of the European Court in the present case (para 10), being in receipt of only a monthly pension of GEL 45 (EUR 19 ) at the material time, the applicant was unable to pay for the initiation of the enforcement proceedings. Therefore, the aforementioned exclusions (Article 38§12 (B)) from the obligation of prepaying the fees is of the utmost importance in such cases and avoids similar problems for the future. 16. Furthermore, Article 38 (paragraph 11) also stipulates that the fee for the enforcement of decisions under Article 268(1)(a-d) of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, decisions delivered as a result of criminal proceedings (except as provided for in paragraph 15 of this article), decisions on the recovery of amounts in favour of the National Bank of Georgia, the Legal Entity under Public Law (LEPL) – the State Insurance Supervision Service of Georgia, the Legal Entity under Public Law (LEPL) under the operation of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia – the Revenue Service, a state body and a local self-government body, in favour of the State Budget, the republican budget of an autonomous republic or the budget of a local self-governing unit (including the state due), and a decision under Article Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)108 - Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Three cases against Georgia (“Iza” Ltd and Makrakhidze, Application No. 28537/02, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 27/12/2005“ Amat-G” Ltd and Mebaghishvili Application No. 2507/03, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006 Kvitsiani, Application No. 16277/07, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009 1 2(f) of this Law shall not be collected in advance. The responsibility for payment of the fee shall be imposed on the debtor upon initiation of enforcement. 17. Paragraph 13 of the same Article stipulates that - exemption from payment and imposition of the fee shall be granted to the authorities of the State, autonomous republics and local self-governing units, including in connection with the in-kind transfer, as provided by this Law, to the State/autonomous republic/local self-governing unit (except as provided by paragraph 16 of this article), and the creditors of these authorities. IV. Conclusions 15. The Government will continue to provide the Committee with further information regarding individual measures adopted in this case.

The Government of Georgia Action Plan Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no.35254/07) Judgment of 22 November 2011, became final on 22 February 2012 I. INFRODUCTION 1. The Government of Georgia submit the report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the judgment in the case of Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (“The Court”) on 22 November 2011. The data presented below focuses mainly on investigation conducted into the death of Mr Nikoloz MAKHARADZE (“the first applicant”) as well as the general measures undertaken by domestic authorities with respect to medical treatment of Tuberculosis and Hepatitis C within the Penitentiary System of Georgia. II. CASE SUMMARY a. Background information 1. The first applicant Mr Makharadze was arrested on 14 March 2006 on suspicion of possessing drugs and placed in detention pending trial. By the judgment of Tbilisi City Court dated 24 July 2006 the first applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment, the judgments being upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2007. 2. Due to his medical condition (the first applicant was infected with Pulmonary Fibrocavernous Tuberculosis; viral hepatitis C and suffered from a number of serious cardiac and neurosensory disorders) since 30 March 2006 the first applicant had been serving his sentence in the Medical Establishment of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the old prison hospital”). On 27 November 2008 the first applicant was transferred to the newly opened medical wing of Tbilisi no. 8 prison (“the new prison hospital”). 3. On 24 October 2008, under rule 39 of the Rules of Court the first applicant requested the Court to apply interim measure and order the Government to transfer him to a specialised tuberculosis hospital. By the decision of 10 November 2008 the Court granted the applicant’s request indicating to the Government that the first applicant should be placed in a specialised medical establishment capable of dispensing appropriate anti-tuberculosis treatment. By a letter of 1 December 2008, the Government informed the Court that such arrangements were not necessary. 4. The first applicant died on 29 January 2009. On 3 June 2009 the spouse of the first applicant Dali SIKHARULIDZE (“the second applicant”) informed the Court that she wished to pursue the proceedings. 1 b. Violations of the Convention established by the Court 1. Violation of Article 2 of the Convention 5. The Court found a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) due to the Government’s failure to discharge their positive obligations as required under the above-mentioned provision on account of the inadequacy of the medical care in prison. 6. As stated by the Court, the core issue of the present application was not the absence of medical care as such but, treatment of very particular type of disease, namely multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. In that respect the Court stated that: - - - There existed delay in arrangement of relevant susceptibility laboratory tests in order to verify the sensitivity of the first applicant’s mycobacterium with respect to SLDs; The prescribed treatment was not arranged immediately due to a shortage of the requisite medicine in country, which called into question the overall quality of medical assistance dispensed to the first applicant; The clinicians in charge of the first applicant’s treatment did not possess all necessary skills at that material time, as the DOTS+ programme, which provided for preliminary special training of doctors and nurses, was introduced in the new prison hospital after the applicant’s death, namely in April 2009; The domestic Courts did not take into consideration the grave medical condition of the first applicant, while deciding upon the issue of suspension of his sentence; The Court could not discern from the medical file whether any specialists had ever attempted to enquire if his conduct – hunger strike might have been conditioned by sideeffects from the drugs he was taking, thus necessitating the relevant psychological or psychiatric feedback; While Mr Makharadze’s disease had not been an absolute ground for a release from prison, the Court noted that the domestic courts, in the proceedings concerning the suspension of his sentence, had turned a blind eye to the exceptional gravity of his condition; The authorities did not take into consideration the medical recommendation of 31 October - 7 November 2008 regarding the first applicant’s transfer to specialized tuberculosis hospital, notwithstanding the fact that at that material time two civil hospitals – the National Centre for Lung Diseases and Abastumani Hospital represented special medical units running the DOTS+ programme and were fit for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. 7. As for the investigation of the first applicant’s death, the Court stated that despite the fact that the applicant died in prison hospital, which is a public institution directly engaging the state’s responsibility, the issue of the individual responsibility of the clinicians in charge of the applicant’s treatment was never been subjected to an independent, impartial and comprehensive enquiry. 2 2. Violation of Article 34 of the Convention 8. The Court established the violation of Article 34 of the Convention as the Government failed to place the first applicant in a specialized medical establishment capable of dispensing appropriate anti-tuberculosis treatment and had not shown that there existed any objective impediment to compliance with the interim measure indicated in the present case. III. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES a) Details of just satisfaction 9. Within the time-frame established under the Convention, EUR 15 000 as a compensation for non-pecuniary damages were paid to the second applicant. Name and Non-pecuniary and application pecuniary damages number and cost and expenses Total Makharadze 15 000 EUR and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07) 15 000 EUR Paid on: 16.05.2012 b) Investigation of the applicant’s death by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office 10. With a view to conducting thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into the death of Mr Makharadze, on 6 June 2013 the case no. 073090050 (initially launched by the Investigative Unit of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Justice on 29 January 2009) was transferred to the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s office. 11. The Government underline from the outset that the investigative body in charge of the applicant’s case meets all the requirements established in the Court’s case law regarding the independence and impartiality of the investigative authority. In particular, there is no hierarchical or institutional connection between the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office conducting the renewed investigation of the applicant’s death and the Ministry of Corrections. Therefore, the persons responsible for the inquiries are independent from the persons implicated in the events institutionally as well as in practice. 12. For the purposes of ensuring effective victim participation in the renewed investigation, the investigative authorities informed the second applicant regarding the above development and enquired her position as a next-to-keen of the victim. According to her 3 testimony, she provided the first applicant with relevant medicine since his detention in 2006, including the second line drugs received from abroad. However, after the transfer of medical establishment she was no longer allowed to provide her husband with requisite medicine, which together with the first applicant’s hunger strikes resulted in his death on 29 January 2009. 13. After obtaining the above information, the investigative authorities questioned the clinician responsible for the applicant’s medical treatment T.J. who was asked the reasons for not fulfilling the recommendation of the representative from Red Cross N.K. regarding the applicant’s transfer to another medical establishment. The witness stated that at that material time, the penitentiary system did not offer relevant specialized treatment for the applicant’s disease and the most suitable conditions for his continuous medical treatment was in old prison hospital. 14. For the purposes of evaluating whether the treatment dispensed to the first applicant in old prison hospital was adequate the investigative authorities addressed the State Regulation Agency for Medical Activities operating under the auspice of the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia. After studying the medical history of the first applicant, the agency delivered report according to which, adequate medical care was provided to him and it was not able to identify any kind of negligence on the part of medical personnel. The report also underlined that, taking into consideration the gravity and duration of his disease, the chance of the first applicant’s survival, was extremely low. 15. The investigative authorities also enquired the reasons for the expert’s denial to conduct autopsy of the applicant’s body. For that respect, investigative authorities questioned the forensic medical expert Z.G., who had carried out the post-mortem examination. According to his testimony, the first applicant together with other diseases suffered from Hepatitis C. At that material time, due to the lack of requisite equipment and methodology for the protection of the medical personal of the relevant establishment, the autopsy was not conducted in cases of Hepatitis C, HIV and other infectious diseases. 16. For the purposes of conducting thorough investigation into the applicant’s death, the investigative authorities further questioned the former investigator of the Investigative Department of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Corrections, O.Kh., who had been in charge of the case no. 073090050, since 15 February 2010 till 3 October 2012 regarding details of the questions he had asked to the witnesses while investigating the case. 17. As to the victim participation, it should be noted that the second applicant – Dali Sikharulidze has been informed by the investigator on 25 April 2014 regarding the aforementioned report of State Regulation Agency for Medical Activities and has been invited to get acquainted with the report as well as the case materials. Nevertheless she expressed her inability to visit the investigative organs. 18. The investigation is at the concluding stage and will be finalised shortly. The decision regarding the future course of action will be adopted by relevant investigative authorities in the nearest future. 4 IV. GENERAL MEASURES A. MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PRISONERS TUBERCULOSES AND HEPATITIS C SUFFERING FROM 19. The Government submit that the issue of medical assistance and treatment of prisoners suffering from Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis have already been addressed by the domestic authorities within the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in the cases of Ghavtadze v. Georgia, Poghossian v. Georgia, Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, Jeladze v. Georgia and Ildani v. Georgia. 20. In particular, the Government of Georgia has undertaken major reforms in the field of medical treatment of prisoners infected with above-mentioned diseases.1 The mentioned reforms were welcomed by the Committee of Ministers in its resolution CM/ResDH(2014)209, where the Committee having satisfied itself that the Government had adopted all the measures required under Article 46 §1 of the Convention, closed the examination of the above cases. 21. The Government further underline the effectiveness of the complaint procedure regarding adequate medical care in penitentiary system of Georgia. The above issue was addressed by the Court in the case of Goginashvili v. Georgia, where the Court found that the new Prison Code, which had entered into force on 1 October 2010 clearly provided for a detainee’s right to health care in prison and contained precise rules on the procedure for submitting complaints. 22. In particular, Article 97 of the new Code requires the prison authority to safeguard that every detainee is mindful of such a complaints procedure from the very commencement of his or her detention. The Prison Code also stipulates that a complaint cannot be reviewed by the same person or authority who has already been implicated in the breach of the detainee’s right.2 Subsequently the Court referred to the well-defined requirement for prison complaints to be examined within strict time-limits, especially the complaints raising allegations of ill-treatment.3 23. The Court emphasized that it could not leave unnoticed a fundamental reform of the prison system which the Georgian State had undertaken by introducing the effective complaint procedure. 24. Therefore, the new Prison Code clearly recognizes the right of protection of the prisoners’ health and it describes in details the deadlines and the procedures for accessible domestic remedies of medical treatment grievances which is the essential remedy to be exhausted before applying to the Court. The detailed information regarding the general measures was submitted by the Government to the Committee of Ministers on 21 August 2012 with respect to the case of Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia and on 30 September 2014 with respect to the cases of Ghavtadze v. Georgia, Poghossian v. Georgia, Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, Jeladze v. Georgia and Ildani v. Georgia. 2 Articles 98 and 99 of the Prison Code 3 Articles 102, 103 and 105 of the Prison Code 1 5 B. GENERAL MEASURES REGARDING THE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE INVESTIGATION 25. Within the framework of the legislative reform of July 2014 the Ministry of Justice elaborated amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to ensure victim’s involvement and effective participation in the process of investigation. These amendments were adopted by Parliament of Georgia on 24 July 2014 and entered into force on 6 August 2014. 26. Under the new amendments the victim’s rights have been substantially strengthened. The following procedural rights have been afforded to a victim:        the right to request to be recognized as a victim (Article 56 § 5); the right to appeal the ordinance on the refusal of the status of a victim(Article 56 § 5); The right to appeal the prosecutor's ordinance on the annulment of the victim status in the cases concerning particularly grave crime (Article 56 § 6); the right to obtain the information about the progress of the investigation and to be introduced with the criminal case materials unless this contradicts the interest of investigation (Article 57 § 1, “h”); the right to get acquainted with the criminal case materials no later than 10 days before the holding of the pretrial conference (Article 57 § 1, “j”); the right to appeal a prosecutor’s ordinance on the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution (Article 106 § 11); the right to appeal a prosecutor's ordinance on the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings (Article 168 § 2).4 27. Moreover, under the legislative reform of July 2014 the amendments to para. 3 of Article 56 established the essential rights of victim as the indispensable element of his/her authority which shall not be questioned by any other State official. Before the aforementioned amendment, there was merely a plain text indicating that when it concerned a crime which resulted in a death of a victim, the rights of the victim were granted and the obligations were imposed on his/her next of kin. However, there was no suggestion that the investigator, prosecutor and judge were not entitled to refuse next of kin to enjoy these rights in the context of their discretion. According to the relevant practice the instances of the refusal have been widespread. 28. Currently, the paragraph 3 of Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly lays down that no investigator, prosecutor and judge shall have the right to refuse the legal successor in respect of the use of the rights granted to a victim when it concerns a crime resulting in a death of the victim. 29. Furthermore, among others, the legislative reform of July 2014 envisaged the amendments to Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the victim’s right to appeal to the court in the event a prosecutor rejects his/her complaint. 4 Annex – extracts from the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended 24 July 2014. 6 30. In particular by virtue of Article 106 § 1 1 Code of Criminal Procedure a victim now has the right to file a hierarchical appeal against the prosecutor’s ordinance to a supervising prosecutor concerning the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. In case the supervising prosecutor does not satisfy the complaint, the victim has the right to appeal the decision of the prosecutor to the court. The reform created previously unavailable a twotier system for appealing against the prosecutor’s ordinance concerning the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. C. GENERAL MEASURES REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE DUE TO MEDICAL CONDITION OF THE DETAINED PERSONS 31. Georgian legislation, in particular Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages the procedure of suspension of sentences for detained persons who suffer from serious illnesses. According to the above provision the motion in that respect can be lodged with relevant domestic court by the convict, her/his lawyer or legal representative or the head of the Penitentiary Department. 32. While examining the issues of suspension of sentences, the domestic courts base their decisions on the reports of forensic-medical examinations reflecting the medical condition of a convict. 33. According to Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the execution of a judgement is deferred due to a serious illness, the court that rendered the decision shall, under the same judgement (ruling) determine the periodicity of the conduct of an expert examination (at least once a year) at the expense of the convicted person in order to establish the convicted person's health status, and the periodicity of the submission of an expert opinion by the convicted person. If the convicted person fails to submit an expert opinion, with specified periodicity to the court, the court shall, without oral hearing and by issuing a ruling, make a decision to return the convicted person to the appropriate facility to serve the outstanding sentence. If a convicted person submits an expert opinion, the court that makes a decision to defer execution of the judgement shall, without oral hearing, make a decision, by issuing a ruling, to keep in force the decision of the court to defer the execution of the judgement, or to return the convicted person to the appropriate facility to serve the outstanding sentence. 34. Throughout 2010-2015 the Tbilisi City Court granted 72 motions (out of 185) in that respect. 35. Except from the legislative provision which is applied by domestic courts on a regular bases, the necessity of continued execution of sentence is supervised by the body created for that very purpose. 36. More specifically, by the order no.251/N-№372 dated 22 June 2009, of the Ministry of Corrections and the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia established the Permanent Commission responsible for delivering reports reflecting the state of health of convicts placed in medical establishments of penitentiary system. The Commission is functioning under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of the Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia. 7 37. By virtue of the amendments dated 18 December 2012, the functions of the Commission was defined as follows: assessment of the state of health of persons placed in penitentiary system, suffering from serious/incurable diseases and adoption of relevant decisions regarding the necessity of quashing their sentences due to their advanced age or medical condition. 38. According to Article 6 of the statute of the Permanent Commission, its decision in that regard constitutes an individual act and is subject to immediate execution by the relevant penitentiary establishment (the decision can be appealed in Tbilisi City Court). 39. After its creation the Permanent Commission has been engaged in assessment of the medical condition of detained persons and submission of relevant reports. The total number of prisoners released due to their medical condition on the bases of the Permanent Commission’s decision in 2010-2015 was 87. V. PUBLICATION 40. The Court’s judgment was translated into Georgian and published in the Official Gazette of Georgia and on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The Georgian translations were sent to the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia. 41. The judgments were also published in the periodical collection of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and is intended for the Judges of the Common Court System of Georgia. VI. CONCLUSION 42. Having regard to the above-mentioned information the Government submit that structural deficiencies with respect to adequacy of medical treatment of Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis in the penitentiary system is fully remedied. The Government further contend that the above information serves as a clear affirmation of the commitment of the Government to conduct thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into the applicant’s death. 43. The Government reserve the right to present before the Committee the updated information regarding present case in due course. 8

Government of Georgia CONSOLIDATED ACTION REPORT CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL AND GENERAL MEASURES IN RESPECT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE FOLLOWING CASES – G.S. v. GEORGIA (No. 2361/13, judgment of 21/07/2015, final on 21/10/2015) Prisco Massimo Robert Nils DE PITA v. Georgia (No. 22958/11, decision of 19 May 2015, final on 11 June 2015) Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CASE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 3 II. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES.............................................................................................. 3 a) Details of just satisfaction................................................................................................... 3 b) Re-opening of the civil cases .............................................................................................. 4 III. GENERAL MEASURES .................................................................................................. 5 a) National policy for the protection of the right to respect for private and family life ....... 5 - National Action Plan 2012-2015 for Child Welfare and Protection ............................... 5 - National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020.................. 5 - Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015).......................................................................... 6 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia ................................................................................................................................... 6 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017).......................................................................... 7 - 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union ............................................................................ 8 b) Measures undertaken to eradicate the violations found by the Court .............................. 8 - Legislation........................................................................................................................ 8 - Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 9 - Future plans ................................................................................................................... 10 c) Trainings ........................................................................................................................... 10 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11 2 I. 1. 2. CASE SUMMARY This group of cases concerns the failure of the Georgian courts to properly implement the 1980 Hague Convention concerning the civil aspects of international child abduction – in particular, the decision-making process under the Hague Convention before the domestic courts did not meet the procedural and positive requirements inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (violation of Article 8). The Court held that Georgia was to pay to G.S. 300 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. Friendly settlement: The Georgian Government concluded a friendly settlement in the case of Prisco Massimo Robert Nils DE PITA v. Georgia by which they acknowledged the violation of Article 8 on account of the domestic courts’ decisions in child custody proceedings; and the applicant’s right to request re-opening of the impugned proceedings. The Government declared that the domestic courts will use their best endeavours to examine the re-opened child custody dispute promptly, by having due regard to the relevant principles of the Court’s case-law on the matter. The Government also undertook to pay the applicant 7 000 euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. II. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES a) Details of just satisfaction Name and application number Pecuniary damage, Nonpecuniary damage, Costs and expenses Total G.S. v. Georgia 300 EUR - in respect of pecuniary damage 9 100 EUR No. 2361/13 8 000 EUR - in respect of nonpecuniary damage Paid on: 22/12/2015 800 EUR - in respect of costs and expenses Prisco Massimo Robert Nils DE PITA v. Georgia 7 000 EUR 7 000 EUR Paid on: 23.10.2015 no. 22958/11 See Comment 1 3. Comment 1: In respect of the case of Prisco Massimo Robert Nils De Pita v. Georgia, the Government wish to clarify that they could not effect the payment of just satisfaction within the time limit set (within the three months from the date of notification (11.06.2015) of the decision, i.e. until 11 September 2015 in the present case) due to the applicant’s failure to provide relevant documents in reasonable time. In particular, the applicant and his representative have been duly informed by the letter №5404 dated 8 July 2015 and via e-mails of 18 August 2015, 31 August 3 4. 2015, 2 September 2015 and 9 October 2015 of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia reminding him to submit the respective documents to effect the payment of just satisfaction in due time. Since the applicant submitted the relevant documents only on 16 October 2015, the Government effected the payment of just satisfaction on 23 October 2015. b) Re-opening of the civil cases 5. Article 423 § 1 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia reads as follows: “A final and enforceable judgment can be reviewed on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, if ... (e) the European Court of Human Rights has established in a final judgment (or in a decision) a breach of a provision of the Convention or of the Protocols thereto and the impugned [domestic] judgment is based on that breach.” 6. 7. 8. It should be noted that according to Article 426§2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia, in case of the grounds set out in the aforementioned subparagraph (g) of Article 423 § 1 of Civil Procedure Code, the request for reopening of the proceedings on the grounds of a new circumstances must be submitted within three months of the date upon which the judgment or decision of the European Court became final. According to the official letter of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated 26 April 2016, the applicant - Prisco Massimo Robert Nils DE PITA has not applied to the national courts to reopen the civil proceedings under Article 423 § 1 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia. As to the applicant G.S., according to the letter of the Supreme Court dated 26 September 2016, subsequent to the delivery of the judgment by the European Court the applicant has not applied to re-open proceedings. Consequently, the applicants already missed the limitation periods stipulated by the respective legislation of Georgia for re-opening the civil cases. Nevertheless, in order to illustrate the effectiveness of the mechanism envisaged under Article 423 §1 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure of Georgia the Government draw the Committee’s attention to the decision of the Court in the case Maya Okroshidze and Giorgi Okroshidze v. Georgia (No. 60596/09). 9. By its decision of 11 December 2012, the Court struck out the aforementioned case, on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration. The terms of that declaration contained, amongst other things, an explicit acknowledgment of a violation of a provision of the Convention which had given rise to the communication of the application. The Court confirmed that that acknowledgement could serve as a ground for a subsequent re-opening of the relevant civil proceedings at the domestic level. 10. By a judgment 13 January 2014, the Tbilisi City Court, having regard to the Court’s above mentioned strike-out decision of 11 December 2012, decided to reopen the initial civil proceedings, in accordance with Article 423 § 1 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, at national level the reopened civil proceedings were decided in favour of the applicants - Maya and Giorgi Okroshidze. 11. Finally the case has been closed by the resolution (CM/ResDH(2013)243) adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 December 2013 at the 1186th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. 4 III. GENERAL MEASURES a) National policy for the protection of the right to respect for private and family life 12. First and foremost, it should be noted that the Government of Georgia have implemented general measures in order to ensure and promote full realization of the right to respect for private and family life which will serve in future prevention of violations of Article 8 of the Convention found by the Court. - National Action Plan 2012-2015 for Child Welfare and Protection 13. In particular, on 24 April 2012 the Government of Georgia approved National Action Plan 2012-2015 for Child Welfare and Protection by decree № 762 and established Inter-agency Coordinating Council for its implementation. 14. One of the main objectives of the Action Plan was development of social workers institution by raising the number of social workers, upgrading social workers professional qualification, developing supervisory mechanisms, figuring out optimal workload for social workers, improving child assessment instruments, procedures and guidelines, enhancing cooperation mechanisms between social workers. 1 15. It should be noted that the Public Defender of Georgia in his annual report - “The situation in human rights and freedoms in Georgia” positively assessed creation of national strategy in the sphere of child’s rights protection: “Public Defender of Georgia positively evaluates creation of national strategy […] in the sphere of child’s rights protection, which are in compliance with the international legal rules of protection of rights of child […] .”2 16. The outcomes of the implementation of the action plan were considered in the process of elaborating the Human Rights Action Plan for 2017 and the remaining commitments were reflected in this document (see paras. 26-28 below). - National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020 17. On 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020 through an inclusive participation of all State agencies, international and non-governmental organizations. 18. The main goal of the Human Rights Strategy is to consolidate institutional democracy, i.e. the system of functional institutions and thus to ensure that human rights obligations are implemented in everyday life through a multi-sector, unified, and consistent government policies. According to the Strategy, human rights based approach will be gradually integrated into the government policies and programming. It envisages legislative and institutional changes, as well as changes in practice for the State to meet their obligations to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. 19. The Strategy foresees as one of the objectives to ensure a high level of protection of the internationally recognized and constitutionally guaranteed rights of children. The Strategy aims 1 National Action Plan 2012-2015 for Child Welfare and Protection, available at: http://atipfund.gov.ge/res/docs/4- bavshvta_gegma12.pdf 2 “The situation in human rights and freedoms in Georgia” adopted by The Public Defender of Georgia, 2012, p. 373, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1350.pdf 5 to meet its objectives, inter alia, by improving to the system of child protection and assistance, developing social services agency, taking into account the best interests of the child. 3 20. It should be noted that adoption of the National Human Rights Strategy for 2014–2020 and of the National Human Rights Action Plan was welcomed by the Human Rights Committee in its “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia”4 and EU Special Advisor Thomas Hammarberg in his Recommendations to the Government of Georgia. 5 The relevant excerpts from the recommendations of EU Special Advisor reads as follows: „Georgia has to be congratulated on the adoption of the seven-year National Strategy on Human Rights and two-year Action Plan of the Government, as well as on the establishment of the Human Rights Council and secretariat in the PM’s office. The Action Plan is one of the best in Europe, detailed and built on serious consultations.” 6 - Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) 21. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). The Action Plan foreseen reinforcement of the coordinating and monitoring mechanism for child rights and improvement of the system of child protection and assistance, inter alia, by establishing the coordinating mechanism, incorporation of the principle “best interests of the child” in all government programs, action plans, in any legal or administrative procedure, as well as in the process of determination of policy, strengthening the monitoring opportunities of the Public Defender, governmental and non-governmental organizations, carrying out trainings for the aim of the enhancement of the qualifications of various professional groups (i.e. prosecutors, teachers, advocates, medical staff, social workers, school administrators, child protection officers, etc.).7 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia 22. On 13 June 2016 Government of Georgia approved progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). 23. On 9 July 2014, the Government established relevant Inter-agency Coordinating Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, for implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (20142015). An informal working group was established by the initiative of the Human Rights Secretariat of the Georgian Government Administration and the representatives of the State Agencies responsible for the implementation of the Action Plan for the Children’s Rights 3 National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020, p. 18, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51454 4 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 5 Recommendations to the Government of Georgia by Special Advisor to Georgia on Human Rights, Constitutional and Legal Reforms – Thomas Hammarberg (Follow up on the final mission – 4-9 June, 2014), p. 1, available at: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/georgia/key_eu_policies/human_rights/hammarber_reports/th_recomm072014_en.htm 6 Recommendations to the Government of Georgia by Special Advisor to Georgia on Human Rights, Constitutional and Legal Reforms – Thomas Hammarberg (Follow up on the final mission – 4-9 June, 2014), p. 2 available at: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/georgia/key_eu_policies/human_rights/hammarber_reports/th_recomm072014_en.htm 7 Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 13, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51455 6 Protection, the representatives of the Public Defender's Office, non-governmental and international organizations participated in the above Group’s work. During the reporting period, several meetings were held, discussing the issues related to the implementation of the action plan. 24. During the reporting period the main policy documents of the State regarding the children's rights was the relevant chapter (the children's rights) of the Government Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) and the Child Welfare Protection Action Plan 2012-2015. These documents contained the measures to be taken by the state in respect to the children's rights protection. These action plans defined different policy directions of the state agencies in terms of the children's rights protection. In addition, activities, related to the children’s rights protection, included in the action plans of the relevant government agencies, were based on the priority areas defined in the documents of the aforementioned policy, which were in turn in accordance with the best interests of the child. 25. In 2016-2017 within the targeted EU aid project, it is planned to increase the human and financial resources of the Child Rights Centre of the Public Defender's Office. 8 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) 26. On 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Human Rights Action Plan (20162017). The Action Plan foresees strengthening the monitoring and coordinating mechanism for child rights, inter alia, by ratification of the third Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, implementation of Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, affirmation of enforcement and referral mechanisms, starting negotiations with states which have not recognised Georgia’s accession to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980, improving human and technical resources of the Child’s Rights Center of the Public Defender’s Office. 9 27. It should be underlined that on 19 September 2016 Georgia has acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure. 10 Moreover, The Government of Georgia approved the Ordinance №437 On the Approval of Referral Procedures for the Protection of Children on 12 September 201611 regulating the measures of identifying, protecting and assisting child victims of violence and unprotected children, providing for a broader circle of public entities responsible for the issue and imposing an obligation on selfgovernment bodies in the field of referral of violence against children. The adoption of the mentioned ordinance was welcomed by the Public Defender of Georgia in his Report on Human Rights and Freedoms in 2016.12 28. It is noteworthy that Committee on the Rights of the Child in its “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” welcomes the adoption of the new Child 8 Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia, para. 13, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 9 Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017), para. 12, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350412 10 Available: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&clang=_en 11 Available at: https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3394478 12 Report on Human Rights and Freedoms in 2016 of Public Defender of Georgia, p. 14, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/report-on-human-rights-and-freedoms-in-2016.page 7 Protection Referral Mechanism13 and the progress achieved by the State party in numerous areas: “the ratification of or accession to international instruments, in particular the ratification of the third Optional Protocol on the communications procedure in 2016. It also welcomes the adoption of numerous legislative Acts, as well as institutional and policy measures, including the revision of the social assistance system to make it more childsensitive and the adoption of the Juvenile Justice Code […]”.14 - 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union 29. On 7 March 2016 Government of Georgia approved “2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union”. The Action Plan foresees enhancement of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters by implementing multilateral conventions on civil judicial cooperation. In particular, it envisages commencing negotiations and cooperation with states that have not recognised Georgia’s accession to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980, approving practical guidelines for the purpose of implementation of mentioned Convention, approval of Referral and Enforcement Mechanisms for Child Abduction Cases under the Convention.15 b) Measures undertaken to eradicate the violations found by the Court in respect of child abduction - Legislation 30. Georgia signed the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter - the Hague Convention) on July 24, 1997 and it entered into force on October 1, 1997. 31. Public International Law Department of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia is designated as the Central Authority of the Convention in Georgia. The Georgian Central Authority co-operates with Central Authorities of other contracting states to promote the prompt return of wrongfully removed child and takes all necessary steps to initiate or facilitate judicial and administrative proceedings. 32. According to the Georgian Constitution and the Law on International Treaties of Georgia, no implementing legislation is needed to incorporate a treaty into domestic legislation. Despite 13 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 74th session (16 January – 3 February 2017), CRC/C/GEO/CO/4, Distr.: General 3 February 2017, para. 21, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/GEO/CO/4&Lang=En 14 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 74th session (16 January – 3 February 2017), CRC/C/GEO/CO/4, Distr.: General 3 February 2017, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/GEO/CO/4&Lang=En 15 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union, para. 78, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3222307 8 this, based on the recommendations of the Central Authority, the Government of Georgia considered it relevant to enact the implementing legislation. 33. In 2011, the Central Authority elaborated amendments to the Civil Code of Georgia and Civil procedure Code of Georgia for the effective implementation of the Convention. As to the procedural part, a new chapter was added to the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia on the Special Aspects of Return or Exercise the Right to Access with a Wrongfully Removed or Retained Child. According to this legislative amendment, two courts in Tbilisi and Kutaisi were designated to review the cases under this Convention. In addition, the 6-week period was determined for the courts to decide the cases and the timeframe for appeal is determined for 2 weeks. 34. In addition, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia translated the explanatory report of the Convention into Georgian and disseminated among the practitioner judges with the assistance of the High Council of Justice in order to increase general knowledge about the Convention, its requirements, judicial practice and experience of foreign States. The Ministry of Justice has also prepared the special application forms, both in Georgian and English languages, in line with the requirements of the Convention. The application forms are available at the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. - Procedure 35. The Georgian Central Authority cooperates with other Central Authorities in order to (1) promote a prompt and safe return of wrongfully removed/retained children to their habitual residence and (2) ensure the implementation of the right to access. The Georgian Central Authority also takes all appropriate measures for an amicable resolution of the problem and keeps other Central Authorities informed with respect to the operation of the Convention. The Central Authority is not a party of the case, therefore, it does not appear before the court as a disputing party. 36. Once the application on a return of wrongfully removed/retained child or on the exercise of the right to access is received, the representatives of the Central Authority meet the disputing party and inform about the case, the detailed regulations and aims of the Hague Convention and the possible developments of the case. The Central Authority also consults with applicant party before filing an application under the Hague Convention, explains how to fill the application form, what documents are required to submit, etc. The Central Authority cooperates with other central authorities and provides them with the information about the case developments, national legislation and procedures. 37. The Central Authority suggests the parties to negotiate and solve the dispute in peaceful means. The authority cooperates between parties and plays the role of a quasi - mediator if the parties want to negotiate and solve the dispute without judicial proceedings. If the parties are unwilling to negotiate, the Central Authority submits the application to the court upon the request of the other Central Authority/disputing parties. 38. The First instance court delivers the judgment within the period of six weeks. As usual, the psychologists and social workers are involved in the court hearing in order to protect the best interest of the child. Once the judgment is delivered, the parties have two weeks to appeal it in the Appeal Court. The judgment of third instance court – Supreme Court of Georgia is the final and cannot be appealed. 9 39. Other state agencies are also involved in this process. Particularly, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is in charge of finding the location of the wrongfully removed or retained child, it also provides secure and safe enforcement of the judgment, takes other measures to protect a wrongfully removed or retained child and prevents the exit/removal of a child from the territory of Georgia while the child abduction case is pending. LEPL Social Service Agency of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Social Affairs (SSA) is also involved in child abduction case proceedings. The SSA leads the enforcement procedures of the case. 40. The detailed procedures and functions of each state authority (the Central Authority, the SSA, the relevant units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) are prescribed in the draft referral and enforcement mechanism, which will be adopted upon the governmental decree. - Future plans 41. Georgian Central Authority elaborated draft referral and enforcement mechanism for international child abduction cases, which is planned to be adopted upon the Governmental Decree. The mechanism prescribes detailed procedure for processing abduction cases at the national level, also describes the functions of each national authorities, which are involved in case proceedings. The purpose of this mechanism is to improve implementation of the Hague Convention and enforcement of the court judgments and to create a coordinated and efficient system for the referral and enforcement of these cases. 42. The National Central Authority also elaborated the draft guideline to promote effective implementation of 1980 Hague Convention. It aims at providing detailed information about the interpretation of the Hague Convention in conjunction with the best practice of the states. The draft guideline includes the practice of national authorities, local courts and the European Court of Human Rights. 43. Georgian Central Authority has planned several activities in cooperation with GIZ, within the framework of EU - funded project „Support to the Development of Private and Administrative Law System in Georgia“ to promote the effective implementation of the Hague Convention. The local and international experts will review the abovementioned documents (draft guideline and draft referral and enforcement mechanism) for the further refinement. 44. It should be noted that, the study visit was carried out on 12-16 September, 2016 to The Hague Conference office, the Central Authority and the Court of the Netherlands, for the experience sharing regarding the examination of the child abduction/retention cases, implementation of the rights to access and enforcement of the court decisions in this regard. The representatives of the Central Authority, the Social Service Agency and the Ministry of Internal Affairs participated in the experience sharing visit. c) Trainings 45. The Government has taken steps for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the judges and other court officials in respect of the children’s rights. In particular, as a result of cooperation between the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the High School of Justice, under the program 2015 for Retraining Judges and Currently Serving Officials, judges had undergone the appropriate trainings about the Children's Rights in 2015. 10 46. Furthermore, the course on family law is integrated within the educational programs of the High School of Justice and covers the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which is undergone by the judicial candidates 47. Moreover, program 2015 of Special Training Course for Court Officials covers minor’s rights in relations with parents, during determination of the amount of maintenance and the child's place of residence. 48. Apart from the permanent training courses and educational programs, periodic training sessions on Article 8 of the European Convention are organized regularly for the court officials. IV. CONCLUSION 49. The Government hold the view that the aforementioned individual and general measures implemented on domestic level will contribute to further prevention of violations similar to those established by the Court and will remedy the consequences of the violations. 50. The Government of Georgia reserve the right to provide the Committee with additional information on individual/general measures to be adopted by the Government in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention. 11

The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF N.TS. AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA No. 71776/12, judgment of 02.02.2016, final on 02.05.2016 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 1 I. CASE SUMMARY 1. The case concerns the proceedings for the return of three young boys to their father G.B. who by the time of his wife’s death was undergoing treatment for drug addiction and had previously been convicted of drug abuse. The complaint was lodged by Ms.Ts in respect of her nephews who had been living with her and their maternal grandparents since their mother’s death in 2009. 2. The Court found violation of the children’s right to respect for their family and private life on account of the combination of flawed representation, and as a consequence, the failure to duly present and hear their views, undermining the procedural fairness of the decisionmaking process. This was exacerbated by inadequate and one-sided consideration of the children’s best interests, in which their emotional state of mind was simply ignored (Article 8 of the Convention). II. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES a) Details of just satisfaction Name and application number N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 10,000 EUR 900 EUR 10.900 EUR n° 71776/12 Paid on 28/06/2016 b) Reopening of the case at domestic level 3. According to the information received from the Supreme Court of Georgia, subsequent to the delivery of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants referred to the Tbilisi City Court on 2 March 2016 to reopen the initial proceedings (according to which the national courts concluded that the children should live with their father) under article 423, paragraph 1, and subparagraph “g” of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia.1 4. Upon the decision of 4th August 2016, the Tbilisi City Court approved the applicants’ motion and annulled the initial judgment of 18th May 2010. Consequently, the court proceedings were renewed on the claim of the father of the applicants – G.B. 5. Within the renewed proceedings, G.B. has filed motion regarding the termination of the proceedings (since he refused his initial claim) which was approved upon the decision of A final judgement may be appealed by an action for retrial due to newly discovered circumstances, if: g) there is a final judgement (ruling) of the European Court of Human Rights establishing that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and/or of its additional protocols have been violated with regard to this case, and if the decision to be reviewed is based on this violation. 1 17th October 2016.2 It should be noted that representative of the applicants as well as the representative of the social service agency agreed the motion of G.B. since it was in line with the best interests of the children. Consequently, the decision became final since the parties have not appealed it. 6. Therefore, the impugned proceedings at national level which caused violation of Article 8 of the ECHR due to return of three young boys to their father were terminated. III. GENERAL MEASURES a) National policy for the protection of the right to respect for private and family life 7. First and foremost, it should be noted that the Government of Georgia have implemented general measures in order to improve realization of the right to respect for private and family life which will serve prevention of similar violations of Article 8 of the Convention. - National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020 8. On 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted its first comprehensive long-term Human Rights Strategy (2014-2020) and the subsequent Action Plans for the period of 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 which were elaborated with the active involvement of the civil society and international actors. The strategy was elaborated on the bases of the recommendations from the national human rights institutions, national and international human rights NGOs, and specifically the country report by the then EU Special Adviser on Legal Reform and Human Rights in Georgia. 9. Strategy strengthens the human rights based approach which will drive the state policy and programs and determine right-holders and duty-bearers in each particular case. The Strategy explicitly requires from the state to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. 10. The strategy contains special provisions dedicated to the children’s rights and defines concrete measures to be implemented by the Government. It mainly focus on improving existing protection and assistance mechanisms, developing social services and taking into account the best interests of the child.3 11. It should be noted that adoption of the National Human Rights Strategy for 2014–2020 and of the National Human Rights Action Plan was welcomed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia”4 and EU Special Advisor Thomas Hammarberg in his Recommendations to the Government of Under Article 272, paragraph “c” of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, a court shall, on the petition of the parties or on its own initiative, terminate the proceedings if, the plaintiff renounced his/her claim. 2 National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51454 4 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 3 Georgia.5 The relevant excerpts from the recommendations of EU Special Advisor reads as follows: „Georgia has to be congratulated on the adoption of the seven-year National Strategy on Human Rights and two-year Action Plan of the Government, as well as on the establishment of the Human Rights Council and secretariat in the PM’s office. The Action Plan is one of the best in Europe, detailed and built on serious consultations.” 6 - Action Plan of the Government of Georgia on the Protection of Human Rights (2014-2015) 12. On July 9 2014 the Government approved its Action Plan for 2014-2015 on the Protection of Human Rights and establishment of the relevant inter-agency coordination council, chaired by the Prime Minister. A working group was created to monitor specifically the implementation process of child rights. 13. The Action Plan foreseen reinforcement of the coordinating and monitoring mechanism for the children’s rights and improvement of the system of child protection and assistance, inter alia, by establishing the coordinating mechanism, incorporation of the principle “best interests of the child” in all government programs, action plans, in any legal or administrative procedure, as well as in the process of determination of policy, strengthening the monitoring opportunities of the Public Defender, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, carrying out trainings for the aim of enhancement of the qualifications of various professional groups (i.e. prosecutors, teachers, advocates, medical staff, social workers, school administrators, child protection officers, etc.). 7 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia 14. As to the procedure of implementation of action plans, Human Rights Inter-Agency Council and Special Secretariat under the Prime Minister are responsible for the effective implementation and monitoring of the Action Plan. The Council brings together ministers as well as civil society representatives and international organizations with the right to vote, and is accountable before the Parliament on the basis of annual reports. As an additional guarantee for the effective implementation of the Action Plan, the Human Rights Secretariat, responsible for productive Inter-Agency coordination and close monitoring of the execution of the Action Plan was created in the Administration of the Government, Prime Minister’s Office. 15. On 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation report of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) which represents the implementation of Action Plan in practice. According to the report, during 2014-2015 the measures have been taken by the state in respect of the protection of the rights of child. Recommendations to the Government of Georgia by Special Advisor to Georgia on Human Rights, Constitutional and Legal Reforms – Thomas Hammarberg (Follow up on the final mission – 4-9 June, 2014), p. 1, available at: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/georgia/key_eu_policies/human_rights/hammarber_reports/th_recomm072014_en.htm 6 Ibid, p. 2 7 Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 13, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51455 5 16. Among others, one of the core directions was to strengthen monitoring capacity of the Public Defender’s Office and that of relevant Non-Governmental and Governmental Organizations. In consideration of this direction, active work is conducted with donor agencies with the goal of improving human and technical resources of the Child Rights Center of the Public Defender’s Office. 17. Moreover trainings are conducted for professional groups (judges, teachers, social workers and agents, lawyers, school administration, child protection officers, etc.) on the issues of child protection including a teaching component on protection of the rights of child. Bachelor and Master Programs for social workers cover teaching on policy of child welfare, including protection of the rights of child.8 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) 18. Furthermore, it should be underscored that on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan for 2016-2017. The Action Plan foresees improvement of child protection and assistance system along with the reinforcement of monitoring and coordination mechanisms for the rights of the child, inter alia, by ratification of the third Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure, affirmation of enforcement and referral mechanisms improving human and technical resources of the Child’s Rights Center of the Public Defender’s Office.9 Thus, the Government of Georgia will continue to observe the “best interests of the child” as a primary consideration in all actions/policies concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies and apply the aforesaid principle in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and assessment of its various policies and programs. 19. It should be underlined that on 19 September 2016 Georgia has acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.10 Moreover, The Government of Georgia approved the Ordinance №437 On the Approval of Referral Procedures for the Protection of Children on 12 September 2016 11 regulating the measures of identifying, protecting and assisting child victims of violence and unprotected children, providing for a broader circle of public entities responsible for the issue and imposing an obligation on self-government bodies in the field of referral of violence against children. The adoption of the mentioned ordinance was welcomed by the Public Defender of Georgia in his Report on Human Rights and Freedoms in 2016. 12 20. It is noteworthy that Committee on the Rights of the Child in its “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” welcomes the adoption of the new Child 8 Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia, para. 13, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 9 Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017), para. 12, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350412 10 Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&clang=_en 11 Available at: https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3394478 12 Report on Human Rights and Freedoms in 2016 of Public Defender of Georgia, p. 14, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/report-on-human-rights-and-freedoms-in-2016.page Protection Referral Mechanism13 and the progress achieved by the State party in numerous areas: “the ratification of or accession to international instruments, in particular the ratification of the third Optional Protocol on the communications procedure in 2016. It also welcomes the adoption of numerous legislative Acts, as well as institutional and policy measures, including the revision of the social assistance system to make it more childsensitive and the adoption of the Juvenile Justice Code […].”14 - 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union 21. On 7 March 2016 National Action Plan was approved by the Government of Georgia. One of the priority directions of Action Plan is children’s rights protection by providing, among others, the following actions: awareness raising campaigns, preparation of special chapter on children’s rights in Public Defender’s Parliamentary Report, implementation of a systematic monitoring of the child rights in Human Rights National Action Plan etc. 15 b) Measures undertaken to eradicate the specific violations found by the Court 22. It should be underlined that the extent of the best interests of the child is determined on the case by case basis in accordance with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is an integral part of Georgian legislation. 23. The fourth periodic report of Georgia16 clearly shows that children’s participation in matters that affect them directly and taking into account the best interests of the child is necessary and Georgian legislation envisages it by protecting child’s rights in many fields. In this regard, one of the most important field is family and the relationships related to it. There are several provisions in civil code of Georgia concerning relations among parents, children and other relatives, rights and duties of the parents with respect to children, etc. 24. For instance according to the Article 1197 Of Civil Code of Georgia parents shall have equal rights and duties with respect to their children. The child shall have the right to live and grow up in the family. 25. Moreover, Article 1198 provides a list of parental rights and obligations, among others, parents shall be entitled and obligated to raise their children, take care of their physical, mental, spiritual and social development bring them up as decent members of society, 13 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 74th session (16 January – 3 February 2017), CRC/C/GEO/CO/4, Distr.: General 3 February 2017, para. 21, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/GEO/CO/4&Lang=En 14 Ibid, para. 3. 15 2016 National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Association Agreement between Georgia, of the one part and the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the other part and the Association Agenda between Georgia and the European Union, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3222307 16 Committee on the Rights of the Child ,Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention Fourth periodic reports of States parties due in 2011, Georgia, Distr.: General 28 June 2016, available at: http://www.refworld.org/publisher,CRC,,GEO,585405404,0.html taking account of the best interests of the child. In addition according to civil code, parental rights shall not be exercised in such a way as to prejudice the child’s interests. 26. Furthermore, Article 1201 concerns the place of residence of a minor in the case of divorce of the parents. According to Paragraph 2 of the present Article, if parents disagree, the dispute over the custody of the minor shall be resolved by a court, taking into account the child’s interests. In that case, the right of a parent to be a representative of the child in a legal dispute shall be suspended. A guardianship and custodianship authority shall appoint a child’s representative who is to represent the child’s interests in the court proceedings. 27. According to the analysis of the decisions and judgments received from Tbilisi, Rustavi, Batumi, Kutaisi City Courts and Tbilisi, Kutaisi Court of Appeals, social service agency is involved in the relevant civil proceedings which affect children’s rights with the status of a “third party” and not by the status of “interested party” as was in the present case. 28. The Civil Procedure Code of Georgia envisages a special chapter regulating the “Third Parties”. In particular, there are third parties without independent claims and the third parties who are engaged in the proceedings on the initiative of one of the parties. 29. Article 89 states that all interested persons who do not assert an independent claim for the subject matter of a dispute or its part, may apply to a court to allow him/her to intervene as a third party in the proceedings in support of the plaintiff or the defendant, on the grounds that the court decision on this case may subsequently affect his/her rights and duties with respect to one of the parties. Intervention of a third party to the proceedings shall be decided by the court, taking into consideration the opinions of the parties. 30. Article 90 states the following: 1.A third party without an independent claim may engage in the proceedings at the initiative of either party, for which the third party shall submit a reasoned request to the court. Such application may be made both in writing or orally before a court makes a decision. An oral application shall be entered into the minutes of the hearing. The court shall deliver a judgment on allowing or refusing the intervention of the third party in the proceedings, taking into consideration the opinions of the parties. 2. The court judgement refusing the intervention of a third party in the proceedings shall be appealed along with the decision. 31. Consequently, the analysis of domestic Case Law illustrates that, in the court proceedings SSA is involved with the status of a “third party” and not the “interested party” as was in the present case. As noted above, the civil legislation exhaustively regulates the status of “third party”. 32. Furthermore, the domestic courts take into consideration the conclusions provided by the SSA for the protection of the children’s best interests. It appears from the case files, that SSA is involved in the proceedings from the first stages. The representatives of SSA draft reports on children’s living conditions, their emotional state of mind, stay in frequent contact with them and provide the judicial authorities with the detailed information. 33. Moreover, Article 81, paragraph 3 of Civil Procedure Code of Georgia states that the rights and statutory interests of minors aged 7–18, as well as of citizens declared as persons with limited legal capacity shall be protected in court by their parents, adoptive parents or care givers. At the same time, a court shall be obliged to engage in these cases the minors themselves. 34. Correspondingly, children’s rights are heard, their views are given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity and their best interests are the primary consideration for the judicial authorities. 35. Thus, all the aforementioned clearly illustrates that the improper representation of the minors at domestic proceedings and the involvement of SSA by the status of “interested party” constituted an isolated case. c) Trainings 36. The Government has taken steps for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the judges and other court officials in respect of children’s rights. Particularly, as a result of cooperation between the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the High School of Justice, under the program 2015 for Retraining Judges and Currently Serving Officials, judges had undergone the appropriate training about the Children's Rights in 2015. 37. Furthermore, the course on family law is integrated within educational programs of the High School of Justice which is undergone by the listeners of the High School. 38. Moreover, program 2015 of Special Training Course for Court Officials covers minor’s right in relations with parents, during determination of the amount of maintenance and the child's place of residence. 39. Apart from the permanent training courses and educational programs, periodic training sessions on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are organized regularly for the court officials. d) Publication and dissemination 40. The European Court’s judgment was translated into Georgian and published in the Legislative Herald and on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court. IV. CONCLUSION 41. The Government hold the view that the aforementioned individual and general measures implemented on domestic level will contribute to further prevention of violations similar to those established by the Court and will remedy the consequences of the violations.

Government of Georgia Action Report LASHA TCHITCHINADZE v. GEORGIA (n° 35195/05) Judgment final on 7 June 2016 I. Case summary This case concerns the failure of the relevant domestic authorities to address the specific facts of the applicant’s case and to consider alternative non-custodial pre-trial measures. They used a stereotyped formulas, paraphrasing the terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure (violation of Article 5§3). II. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Payment of just satisfaction Name and application number Lasha Tchitchinadze v. Georgia n° 35195/05 Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses 1 000 EUR Total 1 000 EUR Paid on 08/08/2016 (within the time-limit) b) Other individual measures The impugned situation occurred and ended in 2005 - on 9 July 2005 the Tbilisi District Court released the applicant on bail (§ 14 of the judgment). In consequence, no other individual measures are necessary. III. General measures a) Violation of Article 5 § 3 It is to be noted that at its 1120th Meeting (14 September 2011) the Committee of Ministers’ adopted a final resolution CM/ResDH(2011)105, concerning the execution of three Georgian cases on pre-trial detention (case of Patsuria, case of Gigolashvili and case of Ramishvili and Kokhreidze). The Committee considered that the 2010 legislation on pre-trial detention and 1 its application in practice adequately remedied the violations found by the Court in those judgments. At its 1254th meeting (27 April 2016), the Committee adopted another final resolution CM/ResDH(2016)82, concerning the similar violation of Article 5§3 in the case of Janiashvili v. Georgia1. Given that this legislation is applicable in the present case and that the Committee of Ministers’ decisions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention are entirely without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of other cases currently pending before it, the Government considers that no other general measures are necessary. b) Statistical data with regard to the imposition of pre-trial detention Recent statistical data on the application of detention on remand as a restraint measure show a clearly decreasing tendency. The national courts often apply alternative non-custodial pretrial restraint measures. In particular, in 2011 the detention on remand has been used in 49.3% of cases. In 2012 the figures have reduced to 41.9%. In 2013 the percentage of cases involving detention on remand has been only 26.8%. In 2014 the number amounted to 32 % whilst in 2015 it equalled to 29.6%. In 2016, the application of detention on remand corresponded to 29.1%.2 c) Publication and dissemination The European Court’s judgment was translated into Georgian and published in the Official Gazette and on the website of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The judgment was also published in the periodical of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which includes the judgments of the European Court and is intended for the judges of the Common Courts System of Georgia. IV. Conclusion of the respondent state The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court and that Georgia has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 1 2 See also Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)121 (Baisuev and Anzorov v. Georgia). Source: Official website of the Supreme Court of Georgia - http://www.supremecourt.ge/statistics/ 2

Government of Georgia Action Report CASE OF TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA (n° 15256/05) Judgment of 21/06/2016, final on 12/09/2016 I. Case summary The case concerned the pre-trial detention of the former chairperson of the Civil Aviation Agency (CAA) of Georgia and his criminal conviction of abuse of power. Mr. Tchankotadze was the chairperson of the Civil Aviation Agency of Georgia (CAA) between March 2002 and March 2004, when he resigned. In March 2004 criminal proceedings were brought against him on charges of repeated abuse of power. According to the investigator, Mr. Tchankotadze had circumvented the legal effects of a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 January, 2003. Subsequently, Mr. Tchankotadze was arrested on 16 March 2004 and a district court ordered his detention pending investigation and trial for three months. In June 2004 his detention was extended until 16 September 2004. Mr. Tchankotadze remained in detention after that date, and in February 2005 he complained that he had been unlawfully detained since September 2004. Without replying to his complaint, the competent court decided, on 16 March 2005, to uphold the measure, in particular on the basis of the “nature of the charges”. In August 2005 the trial court convicted Mr. Tchankotadze of two of the three episodes of abuse of power of which he had been charged but acquitted him with respect to the CAA collecting a fee from eight of the aviation companies concerned. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and banned from holding public office for two years. The European Court found the following violations: - Violation of Article 5§1 of the Convention: The Court concluded that in Mr. Tchankotadze’s case, there had been no judicial decision authorizing his detention for six months, between 16 September 2004 and 16 March 2005, in violation of Article 5 § 1; - Violation of Article 6§1: Although Mr. Tchankotadze had voiced all relevant arguments relating to those factual and legal aspects, the domestic courts had not given them any meaningful consideration in their decisions. The courts had not attempted in their decisions to address the correlation between Mr. Tchankotadze’s actions, the reasoning of the Constitutional Court in its judgment of January 2003, and the relevant statutory law in the immediate aftermath of that judgment. Indeed, it was difficult to see why Mr. Tchankotadze’s acts had been described as criminal at all. The criminal law had been arbitrarily construed to his detriment. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1; The European Court awarded EUR 20,000 to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 in respect of costs and expenses. II. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a) Details of just satisfaction Name and application number Tchankotadze v. Georgia Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 20 000 EUR 15 000 EUR 35 000 EUR n°15256/05 The applicant passed away on 6 January 2013. On 04 November 2016 the compensation sum - 35 000 EUR has been transferred to his heir (son). b) Other individual measures According to the letter received from the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, dated 24 March 2017, the applicant’s heir has not applied national courts for the reopening of the applicant’s case. III. General measures Violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention In the cases of Patsuria v. Georgia (№30779/04) the judgment of 6 November 2007), Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia (№1704/06) the judgment of 27/01/2009), Gigolashvili v. Georgia (№18145/05) the judgment of 08/07/2008) the Court has already examined the issues at hand in respect of violation of Article 5. In the context of the execution of the aforementioned cases as well as for the elimination and prevention of the identified problems the respective individual and general measures have already been conducted. Accordingly, on 14 September 2011 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a final resolution within the framework of which the said problems are considered to be resolved (for further details see the resolution CM/ResDH(2011)105). Considering the fact that the circumstances of the present case took place in 2004-2005, the provisions of the above resolution of the Committee of Ministers are applicable to the present case. It should be stressed that since adoption of the aforementioned resolution several key legislative changes concerning the pre-trial detention has been conducted to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia (CCP). The aforesaid amendments are directly linked to the breaches of the applicant's right to liberty and security found by the court. In particular, Article 206 of the new Code provides that the prosecutor must address to the judge a reasoned request for application for privation of liberty within 48 hours after an individual’s arrest. The judge examines this request within 24 hours. The hearing is public, other than in exceptional cases which the Code provides. The prosecutor’s request must contain the personal details of an individual, the charge and any information or evidence on which that charge is based. 2 After verifying the merits and the formal and procedural bases of the requested measure, the judge delivers a judgment for which reasons must be given. The judge may reject the measure requested by the prosecutor for appropriate reasons and apply another, less severe measure. Article 198 §1 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure provides that remand detention or any other measure of restraint may not be applied against the accused if the purpose stipulated by this paragraph can be achieved through another less severe measure of restraint. Another significant regulation is stipulated in Article 219 §4 of the CCP which reads as follows: If an accused person has been sentenced to remand detention, the judge shall, on his/her own initiative, review, at the first preliminary hearing, the necessity to leave the remand detention in force, regardless of whether the party has filed a motion for change or annulment of the remand detention. After that, the court shall, on its own initiative, review, at least once in two months, the necessity to leave the remand detention in force. The detailed adjustment of the following novation is set forth in Article 2301§1 of the CCP. According to the following Article: If the accused has been remanded to custody, before delivering the judgement, periodically, at least once in two months, the presiding judge shall, on his/her own initiative, review the necessity of leaving the accused in custody. This two-month period shall start from the day when the pre-trial judge makes a decision to leave the remand detention in force. When deciding the issue provided for by this paragraph, the court shall be guided by the procedure and standard established by Article 206 of this Code. The substantial fact is that according to Article 194 §2 of the CCP any decision of the court must be substantiated. That rule in accordance with the mentioned regulations is the guarantee for prevention of arbitrary and ill-founded detentions and/or detention in the term of absence of a valid court order. Violation of Article 6 § 1 The violation of Article 6 concerned national courts’ failure to give meaningful considerations to the applicant’s relevant arguments relating to the factual and legal aspects. According to ECtHR, it was difficult to see why Mr Tchankotadze’s acts had been described as criminal at all. Furthermore, the criminal law had been arbitrarily construed to his detriment. In the first place, it should be highlighted that new standards were established by the new Code of Criminal Procedure in 2009 (came into force on 1st October 2010), which in conjunction with other legislative provisions, guarantees the prevention of the same violation in future. In particular, Article 19 §1 of the CCP stipulates that - “A Court is the only state authority that is entitled to render justice, hear criminal cases and deliver a lawful, substantiated and fair judgement”. According to Article 259 of the CCP, “A court judgement shall be legitimate, reasoned and fair. A court judgement shall be considered legitimate if it has been rendered in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution of Georgia, this Code and other laws of Georgia, the provisions of which were applied during the criminal proceedings. A court judgement shall be considered reasoned if it is based on the body of evidence excluding reasonable doubt that has been examined during the court hearing. All findings and decisions provided in a court judgement shall be reasoned”. It is fundamentally important that the judgment should be based on all abovementioned criterias cumulatively in order to be considered lawful. Furthermore, it 3 should be noted, that the very aim of the right to appeal is to examine whether or not the judgment is based on the aforesaid criteria (Article 292 §1 of CCP). It is noteworthy that violations found by the European Court in the present case, did not have systematic nature, but was a single, isolated case caused by misinterpreting the decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. Nowadays, the same kind of violation by all three instances of the common courts system is practically excluded. Firstly, it should be stated that Georgian legislation empowers common courts to address to the Constitutional Court in identified circumstances. In particular, according to the “Organic Law of Georgia on Common Courts”, Article 7, §3 – “If during the hearing of a particular case the court infers that there is a sufficient basis to believe that a law or any other normative act to be applied by the court in deciding the case may be deemed incompatible, in full or in part, with the Constitution of Georgia, it shall suspend the hearing and apply to the Constitutional Court of Georgia. The hearing shall be resumed after the Constitutional Court of Georgia has made a decision on the matter.” The same regulation is stipulated in “Organic Law on Constitutional Court”, Article 19, §2. To sum up, nowadays the chance of misinterpreting the decision of the Constitutional Court and/or construing the criminal law to detriment of defendant is absolutely excluded in law and in practice. The relevant statistical data clearly demonstrates the progress made in that regard (see below). Besides, it should be highlighted that as mentioned above, under the relevant circumstances established by law, any judge of common courts system is empowered to apply to the Constitutional Court, which represents a strong guarantee for the prevention of misinterpreting the law or the decision of the Constitutional Court by the judges of the national courts.  Statistical data As mentioned above, the common courts are empowered to apply to the Constitutional Court in particular situations prescribed by law. The statistical data regarding that issue clearly demonstrates the obvious progress. The key point in that regard is the fact, that unlike 2004-2005 whilst the facts of the present case occurred, nowadays common courts frequently apply to the Constitutional Court. Statistical data published on the website of the Constitutional Court clearly indicates that in 2004-2005 General Courts applied to the Constitutional Court only once, whilst in 2016 General Courts used the aforesaid power for 44 times1. The aforesaid increasing tendency clearly demonstrates the progress made in that regard, which guarantees prevention of same kind of violations in the future. IV. Conclusions The Government of Georgia considers that no other individual or general measure is required and that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations. Thus, Georgia has complied with its obligations under Article 46§1 of the Convention. 1 Statistical data – available at: http://constcourt.ge/ge/legal-acts/statistics 4

SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 07/11/2016 DH-DD(2016)1206 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1273 meeting (6-8 December) (DH) Item reference: Action plans (28/10/2016) Communications concerning the Gharibashvili group of cases against Georgia (Application No. 11830/03) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1273 réunion (6-8 décembre) (DH) Référence du point : Plans d’action (28/10/2016) Communications concernant le groupe d’affaires Gharibashvili contre Géorgie (Requête n° 11830/03) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia CONSOLIDATED ACTION PLAN CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL AND GENERAL MEASURES IN RESPECT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE FOLLOWING CASES Giorgi Bekauri and Others, 312/10 final on 08.10.2015 Studio Maestro LTD and Others, 22318/10 final on 23.07.2015 Chantladze, 60864/10 final on 23.07.2015 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 28 October 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 II. CASE SUMMARIES ............................................................................................................ 3 IV. INFORMATION ON NEW INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................. 5 BEKAURI AND OTHERS V. GEORGIA, STUDIO MAESTRO LTD AND OTHERS V. GEORGIA ...................... 6 CHANTLADZE V. GEORGIA .............................................................................................................. 10 V. GENERAL MEASURES.................................................................................................... 11 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 18 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Government of Georgia submits consolidated action plan on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the decisions in the cases of Giorgi Bekauri and Others v. Georgia, Studio Maestro LTD and Others v. Georgia as well as Chantladze v. Georgia. 2. The present document is a report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the above decisions. It does account for individual and general measures undertaken up to date by the authorities to remedy the violations acknowledged by the Government. II. CASE SUMMARIES Bekauri and Others v. Georgia 3. The case concerns: - a lack of effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 15 June 2009, as well as inside of the Tbilisi police headquarters (procedural violation of Article 3 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration); - several breaches of the right to fair trial, due to the fact that the applicants’ summary trials had been a pure formality, that they were not explained any of their procedural rights and did not have sufficient time and facilities to prepare for their defence or to appoint lawyer (violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration); - a breach of the applicants’ rights to freedom of association due to the violent disruption of their demonstration by the police on 15 June 2009 (violation of Article 11 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration). 4. Regarding the part of the application that the European Court decided to strike out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention, the Government undertook to conduct effective investigation of the relevant five applicants’ (Mr Bekauri, Mr Meskhi, Mr Chitarishvili, Mr Maisuradze and Mr Tsuladze) allegations of ill-treatment and to pay them 20 500 EUR (see details below). Studio Maestro LTD and Others v. Georgia 5. The case concerns the lack of effective investigation into the three individual applicant’s allegations of being subjected to ill-treatment and obstructed in the exercise of their journalistic activities during the demonstration of 15 June 2009 (violations of Article 3 (procedural limb) and 10 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration). The Government undertook 3 to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations and to pay them 7,500 EUR (see details below). Chantladze v. Georgia 6. The case concerns, the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration of 6 May 2009 (the applicant lost his right eye). The Government undertook to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations and to pay him 6,000 EUR (see details below). III. DETAILS OF JUST SATISFACTION Name of the case / Applicant’s name Just satisfaction awarded Date of payment Mr Giorgi BEKAURI 3 500 EUR 20 500 EUR Mr Merab TCHIKASHVILI 1 500 EUR Mr Mikheil MESKHI 4 500 EUR Mr Giorgi SABANADZE 1 000 EUR Mr Giorgi CHITARISHVILI 4 500 EUR Mr Vakhtang MAISURADZE 3 500 EUR Mr Zurab KADAGIDZE 1 000 EUR Mrs Natia KOBALIA 1 000 EUR Studio Maestro LTD No JS Ms Teona LALIASHVILI 1 500 EUR Mr Shota KAPANADZE 1 500 EUR Ms Nestan INASARIDZE 4 500 EUR MrDavit CHANTLADZE 6 000 EUR application No. Bekauri and Others v Georgia No. 312/1 Studio Maestro Ltd and Others v Georgia No. 22318/10 Chantladze v.Georgia Total / 30.11.2015 7 500 EUR 12.10.2015 No. 60864/10 4 29.09.2015 IV. INFORMATION ON NEW INVESTIGATIONS As Regards independence and impartiality of the investigation 7. The Government underline from the outset that the alleged incidents of ill-treatment were committed by the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA) whereas the investigation is conducted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office which is entirely autonomous from the MoIA and does not have any institutional or hierarchal linkage to the events in question. Persons responsible for the execution of the investigation as well as the investigative body – are independent in law and in practice. 8. It should be underscored that Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an exhaustive list of the bodies (investigators) authorised to pursue criminal investigations. According to this Article, criminal cases shall be investigated by the investigators of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the investigative divisions of the State Security Service of Georgia. 9. According to Articles 35-36 of the same Code, an investigative jurisdiction and the territorial investigative jurisdiction shall be determined by the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. 10. Agency and territorial subordination of investigation is regulated by the Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued on 7 July 2013 concerning determination of territorial and investigative jurisdiction of criminal cases. Article 2 of the Order sets the list of cases which should be investigated by the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, among others, the crimes committed by the police officers. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Order the crimes committed under several Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia, among others, under Articles 332-335 should be investigated by the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. 11. In case of competition concerning the investigative subordination between the Prosecutor’s Office and some other investigative organs envisaged by this Order, the investigation should be carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (Article 10 of the Order). 12. In addition, despite the norms regarding investigative subordination set out in Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, Georgian legislation – subparagraph “a” of paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code – allows the Chief Prosecutor or other person authorized by the Chief Prosecutor to take away a case from one investigation body and to assign it to the Prosecutor’s Office for the investigation regardless of normally applicable jurisdictional rules. 13. As to the implementation of institutional independence in practice, according to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2013: 14. “During the reporting period, the Public Defender received requests and applications from numerous prisoners alleging that they had been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the period preceding Fall 2012. The Office of the Public Defender responded to each case by forwarding relevant information and materials to the Chief Prosecution Office and followed up by requesting the Prosecution Office to provide information 5 about actions taken. According to the replies received, the Prosecution Office had opened criminal investigation on a majority of applications through its territorial offices, according to their jurisdictional rules [...].1 15. According to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2015: “According to information provided by General Inspectorate of MOIA, information obtained about offences committed by MOIA employees are sent to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. If the mentioned information relate to exceeding power by police officers, including beating and torture of citizens and other facts of gross human rights violations, Prosecutor’s Office investigates such cases […]. 16. Notably, given the system of investigation bodies in Georgia, the Public Defender welcomes the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office handles the above-mentioned criminal cases […]”2 New investigation in respect of the cases Bekauri and Others v Georgia, Studio Maestro Ltd and Others v Georgia 17. With a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into alleged ill-treatment against of the applicants, the investigation was renewed on 26 June 2015 and was being conducted by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office. On 12 January 2016 the cases have been transferred to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. Circumstances of the case established as a result of the effective investigation 18. Throughout the criminal proceedings about 30 witnesses have been questioned. The information below regarding the investigative activities is based on the evidences obtained in the context of the investigation renewed on 26 June 2015. 19. In particular on 15 April 2015, G. Chitarishvili (the 5th applicant in the case of “Bekauri and others”) was questioned as a witness, who noted that on 15 June 2009 he participated in the peaceful demonstration, which took place in front of the Tbilisi police headquarters. The demonstration was dispersed by the law enforcement officers through the use of physical coercion and truncheons. G. Chitarishvili confirmed that during the course of the dispersal the part of the law enforcers wore masks. He stated that the law enforcers have beaten him and other demonstrators while employing physical violence and truncheons. G. Chitarishvili named the former law enforcement officer – L.Ts. and stated that he noticed the said person through the television broadcast and identified him as the abuser who ill-treated him on 15 June 2009. G. Chitarishvili explained that during the dispersal, L.Ts. have beaten him by using truncheon and inflicted physical injuries on the various parts of his body. 1 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2013, p.12, available at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1934.pdf 2 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2015, p.188, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 6 20. On 14 April 2015, with the purpose of attachment to the criminal case G. Chitarishvili presented CD and DVD disks including video footage and photos illustrating the dispersal of the demonstration. 21. On 16 April 2015 D.Ph. was questioned as a witness. He stated that on 12 June 2009 he was in the vicinity of the building of the Parliament of Georgia with the members of an NGO and was holding a protest action. At that moment they were attacked by 10-15 persons dressed into civilian clothes. The same evening the employees of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs (MoIA) administratively detained D.Ph. and other members of the NGO. Subsequently, they were administratively sanctioned in the form of imprisonment by the national court. According to D.Ph. the above-mentioned fact became the reason for the subsequent protest actions on 15 June 2009 calling for their immediate release in front of the Tbilisi police headquarters. He stated that during the protest actions he was placed in the Temporary Detention Isolator in the building of the police headquarters and that he heard the noise but could not see anything. 22. On 16 April 2015 G. Chitarishvili was additionally questioned. He confirmed his previous testimony and added that on 15 June 2009 at 14:30 the members of the protest action were using the loudspeakers, naming their supporters. At that moment, without any prior warning, the law enforcers rushed towards them. Part of them wore civilian clothes and others wore the masks. Almost all of them were holding truncheons. Subsequent to the notice of the law enforcers the demonstrators tried to escape. They could not escape as they were besieged and were unable to avoid the aggression of the law enforcers. G. Chitarishvili presented a CD which, according to his description, included the video footage and photo materials illustrating the dispersal of the demonstration, where it is visible how a police officer is beating him together with other persons. 23. On 17 April 2015 L.Ts. was questioned. He explained that on 15 June 2009, together with other employees, he received order from then head of the Old Tbilisi Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs – Z.K. to secure public order in front of the Tbilisi police headquarters and during the fulfillment he maintained that the demonstrators were obstructing the functioning of the headquarters and blocked the road. The demonstrators verbally insulted them and subsequently the incident developed into the confrontation. L.Ts. maintained that before the dispersal they warned verbally the demonstrators, however, he could not recall who made the warning. According to him, the demonstrators wanted to enter the building and the aforesaid circumstance became the reason of confrontation. Despite the warning that the proportional force would be employed, the demonstrators did not leave the road. L.Ts declined the fact of holding the truncheon during the dispersal of the demonstration. 24. On 18 April 2015 G.O. the former employee of the MoIA has been summoned, however he refused to give a statement on the ground of his current standing as a lawyer of L.Ts. in respect of the case in question. He stated that he recalled the factual circumstances of events occurred on 15 June 2009 subsequent to the consultation with L.Ts. 25. On 18 April 2015 the investigation retrieved the information from the Tbilisi police headquarters regarding the position of L.Ts. at the material time and whether he received cash bonus from 1 June 2009 to 1 August 2009. 26. According to the official answer received from the MoIA, on 22 June 2009 L.Ts. received cash bonus of 135 GEL (approximately 58 EUR) and on 26 June 2009 he received cash bonus equal to his own monthly salary. 7 27. On 20 April 2015 G. Chitarishvili was additionally questioned. He presented the video footage of 17 April 2015 of “Imedi” TV station TV show “re-action” where L.Ts. participated as a guest. The TV show was dedicated to the dispersal of the demonstration on 15 June 2009. 28. The investigation examined the CD presented by G. Chitarishvili. During his interrogation which concerned the media report broadcasted via TV show “re-action” on 17 April 2015. 29. The investigation questioned A.G. as a witness. He explained that on the day of the incident, together with his colleagues (among them M.P.) he had been performing his professional duties and at that moment duty officer called them and informed that on the ground of the order of leadership (he is not aware who issued the order) they had to approach the building of the Tbilisi police headquarters. Subsequent to their gathering allegedly the former head of the Department of Old Tbilisi of the MoIA – I.K. ordered his subordinates to gather in the yard of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Soon after their gathering, the demonstration started and they realized why they were gathered in the yard. In his statement the witness confirmed that the employees of MoIA besieged the demonstrators and were beating them. The witness also recalled an episode of the dispersal and stated that during the confrontation several employees of the MoIA were beating G. Chitarishvili. According to him, one of the employees who have beaten G. Chitarishvili with truncheons, is L.Ts. The witness explained that he managed to keep away G. Chitarishvili from the confrontation area for a while and did not participate actively in the dispersal. A.G. clarified that during the dispersal he was accompanied by the employees of the MoIA – M.P. and L. Kh. According to him the latter was the head of the Tabakhmela Police Department at the material time. The witness explained that G. Chitarishvili was not verbally insulting or physically resisting to the employees of the MoIA. 30. The witness M.P. was questioned on 20 April 2015. He stated that on 15 June 2009 he was present on the dispersal of the demonstrators with other employees of MoIA. M.P. also clarified that the employees of MoIA besieged the demonstrators and were beating them by truncheons. The investigation authorities showed him the photos presented by G. Chitarishvili in respect of which M.P. explained that the illustrated person in civilian clothes holding truncheon is the employee of the MoIA- L.Ts who have beaten. G. Chitarishvili. 31. The witness L.Kh. was questioned on 20 April 2015. He confirmed his participation in the dispersal of the demonstration and stated that several law enforcers were abusing the demonstrators physically by truncheons and physical violence. L.Kh. stated that he did not apply any kind of coercion against demonstrators. 32. On 24 April 2015, in order to clarify the prescription, gravity and quality of the injuries according to the medical files concerning G. Chitarishvili, the forensic expertise has been conducted by the National Forensic Bureau. The expertise revealed that injuries sustained by G. Chitarishvili are developed by the influence of firm and blunt subject, which separately and together are attributed to the light injuries without impairment of health. 33. On 27 April 2015 I.K. (one of the demonstrators) was questioned as a witness. He stated that on 15 June 2009 he participated in the peaceful demonstration held in front of Tbilisi police headquarters. The witness confirmed that the demonstrators were besieged by law enforcers and were abused by them physically via truncheons and physical violence. The witness presented flash memory card with photos and video footage containing the materials about dispersal of demonstration on 15 June 2009 where it is visible how the persons in the police uniform were physically abusing the demonstrators. On 27 April 2015 the investigation authorities examined the materials kept on the memory card. 8 34. On 8 May 2015, the applicant in the case of Tsaguria v. Georgia (no. 65969/09, decision (unilateral declaration) final on 15/09/2015), questioned as a witness, clarified that on 15 June 2009, the law enforcers have verbally insulted and beaten him and the other demonstrators nearby the Tbilisi police headquarters. Among the employees of MoIA who have beaten the demonstrators, the witness recalled one of the employees of MoIA – M.. In addition, he stated that in the premises of the Tbilisi police headquarters G. K. (he could identify this person on face) has insulted him verbally and beaten. 35. On 20 January 2016 Z.A. who was the secretary-general of the political party “Our Georgia – Free Democrats” was questioned. He stated that on 15 June 2009 he participated in the peaceful demonstration in front of the Tbilisi police headquarters. According to the witness the police officers started to disperse the demonstration without any prior warning. He also stated that the demonstrators were besieged and that among others, he was verbally insulted and beaten by the police officers who used truncheons and were intentionally hitting him in various areas of the body and the face. As a result, he lost his consciousness. According to the conclusion of forensic expertise, the injuries sustained by Z.A belonged to the damage of less serious gravity with longlasting impairment of health. 36. In February 2016 the investigation authorities questioned various representatives of Georgian media, including the individual applicants in the case of Studio Maestro Ltd and Others, who were present during the dispersal of the demonstration in order to secure the media coverage of the events at the material time. 37. Most of them (stated that the police officers besieged the demonstrators and that during dispersal of the peaceful demonstration by means of truncheons and physical violence they were beaten and insulted and that the employees of MoIA seized their equipment and returned back only after removal of the video footage and photo materials illustrating the dispersal of the demonstration. 38. Considering the context of the relevant testimonies and the video footage and photo materials obtained in the course of investigation, it has been established that the demonstrators did not hinder the movement of vehicles and that there was no signs of provocation noticeable in their actions. Despite the aforesaid facts the employees of the various law-enforcement bodies part of whom wore mask have beaten the demonstrators by means of rubber truncheons. On the basis of the said facts, on 8 February 2016 the decree was issued regarding the alteration of the criminal classification on the case. The investigation continued in accordance with Article 333 (3) (b) of the Criminal Code (Exceeding of Official Powers by an Employee of MoIA by Using Violence). 39. On 28 June 2016 D.Ts. was additionally interrogated. He was introduced with photo materials illustrating the dispersal of demonstration on 15 June 2009. He identified several demonstrators who were physically abused by law enforcers. 40. On 29 June Z.M. was questioned as a witness. He could not recall whether he participated in the dispersal of the demonstration at issue. 41. On 29 June 2016 Sh.M. was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that he participated in the dispersal of the demonstration and that together with other employees of MoIA has beaten the demonstrators by means of rubber truncheons. 42. In July, August and October 2016, the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 10th applicants were questioned. They were introduced with photo materials illustrating the dispersal of demonstration. They identified several other demonstrators and police officers and stated that together with other demonstrators they were beaten by the police officers during the dispersal. 9 43. On 12 and 13 October 2016 the investigation authorities interrogated two other participants of the demonstration. According to them, despite the fact that the demonstrators were not aggressive and they did not hinder the movement of vehicles, the police officers most of whom had rubber truncheons, unexpectedly besieged them and among others were beating them by truncheons. Subsequently, they were placed in the administrative detention and were sanctioned in the form of fine (400 GEL - approx. 150 euros) by the domestic court. They had injuries as a result of which they suffered from concussion of the brain and consequently underwent a home treatment. 44. On 19 October 2016 the investigation authorities interrogated N. Inasaridze (the applicant in the case of “Studio Maesto LTD and Others”). She stated that the employees of the various law enforcement bodies besieged the demonstrators without prior warning and have beaten her. The police officers stripped off her photo camera and broke her eyeglasses. 45. On 20 October 2016 the investigation authorities interrogated G. Sabanadze (another applicant in the case of “Bekauri and others.”). He explained that he was also beaten by the police officers and was administratively sanctioned in the form of imprisonment (30 days) by the domestic court. 46. The planned investigative steps (among others, interrogation of up to 100 witnesses) will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities during the last months of 2016 as well as in 2017. New investigation in respect of the case Chantladze v.Georgia As regards the initial investigation 47. On 7 May 2009 the investigation was commenced against the demonstrators by the MoIA under Article 226 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (organizing group action disrupting public order or active participation therein) into the aforementioned incidents. On 9 June 2009 another criminal case was initiated under Article 333 of Criminal Code (exceeding official powers), which concerned alleged ill-treatment of one of the protesters B.B. on the basis of his complaint. 48. On 25 July 2013 the aforementioned criminal cases were merged by Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office under Article 333 of Criminal Code which concerned alleged ill-treatment of demonstrators. Regarding the aforesaid merged criminal case the applicant was questioned on 12 July 2013 and subsequently, on 25 July 2013 a victim status was granted to him. As regards the renewed investigation 49. On 15 April 2016 investigation into the merged criminal case was assigned to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. 50. Throughout the criminal proceedings a number of investigative activities have been carried out – witnesses have been questioned, all relevant information has been collected and forensic medical expertise has been assigned. The following information regarding the investigation is based on the evidence obtained in the context of renewed investigation. Circumstances of the case established as a result of the effective investigation 10 51. Throughout the renewed investigation, dozens of demonstrators have been identified who underwent a medical treatment for their bodily injuries sustained at the demonstration and whose identities were not known until now. At this stage the investigative bodies are in the process of their final identification and interrogation. 52. Consequently, numerous demonstrators have been questioned as witnesses. They confirmed their participation in a peaceful demonstration held on 6 May 2009 in front of the main police station of Tbilisi, protesting unlawful detention of three persons and demanding their prompt release from the detention. 53. Furthermore, medical files of all injured demonstrators were requested from relevant medical institutions. On 12 August 2016, after acquiring the medical files, investigative authorities assigned a forensic medical expertise in order to assess the severity and degree of the injuries sustained to the demonstrators, among others, to the applicant. At this stage, the investigative authorities have not received conclusions of the expertise with respect to the applicant. 54. On 14 July 2016 the investigation authorities requested information from the MoIA regarding identification of its employees who participated in the dispersal of the demonstration and the detailed information of police officers to whom riot guns were assigned. 55. After receiving the aforesaid information, further investigative steps will be planned which will be duly communicated to the Committee. 56. The applicant has been summoned several times to participate in investigative activities but to no avail. Last telephone conversation took place on 28 September 2016 whilst he had firmly denied to be involved in investigation and refused to cooperate with the investigative bodies. 57. The investigation will be actively carried out until the exhaustion of all investigative activities for the identification of those responsible. Outcome of the investigations 58. As demonstrated above, the investigative measures undertaken by the relevant authorities in terms of execution of these cases encompass a number of significant initiatives. 59. New investigations have been implemented in compliance with the European Court’s case-law, and Committee of Ministers practice. Independence and impartiality of the investigators/ prosecutors are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigations are comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from date when the events complained of allegedly took place. 60. The decision regarding future course of action will be adopted after carrying out all necessary investigative measures within the lime-limits set above. The relevant authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for effective and prompt investigations. V. GENERAL MEASURES 61. As for the general measures carried out by the Government of Georgia regarding eradication of ill-treatment and the investigative proceedings, please see DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2016)701, Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03). 11 a) National policy for the protection of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression 62. The Government of Georgia have implemented general measures in order to ensure and promote full realization of the right of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly which will serve in future prevention of violations acknowledged by the Government in the aforementioned cases. 63. In particular, on 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020 through an inclusive participation of all State agencies, international and non-governmental organizations. 64. The main goal of the Human Rights Strategy is to consolidate institutional democracy, i.e. the system of functional institutions and thus to ensure that human rights obligations are implemented in everyday life through a multi-sector, unified, and consistent government policies. According to the Strategy, human rights based approach will be gradually integrated into the government policies and programming. It envisages legislative and institutional changes, as well as changes in practice for the State to meet their obligations to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. 65. The Strategy foresees as one of the objectives to ensure a high level of protection of the internationally recognized and constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. The Strategy aims to meet its objectives, inter alia, by preventing the violations, ensuring appropriate legal responses and carrying out regular trainings for the aim of the enhancement of the professional qualifications of law enforcement agents in that regard. 66. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015). It should be emphasized that in order to monitor the implementation process of the National Human Rights Action Plans, according to Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, the action plan coordination interagency council is responsible for drawing up progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan not later than March 15 of each year, which shall be submitted to the Government of Georgia and afterwards to the Parliament of Georgia not later than March 31. 67. In the light of the aforesaid, on 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation of the Action Plan of the Government of Georgia on the Protection of Human Right (2014-2015) which mirrors the implementation of 2014-2015 Action Plan in practice. According to the report, during 2014-2015 the Government has taken steps, among others, for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the law enforcement personnel regarding prevention of violations of the freedom of assembly and manifestations. 68. Notably, on 21 July 2016 the Government of Georgia approved new Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017). The Action Plan foresees further developing the legislative base in accordance with international standards with regard to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, effective and prompt investigation into the cases of violations of the rights, preventing violations through better preparation of relevant organs in dealing with mass demonstrations/crowd control, assessment of the European/International standards concerning manifestations and inclusion of the above subject matters into the various training programs of 12 the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA) Academy (regarding time-table for implementation reports, see para 66 above).3 b) Legislative amendments to the Law on Assembly and Manifestations of Georgia 69. Right to freedom of assembly and manifestations is guaranteed by Article 25 of the constitution of Georgia. The procedure for applying the aforementioned provision is regulated by the Law on Assembly and Manifestations of Georgia. Furthermore, the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia and Law of Georgia on Police also envisage certain regulations. 70. In 2009 legislative amendments were carried out to the legislation of Georgia regulating the assembly/manifestations, which substantially hindered the implementation of the right of peaceful assembly. Subsequently, the Government of Georgia has been actively cooperating with the Venice Commission to eradicate the existing gaps. 71. Also, in April 2011 the Constitutional Court of Georgia rendered a judgment according to which some provisions of the Law on Assembly and Manifestations of Georgia and the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia were declared unconstitutional.4 In particular, the Court annulled the blanket prohibition to demonstrate within 20 meters around several public buildings and the norm, which provided for the immediate termination of a protest if it blocks a public thoroughfare or violates other requirements of the law (see action plan of 18/07/2014 in Kakabadze and Others). 72. Thus, in order to eradicate the aforementioned gaps in the legislation as well as to comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Court, the Parliament of Georgia adopted legislative amendments to the law on Assembly and Manifestations on 1 July 2011, which entered into force on 14 July 2011. Overall legislative amendments were positively assessed by the Venice Commission5 and by the UN Special Repporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.6 73. In particular, the Venice Commission underscored that: “[…] the amendments to the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations adopted in July 2011 represent a significant improvement of the possibility of exercising the freedom of assembly in Georgia. The Venice Commission expresses its satisfaction about the fact that several significant recommendations contained in its previous opinion have been followed by the Georgian authorities. It welcomes in particular the 3 Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Georgia issued on 18 April, 2011 on the case of “political unity of citizens – “Movement for United Georgia”, political unity of citizens “Conservative Party of Georgia”, citizens of Georgia – Zviad Dzidziguri and Kakha Kukava, Young Lawyers Association of Georgia, citizens – Dachi Tsaguria and Jaba Jishkariani, Public Defender of Georgia against the Parliament of Georgia“, available at: http://constcourt.ge/ge/legal-acts/judgments/moqalaqetapolitikuri-gaertianeba-modzraoba-ertiani-saqartvelostvis-moqalaqeta-politikuri-gaertianeba-saqartvelos-konservatiuli-partiasaqartvelos-moqalaqeebi-zviad-dzidziguri-da-kaxa-kukava-saqartvelos-axalgazrda-iuristta-asociac-640.page 5 Final Opinion On the Amendments to the Law on Assembly and Manifestations of Georgia – Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 88th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 October 2011) Opinion no.547/2009, CDL-AD(2011) 092Strasbourg, 17 October, 2011, available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDLAD%282011%29029-e 6 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai, UN General Assembly, June 8, 2012, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-27-Add2_en.pdf 4 13 introduction of an explicit reference to the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity in a democratic society and the introduction of the presumption in favour of holding assemblies […] “.7 74. In addition, for the purpose of the effectiveness of national machineries in practice, on 30 December 2015 the Minister of Internal Affairs approved order No. 1002 on “Instructions regulating the conduct of police officers during assemblies and manifestations”, following a thorough analysis of international regulations/practice and recommendations of international organizations as well as the ECHR standards. In particular, the Order provides for duties and responsibilities of police officers during demonstrations while emphasizing the significance of the protection of human rights. The Order introduces the specific mechanisms of policing demonstrations and crowd control, such as, drawing security action plans of demonstrations by the police officers, carrying out negotiations with the participants to prevent the forthcoming violence, regulating counter-demonstrations and recourse to special measures by the police officers. 75. The aforementioned legislative measures implying the relevant international standards shall prevent the similar violations in the future. In addition, as noted above the Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) envisages as one of the goals to further harmonize legal framework on assembly and manifestation with the internationals standards. c) Legislative amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia 76. As noted above, the Government of Georgia acknowledged the violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention with respect to the judicial determination of the administrative offences imputed to several applicants in the case of Giorgi BEKAURI and others against Georgia (App no. 312/10). 77. Initially, it should be noted that respective Articles of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia provide sufficient guarantees of fair trial within judicial determination of the administrative offences. In particular, according to Article 252 of the Code, person liable for an administrative offence has a right to get acquainted with the case material, give statements, tender evidence, file petitions, enjoy the legal services of a defence counsel during the hearing, speak in a native language and, if he/she does not speak the language of the proceedings, enjoy the services of an interpreter and appeal an order issued in the case. Article 263 regarding the procedure for hearing the administrative cases, states that the persons participating in the hearing shall be heard, the evidence shall be examined and the petitions shall be ruled upon. Under Article 264 of the Code, during the hearing of administrative offence case, the official body should ascertain, inter alia, whether or not an administrative offence was committed, whether or not the person is guilty, whether or not the person is subject to an administrative 7 Final Opinion On the Amendments to the Law on Assembly and Manifestations of Georgia – Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 88th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 October 2011) Opinion no.547/2009, CDL-AD(2011) 092Strasbourg, 17 October, 2011, para. 47, available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDLAD%282011%29029-e 14 liability, whether or not there are any circumstances reducing or increasing the liability, also ascertain any other circumstances relevant for resolving the case. 78. As to the Action Plan of Georgia on the Protection of Human Rights (2014-2015), it envisaged systematic review of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, among others, by bringing the norms related to administrative detention in compliance with the right to a fair trial. 79. Pursuant to the progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (20142015), paragraph 11 has been added to Article 262 of the Code of Administrative Offences, according to which the cases of administrative offences defined in Articles 45, 166 and 173 shall be heard within three days. The district (city) court hearing an administrative case shall begin an oral hearing immediately upon receipt of the administrative offence report and other materials of the administrative proceedings in the cases when an administrative arrest has been applied against the person and the period of administrative arrest has not expired. According to the progress report, the aforesaid amendment promotes protection of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Georgia as well as increases efficiency of the activities of law enforcement bodies. 80. Another step carried out within the framework of implementation of 2014-2015 Human Rights Action Plan was the amendment to Article 245 of the Code of Administrative Offences. In particular, in the case of an administrative arrest, the arresting officer shall inform the arrestee upon placing him/her under arrest, in a form that he/she understands: a) of administrative offence committed by him/her and the basis of the arrest; b) of his/her right to a defence counsel; c) of his/her right, if desired, to request that the fact of his/her arrest and his/her location be made known to a relative named by him/her, also to the administration at his/her place of work or study. In addition, pursuant to the amendments “statements made by the arrestee before receiving the information provided in paragraph 1 of this article shall be declared as an inadmissible evidence”.8 The amendments requiring the rights of the arrested person to be explained to him/her immediately upon arrest were positively assessed by the Public Defender of Georgia.9 81. Apart from the aforementioned amendments, it should be also underlined that according to the Code of Administrative offences of Georgia the penalties for administrative offenses ranged from a fine to detention for up to 90 days. In 2014 some steps were carried out to improve the Code of Administrative Offences in that regard. Particularly, the amendments of 2014 reduced the upper threshold (90 days) of the administrative imprisonment to 15 days 10 since it contradicted the principle of proportionality of the sanctions which should be deemed as an important step forward (see action plan of 18/07/2014 in Kakabadze and Others). 8 Paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia. The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia, 15 April 2016 - “Report on Implementation of the Recommendations presented in 2012 Report of Maina Kiai, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association”, p. 23, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3570.pdf 10 Article 32 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia. 9 15 82. Reduction of administrative imprisonment was one of the recommendations of the Public Defender for many years and was reflected in the Parliamentary Report of 2013 as well. 11 83. As for general tendency of imposing administrative sanctions, it is notable that during the recent years imposing the most severe penalty - administrative detention is reduced which is a positive trend. In general, the domestic courts impose more lenient administrative sanctions such as fines. Consequently, the sanctions imposed by the courts are adequate and proportional. 84. Finally, the Government of Georgia draws the committee’s attention to its commitment stated in New Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) which introduces as one of the objectives further harmonisation of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia with the international standards by Initiation of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, in particular by revoking the administrative detention and setting up a unified system of monetary fees. d) Trainings 85. The Government has taken steps for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the judges and other court officials in respect of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia. Particularly, High School of Justice, which is educational institution in charge of training of the judicial candidates, judges, judicial assistants and other court staff, organizes periodic training sessions on the problematic issues related to the hearing of cases on administrative offences for the court officials. For instance, in 2015 two training courses regarding the problematic issues related to the hearing of cases on administrative offences were held for judges, which covered, inter alia, types of administrative offences, administrative liability, case law on the problematic issues of determination administrative offences etc. 86. Also the Government of Georgia draws huge attention towards raising awareness on human rights protection among police officers. In this regard, the Government has taken steps for the enhancement of professional qualifications of the law enforcement personnel in protecting freedom of assembly and manifestations. 87. For more details regarding trainings see the action plan submitted by the Government in the case of Identoba and others v. Georgia on 26/04/2016. VI. Summary of the reports - The Human Rights Committee, 19 August 2014 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” 88. The Human Rights Committee in its fourth periodic report of Georgia welcomes aforementioned legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party. 11 Parliamentary Report of 2013 by the Public Defender of Georgia, p. 281, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1563.pdf 16 The relevant excerpt from the periodic report reads as follows: “The Committee welcomes the following legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party: (a) Adoption of the National Human Rights Strategy for 2014–2020 and of the National Human Rights Action Plan for 2014-2015, in April and June 2014, respectively; (d) The amendments and addition to the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, in July 2011; […]”12 - The Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA, 2014 The Public Defender of Georgia in his Annual Report noted with satisfaction that the administrative detention term has decreased from 90 days to 15 days. The relevant excerpt from the periodic report reads as follows: “We note with satisfaction that the administrative detention term has decreased from 90 days to 15 days. In particular, the changes made in the legislation on 1 August 2014 took into account the Public Defender’s recommendation about reducing the term of administrative detention. It goes without saying that we are glad to this change.”13 - The Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA, 2015 The Public Defender of Georgia in his Annual Report emphasized a positive trend in selecting administrative sanctions by the judicial authorities. The relevant excerpt from the periodic report reads as follows: „The 2015 reporting period saw a positive trend in selecting administrative sanctions in Tbilisi, Kutaisi and Batumi city courts. Judges, virtually, do not impose administrative imprisonment in relation to Articles 45, 166 and 173 of the Administrative Offences Code. It is worth noting that Tbilisi City Court actively applies Article 22 of the Administrative Offences Code which envisages the release of an offender from administrative liability with only a verbal warning in case of a petty administrative offence. Verbal warning is frequently applied by the Batumi City Court too. “14 12 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, para. 3, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 13 The Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA, 2014, p. 247, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3510.pdf 14 The Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA, 2015, p. 381, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 17 - The special report of the Public Defender of Georgia, 15 April 2016 - “Report on Implementation of the Recommendations presented in 2012 Report of Maina Kiai, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association” 89. The Government stress that since Parliamentary elections of 1 October 2012 in contrast to recent years, the manifestations have been held peacefully - without any disturbances and interferences which was positively assessed by the Public Defender of Georgia in its reports. The relevant excerpt from the special report reads as follows: “Within the recent years, the police has been using unproportionate force to disperse protects and demonstrations in Georgia (inter alia, protests and demonstrations in November, 2007, in spring of 2009, on 26 May, 2011). […] On 1 October, 2012, following the Parliamentary elections, large scale protests were held and some of them were conducted without violating anybody’s rights. Unlike the previous years, in 2012-2015 the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia has not received any information about dispersing of the protests through violation of the legal requirements or/and use of unproportionate force from the part of the law enforcements. This fact deserves positive assessment […]” VII. CONCLUSION 90. The Government hold the view that the aforementioned general measures implemented on domestic level will contribute to further prevention of violations similar to those acknowledged by the Government and will remedy the consequences of the violations. 91. The Government of Georgia reserve the right to provide the Committee of additional information on individual/general measures to be adopted by the Government in order to fully comply with their obligations under Article 46 (1) of the European Convention. 18 The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF GEGENAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA No. 65128/10, final on 12.11.2015 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 28 October 2016 I. INTRODUCTION The Government of Georgia submit action plan on the measures adopted in the course of the execution of the decision in the case of Gegenava and Others v. Georgia, friendly settlement with undertaking to ensure the effectiveness and prompt finalisation of the ongoing investigations of criminal cases related to the three applicants. Regarding another separated criminal case related to the third applicant, the Government also undertook to conduct a new effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment on 6 March 2010 in Rustavi no. 2 Prison (procedural violations of Articles 3 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration). In their unilateral declaration, the Government also acknowledged substantive violation of Articles 3 on account of the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in Rustavi no. 2 and Rustavi no. 6 and Kutaisi no. 2 Prisons and the prison hospital and the lack of adequate medical treatment with respect to the second and third applicants. The Government undertook to pay 8 500 euros to the applicants (see details below). II. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES a) Details of just satisfaction Name of the case / application No. Applicant’s name Gegenava and Others Mr Vazha v Georgia GEGENAVA No. 65128/10 Mr Imeda BUTKHUZI Mr Rudik OVAKIMYAN Just satisfaction awarded Total / Date of payment 2 000 EUR 8 500 EUR 3 000 EUR 3 500 EUR 26.01.2016 b) Investigation As regards the initial investigation Before presenting the activities carried out within the context of renewed investigation in this case, it should be noted that the criminal case no.74068404 initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia concerned the applicants’ placement in a punishment cell of Rustavi no. 6 Prison without any clothes in September 2006, following their ill-treatment, threats and intimidation. In September 2007, a new complaint by the second applicant, concerning another alleged ill-treatment – this time in Rustavi no. 2 Prison – was added to the investigative file. The criminal case no. 074098003 commenced by the Prosecutor’s Office, concerned the second applicant’s ill-treatment on 25 November 2008 upon his transfer to Rustavi no. 6 Prison. 2 The criminal case no. 073100125 concerned the second and the third applicants’ ill-treatment on 6 March 2010 by the director - G.K. and the staff of Rustavi no. 2 prison while they were transferred there from Rustavi no. 1 Prison. This case was initiated by the Ministry of Corrections and was terminated on 18 June 2010. The criminal case no. 010118093 was initiated by Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the third applicant’s transfer from Rustavi no. 17 Prison to Prison hospital no. 18 on 14 April 2011, where he was verbally insulted by the prison hospital staff. Also, this case concerned the third applicant’s state of health and medical negligence on the part of the prison hospital. On 14 May 2015, this case was merged with another criminal case (no. 010118092), which also concerned alleged ill-treatment of the prisoners. Subsequent to the decision of the ECtHR , on 11 January 2016, from the aforesaid merged criminal case no. 010118093, the case no. 010110116801 was still separated concerning unlawful actions carried out in regard to the third applicant in 2011 by the employees of Prison Hospital no. 18 and Tuberculosis Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre for Convicts no. 19, under Articles 333 and 1443 of Criminal Code (exceeding official powers and inhuman or degrading treatment). As regards the renewed investigation Initially, it should be noted that two applicants - Mr Imeda Butkhuzi and Mr Rudik Ovakimyan have been released from prison on 29 February 2012 and 2 April 2015, respectively. As to Mr Vazha Gegenava he was released on 10 February 2013, however since he committed crime anew, he had been arrested on 21 October 2014 and had been imprisoned for 6 years. Currently, he is placed at Prison no. 17. Throughout the criminal proceedings number of investigative activities has been carried out – numerous witnesses have been questioned and forensic medical examination has been appointed. Independence and impartiality of the investigation The alleged incidents of ill-treatment were committed by the prison staff whereas the investigation is conducted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia which is entirely autonomous from the penitentiary system and does not have any institutional or hierarchal linkage to the events in question. Persons responsible for the execution of the investigation as well as investigative body – are independent in law and in practice. It should be underscored that Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an exhaustive list of the bodies (investigators) authorised to pursue criminal investigations. According to this Article, criminal cases shall be investigated by the investigators of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the investigative divisions of the State Security Service of Georgia. According to Articles 35-36 of the same Code, an investigative jurisdiction and the territorial investigative jurisdiction shall be determined by the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. 3 Agency and territorial subordination of investigation is regulated by the Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued on 7 July 2013 concerning determination of territorial and investigative jurisdiction of criminal cases. Article 2 of the Order sets the list of cases which should be investigated by the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, among others, the crimes committed by the police officers. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Order the crimes committed under several Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia, among others, under Articles 332-335 should be investigated by the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. In case of competition concerning the investigative subordination between the Prosecutor’s Office and some other investigative organs envisaged by this Order, the investigation should be carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (Article 10 of the Order). In addition, despite the norms regarding investigative subordination set out in Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, Georgian legislation – subparagraph “a” of paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code – allows the Chief Prosecutor or other person authorized by the Chief Prosecutor to take away a case from one investigation body and to assign it to the Prosecutor’s Office for the investigation regardless of normally applicable jurisdictional rules. As to the implementation of institutional independence in practice, according to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2013: “During the reporting period, the Public Defender received requests and applications from numerous prisoners alleging that they had been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the period preceding Fall 2012. The Office of the Public Defender responded to each case by forwarding relevant information and materials to the Chief Prosecution Office and followed up by requesting the Prosecution Office to provide information about actions taken. According to the replies received, the Prosecution Office had opened criminal investigation on a majority of applications through its territorial offices, according to their jurisdictional rules […]”1 According to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2015: “According to information provided by General Inspectorate of MOIA, information obtained about offences committed by MOIA employees are sent to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. If the mentioned information relate to exceeding power by police officers, including beating and torture of citizens and other facts of gross human rights violations, Prosecutor’s Office investigates such cases […]. Notably, given the system of investigation bodies in Georgia, the Public Defender welcomes the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office handles the above-mentioned criminal cases […]”2 I. Placement of the applicants in a punishment cell of Rustavi no. 6 Prison in September 2006 In September 2006 the representatives of Public Defender of Georgia were inspecting Rustavi no. 6 Prison when they reported about the applicants and other prisoners being kept in inhuman and degrading 1 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2013, p.12, available at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1934.pdf 2 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2015, p.188, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 4 conditions in the punishment cells. Within the context of renewed investigation, the investigative authorities collected all relevant information from Rustavi no. 6 Prison for the period of September 2006 (reports of disciplinary sanctions imposed on prisoners placed in punishment cells, reports of their visual examination before placing in such cells, transfer of the convicts, etc.). It has been established, that during the period of 2 - 30 September 2006, 54 prisoners have been placed in punishment cells of Rustavi no. 6 Prison for different time periods. Out of the aforesaid 54 prisoners, four convicts have passed away and nine have departed from the country. Until now, the investigative authorities have interrogated 11 convicts One of them Z.G., explained that due to violation of the internal rules of the prison, he had been placed at punishment cell. Prior to his placement, the prison officer on duty, in the presence of another prison officer, ordered him to take off his clothes for the aim of examination, which was not returned to him. Therefore, Z.G. had been placed in a punishment cell without any clothes (including underwear). It was too cold in a punishment cell during the night hours. He had been asking for his clothes to be returned but to no avail. Z.G. added that the prison officers had returned his clothes only after his release from the punishment cell. He is not aware of the identities of the prison officers. The same testimonies were given by six other witnesses (former convicts). They stated that during the whole period of their placement in punishment cells, they had been without any clothes (including underwear). Four other witnesses explained that they were ordered to take off their clothes due to examination before placing in punishment cells, which were returned upon the end of examination and consequently, they were placed with their clothes. Also, they pointed out that while being in punishment cells, no one has assaulted them verbally/physically, therefore they do not have any claims. At the outset of the investigation, eight other convicts have denied to cooperate with the investigative authorities and to be interviewed. As a result of active communication with the witnesses, recently 5 witnesses (B.Q., B.D., N.B., G.B., Z.Kh.) have confirmed to be interviewed which is planned to be carried out in November 2016. As to the other three witnesses (M.Ph., B.K., D.Ts.), at this stage they have rejected to cooperate with the investigative organs. In case, they maintain their rejection to be interrogated in an ultimate manner, they will be interrogated before the magistrate judge until 30 November 2016 in accordance with paragraph 8 of Article 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. II. Alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant upon his transfer to Rustavi no. 6 Prison Initially, it should be underscored that the second applicant served his sentence in various prisons during 2005-2012 years. According to the second applicant, on 25 November 2008, after his transfer to Rustavi no. 6 Prison (without any explanations), he was taken to an isolated room where he was verbally and physically assaulted by several prison officers, including the one identified by him as L.K. then his hair was shaved off against his will. Also, the applicant protested that he was not able at the prison to take the medicine – “Optimal” which was sent to him by the members of his family. In respect of this episode, the Government refer to the evidence obtained during the initial investigation. In particular, according to the documentations requested from Rustavi no. 6 Prison and the evidence given by the witnesses, the main reason of the second applicant’s transfer was the breach of the prison rules which endangered the security of the prison. The transfer order had been presented to the applicant 5 and he refused to get acquainted with its content and to sign it. As to shaving off his hair, it did not aim to punish the applicant, but it solely served hygienic aims in accordance with the regulations set by the Prison Code of Georgia. As to receiving the medicine - “Optimal”, since this particular medicine required medical prescriptions, according to prison medical journals, it had been sent by the applicant’s family members on 26 November 2008 but it had been passed to the applicant only on 8 December 2008 when the neuropathologist prescribed “Optimal” to him. Due to the aforesaid conclusions, within the context of renewed investigation, the investigative authorities focused solely on the second applicant’s complaint of his alleged physical/verbal assault upon his transfer from Rustavi no. 2 Prison to Rustavi no. 6 prison on 25 November 2008. In that regard, the investigative authorities have already interrogated two witnesses – V.P. and I.B. who had been transferred with the second applicant on the same date to Rustavi no. 6 prison. They denied any fact of verbal/physical assault of the prisoners on that day on behalf of Rustavi no. 6 prison staff. Currently, the investigative authorities are identifying the whereabouts of some other prisoners who were transferred with the second applicant for their interrogation in capacity of witnesses. The second applicant also referred to his alleged ill-treatment on 31 March 2006 upon his transfer from Prison no. 5 to Rustavi no. 6 Prison. He alleged that the officers of special forces, wearing masks, beat him with truncheons and with their feets, consequently, he received fractures of chest bone and three costal bones. On 17 October 2016, the investigative authorities appointed forensic medical examination in this regard. III. Alleged ill-treatment of the second and the third applicants on 6 March 2010 The decree on termination of investigation into the criminal case no. 073100125, concerning physical and verbal assault of the second and third applicants while transferring them from Rustavi Prison no. 1 to Rustavi Prison no. 2, was quashed on 12 January 2016 and the investigation was reopened by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. Some convicts were questioned who were transferred with the applicants to the same Penitentiary Institution. They did not confirm the facts of ill-treatment. The investigative bodies are planning to carry out further investigative activities in that regard and to interrogate other witnesses who were transferred with the applicants on 6 March 2010. IV. Alleged ill-treatment of the third applicant on 15 April 2011 Initially, it should be noted that in the context of initial investigation, the evidence provided by the third applicant regarding his alleged ill-treatment on 15 April 2011 at the Prison hospital no. 18 are contradictory. In particular, on 26 July 2011, in the presence of his lawyer, the third applicant stated that on 15 April 2011, while transferred to Prison Hospital no. 18 with the purpose of ambulatory examination, he was subjected to blood test and X-ray. At that time the prison officers, including the physicians, insulted him verbally. On 28 January 2013, he was interrogated anew regarding the same incident whilst he pointed out that on 15 April 2011 at the Prison hospital he was not subjected to any medical examinations. Furthermore, he stated that in X-ray cabinet, in the presence of several persons, he was beaten by head of the Security Department of the Prison hospital - G.A. and the head of Legal Regime Department - A.T.. 6 The following witnesses have been interrogated in the context of the above mentioned incident: The former deputy director of Prison Hospital no. 18, the former head of the Security Department, the former head of the Legal Regime Department, the former head of the Social Department, the former and current inspector-controllers of Prison hospital, former convict who was transferred with the third applicant on 15 April 2011 from Prison no. 17 to Prison hospital no. 18 and operating officer of Prison no. 17, who carried out the applicant’s personal search on 15 April 2011, before his transfer to the Prison Hospital and subsequent to his return. Furthermore, according to the medical documentations collected from Prison no. 17, on 15 April 2011 at Prison hospital the third applicant was subjected to complete blood count, blood tests for HIV infection/AIDS and chest roentgenography. Also, he was consulted by the recipient duty physician D. B. and phthisiologist E. L. According to the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses as well as the evidence collected throughout the renewed investigation at this stage the alleged incidents of physical or verbal assault towards the third applicant on 15 April 2011 at Prison hospital no. 18 were not confirmed. V. Alleged ill-treatment of the third applicant between the period of 4-31 August 2011 On 4-31 August 2011, the third applicant was transferred from Prison no. 17 to Prison Hospital no. 18 on the grounds of the doubts of Tuberculosis. At Prison Hospital no. 18 he was assigned to an antituberculosis treatment under the DOTS programme. According to his testimony, former head of the Security Department of Prison Hospital G.A. and former head of the Legal Regime department L.T. were beating him systematically. In the late August he was taken to the cabinet of the director of the prison – V.Ts. where he was beaten by the prison officials – G.A., L.T. and V.Ts. Regarding the aforesaid allegations, all prison officers named by the applicant have been questioned. They firmly denied the impugned facts. Former physician T.J. has been also questioned. She declared that the third applicant had never expressed any complaint in respect of physical abuse from the prison staff and that she had never noticed any kind of injuries on him. Apart from the officials of Prison hospital, the investigative bodies interrogated the fellow inmates of the third applicant. They explained that they had not observed any instances of beating of the third applicant from the prison staff and that nobody had insulted them personally and they had never heard regarding any such incidents. VI. Alleged ill-treatment of the third applicant between the period of 1 September-10 November 2011 On 1 September 2011 the third applicant was transferred from Prison Hospital no. 18 to Tuberculosis Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre for Convicts no. 19 at his request, where according to his testimony, psychiatrist I.K. altered his psychotropic drugs - “OPTIMAL” and “ZOLOMAKS” with “SINOREX”. While the third applicant expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the aforesaid alteration, the former Director of the facility V.R., the head of Security Department M.S. and other employees of no. 19 facility started beating him in the presence of Chief Physician and psychiatrist. 7 While interrogated regarding the aforementioned incident, V.R., M.S., psychiatrist - I.K. and Chief Physician O.T. firmly rejected the applicant’s allegations. The investigators also interrogated former convict U. Sh., who noted that he once heard some noise of shouting and swearing coming out from the cabinet of medical unit. Afterwards, he met the third applicant, who was returning from the medical unit and who told him that due to his request to prescribe a medicine, he was beaten by the director and the head of Legal Regime Department. The aforesaid indirect evidence testified by former convict U.Sh. has not been confirmed by another witness, the convict G.M. who explained that he had never witnessed any fact of beating at prisons nos. 18 and 19 and never heard regarding such facts. Other convicts could not be questioned due to various objective reasons for instance witness P.K. could not be interrogated due to his demise. As to the witness V.S. his current whereabouts could not be identified. The investigative bodies are planning to identify other witnesses and to interrogate them in regard to this episode. VII. Medical treatment with respect to the second and the third applicants In order to determine the third applicant’s health condition during his imprisonment, whether he was consumptive with tuberculosis and the adequacy of diagnosis/his medical treatment at the penitentiary departments nos. 17, 18 and 19, a forensic medical examination was appointed by the investigative authorities on 13 June 2016. According to the report of forensic medical examination dated 9 August 2016: a) the third applicant was accurately diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis; b) his anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy, prescribed according to the regular TB treatment scheme, was carried out adequately; c) The experts concluded that, he was treated accurately; diagnostics and treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of National Guidelines on TB control which encompasses principles set by the World Health Organization in that regard. It was also intended to carry out forensic examination of the second applicant in order to determine his health condition during his imprisonment. However according to the letters of the penitentiary department, they do not possess medical documentations of 2006-2009 with respect to the second applicant. These matters fall within the scope of further interest of the investigative bodies. Victim Involvement The applicants have not been involved within the renewed investigation since the investigative authorities were not able to get in touch with them. Despite notifications of the applicants’ family members and representatives, the applicants have not yet appeared before the prosecution authorities. The involvement of the applicants will be ensured in the nearest future. III. GENERAL MEASURES 8 As for the general measures carried out by the Government of Georgia regarding eradication of illtreatment and the investigative proceedings, please see DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2015)625, DHDD(2016)701, Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03). Important reforms concerning conditions of detention and health care system at the penitentiary establishments have been realised in the context of the execution of the group of cases Ghavtadze v. Georgia, closed by the Committee of Ministers on 12 November 2014 (1211th meeting) (Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)209). Concerning conditions of detention, please see also the recent Action Plan submitted by the Government of Georgia on 18 July 2016 in the case of Aliev v. Georgia (522/04) (DH-DD(2016)898). IV. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, new investigations have been implemented in compliance with the European Court’s case-law, and Committee of Ministers practice. Independence and impartiality of the investigators /prosecutors are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigations are comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from date when the events complained of allegedly took place. The planned investigative steps will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities during last months of 2016 as well as during the first half of 2017 taken into consideration that the renewed criminal case consists of combined four independent criminal cases regarding allegations of three applicants which require comprehensive investigative activities to be carried out. Also, the main challenge for the investigation constitutes identification of the whereabouts of former convicts in order to be interviewed since most of them do not reside at their registration addresses. The relevant authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for effective and prompt investigations. 9 The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF LANCHAVA v. GEORGIA No. 28103/11, decision final on 16/07/2015 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 28 October 2016 I. INTRODUCTION The Government of Georgia submit Action Plan on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the decision in the case of Lanchava v. Georgia, a friendly settlement with undertaking to ensure the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of being subjected to ill-treatment on 6 July 2009 in Kutaisi no. 2 prison (procedural violation of Articles 3 acknowledged by the Government in their unilateral declaration) and to pay 4,500 EUR. At the same time, the Government accepted that in the particular circumstances of the present case there was a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s unjustified expulsion from the court proceedings, although the above shortcoming did not render the proceedings unfair as a whole. II. PAYMENT Name and application number Lasha Lanchava v. Georgia n°28103/11 Pecuniary damage, Nonpecuniary damage, Costs and expenses 4 500 EUR Total 4 500 EUR Paid on: 08.09.2015 III. INVESTIGATION a) as regards the initial investigation On 7 July 2009 the Prisons Department issued a statement, according to which a violent incident had taken place in Kutaisi no. 2 Prison the previous night; notably, the juvenile inmates (including the applicant) had allegedly damaged prison property by wrecking one of the prison cells. On the same day, the investigation was commenced by the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia under Article 378 of Criminal Code of Georgia (interference with or disorganisation of the activities of a penitentiary facility or liberty restriction facility). On 15 February 2010, the Kutaisi City Court found guilty the applicant for damage or destruction of object (Article 187 of the Criminal Code) and for interference with or disorganisation of the activities of a penitentiary facility or liberty restriction facility (Article 378of the Criminal Code). According to the case-file, after the violent incident, several representatives of the Public Defender’s Office visited Kutaisi no. 2 Prison in order to verify the official version of the incident and to meet the inmates involved. It appeared that altogether 19 juveniles, including the applicant, had participated in the alleged violent incident and that seven of them, including the applicant, had been transferred to another prison in Tbilisi early in the morning. The inmates claimed that in the evening of 6 July 2009, one of the prison officers had noted that an iron lattice on a window as well as the window glass in cell no. 102 had been damaged. The inmates were ordered to empty the cell. Nevertheless, the inmates, including the applicant, were beaten by prison officers while outside the cell. On 4 August 2009, another criminal case was separated 2 under Article 333§1 of the Criminal Code (exceeding official powers) against the employees of Kutaisi no. 2 Prison. Nevertheless, this criminal case did not lead to any outcome and it was terminated by the investigative authorities. b) as regards the renewed investigation - Independence and impartiality of the investigation Subsequent to the decision of the European Court in the present case, with a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 6 July 2009 at Kutaisi no. 2 Prison, the decree on termination of the investigation was quashed on 15 April 2016 and the investigation was reopened by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. The alleged ill-treatment was committed by the prison employees whereas the investigation is conducted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office which is entirely autonomous from the penitentiary system and does not have any institutional or hierarchal linkage to the events in question. Persons responsible for the execution of the investigation as well as the investigative body – are independent in law and in practice. It should be underscored that Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an exhaustive list of the bodies (investigators) authorised to pursue criminal investigations. According to this Article, criminal cases shall be investigated by the investigators of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the investigative divisions of the State Security Service of Georgia. According to Articles 35-36 of the same Code, an investigative jurisdiction and the territorial investigative jurisdiction shall be determined by the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. Agency and territorial subordination of investigation is regulated by the Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued on 7 July 2013 concerning determination of territorial and investigative jurisdiction of criminal cases. Article 2 of the Order sets the list of cases which should be investigated by the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, among others, the crimes committed by the police officers. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Order the crimes committed under several Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia, among others, under Articles 332-335 should be investigated by the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. In case of competition concerning the investigative subordination between the Prosecutor’s Office and some other investigative organs envisaged by this Order, the investigation should be carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (Article 10 of the Order). In addition, despite the norms regarding investigative subordination set out in Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, Georgian legislation – subparagraph “a” of paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code – allows the Chief Prosecutor or other person authorized by the Chief Prosecutor to take away a case from one investigation body and to assign it to the Prosecutor’s Office for the investigation regardless of normally applicable jurisdictional rules. As to the implementation of institutional independence in practice, according to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2013: 3 “During the reporting period, the Public Defender received requests and applications from numerous prisoners alleging that they had been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the period preceding Fall 2012. The Office of the Public Defender responded to each case by forwarding relevant information and materials to the Chief Prosecution Office and followed up by requesting the Prosecution Office to provide information about actions taken. According to the replies received, the Prosecution Office had opened criminal investigation on a majority of applications through its territorial offices, according to their jurisdictional rules. […]”1 According to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2015: “According to information provided by General Inspectorate of MOIA, information obtained about offences committed by MOIA employees are sent to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. If the mentioned information relate to exceeding power by police officers, including beating and torture of citizens and other facts of gross human rights violations, Prosecutor’s Office investigates such cases […]. Notably, given the system of investigation bodies in Georgia, the Public Defender welcomes the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office handles the above-mentioned criminal cases […]”2 - Circumstances of the case established as a result of renewed investigation Throughout the renewed criminal proceedings, the investigative authorities collected all relevant criminal case files such as the report of the Public Defender of Georgia regarding the alleged incident, conclusion of forensic medical expertise carried out in respect of the applicant and some other evidences which were included into the renewed criminal case. The investigative authorities addressed the penitentiary department with the request to collect the following information: identities of the prison employees who participated in transferring of prisoners after the incident, whether the prisoners were subjected to body external examination subsequent to their transfer and the detailed information regarding dispatching of penitentiary brigade in response to the incident of 6 July 2009. According to the penitentiary department, they do not possess the requested information. As to the questioning of witnesses, the investigative authorities could not interrogate the applicant since he was released from prison on 24 July 2013 and as reported by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (MoIA), the applicant crossed the State border on 19 February 2015 to the direction of Minsk (Belarus). In order to ascertain the applicant’s whereabouts, the investigators interviewed his lawyer who did not possess any information. According to the applicant’s father, his son is serving his sentence abroad, nevertheless he is not aware of his location or his contact details. 1 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2013, p.12, available at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1934.pdf 2 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2015, p.188, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 4 As to the other inmates who participated in the aforementioned incident (B.G and N.S), two of them rejected to be questioned before the applicant appears to the investigative bodies. While contacting the witness - N.S. by phone he maintained that he did not wish to be interviewed voluntarily. According to paragraph 8 of Article 113 (Procedure for interview) of Code of Criminal procedure in such circumstances “if an interview is conducted by the prosecution, in the case of the refusal of an interviewee to be interviewed, the prosecution may inform the interviewee that he/she may summoned before the magistrate judge to give testimony, and that the giving of testimony is obligatory and that the failure to perform this obligation will result in the criminal liability of the interviewee. This information shall be entered into the record of the interview”. Since the interviewees live in the Western part of Georgia the investigators of Investigation Unit of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the Western Georgia were given respective tasks namely to draw up relevant records. On 25 October 2016 the investigative authorities interviewed N.S. and the relevant record was drawn up as well. He reiterated that he refuses to be interviewed and that he will give an interview only after the applicant’s return to Georgia. Thus, in this case the petition for questioning - N.S. could be sent to the magistrate judge. There was analogous situation in case of the witness – B.G.. In particular while having conversation with investigative bodies on the telephone the witness stated that he did not want to be interviewed. On 24 October 2016 at 13:45 the investigator called the witness and informed him that on 25 October 2016 he should have been appeared at the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Sachkhere in order to be interviewed. He expressed consent on the request, however B.G. did not appear and turned off his mobile phone. He was not present at home as well. The investigative bodies plan to visit him anew and to draw up relevant records envisaged by paragraph 8 of Article 113 of Code of Criminal procedure in order to petition for the questioning of the said person in the court before the magistrate judge. Two other witnesses (G.T. and D.B.) are not in Georgia. Pursuant to the information of the MoIA, G.T. has crossed the State border of Georgia on 18 September 2014 and D.B. on 19 November 2014. After serving their sentences, they are expected to return to Georgia in December 2016. The witness Ch. G., has been to Turkey since 30 April 2016 and upon his arrival, he will be summoned for questioning. On 27 September 2016 the applicant’s father was interviewed additionally. According to him, the applicant is serving his sentence in Ukraine. Therefore, an official motion was sent by the investigative authorities to the Ukrainian official bodies with the legal request to interrogate the applicant regarding his alleged ill-treatment. The investigative authorities further interrogated the employees of Kutaisi no. 2 Prison. On 10 October 2016 inspector of regime stated, that the applicant had hit an employee of prison by his hand and then organized a prison riot. In order to suppress that riot, special forces were called. From the moment of their arrival, the situation had de-escalated. The applicant was not beaten by the employees of the prison, he was probably injured whilst resisting the members of the special forces. 5 On 11 October 2016 the former employee of Kutaisi no. 2 Prison Sh. K was interrogated. He firmly denied the fact that he had beaten the applicant and stated that on 6 July 2009, the head of Security Department - R. K. told him that juveniles had damaged lattice and had smashed the glass pane in one of the prison cells. He had been ordered by R. K., together with the inspectors of the regime, to take juveniles out of the cell, to transfer them at the duty unit and afterwards, to repair lattice and replace a glass pane with the help of the prisoners. Afterwards, he had to take back the juveniles to the cell. Sh. K. together with the regime inspectors led juveniles (including the applicant) out of the cell, in the yard and headed to the duty unit. Whilst walking in the yard, Sh. K. repeatedly requested the applicant to obey the requirements of the regime and to put his hands behind his back, however, he did not obey. After the final warning, the applicant attacked him, hit his hand in the arm and consequently, Sh.k. fell dawn and injured his knee and hand. Subsequently, the applicant organized a prison riot. In order to suppress the riot special forces were called. From the moment of their arrival the situation had de-escalated. The applicant was not beaten by the employees of the prison, he was possibly injured while resisting the members of special forces. On 13 October 2016, the head of Security Department of the Kutaisi no. 2 Prison (at the material time) – R. K. was questioned in capacity of witness. He stated that, the applicant and the other juvenile inmates were not beaten or verbally insulted by the Prison employees. Juveniles were possibly injured by the members of special forces as a result of beating. c) Planed investigative steps The investigative authorities are planning to carry out all the measures in order to interrogate the applicant and his fellow inmates at the material time. In case of refusal of the witnesses to be interviewed voluntarily, they would be summoned before the magistrate judge to give testimony under Article 113§8 of the Criminal Procedure Code3 (see also the action plan submitted in Gharibashvili group on 01/06/2016 (DH-DD(2016)701)). The planned investigative steps will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities until the end of 2016. The Government will submit to the Committee the updated information regarding the present case in due course. As for the general measures carried out by the Government of Georgia regarding eradication of ill-treatment and the investigative proceedings, please see DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2016)701, Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03). IV. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the investigative measures undertaken by the relevant authorities in terms of execution of this case encompass a number of significant initiatives. 3 “If an interview is conducted by the prosecution, in the case of the refusal of an interviewee to be interviewed, the prosecution may inform the interviewee that he/she may summoned before the magistrate judge to give testimony, and that the giving of testimony is obligatory and that the failure to perform this obligation will result in the criminal liability of the interviewee. This information shall be entered into the record of the interview.” 6 New investigation has been implemented in compliance with the European Court’s case-law, and Committee of Ministers practice. Independence and impartiality of the investigators/prosecutors are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigation is comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from date when the events complained of allegedly took place. The decision regarding future course of action will be adopted after carrying out all necessary investigative measures within the time-limits set above. The relevant authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for effective and prompt investigation. 7 The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN KIZIRIA GROUP OF CASES v. GEORGIA Kiziria, 4728/08, final on 03.04.2014 Baghashvili, 5168/06, final on 10.04.2014 Mzekalishvili, 8177/12, final on 05.03.2015 Kopadze, 58228/09, final on 02.04.2015 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 28 October 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 Kiziria v. Georgia. .......................................................................................................................... 5 Baghashvili v. Georgia. .................................................................................................................. 8 Mzekalishvili v. Georgia. ............................................................................................................... 9 Kopade v. Georgia. ...................................................................................................................... 10 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 12 2 I. INTRODUCTION The present action plan concerns the measures adopted by the Georgian authorities in the course of the execution of four cases of Kiziria Group. This group concerns five friendly settlements in which the Government acknowledged a lack of effective investigations into allegations of violations of the right to life and of ill-treatment (procedural violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention) and undertook to conduct effective investigations into the impugned facts as well as to pay just satisfaction to the applicants (see details below). The Government wish to inform the Committee of Ministers that the action plan in the case of Surmanidze and Others v. Georgia will be submitted in November. As regards the independence The Government underline from the outset that the investigative bodies in charge of the criminal cases meet all the requirements established in the European Court’s case-law regarding the independence and impartiality. In particular, the persons responsible for the investigation are hierarchically and institutionally independent from those involved in the events at issue. All cases of Kiziria group are assigned to the impartial and independent investigators of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia whilst the alleged crimes have been committed by the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Penitentiary Institutions. It should be underscored that Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an exhaustive list of the bodies (investigators) authorised to pursue criminal investigations. According to this Article, criminal cases shall be investigated by the investigators of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Defence of Georgia, the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia and the investigative divisions of the State Security Service of Georgia. According to Articles 35-36 of the same Code, an investigative jurisdiction and the territorial investigative jurisdiction shall be determined by the Minister of Justice of Georgia on the recommendation of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. Agency and territorial subordination of investigation is regulated by the Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia issued on 7 July 2013 concerning determination of territorial and investigative jurisdiction of criminal cases. Article 2 of the Order sets the list of cases which should be investigated by the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, among others, the crimes committed by the police officers. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Order the crimes committed under several Articles of the Criminal Code of Georgia, among others, under Articles 332-335 should be investigated by the investigators of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. In case of competition concerning the investigative subordination between the Prosecutor’s Office and some other investigative organs envisaged by this Order, the investigation should be carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (Article 10 of the Order). In addition, despite the norms regarding investigative subordination set out in Order 34 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, Georgian legislation – subparagraph “a” of paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code – allows the Chief Prosecutor or other person authorized by 3 the Chief Prosecutor to take away a case from one investigation body and to assign it to the Prosecutor’s Office for the investigation regardless of normally applicable jurisdictional rules. As to the implementation of institutional independence in practice, according to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2013: “During the reporting period, the Public Defender received requests and applications from numerous prisoners alleging that they had been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the period preceding Fall 2012. The Office of the Public Defender responded to each case by forwarding relevant information and materials to the Chief Prosecution Office and followed up by requesting the Prosecution Office to provide information about actions taken. According to the replies received, the Prosecution Office had opened criminal investigation on a majority of applications through its territorial offices, according to their jurisdictional rules. […]”1 According to the annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia of 2015: “According to information provided by General Inspectorate of MOIA, information obtained about offences committed by MOIA employees are sent to Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. If the mentioned information relate to exceeding power by police officers, including beating and torture of citizens and other facts of gross human rights violations, Prosecutor’s Office investigates such cases […]. Notably, given the system of investigation bodies in Georgia, the Public Defender welcomes the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office handles the above-mentioned criminal cases […]”2 As regards victim involvement It is also to be noted that, in order to ensure the effective victim participation in the re-opened investigations, all the applicants were invited to get acquainted with the criminal case materials (for more details see DH-DD(2015)113 and DH-DD(2015)625 and Notes in Gharibashvili, 1259th meeting, June 2016). II. Details of just satisfaction Name of the case / Applicant’s name application No. Kiziria v. Georgia Just satisfaction awarded Date of payment Mr Ramin Kiziria 10 000 EUR 14.05.2014 Mr Vazha Baghashvili 10 000 EUR 30.05.2015 No. 4728/08 Baghashvili v. Georgia 1 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2013, p.12, available at http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/1/1934.pdf 2 Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia, 2015, p.188, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/uploads/other/3/3892.pdf 4 No. 5168/06 Mzekalishvili v Georgia No. 8177/12 Kopadze v. Georgia Mr Malkhaz Mzekalishvili 4 500 EUR 08.06.2015 Mr Emzar Kopadze 3 500 EUR 21.05.2015 No. 58228/09 III. Information on new investigations Kiziria v. Georgia. This case concerns the lack of effective investigation into the alleged violation of the right to life of the applicant’s son who had been killed by police officers on 23 February 2006. - New investigation Following the decision of the European Court, the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son was reopened on 31 January 2015 by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s office. On 2 April 2015 the legal qualification of the present case has changed under Article 333, paragraph 3, subparagraph “b” of the Criminal Code of Georgia envisaging exceeding official powers by an official or a person equal thereto, with the use of violence or arms. On 1 April 2015, the taxi driver who took the applicant’s son and his friends was questioned. He pointed that on 23 February 2006, brought three passengers to the village of Vartsikhe, Baghdati Region, approximately at 22:30. They paid the agreed amount of money and continued the way on the right side of the river. The driver headed towards the bridge when he was stopped by the police officers, who insisted him to get out of the car. He saw how the police officers opened fire towards other side of the river where he left the passengers. Later he found out that the passengers he had taken were the ones who had been shot dead. He had not observed any arms or anything dubious to the passengers. He stated that the fire was opened only by the police officers and there was no shooting from other side. The investigation collected the information regarding the detailed phone calls made on 23-24 February 2006, in order to identify all the police officers who had been dispatched at the scene of the shooting and all the circumstances around the case. Within the renewed investigation, on 15 May 2015 the initial criminal case files have been collected from the MoIA, including the prosecutor’s protocol dated 30 January 2007 on the termination of the investigation regarding criminal case that had been initiated against the deceased persons (on the grounds of their death) for the violation of Articles 236 (Illegal purchase, storage, carrying, manufacturing, transportation, forwarding or sale of firearms (other than hunting smooth-bore firearms (shotguns)), ammunition, explosives or explosive devices) and 353 (Resistance, threat or violence against a protector of public order or other representative of the authorities) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to that protocol, three firearms, cartridges and cartridge-cases, found adjacent to the deceased persons, had to be transferred to the MoIA for their preservation. Thus, in the protocol the investigator only mentioned cartridge-cases found adjacent to the deceased persons, but did not indicate any 5 further information regarding cartridge-cases found adjacent to the police vehicle (see below subparagraph – “shortcomings in the initial investigation”). As to the material evidence attached to the criminal case-file, within renewed investigation, on 6 June 2016, the investigative authorities have collected nine cartridges, two magazines, one sawn-off gun and two firearms from regional Police Departments. Nevertheless, they were not able to obtain any cartridge-cases (neither those found adjacent to the police vehicle nor those found adjacent to the deceased persons), since they were not preserved at the police departments. As to the identification and interrogation of all the police officers involved in the operation at issue, the investigation have requested from the MoIA the list of persons employed at the Imereti Regional Police Department at the material time. Three police officers who participated in the operation testified that the exchange of fire took place and that adjacent to them, none of the persons or objects were injured/damaged by the gunshots coming from the opposite side. Within 5-10 minutes after shooting, they approached to the dead bodies when they witnessed firearms next to their hands, without had noticed any cartridge-cases at the scene of the shooting. - Shortcomings in the initial investigation Within the context of renewed investigation, the investigative authorities identified the following shortcomings:  The physico-technical and trasological examinations carried out on their clothing could not detect gunpowder residues. Thus, the experts were unable to detect the signs of metallization on the clothes and therefore, the usage of firearms by the deceased persons could not be established;  After the examination of the police vehicle, only after 12 days from the incident, three perforating bullet holes have been detected. It contradicts the testimony of the taxi driver who stated that the vehicle was not damaged;  According to testimonies of the Deputy Head of the Imereti Regional Police Department, on 23 February 2006, at 21:30, he got an operative information according to which three armed persons (the applicant’s son and his two friends), driving a car “GAZ-21”, were planning an armed robbery of a family. This information contradicts the declaration of the taxi driver, who stated that the applicant’s son and his two friends took his taxi after 22:00. Hence, at the time of receiving an operative information (21:30), it was impossible for the police officers to be aware of the car type which took the applicant’s son and his friends;  According to the family members, the applicant’s son was suffering from heart diseases and he could not even hold a glass in his left hand. Contrary to this fact, the video footage illustrates that he held firearm in his left hand;  Subsequent to the examination of the scene of shooting, the cartridge-cases of gunshots of the Police officers were found adjacent to the police vehicle and to the location from where the police officers were firing, which were sealed in a parcel. However, the investigative authorities did not indicate the number and type of the cartridge-cases in the protocol of the examination of the scene of shooting. Also, they did not conduct the examination on the cartridge-cases; 6   - All three corpses were placed at the National Forensic Bureau. However, it is noted in the protocols drawn up by the investigative authorities that the relatives of the diseased persons rejected the autopsy and denied to sign them. The aforesaid circumstances around the autopsy raise further doubts. In particular, within few days, the corpse of the applicant’s son was dissected as requested by his family. In July 2006, an exhumation and forensic examination were conducted; The investigation could not identify the family against which the deceased persons were allegedly going to commit an armed robbery. According to the case-file, they were going to visit one of the deceased person’s brother-in-law who confirmed this fact in his testimony. Planned investigative steps The following investigative activities are intended to be carried out in the nearest future:    - As noted above, after collecting relevant information from the MoIA, the investigation envisages identifying other police officers who participated in the operation or visited the place afterwards and who had not been interrogated during the previous investigation. Further investigative steps will be taken in order to collect the cartridge-cases seized from the scene of the shooting. If the investigative authorities fail to acquire the cartridgecases, they will identify the officers being in charge of securing the evidence attached to the criminal case in order to clarify the reasons of failure to preserve them or the reasons of their losing/destruction. Also, the investigation will request additional information regarding identification of the employees of the Imereti Regional Police Department as regards the type of firearms, their serial number, with the exact time of acquiring and returning etc. Possible obstacles in the new investigation The Government draw the Committee’s attention to the objective obstacles which may hinder the effectiveness of reopened investigation due to the aforementioned shortcomings of the previous investigation.  Since gunpowder residue has not been taken out from the corpses at the material time, it renders now impossible to establish whether the deceased persons were shooting towards police officers. It is impossible to be rectified within the reopened investigation;  In case the investigative authorities are not able to collect cartridge-cases seized from the scene of the shooting, it would be impossible to identify who has carried out the shootings towards the applicant’s son. Thereto, since the bullets have not been taken out from the corps, the investigative authorities are not able to identify the police officers who inflicted fatal injuries to him;  There are no more witnesses around this case except police officers who personally participated in police operation or visited the scene of the shooting and who are tended to give incomplete testimonies or the taxi driver, who has been interrogated for several times;  Since more than 10 years have passed after the incident and the witnesses find it difficult to recall the detailed factual circumstances. The time lapse renders also impossible to obtain some other evidences around the case. 7 Taking into account the aforesaid obstacles of the renewed investigation, the planned investigative steps will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities during the last months of 2016 as well as in 2017. *** Baghashvili v. Georgia. This case concerns the lack of effective investigations into allegation of violations of the right to life of the applicant’s son who had been killed by police officers on 11 December 1999, during their attempt to apprehend him for having committed a breach of public order. - New investigation Initially, the case was investigated by Kakheti Regional Prosecutor’s Office. On 31 January 2015, the decree of 17 May 2004, which terminated the investigation on the criminal case, was annulled and the case was transferred to the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office. The following circumstances of the case are based on the evidences obtained during the renewed investigation. On 19 May 2015 the former police officer, N.A. who shot the applicant’s son has been interrogated. He repeated his testimony already given during the initial investigation. In particular:  On 11 December 1999, he received operative information that the previous night, the applicant’s son and D.N. rushed into the house of N.T., broke her household items and beat her guest;  Having informed his superior, N.A. learned that the applicant’s son and D.N. came at N. T.’s house again. In order to inspect the situation, N. A. headed to the place of incident with his two colleagues, Z. D. and G. Ch., in order to apprehend the applicant’s son;  The applicant’s son attempted to escape and N.A. shot and wounded him. The applicant’s son has been transported to the hospital, where he passed away. On 31 August and on 17 October 2015, an eyewitness and Z.D (the former police officer who participated in the operation in question), were questioned. They described the incident similarly as by N.A. (see above). Several witnesses are deceased. The investigative authorities will further interrogate the witnesses until the end of 2016, though it won’t exhaust investigative measures in the present case which will be carried out in 2017 as well. *** 8 Mzekalishvili v. Georgia. This case concerns the lack of adequate criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged illtreatment by the officers on 6 April 2010, when he had been arrested on robbery charges. The Government acknowledged the procedural violation of Article 3 and undertook to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. - New investigation The initial investigation in the present case has never been terminated since its commencement on 16 April 2010. The investigation has been renewed in 30 March 2015. According to the minutes of the Telavi District Court of 9 April 2010 obtained on 6 April 2015, the applicant did not declare anything in respect of the issue in question. Furthermore, the identities and the places of registration of the inmates serving sentence in the same or neighboring cells were established on 2 April 2015. On 8 August 2015, the applicant’s representative testified that her client did not have any signs of injury. In addition, the applicant declared neither before the court nor to his representative that he had been battered or subjected to some other forms of violence from anyone. On the same day the applicant’s mother has been questioned. She clarified that her son suffered from variety of diseases, throughout his childhood. When he was 11 years old, he touched highvoltage wire which caused burns on his body, and due to falling from the tree he suffered from the fractures of bones. He periodically suffered from mental disorder and epileptic seizures. The mother also stated that she did not notice on the body of her son any signs of injury. In addition, she stated that in respect of the battery of her son she had been informed subsequent to the release of the applicant from the prison. On 26 April 2016 the applicant was questioned anew. He fully reiterated his previous allegations and confirmed that he did not sustain any kind of injuries in the temporary detention facility or in the juvenile detention facility. Questioned on the same day, the applicant’s father declared that he was informed first by the representative about the alleged ill-treatment and then by the applicant himself. He contended that the applicant had no injuries or bruises on his body previous to his arrest and that he personally did not see the injuries. On 14 September and on 13 October 2016 the investigation questioned two inmates who were placed in the neighboring cell at the material time. They stated that the applicant served his sentence with his friend V.M. in the same cell (N14), that they did not have any contact with the applicant and don’t not know whether he was ill-treated during his arrest. On 18 October 2016 the investigation questioned another inmate who was placed in the same cell with the applicant at the material time. He stated that he does not remember the name and surname of the applicant. Subsequently he was introduced with the photo materials of the applicant in order to recall whether he knew him. He reiterated that he does not know the person depicted on the photo material and that he had never seen him before. 9 On 11 October 2016 the investigation questioned an independent forensic expert who confirmed that on 23 April 2010 he was requested to conduct a forensic examination of injuries sustained by the applicant. He examined the applicant’s body and drew up the conclusion in respect of the injuries in question. Regarding the remoteness of injuries, the witness clarified that it was consistent with the date described in the factual circumstances of the case, however the expert underlined that he could not exclude the development of those injuries two days earlier or later of the date at issue. Another forensic expert who conducted the examination of the injuries of the applicant and delivered respective conclusion in 2010 on the basis of the decree of the investigator, has passed away. - Planed investigative steps. Relevant police officers will be questioned anew. The investigation has also planned a detailed survey of all other persons who were in any way in connection to the criminal case. The planned investigative steps will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities until the end of 2016. *** Kopade v. Georgia. This case concerns the lack of adequate investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in detention, by the prison guards, on 3 March 2009. The Government acknowledged the procedural violation of Article 3 and undertook to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations. The applicant is no longer in the prison. - New investigation The new investigation has been commenced on 21 May 2015 by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. The following circumstances of the case are based on the evidences obtained during the investigation, renewed in 2015. By the judgment of Mtskheta District Court dated 22 December 2009, the applicant, K. M., K. S. and M. B were found guilty for impeding activities of detention or penitentiary institutions or disorganization of such activities. The applicant was sentenced to 12 years, 1 month and 19 days of imprisonment. He lodged an appeal. By a plea agreement with the prosecutor of 16 March, 2010, his sentence was reduced to 3 years, 9 months and 29 days of imprisonment and to a suspended sentence of 3 years. According to K.M (released from prison on 20 February 2013) questioned on 16 June 2015, on 3 March 2009, the prison guards declared to him that they had to conduct his personal search and the search of his cell. During the inspection, they requested his undressing and made him to take off his slipper and then asked to take off another one but he refused to do that. Subsequently the prison guards started an aggressive conversation. First, the applicant was beaten in his cell, then – in the guards’ room, and finally – in the administration offices of the prison No. 7 establishment. Three men were involved in the first two beatings whereas around fifteen men were beating him on the third occasion. 10 The investigative authorities contacted the applicant and the witness M. B. who have expressed their consent to be interrogated. As to the witness – K.S. Initially he refused to be interrogated and clarified that long time has passed since the events in question and that he did not remember the factual circumstances of the incident. Nevertheless, on 25 October 2016 the investigation authorities questioned both witnesses - K.S. and M.B. (prisoners at the material time). According to their testimonies they were serving their sentences in Prison N15 (formerly N7). On 3 March 2009, at about 12:30 pm, the employees of the Institution declared to K.M. that they had to conduct his personal search. Later, there was variance between employees and prisoners namely M. B. - shvili, K. S. - dze and Emzar Kopadze expressed their protest towards the employees, as a result of which they were taken to the administration building together with K.M. According to the testimonies in the administration building the above-mentioned four convicts were subjected to physical abuse from the staff of the Institution. In particular the convicted persons were taken in the room of G. K. - dze - the Deputy Director of the Institution where they were physically abused nearly by 30 employees of the prison. According to testimonies of nine prison guards, questioned in June-July 2015on 3 March, 2009, in order to perform personal search of prisoner K. M. in his residential barracks, the prison guards arrived at the site. Subsequently the convicts attacked, have verbally insulted and beaten them. Finally, they took control of the situation and the convicts actively involved in the attack were taken in the building of administration. After the incident, the investigators of Ministry of Corrections conducted a number of investigative actions and the applicant was transferred on the same day to another facility. He was not subjected to any kind of physical or verbal insult in the building of administration. On 17 October 2016 the applicant was informed by the investigative bodies that he should have been appeared before the relevant bodies in order to be interviewed as a witness. He stated that currently he is in the city of Gori and that on 25 October he will be in Tbilisi to give the testimony however the applicant has not appeared before the investigative bodies to date. - Planed investigative steps The investigation authorities plan to question additionally the employees of the Prison N15 (formerly N7) in order to further clarify how the applicant sustained injuries and whether there was disproportionate use of force from the prison guards. They also plan to request the medical case-files and question the medical personnel. The planned investigative steps will be actively carried out by the investigative authorities until the end of 2016. 11 IV. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the investigative measures undertaken by the relevant authorities in terms of execution of these cases encompass a number of significant initiatives. New investigations have been implemented in compliance with the European Court’s case-law, and Committee of Ministers practice. Independence and impartiality of the investigators/ prosecutors are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigations are comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from date when the events complained of allegedly took place. The decision regarding future course of action will be adopted after carrying out all necessary investigative measures within the time-limits indicated above. The relevant authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for effective and prompt investigations. 12 SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 07/12/2016 DH-DD(2016)1372 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1273 meeting (6-8 December) (DH) Item reference: Action plan (05/12/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Molashvili against Georgia (Application No. 39726/04) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1273 réunion (6-8 décembre) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Molashvili contre Géorgie (Requête n° 39726/04) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF SULKHAN MOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA No. 39726/04, final on 23.10.2014 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 5 December 2016 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Government of Georgia submits action plan on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the decision in the case of Sulkhan Molashvili v. Georgia delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 30 September 2014 (final on 23 October 2014). 2. The present document is a report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the above decision. It does account for individual and general measures undertaken up to date by the authorities to remedy the violations in the present case. II. CASE SUMMARY 3. The factual circumstances of the case are the following: between 30 May 2000 and 4 January 2004, the applicant held the post of President of the Accounts Chamber, a State agency in charge of controlling the financial activities of various authorities. The applicant was charged with the offence of abuse of power in respect of certain financial irregularities of substantive nature, and was remanded in custody. The applicant was then escorted to the short remand prison of the main police headquarters of Tbilisi. 4. According to the applicant, in the night from 22 to 23 April 2004 three or four unidentified men in civilian clothes entered his cell in the Tbilisi police headquarters and, after having handcuffed him in the sitting position to a chair, burned cigarettes against his spine and chest. On 5 July 2004 a criminal case was opened for the fact of the applicant’s ill-treatment, but the investigation did not lead to any outcome. Meanwhile the applicant was sentenced to nine years in prison. The sentence was reduced to eight years in prison by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate judgment of 6 March 2006 in full. 5. The Government made declaration on 11 March 2014 according to which they acknowledged the violation of Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4, Article 6 §§ 1, 2, 3 (b), (c) and (d) and Article 14 of the Convention and undertook to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s illtreatment allegations in compliance with the principles established by the Court as well as the Government declared its readiness to pay the applicant 20.000 EUR as the just satisfaction. The applicant informed the Court that he accepted the Government’s friendly settlement proposals as made in the Government’s declaration. 6. On 30 September 2014 the Court rendered its decision and decided to strike out the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. 2 III. PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION CONFISCATED PROPERTY a) AND RETURN OF ILLEGLY Just satisfaction Name and application number Pecuniary damage, Nonpecuniary damage, Costs and expenses Total Sulkhan Molashvili v. Georgia 20 000 EUR 20 000 EUR No. 39726/04 Paid on: 21.01.2015 b) Returning of the Property (transferred to the state under duress) to Sulkhan Molashvili’s Family 7. On 11 August 2016 the spouse of the applicant – T.B.-dze was questioned in respect of the purchase of the real estate and the subsequent transfer of this property into the possession of the State. 8. It should be noted that the conducted investigation has revealed that in July, 2004, the Prosecution Service contacted T.M. – Sulkhan Molashvili’s brother and in exchange of the replacement of detention applied against Sulkhan Molashvili as the measure of restraint with the non-custodial measure, he was compelled to buy a house in Tsavkisi village and thereafter transfer it to the state as a gift. 9. Upon receiving assurances that Sulkhan Molashvili would be released from the custody, Sulkhan Molashvili’s family members - his brother and his spouse were forced to agree to the demand. Being coerced, for this purpose, Sulkhan Molashvili’s family members took a loan from the bank and as agreed, on July 14, 2004, bought the house in Tsavkisi Village. The same day they transferred the house to the state as a gift. Despite this fact Sulkhan Molashvili was not released from the custody. 10. By the decision of the Department to Investigate Offences Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings, Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia, the house in Tsavkisi village transferred to the state under the duress will be returned to Sulkhan Molashvili’s family. In particular, the Prosecution Service of Georgia will file a motion with the Ministry of Economic and Sustainable Development of Georgia in order to return the property currently owned by the state to the applicant’s spouse. IV. INVESTIGATION 11. With a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into alleged ill-treatment against the applicant, the investigation was renewed on 31 October 2014 and effectively investigated by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. - Independence and impartiality of the investigation 12. The recent investigation has been conducted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. An experienced, impartial and qualified investigator was assigned to the case. The Government believes that the 3 current Chief Prosecutor’s Office, can fulfill the role of a body capable of guaranteeing an effective and impartial investigation. - Circumstances of the case established as a result of the effective investigation 13. Throughout the criminal proceedings numerous witnesses have been questioned. The information below regarding the investigative activities is based on the evidence obtained in the context of the investigation renewed on 31 October 2014. 14. In particular on 6 November 2014, O. B.-dze was questioned as a witness, who noted that in April 2004 he worked as the head of the shift of Tbilisi temporary detention facility. He confirmed that Sulkhan Molashvili was placed in the temporary detention facility throughout that period. In addition, O. B.-dze noted that from the moment of placement in the temporary detention facility until the change of his shift (10:00 a.m.) the applicant did not leave the cell and that no injuries were sustained by him. The witness declared that Molashvili was alone in the cell. 15. On 8 November 2014, M. M. - dze was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that on 23 April of 2004, he worked as the junior physician of surgical unit of the Penitentiary Department. He verified that during his tenure of appointment Sulkhan Molashvili was placed in the Penitentiary facility. According to M. M. – dze, he indicated the same diagnoses in the medical history of the applicant as was specified by N5 institution physician. The medical history at issue clarified that the applicant had ischemic heart disease and stenocardia as well. 16. On 16 June 2015 G. M. - dze has been questioned as a witness who testified that in April 2004 he worked in a position of duty officer of temporary detention facility of the Tbilisi Division of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. He confirmed the presence of Sulkhan Molashvili during the aforesaid period in the detention facility and noted that the applicant did not have any kind of complaint in respect of the violation of his rights. 17. On 17 June 2015 D. A. - dze testified that he was arrested and placed on 9 June 2004 in N7 Penitentiary Institution. The witness confirmed that during that period Sulkhan Molashvili was placed in his cell and that he had signs of thermal injuries on his back. In addition the witness stated that in that period there was also T. G. - shvili in their cell and that there was no conflict between them at all. 18. On 18 June 2015 M. M. - ua was questioned as a witness. He noted that in 2004 while performing his official duties whereas he was working at the Main Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia he witnessed the apprehension of Sulkhan Molashvili. He described the process of apprehension and stated that there was no pressure exerted against Sulkhan Molashvili during his arrest or throughout his transfer to temporary detention facility. 19. On 22 June 2015 T. G. - shvili gave testimony and clarified that he was placed in April 2004 in Penitentiary Institution N7. He stated that that period there was D. A. - dze in his cell. For several days Sulkhan Molashvili who had thermal injuries on his back was placed in the same cell as well. He stated that there was no conflict between them at all. 20. Sh. N. - shvili has been questioned on 19 August 2015. He confirmed that in April 2004 when he worked as a prison guard in Penitentiary Institution N7 the applicant was placed in the said Institution. In addition he stated that he examined the applicant’s body together with the relevant physicians and explained that there were no signs of injury. 4 21. P. B. - shvili testified on 20 August 2015 that he supervised the temporary detention facility when the applicant was placed in the cell. He stated that from the moment of placement of Sulkhan Molashvili until termination of his shift the applicant remained in his cell. He stressed that throughout that period there was no pressure exerted on Sulkhan Molashvili at all. 22. R. P. - shvili testified on 20 August 2015 that during the time at issue he served as an inspector of the Medical Institution of Central Republican Hospital for Convicts and Pre-trial Inmates. He stated that in that period Sulkhan Molashvili was placed in the same Institution. He clarified that the applicant had injuries on his back. 23. On 21 August of 2015 P. J. – dze, the forensic expert of Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau has been questioned. He stated that on 5 July 2004 on the basis of the ordinance of the Prosecutor of Tbilisi he performed the forensic-medical expertise of Sulkhan Molashvili and prepared the conclusion of the expertise Na/635. He confirmed the validity of the aforesaid expertise and explained that there were no pressure put on him during the performance of the forensic expertise in question. According to the expertise the applicant had oval shape scars on his back. The scars were pink colored and had uneven surface. The expertise found that the injuries were caused by a high temperature subject and were classified as the minor injuries. In addition the expertise could not determine when the injuries were sustained due to the time lapsed. However the experts found that the injuries might have been sustained no more than within 6 months. 24. On 21 December 2015 A.G. - dze who occupied the position of expert of the National Forensics Bureau at the material time was questioned. He confirmed that the accuracy of expertise and affirmed that during the expertise he was not exposed to any kind of pressure. 25. On 21 December 2015 R.B. – shvili, a prison guard at the material time, testified that they could not recall whether the applicant was placed in the prison throughout their presence in an official capacity. 26. On 21 June 2016 the information was retrieved from the web page “youtube.com” regarding the interview of Molashvili with “TV-9” journalist. 27. On 22 June the expert M.N. -shvili testified about the details of forensic expertise conducted by her. She did not give any concrete information regarding the persons who committed the acts of ill-treatment against the applicant but stated that in case of necessity she could provide the investigation with her “rough copies” which could be useful for the investigation. 28. On 28 June 2016 the investigator of the criminal case initiated against the applicant – L.E. shvili was questioned. He confirmed that at the material time he arrested the applicant. 29. On 29 June 2016 the deputy head of the temporary detention facility at the material time – G.K. shvili was questioned as well. He confirmed his meeting with the applicant but denied any fact of ill-treatment perpetrated against the applicant throughout his presence in the temporary detention isolator. 30. On 29 and 30 June 2016 the persons who were placed at the material time (22-24 April 2004) in the same temporary detention isolator where the applicant was detained, in particular A. Zh.-ia and Z. Ph.-shvili were questioned. They maintained that during their presence there were no pressure exerted on them or towards other detained persons. 5 31. On 30 June 2016 the personal history files of the applicant were extracted from Penitentiary Department. On 1 July 2016 the information regarding the verdict on the case of Molashvili were retrieved from the Appellate Court of Tbilisi. 32. Furthermore on 1 July 2016 the prosecutor T.Cht. - shvili was questioned. He stated that on 23 April 2004 he visited the applicant and that he could not notice any kind of visually detectable injury on the body of Molashvili. In addition the witness confirmed that during the meeting the applicant did not express any kind of complaints in respect of the temporary detention isolator staff or towards the other employees of the law enforcement bodies. He stated that in respect of the aforesaid fact the relevant protocols were drawn up as well. 33. On 6 July 2016 L.S.-shvili (he was placed at the material time in the same cell with the applicant) was questioned as a witness. He stated that there was no conflict between the applicant and other inmates in the Penitentiary Institution N1. As for the thermal injuries the applicant could not recall the concrete details of the fact, because of the passage of time and sustained trauma of his head from which he suffered. 34. On 9 July 2016 M.M. – dze was questioned as a witness who worked as the duty physician of the Medical Institution at the material time. He stated that he drew up the protocol of the visual examination of the applicant without examining the body of the applicant (He copied the relevant medical data from the medical record prepared by the previous Penitentiary Institution). He explained the aforementioned action by the refusal of the applicant to conduct the examination of his body. The witness denied any occurrence of pressure employed against the applicant throughout the visual examination or during the proceedings. 35. On 9 July 2016 the investigation questioned P.Z.- dze - the Head of the Therapy Division of the Medical Institution of the Prison at the material time. He clarified that the applicant had no visual injuries on the basis of which he drew up the report on 26 April 2004. The witness stated that the applicant was a friend of him and that in the event of any kind of injuries he would inform him immediately. The witness denied any occurrence of the pressure employed against the applicant throughout the visual examination or during the proceedings 36. On 9 July 2016 A. V. dze – the Head Physician of the Penitentiary Institution N7 was questioned by the investigation bodies. He stated that on 2 July 2004 throughout the placement of the applicant into the Penitentiary Institution and during the visual examination he did not undress the applicant above the waistline and that is why he could not notice the thermal injuries on the upper location of his back. The witness denied any occurrence of the pressure employed against the applicant throughout the visual examination or during the proceedings. 37. On 28 September 2016 investigation authorities questioned the former head of the security of the Penitentiary Institution N5 – O.Kh.-ava. He stated that in June 2004 the applicant was transferred from the Medical Institution to the Penitentiary Institution N5 and subsequently on the basis of the order of relevant senior officials was placed in the so called “regime building” where the members of the criminal underworld served their sentence. According to him, as a rule, former high officials served their sentence separately from the other prisoners in another “regime building”. According to the witness the above-mentioned circumstance served as an instrument of psychological coercion against the applicant. 38. On 29 September 2016 the investigation authorities questioned the former head of the Penitentiary Department – Sh. K.-dze. He stated that on the basis of the verbal order of Deputy General Prosecutor in June 2004 the applicant was initially transferred from the Medical 6 Institution to the Penitentiary Institution N5 and subsequently, in July 2004 was transferred over again to the Penitentiary Institution N7. According to the witness the above-mentioned circumstance served as an instrument of psychological pressure against the applicant in order to force him to fulfill certain demands. However, the witness could not specify exactly what kind of actions the relevant persons wanted the applicant to fulfill and what was the aim of the aforesaid coercion. 39. On 20 October 2016 the investigation authorities questioned the former deputy head of the Penitentiary Department – A.Kh.-ua. He stated that in June 2004 the applicant was transferred from the Medical Institution to the Penitentiary Institution N5 and subsequently, on the basis of the order of relevant senior officials was placed in the so called “regime building” were the members of the criminal underworld served their sentence. The witness has also confirmed that as a rule former high officials would serve their sentence separately from the other prisoners in another “regime building”. A.Kh.-ua clarified that he offered the applicant transfer to another “regime building” where the former high officials served their sentence though the witness stated that the applicant rejected the offer. 40. On 20 October 2016 the investigation authorities questioned the employees of N5 and N7 Penitentiary Institution – L.T.dze, G.G.-shvili, J.G.-shvili, B. A.-dze. Due to the passage of time the witnesses could not recall the circumstances of serving the sentence by the applicant. 41. On the basis of the information retrieved from the incoming and outgoing calls as well as on the basis of relevant text messages of the phone numbers registered in the name of the persons implicated in the case at issue the investigation authorities established the concrete time when the applicant was placed in the Tbilisi temporary detention isolator and the time of transfer to another institution. The investigation also identified other persons who had the telephone contacts with the persons implicated in the case at issue. In addition on the basis of the decision of the national court the investigation authorities retrieved the information from the Mobile Telecommunications Companies “MAGTICOM” and “GEOCELL” regarding the incoming and outgoing calls made from the relevant communication masts located nearby the isolator. Currently due to the considerable amount of information the investigation authorities are processing the relevant data. - Victim Involvement 42. On 1 June 2016 the investigation authorities informed the spouse of the applicant about the request to appear before the Prosecutor’s Office together with the applicant. She explained that her spouse was out of the country. 43. On 15 July 2016 the spouse of the applicant and the brother of the applicant T.M.- shvili were informed in respect of the relevant facts and developments in the course of the investigation. Subsequently, on 11 August 2016 the spouse of the applicant T.B.-dze was additionally informed regarding the developments in respect of the investigation. 44. The Government of Georgia wish to inform the Committee of Ministers that on 29 June 2016 the applicant died in the hospital in Paris, France. - Outcome of the investigation 45. The investigative measures were actively renewed in October of 2014 within the framework of the criminal case N074311014801 initiated under Article 333 (3) “b” (exceeding official powers 7 by an official or a person equal thereto, with the use of violence or arms). The relevant witnesses have already been questioned and the important circumstances of the case are in the process of elaboration. - Re-opening of the criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia 46. According to the information provided by the Supreme Court of Georgia the applicant has not applied to the National Courts to re-open the criminal case on the basis of the decision rendered by the Court under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (the Government wish to clarify that according to the rules of the respective national law the deadline for the application for the reopening of the case expired on 23 October 2015). 47. Nevertheless, in general to illustrate the effectiveness of the mechanism envisaged under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia the Government draws the Committee’s attention to the decision of the Court in the case Taktakishvili v. Georgia (No. 46055/06). 48. By its decision of 16 October 2012, the Court struck out the case of Taktakishvili v. Georgia on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration. In its reasoning, the Court, having due regard to the wording of Article 310 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confirmed that domestic provision contained indeed a procedural possibility for applying for reopening of the relevant domestic criminal proceedings on the ground of either a judgment or decision of the Court containing reference to a violation of a provision of the Convention (see Taktakishvili, the decision cited above, § 22). 49. By a judgment of 13 January 2014, the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, having due regard to the Court’s above mentioned strike-out decision of 16 October 2012 in the case of Taktakishvili v. Georgia, decided to reopen the initial criminal proceedings against Taktakishvili, for the purposes of her re-trial. That decision was made in accordance with Article 310 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, Taktakishvili was acquitted of the charges of which she had been initially convicted. V. GENERAL MEASURES 50. As for the general measures carried out by the Government of Georgia regarding eradication of ill-treatment and the investigative proceedings, please see DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2016)701, Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03). VI. CONCLUSION 51. As demonstrated above, the individual and general measures undertaken by the State authorities in terms of execution of the case encompass a number of significant initiatives. 52. First and foremost, new investigation has been implemented in compliance with the principles enshrined in the Convention and further developed by the Court in its case-law, as well as with the requirements set out in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. Independence and impartiality of the investigation groups are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigations 8 are comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from date when the events complained allegedly took place. The authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for appropriate and prompt establishment of the factual circumstances. The information and evidence obtained in the course of the investigation is assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner. Furthermore, the Government considers that the adopted individual and general measures fully meet the terms of the friendly settlement under Article 39 of the Convention. 9 SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey. Tel: 03 88 41 36 45 Date: 07/12/2016 DH-DD(2016)1371 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1273 meeting (6-8 December) (DH) Item reference: Action plan (05/12/2016) Communication from Georgia concerning the case of Surmanidze and Others (Kiziria group) against Georgia (Application No. 11323/08) *********** Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1273 réunion (6-8 décembre) (DH) Référence du point : Plan d’action Communication de la Géorgie concernant l’affaire Surmanidze et autres (groupe Kiziria) contre Géorgie (Requête n° 11323/08) (anglais uniquement) The Government of Georgia ACTION PLAN CASE OF OTAR SURMANIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA No. 11323/08, final on 17.07.2014 Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 5 December 2016 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Government of Georgia submits latest report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the decision in the case of Otar Surmanidze and Others v. Georgia delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 24 June 2014 (final on 17 July 2014). 2. The document presents a detailed report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the above decision. It accounts for individual measures undertaken up to date by the authorities to remedy the violations in the present case. II. CASE SUMMARY 3. On 12 January 2006 Roman Surmanidze, Otar Surmanidze’s (“the first applicant”) and Aniko Surmanidze’s (“the Second applicant”) son, and Marad Artmeladze, Mikheil Artmeladze’s (“the third applicant”) and Manana Artmeladze’s (“the fourth applicant”) son, as well as another young man, were all shot dead in a street, near the metro station “Isani” in Tbilisi by the agents of the Department of Constitutional Security of the Ministry of the Interior. The shooting occurred during the police operation aimed at apprehending the group of the three young men who had been allegedly suspected of conspiracy to assist a prison escape. 4. The applicants complained about the killing of their sons by the law-enforcement agents on 12 January 2006 and the relevant authorities’ failure to ensure an effective investigation in that respect under Article 2 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13. 5. The Government made a declaration on 29 April 2014 according to which they acknowledged violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb and undertook to ensure effectiveness of the ongoing investigation at the domestic level regarding the alleged excessive use of force against Roman Surmanidze and Marad Artmeladze as well as the Government declared its readiness to pay to the applicants 20.000 EUR in total as the just satisfaction. The applicants’ representative informed the Court that the clients accepted the Government’s friendly settlement proposals as made in the Government’s declaration of 29 April 2014. 6. On 24 June 2014 the Court rendered its decision and decided to strike out the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. III. PAYMENT Name and application number Pecuniary damage, Nonpecuniary damage, Costs and expenses Total Otar Surmanidze and Others v. Georgia 20 000 EUR 20 000 EUR Paid on: 01.09.2014 No. 11323/08 2 IV. INVESTGATION 7. With a view of carrying out a thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into possible excessive use of force against Roman Surmanidze and Marad Artmeladze, the case was renewed and effectively investigated by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. - Independence and impartiality of the investigation 8. The “police operation” that resulted in the death of the applicants’ sons was planned and carried out by the Department of Constitutional Security of the Ministry of the Interior whereas the investigation was conducted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office which is entirely autonomous from the Ministry of Interior and does not have any institutional or hierarchal linkage to the events in question. The persons responsible for and conducting the investigation as well as investigative body - the Chief Prosecutor’s Office - are independent in law and in practice. - Circumstances of the case established as a result of the effective investigation 9. Throughout the criminal proceedings approximately 154 witnesses have been questioned as well as the video footage and written evidences have been examined. 10. The following circumstances of the case are based on the evidence obtained during the renewed investigation in 2013: 11. G. G.-dze (brother of Sh. G. - dze, who has been killed during the so called “police operation”) was serving his sentence in Rustavi N1 Institution, in January 2006. As G.G.-dze testified during the proceeding, at that material time the prisoner D. L.-dze disclosed to G.G.-dze that he was planning to escape from the prison and that the weapon was needed for this purpose. G.G-dze promised him that he would help but in fact he informed the acting prison warden G. T.-dze about intentions of D. L.-dze. 12. The same day G. G.-dze met the assistant director of the penitentiary department L. Kh.-ia, who gave him the telephone number of B. A.-ia and explained that he should contact immediately the director of penitentiary department in case G. G.-dze has any new information. In those days, several conversations were held over the telephone between B. A.-ia and G. G.-dze (which is confirmed by the relevant telephone communication data retrieved during the investigation). During the conversations it was decided to organize a provocation of escape of the prisoners from the Institution in question. In addition it has been agreed that the necessary weapons for the provocation would be handed over by the subordinates of B. A.-ia to the brother of G. G.-dze. 13. Subsequently G. G.-dze called his brother and asked to meet brother of D. L.-dze and give him the bag which would be provided by “his people”. He concealed from his brother that weapons would be in the bag. Sh. G. - dze and his friends were met by the official of Constitutional Security Department in Tbilisi and were driven by him around the city throughout 3-4 hours. During this time the brothers had frequent telephone communication between each other, but later the contact ceased. 14. The testimony of G. G.-dze was fully confirmed by the former prison wardens of Rustavi N1 Institution – G. T-dze and T. T.-dze. According to them, they learned about D. L.-dze’s intention to escape from the prison, namely from G. G.-dze. Also, T. T.-dze confirmed that he personally informed B. A.-ia who subsequently had direct communication with G. G.-dze. 3 15. According to the data of telephone connections, on 12 January 2006, on G. G. - dze’s mobile number, there were 57 incoming calls made from the telephone number registered on the name of the official of the prison department – L. M.-shvili (however, the witness denied to have use of the mentioned number) and 4 incoming calls were made from the number registered on the name of A. N-shvili (spouse of B. A.-ia). On the day of incident, an incoming call to Sh. G.dze’s number was made from the mobile phone number registered on the name of L. M. - shvili at 17:41 p.m. 16. During the proceedings, M. G.-dze (the person who took Roman Surmanidze, Mikheil Artmeladze and Sh. G. - dze off from Tsalka to Tbilisi) testified that none of them had automatic rifle. 17. The events that occurred afterwards are confirmed by the several eye-witnesses and evidence obtained during the investigation. In particular: 18. A. S.-dze (the former agent of the Department of Constitutional Security of the Ministry of the Interior) clarified that he met the persons by the order of G. D.-dze (nickname “mastera”) who arrived from Tsalka in Phonichala (one of the districts of Tbilisi) and subsequently, again under the orders of G. D.-dze, he drove them along the streets of Tbilisi by car, dropped these unarmed persons nearby the station of “Navtlughi” and left the place instantly. He declared that after driving 200 meters from the place where he dropped three young men, he heard the gun shot. When he came back to the site, he saw that three young men whom he drove to the station. They were shot dead. A. S.-dze confirmed that he saw armed G. D. - dze, D. A.-aia, Sh. T.-shvili, G. M.- shvili and L. K.- ava nearby the bodies. 19. The information provided by A. S.-dze was confirmed by the data received from the Department of Information and Technology of LTD “Geocell” (Mobile Service Operator Company). The representative from the company clarified that on 12 January, during 4 hours, A. S.-dze and Sh. G.-dze were moving the same direction at the same time. 20. Sh. T.-shvili (worked at the Department of Constitutional Security at the material time) testified that, in January 2006 the Head of the Department of Constitutional Security - D. A.-aia brought together L. K. - ava, G. D. - dze, G. M. - shvili and Sh. T. - shvili. D.A-ia and informed them that the operation was planned in the territory of the station “Navtlughi”. Following the orders of D.A-ia, Sh. T.-shvili ordered the members of the Special Force Unit: G. Ch-ia, D. Sh.- dze, A. P.- shvili, D. U.- ani, G. T.- dze, D. S- dze and L. G.- dze to drive to the station “Navtlughi” in the Mercedes-Benz and maintain the respective distance from the site. They also received the order whatever might happen not to leave the place without the direct order. Sh. T.-shvili arrived at the place on the agreed time and took cover at the wall of the train station. Almost in 20 minutes, he heard the gun shot and the voices of yelling “help us… don’t shoot at us”. Then he saw in front of him – D. A.-aia, L. K. - ava, G. D. - dze, G. M.- shvili chasing three unarmed boys; two of boys were running towards Sh. T.-shvili and the third boy slightly separately of the two others. Upon seeing this, Sh. T.-shvili knelt down and started shooting at two boys running towards his direction. As a result of shootings, the targets fell on the ground. D. A-aia approached one of them aimed at his head and fired the shot. At that moment, D. A-aia took off his mask. According to Sh. T.-shvili, one of the persons put automatic rifles next to the bodies. There also was a black sports bag nearby the corpse in which the cartridges and magazines were placed. Sh. T.-shvili repeatedly confirmed that all the above-mentioned persons, including the accused G. M. - shvili and L. K. - ava, were armed with the automatic rifles and had been chasing and shooting at the three young persons who entered the territory of the station. 4 21. J. J.-dze (a policeman at the Isani-Samgori Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs at that material time) declared that on 12 January 2006, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. he arrived at the petrol station when he saw 2 or 3 vehicles stopping on the opposite side of the street, nearby the “Navtlughi” station. The armed persons wearing the masks got out of the car and entered the “Navtlughi” station square with fire. J. J.-dze headed to the same place, but while crossing the street, one of the persons wearing a mask stopped him and did not let him to enter the territory of the station. The witness was stopped on the edge of the road. At that point - nearby the pharmacy, a man as a result of shooting fell down. After several seconds the shooting stopped. The man in the mask, who did not permit J. J.-dze to enter the territory of station, turned instantly and headed to the territory of station. The policeman followed him. At that moment he saw other two motionless bodies of man lying down near to the wall of the train station. Afterwards, he saw how the man in the mask approached one of the bodies, pointed at his head and made a shot, then took off his mask. J. J.-dze identified the man as D. A.-ia (Head of Constitutional Security Department at material time). Immediately after the aforesaid shot, one of the armed persons approached the second body and made a shot as well. J. J.-dze identified him as G. M.-shvili. According to J. J.-dze, the second shot was followed by the third shot and this time, nearby the pharmacy, he saw a tall man standing with his back to him and thus he could not see his face. At the same time one of the person in the mask put automatic rifles beside the bodies. 22. T. T.-shvili (guard of the station), saw the boys calling for help, while patrolling the territory. Upon hearing the noise, he stopped nearby the corner of the building and when looked in the direction of the station, he saw 5-6 armed men chasing three men by shooting in their direction. As a result of shooting, two young man fell down nearby the wall of the train station and the third one fell down as well at a distance from them close to the veterinary drug store. Those who shoot, stopped and one of them approached the young man who fell down close to the metro station “Isani” and made a shot at his head and then took off the mask. The witness identified the man as D. A.-ia (Head of Constitutional Security Department at the material time). Subsequently, another person approached the second young man and made the control shot at him. The witness memorised his face. In his testimony T. T.-shvili also declared that three automatic rifles in a black sports bag had been brought and put beside the corpses. 23. D. Ch.-dze (the guard, the co-worker of T. T.-shvili) testified that on 12 January at 8-9 p.m. he and T. T.-shvili divided the zone of supervision and started checking separately. When D. Ch.dze finished checking the territory, he headed to the square of the station and on his way he heard the gun shot and saw 4-5 men who were moving and shooting the same time in one direction. According to him all of them were shooting. Simultaneously, he heard the distressed voices “please don’t shoot at us, don’t kill us”. Afterwards, he took the cover behind the vehicle, stopped nearby the metro station ‘Isani”. At that time he heard additional shoots. Subsequently, he noticed how somebody brought the black sports bag. According to him, the same night T. T.shvili told him how D. A.-ia and accompanying persons shot dead the young men in front of his eyes. 24. G. J.-dze (the guard of the station), recalled that on 12 January 2006 at 21 p.m. while watching the news, he heard the voices and saw three boys in front of the building of the station within the distance of 20 meters. The boys were running from the “Aversi” pharmacy into the depth of the station square. The witness stated that they were chased by 5 persons dressed in black civil clothing. The same time G. J.-dze heard the scream and identified the speech “help me… stop”. The witness stated that the shootings were carried out in the same direction where the young men 5 ran to. The mentioned is confirmed by the examination protocol of the crime scene. The protocol verifies that the bullet holes were found in the wall, which divides the territory of station and the train station. The witness declared that he can state definitely that the young men did not carry any arms with them. 25. The members of the Special Force Unit: G. Ch.-ia, D. Sh.-dze, A. P.-shvili, D. U.-iani, G. T.-dze (mentioned by Sh. T.-shvili) testified that on 12 January 2006 they were ordered by Sh. T.-shvili (who worked as the Deputy Head of the Special Force Unit) to drive to the “Navtlughi” station in the Mercedes-Benz and maintain respective distance from the site. Sh. T.-shvili informed them that the special operation plan was prepared. 8-10 Special Force Unit members got in the Mercedes-Benz minibus and headed to the “Navtlughi” station and parked the vehicle in 150 meters distance from the site and waited for the ensuing order. Almost in 30 minutes they heard the sounds of shootings from the automatic rifles and despite the order not to leave the place unless instructed otherwise, they made the decision on their own to get out of the car and head to the site of the incident. On their way, initially they heard the sound of intensive shootings and then according to the witnesses G.T.-dze and G. Ch.-ia there were couple of single shots as well. Once they approached the station, they came across with Sh. T.-shvili who reprimanded them for noncompliance with the order and gave them a new order to protect the site of the incident. Once the witnesses approached the center of the station square they noticed D. A.-ia, L. K.-ava and G. M.-shvili and three corpses nearby there. 26. Therefore, the testimonies of the witnesses: J. J-dze, T. T.-shvili, G. J.-dze, D. Ch.-dze and the testimonies of the members of the Special Force Unit are fully consistent with each other. 27. The testimony of Sh. T.-shvili is fully consistent with the data obtained from the Mobile Service Operator Company, according to which the calls made from the number registered on the name of Sh. T.-shvili at 20:08 p.m. and 22:03 p.m. were served by the communication mast of “Navtlughi”. The calls made from D. A.-ia, on 12 January during 20:56 p.m. - 21:55 p.m. and from 01:33 a.m. to 01:44 a.m. and Levan Kardava (at 15:35 p.m., 16:05 p.m., 19:04 p.m. and 16:37 p.m. - 16:55 p.m.) were served by the “Navtlughi” communication mast as well. 28. In 2006, even at the initial stage of the investigation, the relevant forensic expertise concluded that there were 5 bullet wounds identified on the body of Roman Surmanidze. Two out of five above-mentioned wounds were inflicted on his head and according to the expertise each of them taken even separately would cause a lethal outcome. In addition, all wounds had been inflicted from the rear side of the body. In consideration of the testimonies of witnesses, the young men were running; so, it appears to be logical, since the employees of Constitutional Security Department chased them while shooting from the automatic rifles. Besides, the bullet wound, inflicted on the head of Roman Surmanidze, is directed from up to the bottom side, which verifies the fact that he was shot in the head after his fall on the ground. The expertise also concluded that all wounds were inflicted when he was alive to affirm that Surmanidze was still alive when G. D.-dze carried out a control shot at him. 29. According to the forensic expertise (conducted during investigation of 2006) five bullet wounds were identified on the body of Marad Artmeladze: three in the leg and two wounds in the area of neck. Identical to the previous example, all wounds had been inflicted from the rear side of the body. Furthermore one of the wounds inflicted on the area of the neck is directed from the upper side to the bottom and damaged the carotid artery and is verified as the direct cause of the lethal outcome. The expertise concluded that all wounds were inflicted during the lifetime and this 6 reinforces that Marad Artmeladze was still alive when G. M.-shvili took a shot from the short distance deliberately pointing at his neck. 30. Sh. G. - dze according to the expertise had twelve bullet wounds among them 10 had been inflicted from the rear side of the body like in the case of Artmeladze and Surmanidze and two wounds from the front side. The investigation asserts that the two wounds inflicted from the front occurred as a result of the shots taken from the automatic rifle of Sh. T.-shvili, since if one recalls the scene described by him “three unarmed boys were running, two of whom were running towards Sh. T.-shvili’s direction and the third boy was running slightly separately of the two others. Upon seeing this Sh. T.-shvili knelt down and started shooting while sighting at two boys running towards his direction”. The expertise concluded that bullet wound which was inflicted on the head of Roman Surmanidze is directed from up to the bottom side, which verifies the fact that he was shot in the head after his fall on the ground. Besides, the bullet wound, which was inflicted on the head of Sh. G. - dze is directed from up to the bottom side, which verifies the fact that he was shot in the head after his fall on the ground. The expertise also concluded that all wounds were inflicted during the lifetime and this also reinforces the allegation that Sh. G. - dze was still alive when D. A.-ia took a control shot in the direction of his head. 31. According to the physical and technical expertise of the clothing (jacket and hat) of Sh. G. - dze conducted during the investigation, four of the bullet wounds were inflicted approximately from 40 cm distance and one of the wounds was inflicted from the point blank range. 32. In contrast to the testimony of the one of the accused G. M.-shvili, which contended that there was an exchange of fire and that the young men were shooting in their direction once they entered the site of incident, there were no signs found, since there were no bullet holes discovered on the building of the administration of the station. - Outcome of the effective investigation 33. The investigative measures were actively renewed at the beginning of 2013 within the framework of the original criminal case initiated during 2006 under Article 353 (2) (resistance, threat or violence against protector of public order or other government representative). Therefore, in the context of the aforesaid criminal case, the charges under Article 109 “a”, “h” and Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (being in force before 31 May 2006) were brought against the agents of the Constitutional Security Department: L. K. - ava, G. M. - shvili, D. A.- aia and G. D.- dze. 34. The investigation was effective as regards identification and punishment of those responsible. Namely, L. K.- ava and G. M.- shvili, by the decision of the Tbilisi City Court, are found guilty in the premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances (Article 109 (1) “a” “h” according to the Criminal Code in force before 31 May 2006) and are sentenced to 11 years and three months of imprisonment. Currently the criminal cases against L. K. - ava and G. M.- shvili are pending before Tbilisi Court of Appeals. At this stage the national court conducts the examination of the evidence presented by the defence. Furthermore on the basis of the request of defence the witness G.D. –dze will be questioned in the nearest future. 35. D. A.-aia is charged under article 109 “a” “h” (premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances), under Article 333 (1) and (3) “b” (the excess of official power) and also 369 (3) (falsification of evidences) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. On 16 October 2014 the Appellate Court of Greece adopted a decision regarding the refusal to extradite D.A.-ia to Georgia despite 7 of the extradition motion from the Chief’s Prosecutors Office. The above decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Greece on 24 April 2015. Furthermore the national court of Greece took a decision to replace the restraint measure in the form of extradition arrest by the release on bail. The accused was prohibited to leave the country as well. 36. G. D.-dze is also charged under articles 109 “a” “h” and 333 (1) and (3) “b” of the Criminal Code of Georgia. In particular on 25 April 2014 G.D.-dze has been sentenced in absentia to imprisonment and was officially declared wanted. On 19 June 2014 G.D.-dze was detained in Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of the extradition motion of the Chief’s Prosecutors Office of Georgia. On 22 March 2016 the accused - G.D.-dze was extradited from the Netherlands and placed in the Penitentiary Institution N9 of Georgia. 37. The criminal cases against D. A.-ia and G. D.-dze are pending before Tbilisi City Court. In particular the criminal cases against the accused were initially examined separately however on the basis of the motion made by the prosecution the criminal cases were united. At this stage the national court conducts the examination of the evidence presented by the prosecution, namely 31 witnesses have already been interrogated. Moreover the part of written evidence have already been examined. The questioning of remaining witnesses and examination of remaining part of the written evidence will be conducted in the nearest future. Subsequently, the defence will commence the examination of the presented evidence. V. GENERAL MEASURES 38. As for the general measures carried out by the Government of Georgia regarding eradication of ill-treatment and the investigative proceedings, please see DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2016)701, Gharibashvili Group of cases (11830/03). VI. CONCLUSION 39. As demonstrated above, the individual measures undertaken by the State authorities in terms of execution of the case encompass a number of significant initiatives. 40. First and foremost, the new investigation has been implemented in compliance with the principles enshrined in the Convention and further developed by the Court in its case-law, as well as with the requirements set out in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. Independence and impartiality of the investigation group are ensured to the fullest extent. The investigation is as comprehensive as possible, consisting of all reasonable steps that could have been taken for securing evidence related to the allegations in question bearing in mind the time elapsed from the events complained. The authorities make genuine efforts and demonstrate necessary diligence required for appropriate and prompt establishment of the factual circumstances. The information and evidence obtained in the course of the investigation is assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner. 8 1273rd meeting – 6-8 December 2016 Item H46-10 Gharibashvili group v. Georgia (Application No. 11830/03) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments DH-DD(2016)1372, DH-DD(2016)1371, DH-DD(2016)1262, DH-DD(2016)1206, DH-DD(2016)701, DH-DD(2016)324, DH-DD(2016)114, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2014)956, DH-DD(2014)955, DH-DD(2014)1099, Public Defender of Georgia Special Report, CommDH(2014)9, ODGProg/Inf(2013)15, CM/Del/Dec(2016)1259/H46-12 Decisions The Deputies Individual measures 1. noted with interest the updated information provided concerning reopening of the investigations in all the cases in this group and the current state of investigations, although the information in the cases of Surmanidze and Others and Molashvili was submitted so shortly before the present meeting that no detailed assessment thereof has been possible; 2. noted with interest that concrete results had been achieved in some cases but expressed concern that, in most cases (including the 11 friendly settlements mentioned in paragraph 10 below), the investigations remain pending; 3. noted the efforts engaged in face of this situation in order to ensure effective investigations and urged the authorities to accelerate pending investigations and to reinforce resources allocated; 4. invited the authorities to keep the Committee informed of developments and of steps taken to bring the pending investigations to an end in conformity with Convention requirements and to indicate if decisions to close investigations can be challenged and, if so, before what authority; 5. expressed special concern that in the cases Mikiashvili and Dvalishvili, the Court’s findings appear to be put into question by the Prosecutor’s Office and invited the authorities to provide clarification in this respect; General measures 6. noted with interest the information provided by the authorities on the reform of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, the involvement of victims in the investigation, including access to case-files, implementation of the new rules on witness interrogation and of the 2015-2016 Action Plan “on Combating Torture, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”; 7. invited the authorities to provide further information on how the institutional independence of investigating bodies, in particular the Prosecutor’s Office, is henceforth guaranteed in law and in practice; 8. invited the authorities to provide further information on the measures taken vis-à-vis the judiciary to demonstrate that the specific problems revealed in the present cases have been addressed: notably lack of adversarial public proceedings and decisions rendered in camera, court decisions based mainly on the testimony of the police officers involved in the incidents, lack of sufficient time and facilities to study the case materials, etc.; 9. also invited the authorities to submit further information on the measures to prevent excessive use of force by the police in the course of arrest and ill-treatment of persons in custody and on the results achieved, as well as on the measures to prevent violations of Article 38; Grouping of cases 10. in view of the above, and in accordance with the decision of June 2016, decided to transfer the 11 friendly settlements1 mentioned in this decision from the standard to the enhanced supervision procedure and to join them with the Gharibashvili group; 11. 1 decided to resume examination of this group of cases at the 1294 th meeting (September 2017) (DH). Kiziria (4728/08), Baghashvili (5168/06), Surmanidze and others (11323/08), Molashvili (39726/04), Mzekalishvili (8177/12), Kopadze (58228/09), Lanchava (28103/11), Studio Maestro Ltd and Others (22318/10), Chantladze (60864/10), Bekauri and Others (312/10) and Gegenava and Others (65128/10). 1273e réunion – 6-8 décembre 2016 Point H46-10 Groupe Gharibashvili c. Géorgie (Requête n° 11830/03) Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne DH-DD(2016)1372, DH-DD(2016)1371, DH-DD(2016)1262, DH-DD(2016)1206, DH-DD(2016)701, DH-DD(2016)324, DH-DD(2016)114, DH-DD(2015)625, DH-DD(2015)113, DH-DD(2014)956, DH-DD(2014)955, DH-DD(2014)1099, Public Defender of Georgia Special Report, CommDH(2014)9, ODGProg/Inf(2013)15, CM/Del/Dec(2016)1259/H46-12 Décisions Les Délégués Mesures individuelles 1. notent avec intérêt les informations à jour fournies sur la réouverture des enquêtes dans toutes les affaires de ce groupe et l’état actuel des enquêtes, les informations concernant les affaires Surmanidze et autres et Molashvili ayant toutefois été soumises si peu de temps avant la réunion qu’aucune évaluation n’a pu en être faite ; 2. notent avec intérêt que des résultats concrets ont été obtenus dans certaines affaires mais expriment leur préoccupation quant au fait que dans la plupart des affaires (y compris les 11 règlements amiables mentionnés au paragraphe 10 ci-dessous), les enquêtes sont toujours pendantes ; 3. notent les efforts fournis face à cette situation afin de veiller à la tenue d’enquêtes effectives et invitent instamment les autorités à accélérer les enquêtes pendantes et à renforcer les ressources allouées ; 4. invitent les autorités à tenir le Comité informé des développements et des mesures prises pour mener à bien les enquêtes pendantes conformément aux exigences de la Convention et à indiquer si les décisions de clore les enquêtes peuvent être contestées, et dans l’affirmative, auprès de quelle autorité ; 5. expriment leur préoccupation particulière quant au fait que dans les affaires Mikiashvili et Dvalishvili, les conclusions de la Cour semblent être remises en question par le Parquet et invitent les autorités à fournir des clarifications à cet égard ; Mesures générales 6. notent avec intérêt les informations fournies par les autorités sur la réforme du Parquet de Géorgie, sur l’implication des victimes dans le cadre de l’enquête, y compris s’agissant de l’accès aux dossiers, sur la mise en œuvre des nouvelles règles relatives à l'interrogatoire des témoins et du Plan d'action 2015-2016 « de lutte contre la torture, les peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants » ; 7. invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur la manière dont l'indépendance institutionnelle des organes d'enquête, en particulier du Parquet, est dorénavant garantie en droit et en pratique ; 8. invitent les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur les mesures prises à l'égard du pouvoir judiciaire pour démontrer que les problèmes spécifiques révélés dans les présentes affaires ont été remédiés : notamment, l’absence de procédure publique contradictoire et les décisions rendues à huis clos, les décisions des tribunaux fondées principalement sur le témoignage des policiers impliqués dans les incidents, le manque de temps et de facilités pour étudier le dossier de l'affaire, etc. ; 9. invitent également les autorités à fournir des informations complémentaires sur les mesures visant à prévenir l'usage excessif de la force par la police lors des arrestations et les mauvais traitements de personnes en garde à vue, et sur les résultats obtenus ainsi que sur les mesures visant à prévenir des violations de l’article 38 ; Groupement d’affaires 10. compte tenu de ce qui précède et conformément à la décision du Comité de juin 2016, décident de transférer les 11 règlements amiables2 mentionnés dans cette décision de la procédure standard à la procédure soutenue et de les joindre au groupe Gharibashvili ; 11. (DH). 2 décident de reprendre l’examen de ce groupe d’affaires lors de leur 1294e réunion (septembre 2017) Kiziria (4728/08), Baghashvili (5168/06), Surmanidze et autres (11323/08), Molashvili (39726/04), Mzekalishvili (8177/12), Kopadze (58228/09), Lanchava (28103/11), Studio Maestro Ltd et autres (22318/10), Chantladze (60864/10), Bekauri et autres (312/10) et Gegenava et autres (65128/10).

The Government of Georgia Action Plan Chkotua and Arkania v. Georgia (no.60909/08) Decision of 20 May 2014, final on 12 June 2014 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Government of Georgia submit the report on the measures undertaken in the course of the execution of the decision of Chkotua and Arkania v. Georgia rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (Hereinafter “the Court”) on 20 May 2014. The data presented below with respect to the present case focuses mainly on the investigative measures undertaken by the authorities to honour the Government’s obligations within the context of friendly settlement reached in the present case. II. CASE SUMMARY 2. Mr Tengiz CHKOTUA (Hereinafter “the first applicant”) was arrested on 16 November 2006 in relation to a drug offence. He was convicted in drug trafficking and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 3. By the time of his arrest the applicant had already been infected with pulmonary tuberculosis, viral hepatitis C and suffered from other diseases. On 26 December 2009 the first applicant died. The first applicant’s spouse Eliso ARKANIA (Hereinafter “the second applicant”) expressed her willingness to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her own name as well as on behalf of her late husband. 4. On 14 May 2013 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Article 2 of the Convention regarding the authorities’ alleged failure to take all reasonable measures to protect the first applicant’s life in prison, including adequate medical treatment for his diseases. 5. On 25 October 2013, the Government informed the Court that they wished to effect a friendly settlement with the applicant party, submitting friendly settlement proposal with a view to resolving the applicants’ claims under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the context of the proposal the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the lack of medical treatment provided to the applicant during his imprisonment and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his death. 6. With the view of securing the friendly settlement the Government in addition to the above acknowledgements has taken the following commitments:  Conduct an effective investigation with respect to the death of the first applicant;  Pay 10,000 (ten thousand) Euros to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses. 7. By a letter dated 26 March 2014 the applicant informed the Court that she welcomed the Government’s undertaking to conduct an effective investigation and she was prepared to accept the Government’s friendly-settlement declaration. Subsequently by the decision of 20 May 2014 the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. 1 III. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES a) Details of just satisfaction 8. Within the required time-frame, EUR 10 000 as a compensation to cover any pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages as well as costs and expenses were paid to the second applicant. Name and Non-pecuniary and application number pecuniary damages and cost and expenses Total Ckotua and Arkania 10 000 EUR v. Georgia (no.60909/08) 10 000 EUR Paid on: 15.07.2014 b) Re-opening of the investigation into the first applicant’s death 9. On the grounds of the decision delivered by the Court on 20 May 2014, and in accordance with the terms and condition of the friendly settlement reached between the respondent Government and the second applicant, the investigation of the first applicant’s death was reopened on 7 October 2014. 10. The Government underline from the outset that the investigative body - Tbilisi Didube-Chughureti District Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the applicant’s case meets all the requirements established in the Court’s case law regarding the independence and impartiality of the investigative authority. In particular, the persons responsible for the inquiries are independent from the persons implicated in the events hierarchically and institutionally as well as in practice. 11. With a view to conducting thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into the death of the first applicant, the investigative authorities obtained the applicant’s medical history as well as demographic and contact information of the medical staff of the Ministry of Corrections, engaged in the medical treatment of the first applicant. 12. After obtaining the requisite information, the investigative authorities questioned the persons responsible for the first applicant’s medical treatment in prison. In particular on 18 and 19 December 2014, the emergency doctors of the Ministry of Corrections T.Ts. and N.G respectively, were questioned. According to the witness testimonies the applicant’s treatment was conducted in accordance with his diagnosis. On 8 September 2015 the doctor of Medical Establishment #18 M.M. was questioned who confirmed the treatment scheme of the patient according to his medical documents. On 17 September neurologist I.I. was questioned who stated that he had a contact with the patient only on 21 December 2009, when he was diagnosed with meningism. 13. In order to ensure effective victim participation in the re-opened investigation, the second applicant’s lawyer was informed regarding the progress of the investigation and was acquainted with the criminal case materials by the relevant investigative authorities on 27 May and 6 November 2015. As to the second applicant - Eliso ARKANIA, she refused to get acquainted with the case materials due to her emotional stress associated with this case. 14. The investigation is still pending. The decision regarding the future course of action will be adopted shortly by relevant authorities after carrying out all necessary investigative measures. 2 IV. GENERAL MEASURES A. MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PRISONERS SUFFERING FROM TUBERCULOSES AND HEPATITIS C 15. The Government submit that the issue of medical assistance and treatment of prisoners suffering from Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis have already been addressed by the domestic authorities within the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in the cases of Ghavtadze v. Georgia, Poghossian v. Georgia, Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, Jeladze v. Georgia and Ildani v. Georgia. In particular, the Government of Georgia has undertaken major reforms in the field of medical treatment of prisoners infected with the above-mentioned diseases. Accordingly, on 12 November 2014 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a final resolution within the framework of which the said problem is considered to be solved (for further details see the resolution CM/ResDH(2014)209),1 where the Committee having satisfied itself that the Government had adopted all the measures required under Article 46 §1 of the Convention, closed the examination of the above cases. 16. The Government further underline the effectiveness of the complaint procedure regarding adequate medical care in penitentiary system of Georgia. The above issue was addressed by the Court in the case of Goginashvili v. Georgia, where the Court found that the new Prison Code, which had entered into force on 1 October 2010, clearly provided for a detainee’s right to health care in prison and contained precise rules on the procedure for submitting complaints. 17. In particular, Article 97 of the new Code requires the prison authority to safeguard that every detainee is mindful of such a complaints procedure from the very commencement of his or her detention. The Prison Code also stipulates that a complaint cannot be reviewed by the same person or authority who has already been implicated in the breach of the detainee’s right.2 Subsequently the Court referred to the well-defined requirement for prison complaints to be examined within strict time-limits, especially the complaints raising allegations of ill-treatment.3 18. Therefore, the new Prison Code clearly recognizes the right of protection of the prisoners’ health and it describes in details the deadlines and the procedures for accessible domestic remedies of medical treatment grievances which is the essential remedy to be exhausted before applying to the Court. B. GENERAL MEASURES INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE 19. Within the framework of the legislative reform of July 2014 the Ministry of Justice elaborated amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to ensure victim’s involvement and effective participation in the process of investigation. These amendments were adopted by Parliament of Georgia on 24 July 2014 and entered into force on 6 August 2014. 20. Under the new amendments the victim’s rights have been substantially strengthened. The following procedural rights have been afforded to a victim: 21. the right to request to be recognized as a victim (Article 56 § 5);  the right to appeal the ordinance on the refusal of the status of a victim concerning particularly grave crime (Article 56 § 5); Adopted by the Committee of Minsters on 12 November 2014 on the 1211th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. Articles 98 and 99 of the Prison Code. 3 Articles 102, 103 and 105 of the Prison Code. 1 2 3 The right to appeal the prosecutor's ordinance on the annulment of the victim status in the cases concerning particularly grave crime (Article 56 § 6);  the right to obtain the information about the progress of the investigation and to be introduced with the criminal case materials unless this contradicts the interest of investigation (Article 57 § 1, “h”);  the right to get acquainted with the criminal case materials no later than 10 days before the holding of the pretrial conference (Article 57 § 1, “j”);  the right to appeal a prosecutor’s ordinance on the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution (Article 106 § 11);  the right to appeal a prosecutor's ordinance on the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings (Article 168 § 2). 22. Moreover, under the legislative reform of July 2014 the amendments to para. 3 of Article 56 established the essential rights of victim as the indispensable element of his/her authority which shall not be questioned by any other State official. Currently, the paragraph 3 of Article 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly lays down that no investigator, prosecutor and judge shall have the right to refuse the legal successor in respect of the use of the rights granted to a victim when it concerns a crime resulting in a death of the victim.  23. In contrast, before the aforementioned amendment, there was merely a plain text indicating that when it concerned a crime which resulted in a death of a victim, the rights of the victim were granted and the obligations were imposed on his/her next of kin. However, there was no suggestion that the investigator, prosecutor and judge were not entitled to refuse next of kin to enjoy these rights in the context of their discretion. According to the relevant practice the instances of the refusal have been widespread. 24. Furthermore, among others, the legislative reform of July 2014 envisaged the amendments to Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the victim’s right to appeal to the court in the event a prosecutor rejects his/her complaint. In particular by virtue of Article 106 § 11 Code of Criminal Procedure a victim now has the right to file a hierarchical appeal against the prosecutor’s ordinance to a supervising prosecutor concerning the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. In case the supervising prosecutor does not satisfy the complaint, the victim has the right to appeal the decision of the prosecutor to the court. The reform created previously unavailable a twotier system for appealing against the prosecutor’s ordinance concerning the termination of the investigation/criminal prosecution. V. CONCLUSION 25. Having regard to the above-mentioned information the Government submit that structural deficiencies with respect to adequacy of medical treatment of Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis in the penitentiary system is fully remedied. Also, significant steps have been taken for enhancing the victim’s role in Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia. 26. The Government assure the Court that the new investigation is being implemented in compliance with the standards enshrined in the Convention and further developed by the Court in its case-law. Independence and impartiality of the investigative authorities are ensured to the fullest extent. The authorities make genuine effort and demonstrate necessary diligence required for appropriate and prompt establishment of the factual circumstances. The information and evidence obtained is assessed in a thorough, consistent and objective manner. The Government further contend that the above information serves as a clear affirmation of the commitment of the Government to conduct thorough, prompt, independent and effective investigation into the applicant’s death. 27. The Government reserve the right to present before the Committee the updated information regarding present case in due course. 4

Government of Georgia Consolidated Action Plan GIVI VASHAKIDZE v. GEORGIA (n°41359/08) Decision of 28 January 2014/ final on 2 February 2014 TSOTNE GAMSAKHURDIA v. GEORGIA (n° 59835/12) Decision of 15 September 2015/final on 8 October 2015 I. Case summaries a. Case of Givi Vashakidze On 21 February 2013 the European Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s stabbing and the complaints, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, regarding the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. Subsequent to the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 25 October 2013 the Government notified the Court that they offered to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. Accordingly, in order to eliminate this violation, the Government has taken the following commitments: Particularly, in the context of the unilateral declaration the Government acknowledged the violation of Article 6 and undertook to re-open the criminal case - the right envisaged under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia - on the basis of a decision rendered by the European Court, due to the insufficient reasoning provided by the Tbilisi City Court and Tbilisi Court of Appeal for finding the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and failure of the national courts to examine the witnesses requested by the defence. Furthermore, the Government acknowledged the violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation commenced with respect to the applicant’s stabbing. The Government undertook to pay 4,000 (four thousand) EUR to cover any pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages and costs and expenses. By a letter of 13 December 2013 the applicant submitted that he accepted the terms of the declaration. b. Case of Tsotne Gamsakhurdia The application mainly concerned the applicant’s entrapment claim. On 7 January 2015 it was communicated to the respondent Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. On 7 May 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The declaration read as follows: “The Government of Georgia express their regretful acknowledgment of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of failure of the domestic courts to give due consideration to the applicant’s entrapment claim in the course of determination of the criminal charge against him. Bearing in mind the applicant’s right envisaged under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, entitling him to address the domestic courts with a request to re-open the criminal case on the basis of a decision/judgment rendered by the Court and the fact that the domestic courts are best placed to determine the applicant’s entrapment claim. Having due regard to the fact that the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Corrections, which conducted the criminal investigation against the applicant, does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality as provided for under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government undertakes to pay the applicant 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) EUR to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant….” On 22 June 2015 the applicant informed the Court that he accepted the terms of the Government’s declaration. II. Individual measures Details of just satisfaction (case of Givi Vashakidze) Name and application number Non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages and cost and expenses Total Givi Vashakidze v. Georgia 4 000 EUR 4 000 EUR Paid on 25/03/2014 n° 41359/08 (within the time-limit) Details of just satisfaction (case of Tsotne Gamsakhurdia) Name and application number Non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages and cost and expenses Total Tsotne Gamsakhurdia v. Georgia 2 500 EUR 2 500 EUR Paid on 30/11/2015 (within the time-limit) n° 59835/12 2 In respect of other individual measures it is noteworthy that the applicants are no longer in detention. Consequently, the Government considers that no other individual measures are necessary Re-opening of the criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Case of Givi Vashakidze) According to the letter of Tbilisi Court of Appeals dated 19 October 2016 the applicant has applied to the Tbilisi Court of Appeals to re-open the criminal case on the basis of the decision rendered by the Court under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Currently, the case is pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. To illustrate the effectiveness of the mechanism envisaged under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia the Government draws the Committee’s attention to the decision of the Court in the case of Taktakishvili v. Georgia (No. 46055/06). By its decision of 16 October 2012, the Court struck out the case of Taktakishvili v. Georgia on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration. In its reasoning, the Court, having due regard to the wording of Article 310 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confirmed that domestic provision contained indeed a procedural possibility for applying for reopening of the relevant domestic criminal proceedings on the ground of either a judgment or decision of the Court containing reference to a violation of a provision of the Convention (see Taktakishvili, the decision cited above, § 22). By a judgment of 13 January 2014, the Kutaisi Court of Appeals, having regard to the Court’s above mentioned strike-out decision of 16 October 2012 in the case of Taktakishvili v. Georgia, decided to reopen the initial criminal proceedings against Mrs Taktakishvili, for the purposes of her re-trial. That decision was made in accordance with Article 310 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, Mrs Taktakishvili was even acquitted of the charges of which she had been initially convicted. Re-opening of the criminal case under the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Case of Tsotne Gamsakhurdia) According to the letter of Tbilisi Court of Appeals dated 19 October 2016 the applicant has applied to the Tbilisi Court of Appeals to re-open the criminal case on the basis of the decision rendered by the Court under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Currently, the case is pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. Furthermore, it should be noted that on the basis of the new legislative amendments (a new paragraph (g1) has been introduced in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, please see below the detailed explanation of the amendment) adopted in 2016 the Department to Investigate Offences Committed in the Course of Legal Proceedings, Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia, took a decision on the review of the judgments of conviction handed down against two wrongfully convicted persons one of whom was Mr Tsotne Gamsakhurdia. Prior to this decision, a comprehensive and objective investigation had been repeatedly conducted into the aforementioned cases, new witnesses had been interrogated, dozens of investigative and procedural actions had been carried out, investigation and court case files had been studied, new evidence and facts had been obtained, whereupon, the investigation has obtained the entirety of incontrovertible evidence, which has excluded commission by the aforesaid person of the crime for which he had been convicted. 3 The Department came to the conclusion that the investigation had been conducted in a partial and biased manner. It has been established that in the period of serving his sentence in N18 Correctional Facility, Mr Tsotne Gamsakhurdia had been frequently expressing his protest regarding violence against prisoners, which had resulted in the annoyance among senior officials of the Department of Corrections. Consequently, for the purpose of exemplary punishment, in accordance with the scenario pre-staged by senior officials of the aforesaid Department, a provocation was organized against Mr Tsotne Gamsakhurdia in the custodial facility. Specifically, a prison officer offered him taking correspondence from prison, and, in exchange therefor, he took money reward from Mr Gamsakhurdia’s family. On the count of the aforesaid, Mr Tsotne Gamsakhurdia had been prosecuted for bribe-giving – crime punishable under Article 339 §2 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, and, sentenced to deprivation of liberty for a term of 5 years in length. The new investigation confirmed that there had been elements of provocation and falsification of criminal case files against Mr Tsotne Gamsakhurdia, which formed the basis of his wrongful conviction. Subsequently, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia has referred to Tbilisi Court of Appeals on 2 December 2016 for reopening the case of Mr Gamsakhurdia which, as noted above, is currently pending. III.General measures Seminars on “Reopening of cases on the basis of judgment/decision of the European Court of Human Rights” In the framework of the Council of Europe and European Union joint programme “Application of the European Convention on Human Rights and harmonisation of national legislation and judicial practice in Georgia in line with European Standards” and in partnership with the High School of Justice, the Council of Europe organised, on 27 and 28 October 2015, a seminar on “Reopening of Cases on the Basis of Judgment/Decision of the European Court of Human Rights” for two groups of City and Appellate Court judges of criminal and civil chambers. The seminar aimed at acquainting Georgian judges to the procedure of reopening of cases under the Recommendation No R(2000)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The mentioned recommendation invited the authorities to ensure that their domestic legal system contains the necessary possibilities to achieve, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum, and, in particular, provides adequate possibilities for re-examining cases, including reopening proceedings so that injured parties should be put in the same situation as he or she enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention. Furthermore, on 21 and 22 June 2016, another seminar was organised for two groups of judges and assistant judges of criminal and civil chambers on the reopening issues. As a result, 40 judges and assistant judges have improved their knowledge on the reopening or re-investigating of the cases at the national level. The training took place within Project "Application of the European Convention of Human Rights and hamornisation of national legislation and judicial practice in Georgia in line with European Standards", which is funded through the EU-CoE Programmatic Cooperation Framework for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus. 4 Right of the Prosecuting Authority to request reopening of a case As the Committee is well aware, the new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in 2010. The Georgian law provides for the reopening of civil proceedings (since 2010) and criminal proceedings (since 2012) on the basis of a judgment/decision (friendly settlement/unilateral declaration) of the European Court. On the basis of the fresh amendments (date of adoption: 24/06/2016) to the Code of Criminal Procedure in criminal matters, the prosecutor is authorized to request the reopening as well. Furthermore, the Georgian authorities amended the domestic provisions on the reopening of criminal proceedings in order to also allow the prosecutor to request reopening with a view to ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Convention. The prosecutor can notably, after studying the case file and even before the European Court renders its judgment/decision, request ex officio the reopening if the prosecutor considers that there are new circumstances which confirm, alone or in conjunction with any other circumstances established, the convicted person’s innocence or the commission of an less serious offence than the one for which he/she was convicted (it is noteworthy that in a pending case, on the basis of the new amendments, the prosecutor requested the reopening of Gamsakhurdia case (59835/12)). Accordingly, Article 310 (g1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “A judgment shall be reviewed due to newly found circumstances if: a decree of a prosecutor has been provided concerning substantial violation of the rights of the convicted person while processing the criminal case, that was unknown when a judgment subject to review was rendered, and that, separately and/or along with any other established circumstance, confirms the innocence of the convicted person, or the commission of a crime that is less serious than the crime for the commission of which he/she has been convicted” The Government wish to underline that the aforementioned legislative amendment is truly positive news and the step forward on the way of completion and removal of gaps from the relevant legislative framework of Georgia. IV. Conclusion of the respondent state The Government consider that the adopted individual and general measures have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court and that Georgia has thus fully complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 5

Implementation proceedings of the View of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women adopted on 13 July 2015 in the case of X and Y v. Georgia (Communication No. 24/2009) Department of State Representation to the International Courts of Human Rights Ministry of Justice of Georgia 31 March 2016 Table of Contents I. Case Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Individual measure ......................................................................................................................... 4 a. III. Compensation............................................................................................................................................................. 4 a. Legislative amendments ........................................................................................................................................ 6 c. National machineries for the advancement of women............................................................................10 e. Providing training for State organs .................................................................................................................13 b. d. General Measures ........................................................................................................................... 6 Supporting the victims of domestic violence ................................................................................................ 9 Awareness-raising campaigns...........................................................................................................................11 IV. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................... 15 2 I. Case Summary 1. The authors of the present communication Ms. X and her daughter Ms. Y submitted their initial observations to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against women (“Committee”) on 24 June 2009 alleging to be victims of violations by Georgia of their rights under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”). 2. As to the background of the case, the first author - X married a Georgian man in 1987 after being raped by him and gave birth to five children. X claimed that daily conflicts occurring at home resulted in violent incidents by her husband. Her children especially Y and T suffered the most violence from their father. Besides, Y suffered sexual abuse from him. Despite several complaints submitted by X regarding the violence inflicted on her and her children especially as from 1996, the investigative authorities failed to conduct any effective investigation into the aforementioned facts. 3. According to the Committee at the time of the events forming the basis for the complaints, there was no legal framework in the State party to provide effective legal protection against domestic violence. Furthermore, the Committee took note of the manner in which the complaints regarding domestic violence have been dealt. Namely, the process was only regulated by administrative rules and the representatives of the prosecutor’s office acted like mediators in such cases. All complaints of the victims resulted in obtaining from X’s husband just a written undertaking not to inflict further violence on her and her children, even in the case when X had been issued with a medical certificate demonstrating her superficial bodily injuries. Thus, X’s and Y’s complaints were all dismissed and the prosecuting authorities decided that there was no corpus delicti in her husband’s acts, whereas the domestic courts simply declared the cases to be groundless. 4. The Committee found that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the State party had failed to fulfill their obligations and had hereby violated the author’s rights under articles 2 (b) to 2 (f), in conjunction with articles 1 and 5 (a), of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. 3 5. In the light of the aforementioned, the Committee made the following recommendations to the State party: a) Concerning the authors of the communication: provide adequate financial compensation to the authors commensurate with the gravity of the violations of their rights; b) General: i) Ensure that victims of domestic violence and their children are provided with prompt and adequate support, including shelter and psychological support; ii) Intensify awareness-raising campaigns and introduce a zero-tolerance policy in respect of violence against women and more specifically domestic violence; (iii) Ratify the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence; (iv) Provide mandatory training for judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors, on the application of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, including on the definition of domestic violence and on gender stereotypes, as well as appropriate training on the Convention, the Optional Protocol thereto and the Committee’s general recommendations, in particular general recommendation No. 19. 6. The Government of Georgia adopted individual and general measures in order to comply with the Committee’s recommendations and to prevent further violations of the Convention which are presented below. II. Individual measure a. Compensation 7. According to the recommendations of the Committee the Government should provide adequate financial compensation to the authors of the present communication. It should be noted that the Ministry of Justice of Georgia drafted legislative package to incorporate into domestic legislation the mechanisms of granting financial compensation to the victims and reopening the judgments of the domestic courts on the basis of views/recommendations (hereinafter “decisions”) of the United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies (Human Rights Committee; Committee on the Elimination 4 of Discrimination against Women; Committee against Torture; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) the competences of which have been recognized by the Government of Georgia. The legislative packages concern the amendments to the Criminal, Civil and Administrative Procedure Codes of Georgia. 8. In particular, according to draft new chapter to Administrative Procedure Code, the victim of the violation to whom the decision of any of the aforesaid Committees concerns can apply to Administrative courts for granting compensation for pecuniary/non-pecuniary damages on the grounds of the violation found by the Committee. The claim concerning financial compensation should be submitted at the first instance courts within 6 months from the adoption of the decision by the Committees. The administrative courts will determine the amount of compensation on the grounds of gravity of human rights violation and other objective factors. 9. The Ministry of Finance of Georgia will act as a respondent party within the administrative proceedings. Despite the fact that disputes will be examined without an oral hearing, on the basis of the request of one of the parties the application can be deliberated at an oral hearing. Claims deriving from the new chapter of Administrative Procedure Code will be examined within the time limits envisaged under the general procedures of court proceedings. The legislative amendments allow to appeal the decision of the first instance courts at the Courts of Appeal of Georgia. 10. It should be stressed that the provisions on compensation of draft Administrative Procedure Code will have a retrospective nature. According to draft law, the financial compensation will also be granted to those whose communication has been determined by the UN Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women before enacting the aforementioned provisions. In that case, the victims should apply to domestic courts within 3 months after enacting the aforementioned changes to Administrative Procedure Code. Hence, the authors of the present communication will be able to apply to domestic courts with the request to grant compensation after entering into force the relevant provisions. 11. Apart from compensation, the Government prepared draft legal amendments to the Codes of Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure which introduce the mechanism to reopen the judgments on the grounds of newly revealed circumstances if there exists the 5 decision of the aforementioned UN treaty bodies finding a violation of the constituting Convention in the case concerned and the domestic judgment is based on that violation. In case of criminal proceedings, person will be entitled to refer to domestic courts with the request to reopen the judgment within 1 year after the adoption of the decision by the Committee whilst in civil proceedings such term will constitute to 6 months. 12. The legislative packages already approved by the Government of Georgia are currently at second reading at the Parliament. It should be noted that by virtue of the aforementioned innovative legislative amendments, the victims will be provided by the adequate redress commensurate with the gravity of the violations of their rights found by the UN Committees. III. General Measures a. Legislative amendments 13. Combating violence against women and domestic violence remains one of the key priorities for the Government of Georgia. For that reason, Georgian authorities have developed comprehensive packages and programmes addressing all types of discrimination and violence against women. 14. Georgia has already made significant steps with regard to legislative amendments to combat domestic violence and ensure gender equality, among others, by adopting Law on Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection and Assistance of the Victims of Domestic Violence (2006), Gender Equality Law (2010) and Georgia’s Nondiscrimination Law (2014). 15. In respect of domestic violence, Georgian parliament adopted a law on preventing domestic violence and assisting victims in May 2006. The Law defines a set of actions which characterise domestic violence, legal and organisational grounds for detecting and eliminating it, as well as guarantees for legal protection and support for victims. The law introduces a Crisis Centre which operates in parallel with State shelters. It also supports psycho-social rehabilitation and urgent medical service for the victims. 16. Furthermore, the Law establishes administrative law remedies in the form of issuing restrictive and protective orders as a temporary measure for the protection of the victims. 6 Protective orders are issued by courts of first instance while restrictive orders are issued by police officers that are later approved by the court. 17. As to Gender equality law adopted in 2010, it defines legal mechanisms and creates proper conditions for realisation of equal rights, freedoms and opportunities for men and women. According to the law, the State shall support and ensure equal rights for men and women in political, economic, social and cultural life. 18. The process of elaboration of Georgia’s Non-discrimination Law was commenced in late 2012 and was led by the Ministry of Justice. The law passed in 2014, extends prohibition of discrimination to both public and private sectors while includes sex and gender identity as protected grounds. The law prohibits any form of discrimination, being direct, indirect or multiple on the combination of two or more characteristics as women like other vulnerable groups might be especially susceptible to multiple and concurrent forms of discrimination. 19. As to the criminal legislation, in May 2012 amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Georgia (CCG) which criminalized domestic violence. Namely, two new provisions were introduced to CCG - article 126,1 which specifically defined the scope of domestic violence and article 11 1 establishing its categories of violence. 20. According to article 1261, violence, systematic abuse, blackmail, humiliation of a member of family by another member that has led to physical pain or suffering, except when a result of an act was the one described in articles 117, 118 or 120 of the code (intentional harm to the health of a person), amounts to domestic violence. Moreover, article 1261 introduced the broad definition of family members. 21. New article 111 of CCG provides definition of domestic crimes as crimes committed by one family member against another which are envisaged by CCG under following articles: 108 (Premeditated Murder), 109 (Premeditated Murder under Aggravating Circumstance), 115 (Bringing to the Point of Suicide), 117-118 (Damage to Health) etc. 22. In terms of recent developments, a package of legislative amendments aiming to establish more effective mechanisms for elimination of violence against women and domestic violence was adopted by the Parliament in October 2014. The drafting process has been transparent and open for public feedback. According to the legislative changes, 7 the rights and protection mechanisms of victims of domestic violence have been significantly enhanced. 23. The new legislative package introduced the severe sanction for article 1261 – domestic violence of CCG. In particular, the first paragraph of article 1261 as it stands currently, foresees a sanction of socially useful work and imprisonment up to 1 year, as to the second paragraph the sanction envisages imprisonment from 1 up to 3 years. It should be noted that the former version of article 126 1 envisaged the maximum term of imprisonment only up to 1 year. 24. Besides, the new legislative package introduced the concept of “forced marriage” (by virtue of adding a new article 1501) to the Criminal Code of Georgia. 25. For the aim to reaffirm strong will of the Government to undertake effective measures against domestic violence and generally violence against women, the Minister of Justice signed the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the 'Istanbul Convention') on 19 June 2014 which will be ratified by Georgia in the nearest future. 26. For the aim of ratification of the Convention, the harmonization process of the legislation still continues. In particular, up to 20 legal acts were revised by Ministry of Justice for that aim. The elaboration process of the amendments were quite inclusive since government agencies, NGOs and all representatives of our society, including minorities and rural population were actively involved in the process. Their feedback and recommendations were reflected to the final drafts in order to response to individual needs of the women. 27. Besides the Government prioritize to protect the women from violence not only within the family but also create effective measures to ensure women’s security. Therefore, among others, the stalking will be criminalized after the Georgian Parliament adopts legal amendments elaborated by the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the definition of rape will be modified in Criminal Code of Georgia to make it in compliance with the Convention. 28. The aforementioned legislative measures will move Georgia closer to ratification of the Istanbul Convention and will create additional mechanisms for prevention of domestic violence and violence against women/girls both in public and private domains. 8 b. Supporting the victims of domestic violence 29. In order to ensure that the victims of domestic violence and their children are provided with prompt and adequate support, the Government of Georgia established the State Fund for the Protection and Assistance to the Victims of Human Trafficking. For the victims of domestic violence, the State Fund provides the following services: Medical assistance, legal consultation (including legal representation before the courts), psychological assistance, support in tackling social problems, shelters, and a hotline. 30. The State Fund operates several domestic violence shelters in different regional parts of Georgia (in Tbilisi, Gori and Kutaisi) which are well equipped with a decent living conditions. In the nearest future, opening of additional shelters is planned. The shelters are available for any victim/survivor of domestic violence. 31. According to shelter regulations, the person is considered a victim/survivor of domestic violence, if s/he suffered physical, psychological, sexual, economic violence or coercion and whose status as a domestic violence victim has been determined by relevant State organs. In case the initial term of placement at the shelter is not sufficient for the full rehabilitation of the victim, the term may be extended based on individual conditions and case files. In a majority of cases, victims are placed at the State shelters with their children, therefore the shelters are provided with a nursemaid staff members. The shelters are equipped with medication. State healthcare services are fully accessible for both mothers and their children, including primary or emergency medical assistance as well as in-patient treatment. Besides, several psychologists operate at the shelters. Notably, all staff members of the shelters have been trained on domestic violence issues. 32. Apart from the shelters, the State Fund has also established a hotline for the aim to provide relevant consultations to the victims on domestic violence which is anonymous and operates for 24 hours. The hotline provides information concerning domestic violence and protection mechanisms. The hotline offers the following types of services: crisis intervention, legal consultation, psychological assistance, provision of information on the shelters or referral to the consultation center, as well as calling the police or ambulance as necessary and upon consent of the caller. 9 33. The detailed information regarding State protection programs for domestic violence victims is accessible at the websites of State Fund and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. 34. In view of the decision of the Committee, the victims of the present communication already benefit from services delivered by the State Fund. Currently, they are involved in psychological support/rehabilitation programs and they are aided and consulted in tackling social problems. In case of any further needs, the victims will be fully provided with all adequate and necessary support on behalf of Government. c. National machineries for the advancement of women 35. In 2014 for the promotion and protection of human rights the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s National Human Rights Strategy (2014-2020) and the National Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) through an inclusive participation of all state organs, international and non-governmental organizations. The National Human Rights Strategy foresees legislative and institutional changes, as well as changes in practice for the state to meet its obligations to respect, protect, fulfill and promote human rights. It has further reaffirmed the human rights based approach and the gender mainstreaming. 36. Specifically for the protection of women’s rights, in July 2013 the Government adopted the Domestic Violence Action Plan for 2013-2015, which was followed by the National Action Plan on Gender Equality for 2014-2016. The latter aims to combat gender stereotypes, violence against women, integrate a gender dimension into all programs and policies, abolish traditional negative gender stereotypes, guarantee equal access to justice and balance participation of women in the decision-making process. 37. Structural reforms have increased gender mainstreaming, including by the creation of the Gender Equality Council (chaired by a Vice-Speaker of the Parliament) and posts such as the Assistant to the Prime Minister on Human Rights and Gender Equality Issues. 38. In November 2014, the Inter-Agency Council Implementing Measures to Eliminate Domestic Violence was established at the Administration of the Government under the chairmanship of Assistant to the Prime Minister in Human Rights and Gender Equality Affairs. The Council is a policy making body tasked with coordination and monitoring of government agencies involved in the implementation of the aforementioned National 10 Action Plan on the Measures to Combat Domestic Violence in Georgia. Notably, the Georgian Government has already prepared the plan for 2016-2017 which covers more broad issues than its predecessor, including both, domestic and sexual violence which will be approved in the nearest future by the Government. A Consultative Group to the Inter-Agency Council consisting of civil society representatives and international organizations has also been established. 39. The Gender Equality Council (GEC) which represents a permanent body within the Parliament, brings together MPs, also governmental and non-governmental representatives to discuss and elaborate recommendations on gender issues, to ensure that women's voices are heard on an equal footing with men in formulating public policy and decision-making at the national and local levels. The Council acts as a lobbying unit for gender issues and focuses on various gender-related activities aiming for the enhancement of the role of women in Georgia. 40. Apart from the aforementioned, the Government of Georgia develops mechanisms to encourage women’s participation in politics and the decision-making processes. The Organic Law on Political Unions of Citizens foresees the supplementary funding of 30% for any political party whose list of candidates for the membership of the parliament is comprised of at least 30% of the candidates of a different gender within every ten candidates starting from the number one candidate of the list. 41. The Government of Georgia will continue its efforts to improve national machineries for the eradication of any form of violence against women and will further develop gender equality and women's empowerment policy frameworks. d. Awareness-raising campaigns 42. Awareness-raising is a fundamental component of primary prevention of violence against women. It aims to modify existing customs, practices and beliefs that tolerate domestic violence among general public. The Government of Georgia acknowledge the importance of awareness raising and permanently carries out various types of campaigns concerning domestic violence and discrimination against women. 43. In that regard in 2014 Ministry of Internal Affairs launched a new awareness-raising campaign – “Violence is punishable”. Within the new campaign various activities have been carried out with the active involvement of NGOs and different groups of the 11 society. In particular, several videos have been filmed on domestic violence which were broadcasted on leading channels of Georgia. The Ministry organized thematic competitions on violence for journalists and other professionals. Also, published and distributed leaflets on domestic violence. 44. In order to raise awareness among the young generation, the working group comprised of the members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia with NGOs and psychologists, carried out several informationaleducational meetings at public/private schools and Universities in different parts of Georgia. 45. Awareness raising campaigns have been also carried out for internally displaced persons (IDPs). In 2015 several information meetings have been held with Government representatives and IDPs, around Georgia, to provide them with comprehensive information on prevention and protection mechanisms for the victims of domestic violence. 46. Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia within the project of “Public Prosecutor’s Office” permanently organizes meetings with different groups of the society on the issue of violence against women and domestic violence. In 2015, within such project 15 meetings have been held in different regions. 47. Ministry of Justice issued 15.000 GEL to non-governmental organization to promote their engagement in the preventive activities on violence against women and to strengthen cooperation with NGOs in this field. Within the framework of the Grant project, multilingual brochures were produced (Georgian, Russian, English, Azerbaijanian and Armenian) on violence against women, domestic violence and state services for the victims. Also, a short film (video) was produced and broadcasted on local televisions focusing on the novelties introduced in legislation on domestic violence. 48. Leading broadcasting channels of Georgia, among others, public broadcaster and public radio have been actively involved in awareness-raising campaigns by virtue of social videos and TV/radio programs. 12 49. Georgia intends to maintain and strengthen its efforts to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence by virtue of carrying out permanent national awareness–raising campaigns. e. Providing training for State organs 50. Providing mandatory training for judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors, and equipping them with all relevant skills is crucial to efficiently tackle the problem of domestic violence. Therefore, different types of informative activities are constantly organized for all State organs which are involved in combatting process. 51. At the High School of Justice of Georgia several training sessions have been carried out on the issue of domestic violence. In particular, in 2014-2015 several training sessions were held for judges, judicial candidates and legal assistants on the issues of domestic violence which covered domestic legislation as well as international regulations on this issue. 52. Training courses on violence against women have been also organised by L.E.P.L “Georgian Bar Association” (GBA) intended for lawyers and students from different universities of Georgia. Totally 645 lawyers have been trained within the GBA project. 53. The Ministry of Internal Affairs actively cooperates with local non-governmental and international organizations in terms of trainings of its personnel concerning the forms of violence against women and domestic violence. The law enforcement officers regularly undergo training courses to raise their qualification in that regard. Such trainings cover the application of domestic legislation, including the definition of domestic violence and gender stereotypes, as well as international regulations. 54. The issues related to domestic violence are also covered by the curriculum of the basic course and master degree program of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs which represents the authorized special professional educational institution in charge for training the personnel of the Ministry. The academy annually implements the basic training courses on domestic violence covering national as well as international regulations. 55. It should be noted that since January 2015 the Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated a new electronic programe of systemizing details on crime of domestic violence. 13 According to the new program, the statistical data is being systematized according to the details of geographic, numeral, age, sex and the types of violence. 56. Since combat against domestic violence is one of the key priorities for Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, permanent training sessions are held for prosecutors around Georgia to enhance their skills and competences. In January 2015, in cooperation with the UN Women, prosecutors were retrained as coaches on the issues of violence against women/girls. The retraining covered the issues of international regulations of violence against women, including the Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto. 57. In 2015, an overall number of 75 prosecutors have been trained on domestic violence issues from all territorial organs of Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. Overall in 2014, 94 prosecutors and 14 victim coordinators have been qualified, whilst in 2013, 48 prosecutors and 16 victim coordinators participated in relevant training courses. 58. As indicated by the Committee, the view has been translated into Georgian and published by the Minister of Justice at its website to make it available for all sectors of the society. Also, the Georgian translation of the view has been distributed among investigative bodies. They have been instructed to carry out a zero-tolerance policy in respect of violence against women and more specifically domestic violence. 59. In the light of the above considerations, in recent years the statistical data of criminal proceedings initiated on the grounds of article 126 1 of CCG – domestic violence has been significantly increased. In particular, in 2015 criminal proceedings have been initiated against 728 persons, whilst this number constituted to 411 in 2014 and 155 in 2013. Furthermore, on the basis of recent information obtained from general inspection of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, no case of negligence has been detected on behalf of prosecutors while responding to domestic violence crimes. 60. The statistical figures of restrictive orders issued by police officers and approved by domestic courts in response to the domestic violence facts have also been increased. According to the official figures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 2598 orders have been issued in 2015 and 817 – in 2014, while in 2013 it was only 227. Furthermore, according to the figures dated 24 February 2016, 200 restrictive orders have been already issued during first 2 months of 2016. 14 61. The aforementioned statistics clearly indicate effective results of the process of enhancing knowledge and skills of law-enforcement personnel to efficiently tackle the problem of domestic violence as well as a zero-tolerance policy carried out by investigative organs in respect of such crimes. IV. Conclusion 62. The information furnished to the Committee serves as a clear affirmation of the commitment of Georgia to adhere to the recommendations of the Committee in order to provide individual measures to the victims of the present communication as well as general measures to eradicate further cases of domestic violence and violence against women more broadly, both in public and private domains. 15 The observations of the Government of Georgia on the counsel’s submission on the implementation of the View of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women adopted on 13 July 2015 in the case of X and Y v. Georgia (Communication No. 24/2009) Department of State Representation to the International Courts Ministry of Justice of Georgia 10 February 2017 Table of Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Individual Measures ....................................................................................................................... 4 III. General Measures ........................................................................................................................... 5 a. National Action plans to combat domestic violence ..................................................................... 5 - Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) ....................................................................................... 5 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) ................................................... 6 - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) ....................................................................................... 6 National Action Plan for 2016-2017 on the Measures to be Implemented for Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims/Survivors ....................... 7 b. Legislative amendments ................................................................................................................. 7 c. National machineries for the advancement of women ................................................................. 9 d. Supporting the victims of domestic violence............................................................................... 12 e. Providing training for State organs ............................................................................................. 13 f. Awareness-raising campaigns ...................................................................................................... 16 g. Summary of the reports ................................................................................................................ 18 IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 20 2 I. Introduction 1. The Government of Georgia would like to present their comments on the communication received from the authors in respect of the individual and general measures in the case of X and Y v. Georgia (communication No. 24/2009). 2. The Government thanks the authors for their comments and recommendations and welcomes this opportunity to provide further information to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against women (hereinafter “Committee”). 3. As the Committee is well aware the Government of Georgia carried out complex individual and general measures in order to comply with the Committee’s recommendations in the present case and to prevent further violations of the Convention which were presented by the Government on 31 March 2016. Therefore, the Government would like to present the updated information and their observations on the authors’ comments dated 31 August 2016 to the State party’s observations on follow-up concerning the present case. 4. The authors of the present communication Ms. X and her daughter Ms. Y submitted their initial observations to the Committee on 24 June 2009 alleging to be victims of violations by Georgia of their rights under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”). 5. The Committee found that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the State party had failed to fulfill their obligations and had hereby violated the author’s rights under articles 2 (b) to 2 (f), in conjunction with articles 1 and 5 (a), of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19. 6. In the light of the aforementioned, the Committee made the following recommendations to the State party: a) Concerning the authors of the communication: provide adequate financial compensation to the authors commensurate with the gravity of the violations of their rights; b) General: i) Ensure that victims of domestic violence and their children are provided with prompt and adequate support, including shelter and psychological support; ii) Intensify awareness-raising campaigns and introduce a zero-tolerance policy in respect of violence against women and more specifically domestic violence; (iii) Ratify the Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence; (iv) Provide mandatory training for judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors, on the application of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, including on the definition of domestic violence and on gender stereotypes, as well as appropriate training on the Convention, the Optional Protocol thereto and the Committee’s general recommendations, in particular general recommendation No. 19. 3 II. Individual Measures 7. With regard to the individual measures, the Government draw the Committee’s attention to the legislative amendments regarding awarding compensation, reinvestigation of the case and the services provided by the Government to the victims of the present case. 8. As for the amendments with respect to the financial compensation and reopening of the judgments of the domestic courts on the basis of views/recommendations (hereinafter “decisions”) of the United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies, see the implementation proceedings of the View of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women submitted by the Government of Georgia on 31 March 2016 in the case of X and Y v. Georgia. 9. In particular, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia drafted legislative package to incorporate into domestic legislation the mechanisms of granting financial compensation to the victims and reopening the judgments of the domestic courts on the basis of views/recommendations of the UN human rights treaty bodies (Human Rights Committee; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; Committee on the Rights of the Child; Committee against Torture; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) the competences of which have been recognized by the Government of Georgia. The legislative packages concern the amendments to the Criminal, Civil and Administrative Procedure Codes of Georgia which were adopted by the Parliament on 27 April 2016 and 22 December 2016. 10. As it was stressed by the Government in their previous implementation report, the amendments in question have retroactive character, therefore the victims of the present case were able to apply to the domestic courts for adequate financial compensation based on the decision of the CEDAW Committee. 11. Subsequently, in accordance with the amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, on 12 August 2016 the authors submitted a claim before the Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court for financial compensation. The case is currently pending before the court. 12. Taking into account the above peculiar circumstance, the government find it appropriate to provide their observations regarding practical effectiveness of the legislative amendments in line with the authors’ comments subsequent to the final decision of the national courts. 13. As to the reinvestigation of the authors’ complaints, initially it should be underscored that in order to give rise to Georgia’s international commitments and to address the deficiencies identified by the Committee, new investigation was commenced in the case at hand. Nevertheless, due to the authors’ categorical requests to suspend the investigation in order to prevent their secondary victimization and further traumatization, no further investigative steps are being carried out currently. The final decision regarding the reinvestigation of the case will be made in accordance with the interests of the victims which will be duly communicated to the Committee. 14. Concerning prompt and adequate support offered by the Government to the victims of the present communication, in view of the decision of the Committee, the victims have already benefited from the services delivered by the State Fund for the Protection and Assistance to the Victims of Human Trafficking (hereinafter “State Fund”). The latter is confirmed by the authors themselves. In particular, as authors stress in their comments, they submitted documents to the national court (attached to their claim on financial compensation) demonstrating that they had been provided by the medical and psychological treatment by the State Fund. 4 III. General Measures a. National Action plans to combat domestic violence 15. The Government assure that combating violence against women and domestic violence remains one of the key priorities for Georgia. For that reason, the Georgian authorities have developed comprehensive action plans addressing all types of discrimination and violence against women. 16. In particular, on 30 April 2014 the Parliament of Georgia adopted Georgia’s first National Human Rights Strategy setting priorities for Georgia in 2014-2020 through an inclusive participation of all State agencies, international and non-governmental organizations. 17. The Strategy foresees as one of the objectives to ensure the promotion of gender equality, protection of women’s rights and prevention of domestic violence. The Strategy aims to meet its objectives, inter alia, by ensuring prompt and effective response to all reported cases of gender-based discrimination, providing the full compliance of existing mechanisms with international standards for the protection and assistance of victims of domestic violence and ensuring access to legal protection, psycho/social rehabilitative facilities and shelters for victims of domestic violence.1 18. In order to meet the objectives elaborated in the Strategy, on 9 July 2014 the Government of Georgia approved Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) followed by its implementation report. On 21 July 2016 the Government approved new Human Rights Action Plan for 2016-2017. The Action Plan foresees the concrete objectives and measures in order to tackle the specific issues identified in the present case. 19. Apart from the aforementioned, specifically for the protection of women’s rights, the Government adopted the following documents: the National Action Plan for Combating Domestic Violence and Implementing Measures for the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence (2013-2015),2 National Action Plan for 2016-2017 on the Measures to be Implemented for Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims/Survivors3 and 2016-2017 National Action Plan of Georgia for Implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security.4 Furthermore, the development strategy of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia for 2017-2021 has been elaborated. The relevant extracts of the strategy refer to the domestic violence issues.5 - Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) 20. One of the main aims of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) was to achieve gender equality and empower women as well as to combat domestic violence and protect the victims. The Action Plan aimed at establishing and developing institutional mechanisms for gender equality, drafting legislation covering gender issues. It aimed as well at envisaging gender equality issues in law enforcement and penitentiary spheres; developing legislation and improving existing mechanisms 1 National strategy for the protection of human rights in Georgia 2014-2020, p. 19, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51454 2 The National Action Plan for Combating Domestic Violence and Implementing Measures for the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence (2013-2015) approved by the President of Georgia on 17 July 2013, available at: http://police.ge/en/projects/domestic-violence 3 The National Action Plan for 2016-2017 on the Measures to be Implemented for Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims/Survivors approved by the Government of Georgia on 21 July 2016, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350284 4 2016-2017 National Action Plan of Georgia for Implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security approved by № 339 Decree of the Government of Georgia on July 21, 2016, available at: http://georgia.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2016/12/2016-2017-national-action-plan-of-georgia 5 The development strategy of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia for 2017-2021, para. 5.1., available at: http://pog.gov.ge/geo/news?info_id=1123 5 for the prevention of domestic violence, as well as the protection and assistance of the victims; preventing the domestic violence and raising public awareness on domestic violence.6 21. It should be emphasized that in order to monitor the implementation process of the National Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), according to Article 4 (d) of the resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, the action plan coordination interagency council is responsible for drawing up progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan not later than March 15 of each year, which shall be submitted to the Government of Georgia and afterwards to the Parliament of Georgia not later than March 31.7 - Implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia 22. In the light of the aforesaid, on 13 June 2016 the Government of Georgia approved report on the implementation of the Governmental Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) which mirrors the implementation of the 2014-2015 Action Plan in practice. 23. The mentioned document contains the specific and detailed information regarding the activities carried out by the responsible governmental agencies with the purpose to achieve gender equality, to empower women and to combat domestic violence. 24. The extracts of the implementation report of the Action Plan8 are provided in the relevant parts of the present document according to the issues in question. - Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) 25. One of the main objectives of the Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) is to ensure gender equality and to protect women’s rights. The Action Plan aims to meet its objective, inter alia, by carrying out effective measures in order to implement gender equality policy in executive branch; integrating gender equality issues in educational spheres; fighting against gender stereotypes and gender inequality through raising awareness of public employees and society; preventing genderbased crimes and providing effective responses to them. 26. As for the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017), the Human Rights Secretariat with the expertise from partner organizations elaborated the decree on the establishment of Inter-Agency Council on Human Rights and its regulation which was approved by the Government on 13 December 2016.9 The Council’s objectives represent developing and implementing a uniform State policy of the Government in the area of human rights protection; Developing, discussing and submitting to the Government an action plan for the protection of human rights; Coordinating and monitoring the implementation of the action plan through relevant thematic working groups. The progress report on implementation of Action Plan (2016-2017) will be presented according to the timeframe introduced in paragraph 21. 6 Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 14, available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=429&info_id=51455 7 The resolution No. 445 of 9 July 2014 of the Government of Georgia, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2391005 8 Progress report on the implementation of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015) of the Government of Georgia, Available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 9 Regulation №551 approved by the Government Of Georgia on December 13th, 2016, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3465313 6 - National Action Plan for 2016-2017 on the Measures to be Implemented for Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims/Survivors10 27. It should be noted that the National Action Plan for Combating Domestic Violence and Implementing Measures for the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence (2013-2015) have focused solely on domestic violence. The plan of 2016-2017 covers violence against women more broadly, including both, domestic and sexual violence issues. The main approaches of the latter are prevention and suppression of domestic violence and violence against women, protection and assistance of victims/survivors of violence against women and domestic violence, the involvement of victims/survivors of violence against women and domestic violence in the process of drawing up legislation and relevant policy. 28. According to UN Women, the aforementioned national action plan is result-oriented and ensures transparency and accountability for its implementation. The Action Plan takes into account key international commitments of the Government of Georgia concerning combatting domestic violence and violence against women: the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention - signed in 2014 by Georgia), CEDAW Committee recommendations (2014), as well as UN Sustainable Development Goal 5, which envisages as one of its targets to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls by 2030.11 29. It should be stressed that the aforementioned Action Plan for 2016-2017 was welcomed by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences: “The Special Rapporteur welcomes the work on the subsequent draft Action Plan for 2016-2017, which will cover domestic violence and sexual violence“.12 30. Thus, all governmental bodies will continue active work in order to comply with the principles elaborated in the aforesaid governmental action plans and to implement effectively the objectives and aims declared by the Government with regard to combating violence against women. b. Legislative amendments 31. For the aim to reaffirm strong will of the Government to undertake effective measures against domestic violence and generally violence against women, the Minister of Justice signed the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the “Istanbul Convention”) on 19 June 2014 which will be ratified by Georgia in the nearest future. 32. It should be underlined that revision of the legislation in the field of domestic violence in 2014 and signature of the Council of Europe Convention was welcomed by the Public Defender of Georgia in his Special Report “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, 2015.13 10 The National Action Plan for 2016-2017 on the Measures to be Implemented for Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims/Survivors approved by the Government of Georgia on 21 July 2016, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350284 11 Interagency Council Finalizes Draft National Action Plan to Combat Violence against Women, 19 January 2016, available at: http://georgia.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2016/01/interagency-council-finalizes-draft-national-action-plan-to-combatviolence-against-women 12 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/32/42/Add.3, Distr.: General 22 July 2016, para. 53, available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/32/42/Add.3 13 The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, 2015, p. 2, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/special-report-violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence-ingeorgia.page; 7 33. For the aim of ratification of the Istanbul Convention, currently there is an ongoing process of harmonization of the legislation. In particular, the Government of Georgia in January 2017 approved legislative amendments aimed at protecting women’s rights and preventing domestic violence. The bill was presented to the Government of Georgia by the Minister of Justice. 34. The aim of the legislative amendments is to protect women's rights and bring the Georgian legislation in line with the provisions of the Istanbul Convention. The bill developed by the Ministry envisages amendments up to 20 laws, which will promote effective fight against violence against women, men or children in a family and protect women's rights. The bill also provides new approaches for the protection and rehabilitation of the victims. 35. Furthermore, the Law of Georgia “On Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection and Support of Victims of Domestic Violence” will be amended as well. The current wording of the Law regulates solely the issues relating to the domestic violence. On the basis of the amendments drafted by the Ministry of Justice the purview of the Law is being broadened. According to the amendments, the domain of the law in addition to the domestic violence will cover violence perpetrated against women. In particular, restraining and protective orders can be used to detect all cases of violence against women. The obligation to submit restraining order to the court in order to give effect to the act has been annulled. Thus, restraining order will enter into force once it is issued by the policeman which will contribute to the rapid and effective response to the cases of violence. 36. Furthermore, under the legislation of Georgia the victims of domestic violence enjoy the right to receive free legal advice and the right to suspend labour relations during 30 calendar days of his/her stay at the shelter. According to the amendments in question, the mentioned right will be extended to the women who are the victims of violence committed outside the family. Also, the women who are not Georgian citizens will receive temporary residence permit in cases of violence not related to the domestic violence. Prior to the end of proceedings it will not be allowed to expel the alien from Georgia, if he/she is the victim of violence. 37. Amendments envisage timely delivery of information in respect of the offender’s release from punishment to women who were the victims of violence. Thus, up to present this obligation existed solely in the case of domestic violence. Consistent with the amendments to the “Prisoner’s Code” the relevant prison administration is responsible to send the written notice regarding the offender's release to the respective district police, considering the location of crime scene, up to 3 months prior to the said action. On their behalf, the police according to the amendments to “the Law of Georgia on Police” is obliged to inform woman who was the victim of violence concerning the release of offender. 38. Furthermore, the circle of persons who are allowed to provide information to the police about the violence has been extended. Exceptional cases are determined with respect to persons who, in general, while exercising their professional activities, have the obligation of confidentiality (doctors, teachers, lawyers). According to the amendments these persons will be allowed to provide information to competent authorities on violence against women and/or domestic violence if there is a danger of a repeat of violence. Teachers and resource officers will be obliged to inform the person authorized by the director of the school of alleged violence against women and/or domestic violence cases. 39. As long as the weapon is already in possession of a person, his weapon will be confiscated during the operation of protective or restraining order or during the specific time frame set by the concrete See also - The report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, 2015, p. 5, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/womens-rights-and-gender-equality.page; The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia –“Gender Equality and Women’s Rights”, 2014, p. 20, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/gender-equality-and-womens-rights.page 8 protective and restraining order. Moreover, offenders will be banned to carry private firearms and will be prohibited to carry service firearms as well. 40. Moreover, the Criminal Code of Georgia introduces new concepts, such as: 41. Stalking - watching or spying on a person illegally; forcing unwanted contact through telephone or electronic social media in a systematic nature, containing insults or threats to the victim or her family members and compelling the person to change his or her lifestyle. Stalking may be punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment; 42. Forced Sterilization - Along with forced abortion, which according to the current Code is a criminal offense, forced sterilization will also now be criminally punishable; 43. Female Genital Mutilation - Article 1332 will criminalize forced female genital mutilation (FGM). The changes consider criminal punishment for forcing women and girls to undergo FGM for traditional, national, religious and other reasons. A similar act against a pregnant, disabled or underage woman will be considered an aggravating circumstance. 44. The list of aggravating circumstances in the violence against women also expands, and includes the following: actions that are directed at a spouse or former spouse or a partner; at vulnerable persons; in the presence of a minor or against him; repeatedly; using a gun or weapon; physical or mental harassment; with particular cruelty. 45. Subsequent to the adoption of the bill approved at the Government meeting, the women’s rights in Georgia will be protected in accordance with European standards, in accordance with the legislation of the Istanbul Convention, which obliges signatory states to introduce effective legal mechanisms to fight violence against women and domestic violence. The Convention will provide monitoring mechanisms both at national and international levels. For this purpose, a special Group of Experts (GREVIO) will be established in order to monitor the implementation of the Convention requirements by the parties.14 c. National machineries for the advancement of women 46. The Government of Georgia continues combat violence against women, including domestic violence and reiterates its readiness to conduct various activities in this direction. 47. In that regard the following activities carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia (“MIA”) and the Prosecutor’s Office should be underscored: 48. With the financial assistance and collaboration of UN WOMEN, the MIA created a special task force within Regional Police and Patrol Police Departments which is responsible for supporting/consulting law enforcers dealing with the cases of sexual violence and/or domestic violence. The members of the aforementioned task force are specially trained law enforcers in respect of the issues related to the investigation of gender-based crimes. In addition the members of the task force are involved into the investigation of gender-based crimes and on the other hand, the members are assisting their colleagues with regard to the issues of domestic violence. 49. Furthermore, on 3 July 2014 the Minister of Interior issued a decree N496 regarding “Measures for prevention and elimination of domestic violence”. During the same year the Minister of Interior issued another decree N573 „in respect of the measures for prevention and elimination of domestic violence”. According to the aforesaid orders, 2 men and 2 women police officers were allocated from district police stations of territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who will work 14 Georgian Government approves Package of Legislative Changes Aimed Against Domestic Violence for Ratification of the Istanbul Convention, 24 January 2017, available at: http://www.justice.gov.ge/News/Detail?newsId=5346 9 on prevention of domestic violence. The said persons were granted right to issue restraining order and conduct respective measures in cases envisaged by the relevant legislation. Under the Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia –“Gender Equality and Women’s Rights”, “The work made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs for training of policemen, also for placement of persons responsible for cases of domestic violence in every division, are commendable […].”15 50. Moreover, in accordance with the order №491 of the Minister of Interior issued on July 2, 2014 regarding “restraining order and an approval of restraining order forms of protocol, as well as the defining the persons in charge of drawing up the protocols" the employees of Patrol Police Department are defined as the persons authorized to draw up restraining order. In addition, District Police Senior Investigators of the MIA and District Police Investigators of territorial bodies of the MIA were defined as the persons authorized to draw up restraining order. The persons enlisted by the order are allowed to issue restraining order along with the pending investigation initiated on the basis of the Criminal Procedure Code in case of any need. 51. It should be underlined that the statistical figures of restraining orders issued by the police officers and approved by the domestic courts have been increased. According to the official figures, 2260 restraining orders have been issued in 2016 (nine month), 2598 – in 2015 and 817 – in 2014. The data shared by the Government demonstrating the increasing number of restraining orders issued during the recent years was welcomed by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.16 As to the protective orders, 139 orders have been issued in 2016 (nine month), 173 – in 2015 and 92 – in 2014.17 The aforesaid figures emphasize the higher public trust in law enforcement agencies responsible for tackling domestic violence. 52. Besides the activities mentioned above, in order to contribute the coordination and improvement of response to the domestic violence, thematic meetings are being held on the basis of the initiative of MIA with the representatives of other governmental institutions which are in charge of the respective field of activities. The meetings cover, among others, examination of particular cases and general practice. Moreover, MIA continues to hold meetings with representatives of nongovernmental and international organizations on the regular basis. 53. It should be noted that MIA secures for 24 hours functioning of the “112 free hotline” on the whole territory of Georgia. The operators render immediate reaction to the respective calls. 54. As for the unified standard of keeping statistics, the MIA keeps the statistical data with detailed parameters of domestic violence since January 2015 while employing new programs. In particular MIA conducts the detailed statistics of domestic violence: number of restraining and protective orders, territorial indicators, sex and age of abusers/victims, etc. In addition MIA keeps the statistics of investigations initiated on the grounds of articles 1261 (Domestic violence) and 111 (Liability for domestic crime) of Criminal Code of Georgia. 55. According to the data of the Prosecutor’s Office, in 2016 criminal proceedings were initiated against 183 persons under Articles 111, 140 (Sexual intercourse or any other act of sexual nature with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years) and 140 of the Criminal Code and against 905 persons under Articles 111 1261 and 1261 of the Criminal Code. 56. It should be underlined that regarding the aforementioned increasing trend of investigation the Public Defender of Georgia in his report “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality” noted the 15 The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia –“ Gender Equality and Women’s Rights”, 2014, pp. 24, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/gender-equality-and-womens-rights.page 16 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/32/42/Add.3, Distr.: General 22 July 2016, para. 90, available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/32/42/Add.3 17 The letter of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated 29.12.2016, № 01/21728 10 following: “As regards the response to domestic violence as to a criminal offence, in 2015 criminal proceedings were instituted against 728 persons under Articles 111-1261 and 1261 of the Criminal Code whilst 858 persons were recognized as victims, according to the data of Prosecutor’s Office. These indicators also show a positive trend in that they show that in 2015, relevant agencies regarded domestic violence as a criminal offence more times which will eventually improve the situation in terms of protective measures of victims.”18 57. As regards the activities of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, from 2015 onwards the Office provides information in the end of every month to the National Statistics Office of Georgia with regard to number of prosecuted persons, information on persons and their gender effected by committing the crime. In addition all the investigative bodies carry out criminal investigation in electronic system. Hence, the investigation on all criminal matters (including domestic violence) is conducted via electronic forms. The electronic module of statistics provides the information regarding perpetrators of domestic violence and number and gender of effected persons as a result of domestic violence.19 58. It is noteworthy that on 23 January 2015 as a result of the study analysis of violent crimes and domestic crimes the following two recommendations were framed for the prosecutors by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office: the necessary investigative and procedural actions which should be conducted on the basis of Articles 111 and 1261 of Criminal Code; The necessary investigative and procedural actions which should be conducted on the basis of Articles 117, 118, 120 and 125 of Criminal Code. The principles of elimination of gender-based violence and the conduct of effective criminal proceedings as well as other issues essential for the investigation are reflected into the said recommendations.20 59. In addition on 22 March 2016 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office presented a study on the issue of violence, including domestic violence, prepared with the support of UN Women and United Nations joint programme for Gender Equality. Criminological aspects of violence, crime prevention measures and statistical data and analysis of investigations of the mentioned crimes (including domestic violence) were discussed at the conference. Moreover, new training module including the issues of domestic violence for the prosecutors and criminological analysis and tendencies of 2015 of the crime under the article 140 of the Criminal Code was presented. Within the scope of analysis about 3500 facts of violence, including 680 facts of domestic violence were examined. Furthermore, all 189 criminal cases initiated under Article 140 of Criminal Code in 2015 were studied. The examination process was conducted in two different directions: criminological part and efficiency of the investigation. 60. In addition, Division of Human Rights Protection and Department of Prosecutorial Activities Supervision and Strategic Development of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office carry out monitoring of cases on a systematic basis and in case of detection of any shortcoming, the relevant prosecutors are addressed. In 2017 further thematic study and analysis of cases is planned. 61. It should be underscored that one of the main objectives of the Human Rights Action Plans (20142015/2016-2017) is the establishment and development of the mechanisms for gender equality. In that regard, the Government underline the following reforms: 62. In particular, in November 2014 the Inter-Agency Council Implementing Measures to Eliminate Domestic Violence was established at the Administration of the Government under the chairmanship of Assistant to the Prime Minister in Human Rights and Gender Equality Affairs. 18 The report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, 2015, p. 28, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/womens-rights-and-gender-equality.page 19 The implementation report of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 14.2.1.5., available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 20 Ibid, para. 14.1.8.7. 11 The council initiates the proposals in respect of the elimination of the domestic violence and monitors the situation concerning the combating of domestic violence. A Consultative Group to the Inter-Agency Council consisting of civil society representatives and international organizations has also been established. 63. Moreover, the Gender Equality Council (GEC) which represents a permanent body within the Parliament, brings together MPs, also governmental and non-governmental representatives to discuss and elaborate recommendations on gender issues, to ensure that women's voices are heard on an equal footing with men in formulating public policy and decision-making at the national and local levels. 64. It should be also noted that there was an interagency coordination group established by the initiative of the Gender Equality Council of the Georgian Parliament, which is responsible for coordination of implementation of the 2012-2015 National Action Plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions №№ 1325, 1820, 1888, 1889 and 1960 on “Women, Peace and Security” and reporting on implementation. It is important that since 2015 the noted group is moved structurally to the subordination of the Office of the Prime Minister of Georgia. The interagency coordination group consists of representatives of the Government and non-governmental organisations.21 65. Moreover, the Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017) foresees the creation of gender equality mechanism (i.e.: interagency commission) in executive branch that will cover issues of gender equality, gender based violence and domestic violence.22 d. Supporting the victims of domestic violence 66. In order to ensure that the victims of domestic violence and their children are provided with prompt and adequate support, the Government of Georgia established the State Fund for the Protection and Assistance to the Victims of Human Trafficking. For the victims of domestic violence, the State Fund provides the following services: Medical assistance, legal consultation (including legal representation before the courts), psychological assistance, support in tackling social problems, shelters, and a hotline. 67. The State Fund annually conducts the united statistics of those victims who used the services of the fund. According to the statistics published on its official website, 114 beneficiaries were provided with shelter in 2014, 65 – with medical care, 89 – with psychological support and 31 – with legal assistance. In 2015 the number of beneficiaries increased significantly, namely 188 of them were provided with shelter, 91 – with medical care, 135 – with psychological support and 44 – with legal assistance.23 The relevant statistics illustrate the effectiveness of the services offered to the beneficiaries. 68. With a view to open a new shelter in summer 2014 the fund purchased a building in the Kakheti region within the framework of acquired grant from UN WOMEN. The refurbishment and equipment of the shelter were conducted by means of financial resources obtained from grants of UN WOMEN, State Budget and US Embassy in Georgia. The shelter was opened on 15 April 2016 for 12 beneficiaries. 24 69. It should be underlined that in September 2016 the first state-run crisis center for the victims of domestic violence in Tbilisi was established. The crisis centre can accommodate up to 20 persons 21 Available at: http://gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=geo&sec_id=198&info_id=58331 22 The Human Rights Action Plan (2016-2017), para. 13.1.1.1, available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3350412 23 Statistics of beneficiaries of the shelter, available at: http://atipfund.gov.ge/res/docs/statistika1.pdf 24 The implementation report of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 14.2.2.2., available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 12 at once, including children and persons with special needs (disabilities). The announcement regarding the first State-run crisis centre for women victims of violence has been welcomed by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.25 70. It should be noted that in 2014, Gender Equality Department of the Public Defender’s office of Georgia has carried out monitoring of the shelters. The relevant excerpts from the Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, regarding the creation and operation of shelters for domestic violence victims/survivors reads as follows: “Creation of shelters for domestic violence victims/survivors is a step forward, which significantly enhances and supports protection mechanisms from domestic violence. It further creates opportunities for better protection of domestic violence victims/survivors and offers them an alternative way to escape a violent environment.” 26 e. Providing training for State organs 71. In response to the authors’ comments regarding gaps in the trainings provided to State bodies on tackling domestic violence, the Government underline that providing proper training for judges and law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors, and equipping them with all relevant skills is crucial to efficiently tackle the problem of domestic violence. Therefore, different types of informative activities are constantly organized for all State organs which are presented below. 72. To start with the High School of Justice of Georgia, which ensures quality professional trainings for candidate judges, judges, assistants to judges and other court staff, several training sessions have been carried out on the issue of domestic violence. In particular, in 2014-2016 within the framework of the program of retraining judges and other court officials, the High School of Justice conducted 4 trainings on domestic violence, with total of 54 participants taking part in the trainings (21 – judges and 33 – assistants to the judges). Among other issues, the trainings covered the following topics: International Legislation, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, Istanbul Convention and other relevant treaties; National Legislation; Restraining and Protective Orders (differences between forms of orders and rules of issuance). 73. In addition in 2014 with the support of donor organizations (USAID, JILEP, UN Women, UNDP), the High School of justice developed curricula on Gender Equality. American, European and local judges who were nominated by the School (as trainers) were involved in the process. 74. After developing the curriculums, 2 Trainings of Trainers (ToT) for Georgian judges and pilot trainings were conducted by foreign experts. In 2014-2016 by using this curriculum, 7 trainings were conducted on the following topic: “Promoting Justice by Gender Equality” in which total of 90 participants took part (76 - judges and 14 - assistants to the judges). The aforementioned training covers the following issues: Meaning of Gender Equality; Gender bias; Georgian Legal Sources; International Treaties (the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Additional Protocols, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, The Convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and 25 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/32/42/Add.3, Distr.: General 22 July 2016, para. 84, available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/32/42/Add.3 26 Public Defender of Georgia, The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, 2015, p. 7, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/special-report-violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence-ingeorgia.page 13 Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. 75. Furthermore, in the framework of the Council of Europe project “Developing the Capacity of the High School of Justice of Georgia” curriculas on Domestic Violence were elaborated in 2017. 76. As regards the framework of Judicial Candidates’ training, Family Law issues are discussed during 2 full days and 1 day is dedicated solely to Gender Equality.27 77. As for the trainings conducted by the MIA, in 2016 in the context of EU funded project “supporting Ministry of Internal Affairs to fight domestic violence” the patrol policemen and district inspectorinvestigators operating in various regions underwent a special training – “legal mechanisms against domestic violence”. The training was attended by 150 policemen. 78. Moreover with a view to integrate a gender related principles within the MIA, the trainings were organised by the “Women’s Information Center” (WIC) and representatives of MIA for the employees of Human Resources Department and managerial staff of the various structural units. The trainings covered national and international obligations, in particular, the United Nations Security Council resolution №1325 on women, peace and security, other basic concepts of related resolutions, as well as the obligations of Georgia in respect of CEDAW Convention. 79. In 2016 by the organizational support of the “Women's Information Center” and the MIA a oneday (two group) training was held in the MIA Academy on gender equality and with regard to the UN Security Council resolutions №№1325, 1820, 1888, 1889 and 1960. 80. In addition in the context of cooperation with NGO’s and International Organizations during 2016 with a view to improvement of law enforcers qualification in respect of the issues of domestic violence the following trainings were held:  With the organizational support of women’s non-governmental organization/fund “Sokhumi” the training was held on topic – monitoring of implementation of Georgian Law “On Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection and Support of Victims of Domestic Violence” on the territory of Western Georgia. In total 15 policeman attended the course;  With the organizational support of USA Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) the training on the topic “investigation of domestic violence crimes” was held. The training was attended by 48 policemen. Among the said policemen, 3 of them underwent the training in Seattle, Washington;  With the organisational support of organization “Merkuri” the training was held in respect of domestic violence which was attended by 100 policemen;  4 policemen participated in the training held by women association “Consent” with regard to fight domestic violence;  With the organisational support of the Public Defender’s Human Rights Academy the training was held on the topic “domestic violence and reaction mechanisms”. Among other subjects the following issues were discussed: the legislation of Georgia on domestic violence, identification of victim and offender and the significance of Istanbul Convention. The training was attended by 40 policemen. 81. As for the consideration of gender equality issues in law enforcement and penitentiary spheres, the Academy of the MIA, with the organizational support of UN WOMEN and with support of the MIA in 2015 initiated a pilot training for attendees of special professional educational programs in respect of gender equality. The trainings have been attended by 109 attendees of district inspectors’ 27 The letter of the High School of Justice, №02/1376, 30/01/2017 14 special professional educational program and by 89 attendees of patrol inspector special professional educational program.28 82. The 4 day conference named “women in police” is annually held in the context of collaboration with Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) of USA State Department and Police Academy which took place 5 times on the territory of Georgia. The main theme of the conference is the improvement of the qualification of law enforcers and the demonstration of the role of women in police. Among others, great attention is given to the issues of teaching the techniques of the investigation of sexual crime and learning self-defense skills. The aforementioned conference was attended in 2014 by 80 women and in 2015 by 60 women employed as law enforcers.29 83. With a view to sharing the experience of members of the European Union, the representatives of the MIA had study visits in the UK in September 2016 and in Sweden in December 2016 within the framework of EU funded project - “supporting Ministry of Internal Affairs to fight domestic violence”. 84. During 3-7 November 2015, with the organizational support of State Department of USA, the training in respect of “domestic violence and gender based crime” was held in Budapest (Hungary). In the context of training, FBI instructors delivered lectures to law enforcers regarding the techniques of investigation of domestic violations, sexual crimes, trafficking etc. Overall, 14 law enforcers attended the training from Georgia. 85. Curriculum of the basic compulsory educational course of the MIA Academy considers the subject “the criminal classification of action” which on itself includes the issues relating to the techniques of disclosure of sexual crime and interrogation of alleged victims of sexual crime. The said subject is incorporated in the special preparation program of promotion for detectives of Central Criminal Police. The aforementioned courses were annually attended by hundreds of attendees and acting law enforcers. 86. It is noteworthy that the MIA Academy permanently conducts the policy of awareness raising in respect of domestic violence issues throughout the training/qualification improvement courses for policemen. The MIA Police Academy training programs include the subject - "domestic violence", which covers, among other issues the topics such as: Law of Georgia “on Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection and Support of Victims of Domestic Violence”; Law of Georgia “on Gender Equality” Law of Georgia “on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination”; essence of restraint and protective orders; specifics of proceedings concerning the domestic violence - obligation of police upon the reception of information in respect of domestic violence. In addition the said subject includes the teaching of basic documents on gender equality: CEDAW Convention, Istanbul Convention, UN resolutions on women, peace and security №№1325, 1820, 1888, 1889 and 1960 etc. 87. The above-mentioned topics were underwent throughout 2014-2016 by 648 attendees within the framework of training (professional-educational) program for District Police and by 387 attendees within the framework of training (professional-educational) program for Patrol Police. The said training was also attended by 96 employees of Patrol Police Department in the context of special courses for career development.30 88. As for the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, initially it should be noted that the authors draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that currently it is not a requirement for all prosecutors to receive 28 The implementation report of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 14.1.8.2., available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 29 Ibid, para. 14.1.8.7. 30 The letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, MIA 7 17 00198484, 25/01/2017 15 mandatory trainings on domestic violence. In that regard, the Government stress that the appointment of prosecutors and investigators at the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia is primarily based on selection of interns by means of competition and successful accomplishment of the internship. In compliance with the order N43 of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia dated 15 August 2014, the candidates for internship are obliged to undergo compulsory preparation training in advance, i.e. before becoming investigators/prosecutors. The preparation course includes 2 month intensive training, notably the modules on human rights protection and fight against domestic violence constitute essential components of the compulsory course. 89. As to the training of operating employees of the Prosecutor’s Office, it is not linked to the mandatory hours, but to the identified needs and existing challenges. An action plan of each subsequent year is determined on the basis of training needs analysis conducted at the end of each year. The violence against women and domestic violence is the most important component of the annual action plan training cycle which is confirmed by the prosecutor's strategic goals and priorities. Furthermore, the Governmental Human Rights Action Plans envisage the commitment of conduct of at least 4 trainings in a year for prosecutors which is carried out with active cooperation with UN WOMEN. 90. In particular, in 2016, 7 trainings were conducted in respect of the issues of fight against domestic violence and violence against women. The professional trainings were attended by 130 employees of the Prosecutor’s Office. The said trainings were attended by middle-level managers, interns and the coordinators of victims and witnesses. 91. During 2016 the training for middle level managers has been carried out as well. The training has been conducted for two groups which was attended by more than 30 persons in total from various territorial bodies. Thus, the process of retraining of all district prosecutors and deputy district prosecutors in respect of the issues of domestic violence has been accomplished. 92. Furthermore, 12 trainings were held throughout 2016 on the topic of fight against discrimination. The professional preparation was undergone by 264 representatives from all territorial authorities of the Prosecutor’s Office. The said preparation was attended by middle-level managers, prosecutors and the investigators of the Prosecution System, interns and the coordinators of victims and witnesses. 93. Moreover, in the context of regional projects of the Council of Europe, the curriculum and materials were prepared in respect of the topic – “women's rights protection and provision of their accessibility to legal mechanisms”. Throughout elaboration of the curriculum the educational institutions of National Court system and the Prosecutor’s Office were involved. The judges and the prosecutors will represent the basic target audience. 94. The Government of Georgia will continue active retraining of its representatives in order to enhance qualification in respect of domestic violence and violence against women. f. Awareness-raising campaigns 95. The Government of Georgia acknowledge the importance of awareness raising and permanently carries out various types of campaigns concerning domestic violence and discrimination against women. 96. In that regard, it should be noted that the MIA implements the EU funded project - “supporting Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia to fight domestic violence” the main objectives of which are the following: the contribution to the prevention of domestic violence, the elimination of domestic violence and its consequences by means of awareness raising and providing information 16 to the public in respect of the domestic violence issues as well as legal mechanisms against domestic violence. 97. The MIA organises social campaigns, competitions and regional meetings on the topic of domestic violence with a view to awareness raising of public. Furthermore, in 2016 the representatives of MIA participated in several radio broadcasts and TV shows. The video commercials and relevant leaflets were prepared and will be broadcasted through the Public and Private Televisions during 2017. 98. It is noteworthy that in March 2016, Project “Local Council” was presented at the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. The function of the Local Council is to discuss the criminological situation in the region, make decisions regarding the necessary preventive measures, develop initiatives and determine the coordinated plan to fight crime in collaboration with other state agencies and nongovernmental organisations. 99. In the context of the Project “Local Council” 5 meetings were held for prosecutors in Batumi and 3 meetings were held in Kvemo Kartli and Kakheti. The trainings were attended by pupils, students and local residents. Throughout the meeting the prosecutors discussed the issues of human rights and domestic violence as well as the punishment of sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years. The trilingual (Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani) informational leaflets concerning the issues of “domestic violence and sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years” were distributed among the participants of the meeting. 100. Within the framework of the project “Public Prosecutor”, 30 informational meetings were held during 2016 with local residents in respect of the issues of domestic violence and violence against women, on the territory of Shida Kartli, Kvemo Kartli, Samtskhe-Javakheti, Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti and Kakheti. The representatives of ethnic minorities participated in the said meetings as well. 101. On 2 December 2015 in the context of 16 day „orange campaign“ the public lecture with students of Georgian-American University took place with the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Labour Health and Social Affairs of Georgia and the State Fund. Furthermore, the issues of prevention of domestic violence are described in 6 lesson-topics in textbooks of civil education of 9th and 10th classes. 102. It should be noted that the State Fund conducts various awareness-raising campaigns as well. In particular, the commercials made by the fund have been broadcasted on the TV-channels. From November 2015 with the support of project “reduction of domestic violence in Georgia” and in the context of 16 day “orange campaign” the new video commercials were created and broadcasted. In addition, in 2014 the fund produced 5 000 printed informational materials (leaflets) and 1 000 advertising calendar of consultation for hot line in case of domestic violence. The said materials were disseminated in various state institutions and were spread among the population. 103. Moreover, in 2015 the fund has printed informational brochures regarding domestic violence and human trafficking. Throughout the awareness raising meetings with teachers of higher classes of public schools and students as well as lecturers of high schools the representatives of the fund disseminated informational materials (leaflets).31 104. It should be underlined, that the representatives of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia permanently organize information meetings for local population, especially for ethnic minorities and those who are living in rural areas. They are informed about their rights to be protected from violence and available state run services for the victims of violence and domestic violence. 31 The implementation report of the Human Rights Action Plan (2014-2015), para. 14.2.3.1., available at: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3315211 17 105. As to the most recent social campaigns, the Ministry of Justice launches a social campaign - “Act" in connection with the legislative amendments aimed against domestic violence and violence against women. The goal of the campaign is to raise public awareness with respect to legislative amendments to 20 laws before the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, as well as social responsibility of Georgian citizens when they witness such type of violence. 106. The main message of the campaign will be distributed through all communication channels. Special attention will be paid to organize meetings with the students of Georgian universities, as well as social centers and educational institutions. Special training modules will be developed by the Training Center of Justice, which envisions to hold meetings, trainings and discussions in 2017 in all town and village public centers across the country. 107. Within the framework of the campaign, the Ministry of Justice made three videos bearing the message: #act. The videos will be aired on TV in spring. 108. Within the framework of the same campaign, competitions will be announced, including for the selection of a respective poster. The Ministry of Justice welcomes all initiatives of those who will express their desire to get involved in the campaign.32 109. Thus, awareness-raising is an ongoing process which takes place on a regular basis by virtue of involvement of State organs with active cooperation of international and non-governmental organisations. g. Summary of the reports - The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, “Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Georgia”, 24 July 2014 110. The Committee in its combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Georgia welcomes the State party’s efforts to improve its policy framework. 111. The relevant excerpt from the periodic reports reads as follows: “The Committee welcomes the State party’s efforts to improve its policy framework aimed at accelerating the elimination of discrimination against women and promoting gender equality, such as the adoption or establishment of the following: […] (b)National Action Plan on Gender Equality for 2014-2016; […] (d)National human rights strategy and action plan for the period 2014-2015; (e)Action Plan for Combating Domestic Violence and Implementing Measures for the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence for 2013-2015; […] (g)Gender Equality Council, as a standing parliamentary body, in 2009; (h)Permanent Inter-Agency Coordination Council for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, in 2008.” 33 32 See - http://www.justice.gov.ge/News/Detail?newsId=5350 33 “Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Georgia” adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women at its fifty-eighth session (30 June-18 July 2014), (CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-5), 18 - The Human Rights Committee, “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia”, 19 August 2014 112. The Human Rights Committee in its fourth periodic report of Georgia welcomes aforementioned legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party. 113. The relevant excerpts from the periodic report reads as follows: “The Committee welcomes the following legislative and institutional steps taken by the State party: (a) Adoption of the National Human Rights Strategy for 2014–2020 and of the National Human Rights Action Plan for 2014-2015, in April and June 2014, respectively;” “The Committee welcomes the adoption of the Law on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination on 2 May 2014 […]”34 - The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, 2015 114. The Public Defender of Georgia in his special report noted regarding the activities implemented upon MIA’s initiative in the area of combating violence against women. 115. The relevant excerpt from the special report reads as follows: “Activities implemented upon MoIA’s initiative in the area of combating violence against women are noteworthy, including granting the power to issue restrictive orders to inspector-investigators of the territorial units (making the protection mechanisms for victims/ survivors more flexible), training of police officers, strengthening cooperation with NGOs, production and placement of a public service announcement in the media, organizing information meetings with youths and etc.”35 - The Report of the Public Defender of Georgia, “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, 2015 116. The Public Defender of Georgia in his report “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality” underlined the steps taken by the Interior Ministry and the Chief Prosecutor’s Office in detecting and preventing domestic violence. 117. The relevant excerpts from the report reads as follows: “Information campaigns and retraining of police officers conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia have resulted in increased exposure of incidents of violence against women and Distr.: General 24 July 2014, paras 4, 5, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f45&Lang=en 34 “Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Georgia” Adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 111th session (7–25 July 2014), (CCPR/C/GEO/4), Distr.: General, 19 August 2014, paras 3, 6 available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGEO%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en 35 Public Defender of Georgia, The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in Georgia”, 2015, p. 6, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/special-report-violence-against-women-and-domestic-violence-ingeorgia.page ; see also - The Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia –“ Gender Equality and Women’s Rights”, 2014, pp. 21, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/gender-equality-and-womens-rights.page 19 domestic violence. More frequent application of protective measures has shown once again the importance of raising public awareness and efficient provision of services.” 36 “One should especially note the steps taken by the Interior Ministry and the Chief Prosecutor’s Office in detecting and preventing domestic violence. The conduct of information campaigns and the improvement of response mechanisms positively affected the identification indicator of incidents.” 37 - Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia, 22 July 2016 118. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences in her report welcomed aforementioned measures conducted by the Government of Georgia. 119. The relevant excerpts from the report reads as follows: “The Special Rapporteur was informed that police officers have benefited from training workshops and are now more proactive in issuing restraining orders. She welcomes the fact that more women have joined the police force, because they can play an important role in identifying victims and providing them with information. She also welcomes the fact that, generally speaking, police patrols sent to assess cases of domestic violence are composed of one man and one woman.” 38 IV. Conclusion 120. The information furnished to the Committee serves as a clear affirmation of the commitment of Georgia to adhere to the recommendations of the Committee in order to provide individual measures to the victims of the present communication as well as general measures to eradicate further cases of domestic violence and violence against women. 36 The report of the Public Defender of Georgia – “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, 2015, p. 5, available at: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/reports/specialuri-angarishebi/womens-rights-and-gender-equality.page 37 Ibid, p. 26 38 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/32/42/Add.3, Distr.: General 22 July 2016, para. 90, available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/32/42/Add.3 20