CASE OF ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Irakli Adeishvili;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The first applicant was born in DATE . She died on DATE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , a group of friends met at FAC in GPE . In the group were ORG , the Minister of the Interior ’s wife , ORG , Director of ORG at ORG , his deputy GPE .- ov , PERSON , Director of ORG of ORG , G.D .- dze , Head of Press at ORG and the Minister ’s spokesman , and ORG .- dze , a lady friend of ORG . Another woman , ORG . M .- dze , a friend of ORG .- dze , was also with them .

Mr PERSON , the applicants’ DATE only son , and a friend of his , L.B .- dze , were sitting at another table in the same room .

According to the applicants ORG , GPE .- ov , FAC and G.D.dze are very well - known public figures in GPE who , with PERSON , the NORP Minister of the ORG , played an active part in the so - called Rose Revolution that brought about the resignation of President PERSON in DATE ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . According to the applicants , the government relies on the support of these trusted aides .

As submitted by the applicants , on the evening in question PERSON and PERSON , both young bankers , arrived at FAC later than the group of friends mentioned above . The applicants’ son was actually hoping to see ORG . M .- dze , whom he was apparently courting . On entering the café , he went up to the table where ORG , the Interior Minister ’s wife , and her friends were sitting to say hello to ORG . M .- dze . After greeting ORG . M .- dze with a kiss , he went to sit with L.B .- dze at a nearby table . At CARDINAL point he signalled to ORG . M .- dze to join them at his table and she temporarily changed tables . The discussion between PERSON and PERSON . M .- dze , which lasted DATE , was apparently quite tense , punctuated with lively gestures that suggested they were disagreeing about something . Because of this , ORG .- dze went up to ORG . M.dze twice , to ask her if everything was all right and if she needed any help . ORG . M .- dze said all was well and she would soon be going back to PERSON ’s table . When she finally did so the Minister of the Interior ’s wife asked her if there was anything wrong . Th . M .- dze said that the young man she had been talking to was a friend and that there was no problem .

On DATE , at TIME , PERSON body was found by CARDINAL friends , with the help of a local man , near the cemetery in GPE , a suburb of GPE , QUANTITY from FAC .

According to an expert report drawn up by forensic specialists on DATE , after inspecting the crime scene , and the photographs appended to it , PERSON body , naked from the waist up , was discovered lying in the snow in the woods near the cemetery . Visual examination of the body revealed numerous parallel linear wounds on the left arm and shoulder , QUANTITY wounds to the neck , a similar wound to the throat and numerous bruises and lesions , some deep , to the chest . A pocketknife was found in the victim ’s trouser pocket .

The autopsy carried out on DATE by ORG established that the victim had CARDINAL cuts of different sizes on his throat , caused by a sharp object , and CARDINAL lesion on the left shoulder . CARDINAL of the wounds to the throat were deep enough to have damaged the muscles . CARDINAL of them , measuring QUANTITY in diameter , had reached the pharynx . According to a ORG expert who examined a sample of skin taken from the throat , the wounds had been caused by a sharp , pointed object with a handle , probably a knife . A very large number of cuts of different sizes – from CARDINAL to QUANTITY DATE were found on the left shoulder , the left forearm , the right shoulder , the fingers , the belly , both knees and tibias , the thighs , the forehead , the nose , and around the eyes . Analyses revealed the presence of alcohol but no drugs in the blood . According to the experts , the amount of alcohol in the victim ’s blood at the time of death was insignificant ( CARDINAL ‰ ) .

The report concluded that death had been caused by the wound to the pharynx . The victim had died of asphyxia when blood from the wound to his pharynx was sucked into the airways . It was a serious , life - threatening wound .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted by ORG for murder ( LAW ) . On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted on counts of false imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) and criminal association ( LAW ) . Also on DATE , the CARDINAL cases were joined .

On DATE was questioned as a witness . He explained that on DATE , at TIME , PERSON , himself and some colleagues of theirs went to the FAC inn . They ordered various dishes , and beer and vodka . They left the inn at TIME The ORG son and L.B .- dze took CARDINAL taxi and their colleagues took another one . On the way , PERSON suggested stopping off at FAC for a coffee . According to L.B .- dze , they met several people they knew in the café and stayed there until TIME , when they left and started walking down FAC towards the main road . A silver Mercedes ML pulled up alongside them . CARDINAL men got out and grabbed L.B .- dze by the neck to push him into the car . CARDINAL of them pushed the applicants’ son into the car , holding his hands behind his back .

L.B .- dze asked the CARDINAL kidnappers what they wanted . CARDINAL of them said that , to start with , he wanted to know what they had in their pockets . L.B .- dze and PERSON showed him their mobile phones , which the man confiscated and placed in the glove compartment . The same man then asked them for proof of identity . L.B .- dze gave him his work pass , which was also confiscated . L.B .- dze and Mr PERSON took the men for policemen , but when the car started heading uphill , out of GPE , the applicants’ son asked where they were going , as there was no police station in that direction . By way of an answer , the man sitting next to him elbowed him in the ribs . L.B .- dze asked the same question , but to no avail . Mr PERSON then demanded that they show their police badges , and was again elbowed in the ribs . The man sitting next to the driver finally answered that they would soon see where they were going and find out what would happen when they got to “ the top ” . Everyone then remained silent for a moment . On the way out of GPE , the driver called someone on his mobile phone , saying : “ We ’re on our way up . The road is fine ; you can come up in your car ” . Near PERSON cemetery they stopped the car , pulled L.B.dze and the applicants’ son out and pushed them towards the cemetery . L.B.dze was dragged along by the driver of the vehicle and the man who had been sitting in the front . Suddenly he felt a violent blow to the neck and collapsed . His captors then started kicking him while one of them held a pistol to his head . At the same time , PERSON was being beaten by the third man .

A short time later , L.B .- dze saw a fourth man , who had not been in the car . The man came up to him , aimed a gun at him and said he was only getting the punishment he deserved . He then kicked him in the face , fired a shot into the air then walked over to where PERSON was being beaten and started hitting him too .

At CARDINAL point the CARDINAL men beating PERSON came over to those who were beating L.B .- dze and said “ the other bastard ’s got away ” . They then made L.B .- dze take his clothes off , hit him some more and left him there .

L.B .- dze managed to get up , with difficulty , and made his way back to the road . He walked along the road to a service station , where he woke up the watchman . He waited with the watchman until TIME , when he was able to ask a passer - by to let him use his mobile phone to call the police . When questioned subsequently , the watchman confirmed L.B .- dze ’s story .

At the end of that interview L.B .- dze said that he was still in shock and could not remember any other details at that time .

On DATE was granted civil party status and was questioned again in that capacity . He confirmed his previous statements and added that he had been pistol - whipped around the head .

On DATE the colleagues with whom PERSON and PERSON had spent TIME until TIME were all questioned . They confirmed that the applicants’ son and L.B .- dze had taken a taxi . They had not heard about the subsequent events and PERSON death until DATE .

On DATE was arrested and placed under investigation for concealment of murder .

On DATE the waiters , the manager and the accountant at FAC were interviewed . They stated that on DATE a percussionist played the drums in their café and a DJ played music . CARDINAL of the waitresses said that table no . CARDINAL had been occupied by G.D .- dze , the spokesperson for the Minister of the ORG , and CARDINAL or CARDINAL other people . According to her , G.D .- dze and his friends had left the café at TIME She had not noticed any trouble or fight that evening . However , she would not have been able to overhear any unpleasant verbal exchanges between the clients because of the music played between TIME and CARDINAL a.m. The person who had served coffee to the ORG son said that PERSON had been joined by a friend who had gone to the toilets . The CARDINAL had only ordered coffee and had left after TIME .

On DATE the investigating authority ordered the heads of all the police stations in GPE to search their districts for silver Mercedes ML cars , to draw up lists of the owners , to get their photographs and their mobile and ordinary phone numbers and to find out about their professional contacts , friends , families and any possible criminal connections . The results of these investigations , which went on until DATE , were communicated to the investigating authorities by stages .

On DATE , L.B .- dze , when questioned as an accused person , gave new information . He said that a young woman he did not know had joined them at their table in FAC . The applicants’ son had greeted her warmly . At the same time L.B .- dze had been talking to an acquaintance . He had nevertheless noticed that the discussion between the applicants’ son and the lady concerned had grown tense . He could not hear what they were talking about because PERSON and the lady were sitting very close to each other and the music was loud . After TIME the lady had stood up , angry , and gone back to the other table , around which there were other ladies but also some muscular - looking men . PERSON did not tell PERSON who the woman was . CARDINAL in the café had had an argument with PERSON . At the cemetery , when the applicants’ son was being beaten , PERSON had not been able to see him , but he had heard his screams . Later , a fourth man had joined the other assailants . He had a gun . According to L.B .- dze , it was not impossible that that man had someone else with him , as PERSON was a strong man and it would not have been easy to hold him still while they subjected him to the kind of torture indicated by the marks on his body . It was also after that man arrived that the applicants’ son had let out a terrible scream . Sometimes the man in question left PERSON and came over to hit PERSON . As he was being kicked in the face , L.B .- dze had had to cover his face , so he could not see exactly what was happening to his friend and how many men were beating him .

On DATE was released , there being no evidence against him .

On DATE some clients of ORG who had known PERSON were questioned . They said they had witnessed no altercation in the café .

On an unspecified date the investigator in charge of the case asked the mobile phone operators to provide lists of all the numbers which had been in communication on DATE from certain antennas in GPE , TIME for some antennas and QUANTITY for others . On DATE and DATE , the CARDINAL operators supplied the data concerned in table form .

On DATE the investigator found that the crime could have been committed for reasons of personal revenge against L.B .- dze , who had left his wife to live with another woman . ORG then ordered the monitoring of the telephone conversations of PERSON ex - wife and his new wife from DATE to DATE .

NORP On DATE the investigator requested and obtained from CARDINAL of the mobile phone operators a list of all the telephone numbers dialled CARDINAL from the telephone of GPE , the first Deputy Director of Constitutional Security at ORG .

When questioned on DATE , PERSON lady friend PERSON . M .- dze made the same statements as on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , except that she did not mention PERSON having insulted G.D .- dze .

According to an expert medical report of DATE , L.B .- dze had numerous bruises on his face and other parts of his body . They were considered light injuries that did not affect his ability to work .

On DATE the first applicant was granted civil party status .

When questioned on DATE , ORG .- dze said that the discussion between ORG . M .- dze and PERSON had been calm and she had not noticed whether FAC .- ov had left the café to go looking for cigarettes . The remainder of her testimony was the same as that given on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

D.A .- aia , PERSON , G.D .- dze and ORG were also heard on DATE . The statements they made were essentially the same as those they made on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . However , ORG , the Minister ’s wife , said nothing about asking ORG . M .- dze if “ everything was all right ” when she came back to their table after talking to PERSON .

When questioned on DATE , FAC .- ov said that on TIME DATE he had gone with his friend and hierarchical superior ORG to ORG . He had had a drink . He had no recollection of seeing ORG . M .- dze change tables . There had been no incident or altercation . He said he had eventually found the cigarettes the Minister ’s wife had asked for at an all - night vendor ’s near B. supermarket . At QUANTITY they had all gone home in good spirits . Other than that , LANGUAGE ov gave the same account of events as on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP Throughout DATE shop assistants , night vendors and caretakers of establishments located on Leselidze street were questioned . None of them had noticed anything of relevance .

On DATE recordings made by the surveillance camera at the home of a wealthy businessman located on the road to Okrokana were seized from the head of security at the property , who also worked as a guard at ORG . The recordings were of the period between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the Chief Prosecutor of GPE , on the basis of “ ORG memo of DATE ” , decided to take the case away from ORG and hand it over to ORG .

According to the criminal case file submitted to the ORG , the memo in question was a classified internal document sent by ORG to the Minister of the Interior . It revealed , inter alia , that ORG was the person responsible in ORG for elucidating the important aspects of the case . In the first part of the note ORG reported the same facts to the Minister as those described by L.B .- dze in his statements concerning the kidnapping and the assault that caused PERSON death ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It went on to explain that on TIME in question he had been in FAC himself with a group of friends until TIME , celebrating PERSON birthday . G.A .- ia , his subordinate , had also been invited by PERSON . According to ORG , he had spoken to LAW several times on the telephone from ORG to find out if he was coming . After confirming that he would be coming , GPE .- ia had informed ORG TIME that he would not be able to make it after all .

In the same memo , ORG explained to the Minister that on DATE a regional manager from his department had informed him that a Mercedes ML that had been seized as evidence in a criminal case was being taken to LOC . ORG had taken an interest in the vehicle and , on learning that it was a silver Mercedes ML , had decided to question a number of ORG employees about it . He had thus been able to establish that on DATE around TIME the car had left the courtyard of the Ministry with G.A .- ia and CARDINAL other ORG staff members , A.A.uri and GPE .- ava , on board . After seeking the necessary information from the mobile phone operator , ORG had been able to reconstitute G.A.ia ’s movements and to conclude that on the night concerned he had been in the vicinity of the cemetery at PERSON and had spoken on the phone with M.B.dze , another ORG employee .

Lastly , in the same written memo , ORG informed the Minister that he had asked LAW if he had been present at the scene of the crime on the night in question . G.A .- ia , strangely unsettled , had denied being there .

According to ORG , all this seemed to indicate that G.A.ia , A.A.uri , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze might have had a hand in committing the crime in question . He asked the Minister to decide what course of action should be taken .

On DATE ORG cancelled the decision granting the first applicant civil party status on the ground that only the direct victim of the crime , that is , the son , was entitled to civil party status . As the direct victim in this case was dead , the only standing one of his parents could claim was as his heir .

On DATE , L.B .- dze , in his civil party capacity , applied to the investigator in charge of the case , stating that he did not need to be assisted by counsel and that he declined the services of the CARDINAL lawyers assigned to his case .

DATE , L.B .- dze was asked to assist in identifying the presumed perpetrators of the crime , without the assistance of a lawyer .

L.B .- dze identified G.A .- ia , the first Deputy Director of Constitutional Security at ORG , “ without any doubt ” , as one of the people who had taken part in his kidnapping and assault at the cemetery in GPE .

L.B .- dze identified GPE .- ava , a subordinate of GPE .- ia ’s , as “ possibly being ” the driver of the Mercedes ML , but he could not be certain .

L.B .- dze also said that ORG .- uri , another of G.A .- ia ’s subordinates , “ was probably ” the man who had sat next to PERSON in the car . When asked by the prosecutor if he was PERCENT certain , PERSON said that he could not be PERCENT sure but that PERSON .- uri resembled the man concerned .

Finally , when faced with CARDINAL unknown persons among whom M.B.dze , the second Deputy Director of Constitutional Security at ORG , had been placed , L.B .- dze said that the man next to GPE .- dze could be one of the perpetrators of the crime , but he was not PERCENT sure . The man ’s face and stature resembled the man who had beaten ORG , who was the one with whom he had had the least contact .

On DATE .- ia , GPE .- ava and A.A .- uri , but also M.B.dze , were arrested .

On DATE L.B .- dze was questioned as a civil party .

According to the video recording of the interview , the investigator asked L.B .- dze if he wished to be assisted by a lawyer . L.B .- dze said he did not . He then confirmed his previous statements , adding that PERSON had made a phone call to someone from the taxi before suggesting that they stop by ORG . When they entered the café , L.B .- dze had gone to the toilet and then joined PERSON at a table . By the time ORG . M .- dze had joined them at their table , music was playing . ORG . M .- dze and the ORG son had been sitting quite close to one another , so it had been impossible for him to hear what they were talking about . Anyway , a friend had come to sit and talk to L.B .- dze for CARDINAL to TIME . This last sentence does not appear in the record of the interview included in the case file . According to L.B .- dze , ORG . M .- dze and PERSON had not had an argument , but the discussion between them had been tense .

L.B .- dze added that he himself had not had any argument with anyone in the café . He could not say for sure whether PERSON had , as he had left him to go to the toilet .

L.B .- dze explained that when they had left the café , he and PERSON had not crossed the room together , but they had gone out into the street together . That statement does not appear in the record of the interview in the case file . However , the video recording shows that when L.B.dze said that , the investigator suggested including the following wording in the record , which he dictated himself : “ I can not remember if PERSON and I went out through the café door together . ( ... ) it is possible that I was a little way behind him . ” L.B .- dze then added himself that if he remembered rightly , before leaving the café he had gone to the toilet again . The investigator told him to note it down in the record .

In answer to the investigator ’s question whether anyone could have followed them as they left the café , L.B .- dze said he did not think so .

Lastly , the investigator asked L.B .- dze if he thought the assailants had intended to kill him with ORG . L.B .- dze thought they probably had not , considering that they had just abandoned him there , still alive , instead of killing him .

DATE . Still on DATE , L.B .- dze was questioned again , with no lawyer present , about the fourth person who had arrived on the scene later .

L.B .- dze said he could not rule out the possibility that the person concerned had not come alone . It was this man who had fired the shot in the air . In answer to a question from the investigator , L.B .- dze replied that he had indeed been invited by an MP into his office in the ORG to look at a photograph and say whether he recognised the man in it . L.B .- dze had said that he could not be sure , but he thought the man in the photo “ looked just like ” the fourth man , who had joined them at the cemetery later . The MP had recorded the procedure , with L.B .- dze ’s consent , and as the man in the photo was GPE .- ov , the recording had been made public . To the investigator , L.B .- dze said that the man in the photograph resembled the “ fourth man ” , but that he could be mistaken .

When questioned on DATE , G.A .- ia said that he had been at work late on DATE in the evening . Before going home , he had decided to stop by ORG , with LAW , to wish PERSON a happy birthday . He had been invited , he explained . To get there , he had taken a Mercedes ML that was parked in FAC , having been impounded as evidence in a criminal case . G.A .- ia explained that he had given PERSON .- uri number plates with the number ORG to put on the car .

The CARDINAL men had stopped the car in LOC street near the café . Only G.A .- ia had got out of the car . At the entrance to the café , he found someone he did not know ( PERSON ) insulting G.D .- dze ’s mother . On hearing this , PERSON .- ia asked what the problem was . In response , Mr PERSON insulted him too and walked away . PERSON .- ia decided to follow him “ to find out why he was hurling insults ” . He returned to the car and asked A.A .- uri , who was at the wheel , to follow the CARDINAL men . He also asked his CARDINAL colleagues if they had their pistols on them , as he thought they might need to make an arrest . When they replied that they were not armed , G.A .- ia called GPE .- dze on the phone and asked him to come and help them and to bring his gun .

A.A .- uri pulled up alongside PERSON and PERSON , and G.A .- ia got out of the car and asked the CARDINAL men to show their identity documents . Mr PERSON asked him in a very disparaging tone who he was . G.A .- ia said they were from ORG and asked him for his papers again . PERSON and PERSON insulted him again . The discussion grew more heated and A.A .- uri got out of the car and told them to calm down . PERSON pushed him and A.A - uri fell over . According to LAW , PERSON and PERSON told the other men that they could go anywhere they liked and sort things out . They all decided to get in the car and go somewhere else . They drove twice round the main square in GPE , while G.A .- ia tried to understand why PERSON had been insulting G.D .- dze . Then they stopped the car and told PERSON and his friend to get out , but they refused , saying that was no place to talk and they should go elsewhere . So they had gone to PERSON , and stopped the car near the cemetery . Then they had all got out and started fighting . It was TIME and there was fairly good visibility .

M.B .- dze had soon come along to assist his colleagues . He had dealt mainly with PERSON . When PERSON had escaped , PERSON .- ia had told ORG .- dze not to bother following him . The scuffle had lasted TIME and it must have been TIME when they left PERSON .

G.A .- ia also maintained that on the way back from PERSON he had received phone calls from ORG and ORG .- dze asking him if he was coming to PERSON birthday party ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

When questioned on DATE , ORG .- dze maintained that after receiving a call for help from his superior , G.A .- ia , around TIME , he had taken his weapon and gone to ORG to pick up an official car , thinking that it would be necessary to arrest someone . When he reached PERSON street he realised his colleagues had gone , so he called LAW , who told him they were on their way to PERSON . When he drove there he spotted the Mercedes ML “ which he thought his colleagues were using ” . He headed towards the cemetery , where the noise was coming from . He found PERSON lying on the ground and L.B .- dze putting up a fight . His colleagues were accordingly concentrating their efforts on L.B.dze . PERSON had got up again , however , and attacked him . They had started to wrestle . PERSON clothes were ripped in the struggle . At CARDINAL point GPE .- dze thought he saw a knife in PERSON hand . He took his gun out and fired into the air . That was when PERSON had taken the opportunity to run away . The struggle had lasted no longer than TIME .

DATE . M.B .- dze stated that neither he nor his colleagues had used any sharp weapons , and that he could only assume that , after escaping , PERSON must have injured himself on the wire fencing round the tombs or in the bramble bushes .

When questioned on DATE , GPE .- ava confirmed GPE .- ia ’s account of events . He also said that he and his colleagues had identified themselves to PERSON and PERSON .- dze as employees of ORG . He said that PERSON and PERSON had got into the car of their own free will . GPE .- ava confirmed , like GPE .- dze , that it had been a clear night and that none of his colleagues had been carrying a knife or any other sharp object .

When questioned on DATE , ORG .- uri gave exactly the same account as LAW , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze . As to the origins of PERSON wounds , A.A .- uri made the same suppositions as ORG .- dze .

On DATE a public prosecutor from ORG placed GPE .- ia , GPE .- ava , A.A .- uri and ORG .- dze under investigation for wilful bodily harm resulting in death ( LAW ) and premeditated false imprisonment by a group of persons with life - threatening violence ( LAW ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) of LAW ) . On DATE they were remanded in custody .

On DATE L.B .- dze , with no lawyer present , was called to identify the “ fourth man ” , who had arrived last at the cemetery . According to the video recording of this investigative measure , among the CARDINAL men in the line - up to be presented to L.B .- dze , GPE .- ov took the third position from the left . The public prosecutor then invited L.B .- dze into the room and asked him to look carefully at the CARDINAL men . L.B .- dze hesitated before saying : “ I ca n’t be PERCENT sure ... the man must have been bigger , but I do n’t know ... , I do n’t recognise , let ’s say , going by the face ... , I could say it was the second man from the left , or the third from the left . ” The public prosecutor replied : “ So you do not recognise any of these QUANTITY people for sure . ” L.B .- dze explained that he did not “ recognise anyone for sure , but the CARDINAL men he had picked out looked like the assailant who had arrived last at the cemetery ” . The public prosecutor then invited him to write the report , including sentences he dictated to him : “ Among the CARDINAL individuals presented to me , I am unable to identify anyone as the individual who on DATE committed the unlawful acts against me and against PERSON ” . The public prosecutor then asked PERSON to start a new paragraph , and L.B .- dze complied . The doubts and resemblances noted by L.B .- dze are not mentioned in the record of the proceedings , which also contains another error : according to the record , GPE .- ov was in the third position from the right , not from the left as seen in the video recording .

When questioned on DATE , the barman from ORG explained that the musicians generally played as long as there were still clients in the establishment . A waitress , PERSON , said that the percussionist played the bongo drums on DATE and at DATE , from TIME until TIME On the evening in question PERSON had recognised G.D .- dze and PERSON as soon as they had walked into the café . Even if she would not have been able to hear an argument with all the noise , PERSON could safely say that there had been no trouble at PERSON table or at the table where ORG .- dze , GPE .- ov and their friends had sat . CARDINAL of PERSON ’s friends , whose name she could not recall , had asked her what brands of cigarettes she sold . As she had not had the brand the person wanted , he had gone looking for them elsewhere .

On DATE the café ’s accountant , a waiter PERSON , a waitress and CARDINAL patrons present in the café were questioned . They all said that there had been no trouble that TIME . PERSON said he knew G.D .- dze , who had been at table no . CARDINAL with some friends , by sight . They had still been there when he had finished work at TIME According to PERSON , music was playing in the café from TIME

In spite of what it says in the corresponding reports , the video recordings of the above interviews are not included in the criminal case file submitted to the ORG .

On DATE , during a reconstruction at the scene of the crime , L.B .- dze said that the CARDINAL men who had taken him out of the car and beaten him had stayed with him until the end . Some way off he could see PERSON lying on the ground covering his face with his hands , while the man who had elbowed him in the car to keep him quiet stood over him . L.B .- dze also said that the fourth assailant had probably arrived at the cemetery TIME after them . Before PERSON had run away , L.B .- dze had heard a terrible scream and a shot fired into the air . According to the video recording of this investigative measure , L.B.dze said that when he managed to get to his feet again he started calling PERSON name , hoping to find him . He continued to call him , but in vain , after reaching the road . When no answer came he had started walking . He had tried to flag down a car , but no - one would stop for a CARDINAL - naked man in the state he was in .

On DATE L.B .- dze was questioned again , with no lawyer present , the prosecutor simply explaining that he had the right to be represented , before proceeding with his questions . He was questioned , inter alia , about the contradiction between his statements to the authorities and those he had made on television concerning the moment when they left the café . On television he had stated that he and PERSON had had no run - in with PERSON .- ia when they were leaving the café .

L.B .- dze then explained that , first of all , inside the café there had been no incident resembling an argument or an altercation , but he did not exclude the possibility of some “ latent conflict ” between his friend and the other people in the café . Secondly , outside the café , that is to say , once they had stepped out into the street , there had been no incident or trouble of any kind . He could not , however , exclude the possibility that his friend had exchanged angry words with someone as they left the café , without him noticing . The prosecutor then reminded him that he had stopped off at the toilets when PERSON started making his way out of the café and that he had followed him out but had not been right beside him . L.B.dze agreed that something might have happened to his friend on the way out without him noticing . The prosecutor then dictated the following entry for the record : “ I do not remember if there was any trouble when we left the café , because I seem to remember I went to the toilet . So I can not say whether any incident occurred at that juncture ” . The prosecutor explained that by “ incident ” he meant an exchange of words . L.B .- dze agreed .

Insisting heavily on the possibility that an incident might have occurred on the way out of the café , the prosecutor asked L.B .- dze if he could say with any certainty that the accused G.A .- ia had not been there when they left the café . L.B .- dze could not say whether he had or had not been there .

NORP The prosecutor then asked L.B .- dze about his statement on television that FAC .- ov could have been one of the men who had assaulted them at the cemetery . The prosecutor reminded him that he had not been able to identify FAC .- ov on DATE and asked him for an explanation . According to the video recording , L.B .- dze replied that although he had not been able to identify FAC .- ov , he could not rule out the possibility that he had been at the cemetery . When asked whether LAW ov really had been there or not , L.B .- dze repeated that he could not say he had not been there . To include these answers in the record , the prosecutor dictated to L.B .- dze : “ I can not say for sure that FAC .- ov was not one of the people who assaulted us at the cemetery ... I was unable to identify FAC .- ov , but I can not exclude the possibility that he or any other person took part in the crime . ”

On DATE , the second applicant informed the prosecutor that he consented to his wife , the first applicant , being given standing as heir to the civil party , given that , pursuant to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , both parents could not claim that standing simultaneously . The first applicant was given that status on DATE .

On DATE statements made by ORG were verified at the scene of the crime . This young man , who lives in PERSON , had helped PERSON friends to find his body in the woods . PERSON showed the place where , in the gorges of the river that runs past the cemetery , he had first spied the traces of a bloodied body that had fallen down in the snow . With PERSON friends they had followed the regular blood stains along the path . The young man confirmed that all along the way the traces of CARDINAL injured person had been visible .

On DATE a test run showed that the offenders would have needed TIME to drive from FAC to the cemetery in PERSON away and back . LAW ov would have needed TIME to get to the B. supermarket QUANTITY from the café .

According to a letter from the management of ORG , dated DATE , the surveillance camera only covered the area occupied by the bar and did not record pictures .

When questioned on DATE , the bouncers at the café said that they had been in the entrance , between the CARDINAL doors . The music had been loud and people had had to raise their voices to be heard . They reported that there had been no disturbance inside the café . They would not have been able to hear any argument outside because of the music . They could see out into the street through the large windows , but they would not necessarily have noticed any incident . In any event , their job was not to keep an eye on what went on in the street but to keep an eye on the inside of the café and the entrance .

On DATE the first applicant said that she had seen Th . PERSON ’s interview on television , where ORG . M .- dze said that L.Tch.shvili , a chauffer of ORG , had bought ORG CARDINAL packets of cigarettes at the start of the evening . Considering that TIME was not enough time for ORG to have smoked CARDINAL packets of cigarettes , the first applicant requested that the people present that TIME be asked about the real reasons why GPE .- ov had left the café at the same time as her son and L.B .- dze . She also requested that GPE .- ov be asked how it was that the security camera at the B. supermarket showed that he had not gone there that TIME .

She further requested leave to take part in the above investigative measures , in conformity with LAW ( i ) of the ORG .

On DATE the first applicant ’s requests were rejected by the public prosecutor , on the grounds that the points raised had already been elucidated and there was no need to repeat the investigative measures concerned .

NORP However , the applicant subsequently learned that , to clarify the points she had raised on DATE the prosecutor had questioned ORG .- dze and ORG . M .- dze on DATE and ORG , PERSON , ORG and ORG .- dze on DATE , without informing her or inviting her to attend the proceedings .

When questioned on DATE , ORG . M .- dze stated that on TIME DATE , at TIME , her friend ORG .- dze came to pick her up from her home to take her out for the evening . She had difficulty walking from her building to the car as the streets of GPE were covered with ice . Th . M .- dze saw that ORG .- dze was not alone in the car ; there was also the wife of the Minister of the ORG , whom she knew well , together with PERSON , Director of ORG of ORG , whom she had not met before . The car was driven by GPE .- dze ’s chauffeur . They headed for ORG . They found a table there and the Minister of the ORG ’s wife asked PERSON chauffeur to go and find her some K - brand cigarettes . The chauffeur , L.Tch .- shvili , left and returned TIME with CARDINAL packets of K cigarettes . L.Tch .- shvili then left the café and went to wait in the car for the rest of the evening .

At TIME Th . M .- dze received a phone call from PERSON . It appears they had had a tiff and he wanted to make up . She refused to see him , but PERSON insisted . ORG . M .- dze misled him into thinking she was at a café in another part of the town and said she did not want to see him . To take the phone call , she had gone out into the café lobby , where the music was not so loud .

TIME after that phone call , ORG and ORG had joined the Minister of the ORG ’s wife and her group of friends . CARDINAL to CARDINAL minutes later , G.D .- dze had also joined them .

At CARDINAL or TIME PERSON and PERSON .- dze entered FAC . PERSON went up to ORG . M .- dze , gave her a kiss and asked her how she was . He then went to talk to some other people he knew in the room . TIME , he signalled to ORG . M .- dze that he was about to leave . When ORG . M .- dze asked him where he was going PERSON told her he was drunk and had to go home . Instead of leaving , however , he sat down at a nearby table with L.B .- dze and ordered a coffee . He then signalled to ORG . M .- dze to come and join him . ORG . M .- dze discreetly changed tables TIME . The applicants’ son asked her who the men were with whom she had come to spend TIME . Th . M .- dze said they were friends of her friends and that she did not really know them . So PERSON asked her what she was doing spending her evening with strangers . She said it was of no importance whom she spent her evenings with and expressed surprise that he should have come all the way to ORG to ask her such a question . PERSON then asked her what she was doing with “ that poof ” , referring to G.D .- dze , the Minister of the ORG ’s spokesman . According to ORG . M .- dze , the tone of their conversation , which lasted TIME , was “ stilted ” and PERSON was gesticulating . At CARDINAL point ORG .- dze left the Minister of the ORG ’s wife and her friends and went over to ORG . M .- dze to ask her if everything was all right . ORG . M .- dze said it was . ORG .- dze then went to the toilet and , on the way back , asked ORG . M .- dze what she was doing . ORG . M.dze said she would return to their table shortly . At the end of the conversation , PERSON suggested that ORG . M .- dze leave the café with him . She said she would join him later and asked him to call her in TIME . Th . M .- dze then went back to her table . The Minister ’s wife asked her if “ everything was all right ” . Th . M .- dze said she was fine .

TIME later PERSON and PERSON got up to leave the café . On his way out , PERSON waved goodbye to ORG . M.dze , who waved back and said she would join him later .

Th . M .- dze stated that before she said the words “ I ’ll see you later ” she heard the Minister ’s wife ask PERSON .- ov to go and buy some cigarettes , as there were CARDINAL left in the last packet . GPE .- ov , who was sitting next to ORG . M .- dze , got up and blocked ORG . M .- dze ’s view ; she had to lean over to tell PERSON she would join him . O.M .- ov went towards the exit at about the same time as PERSON and PERSON . ORG . M .- dze could not see the door from where she was sitting , so she did not see who left first , FAC .- ov or PERSON and his friend . She could see the door to the toilets , however , and maintained that she did not see any of the CARDINAL men go to the toilet before leaving the café .

ORG . Th . M .- dze waited for PERSON to call her , as arranged , looking at her watch every so often . That was how she could be so sure that FAC .- ov , who had left the café at the same time as PERSON and PERSON , was gone for TIME . When PERSON failed to call her , ORG . M .- dze got annoyed and said she was leaving . ORG .- dze said they would all soon be leaving anyway . ORG . M .- dze got the impression that they were waiting for GPE .- ov to come back before leaving the café .

O.M .- ov came back TIME later with the cigarettes in his hand . He looked cold . Th . M .- dze asked him if it was cold outside . He said it was . He explained that he had been unable to find any K - brand cigarettes in the vicinity and had had to go further afield – “ to the B. supermarket ” – to find them .

At QUANTITY the evening came to an end and at TIME they all got up to leave . PERSON chauffeur drove ORG . M .- dze and PERSON home . ORG took the Minister of the Interior ’s wife home .

It was TIME when Th . M .- dze got home .

In answer to a question from the prosecutor , ORG . M .- dze said she had not had a tense conversation with PERSON or his friend L.B.dze . Apart from calling CARDINAL of them a “ poof ” , PERSON had not insulted the people she was with . In answer to another question , ORG . ORG said there was an PERCENT chance that the other people in the party had not overheard the insult in question , as PERSON was speaking in a normal tone and the music was loud . She also said that when she had gone back to her friends she had not told them what PERSON had called ORG .- dze . She further stated that there had been no contact between the applicants’ son and L.B .- dze and the group of friends at the other table .

In a television interview ORG . M .- dze stated that GPE .- ov had followed PERSON and PERSON .- dze out of the café .

Subsequent examination of the video recorded by the surveillance system at the B. supermarket did not reveal that FAC .- ov had gone there on TIME in question .

When questioned for the second time , on DATE , PERSON stated that she and her friends went to pick up ORG . M .- dze from her home TIME She said she did not notice exactly when ORG . M .- dze went over to join PERSON at his table . However , the PERSON conversation between PERSON and ORG . M .- dze had been calm and PERSON had not spoken at any time to any of the people in the group she was with . ORG .- dze maintained that she did not hear Mr PERSON insult anyone . When PERSON . M .- dze came back to her table , ORG .- dze asked her who the young man was that she had been talking to . ORG . M .- dze told her he was a friend and he wanted her to leave with him . ORG .- dze had told her that she might as well go , as that was what he wanted . ORG . M .- dze had been in good spirits . ORG .- dze confirmed that FAC .- ov had left the café at CARDINAL point to buy cigarettes for the Minister of the Interior ’s wife . She thought he was gone TIME . She confirmed that at the beginning of the evening the Minister ’s wife had had a packet or CARDINAL of cigarettes with her . ORG .- dze did not smoke . She categorically denied going over to ORG . M.dze when she was talking to PERSON , to see if she was all right .

According to the record of that interview , the interview was filmed , but contrary to what it says in the file , the video recording was not included in the criminal case file submitted to the ORG .

When questioned on DATE and DATE , D.A.aia reiterated that he had arrived at the café with GPE .- ov at TIME , in his official car . He confirmed that the Minister of the ORG ’s wife had asked FAC .- ov to go and fetch some K - brand cigarettes . ORG had nodded to LAW ov to do as she asked and had given him the keys to the official car . ORG had learned later that outside the café O.M .- ov had asked ORG chauffeur to take the car and go looking for cigarettes . According to ORG , GPE .- ov was away for TIME and came back with a packet of cigarettes which he said he had bought “ near B. supermarket ” . According to ORG , GPE .- ov had appeared calm .

D.A .- aia said that he had not smoked on TIME in question . He confirmed that he had spoken to G.A .- ia several times on the telephone to see if he was coming to join the party . After first confirming that he was coming , at TIME G.A .- ia said he would not be joining them after all . Since arriving at the café , ORG had used LAW ov ’s mobile phone , with his own ORG card in it , as the battery in his own mobile phone was flat .

D.A .- aia maintained that no member of his group had had any altercation or incident with the people present in the café .

Lastly , ORG explained that he had immediately informed the Minister of the Interior of what CARDINAL of his department ’s regional directors had reported to him on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The Minister had instructed him in writing to continue investigating and discover the truth of the matter .

When questioned on DATE and DATE , V.S.dze confirmed what ORG . M .- dze had said about the period prior to their arrival at the café . He added , however , that before going he had made a phone call to ORG telling him to bring their mutual friend PERSON .- ia along . According to ORG , GPE .- ia was supposed to join them , but in the end he did not come .

V.S .- dze confirmed that at CARDINAL point ORG . M .- dze had gone over to another table and at another juncture the Minister of the ORG ’s wife had sent FAC .- ov to buy her some cigarettes . According to PERSON , ORG had returned TIME . PERSON did not smoke . He too said that there had been no incident or altercation between his friends and any other person in the café .

When questioned on DATE and DATE , ORG said that PERSON had come to pick her and ORG .- dze up at her home in his chauffeur - driven official car . They had then gone to pick up ORG . M.dze They were at the café by CARDINAL p.m. ORG and GPE .- ov arrived at TIME and G.D .- dze arrived at TIME The remainder of her account corroborated PERSON version of events .

ORG did add , however , that when ORG . M .- dze came back to their table after talking to PERSON , she asked her if “ everything was all right ” . Th . M .- dze , who was calm , said she was fine . ORG confirmed that TIME she had asked GPE .- ov to go and get her some ORG . GPE .- ov had returned TIME . She further stated that shortly after they reached the café , PERSON chauffeur had brought her CARDINAL packets of cigarettes which he had bought near the B. supermarket . ORG also said that there had been no altercation between her friends and any of the other people present in the café . Come TIME they had all wished PERSON a happy birthday

D.A .- aia had driven ORG home in his official car . PERSON and G.D .- dze were with them in the car .

When questioned on DATE , G.D .- dze explained that his friend the Minister ’s wife had called to say that she was dining at FAC and invited him to join her . G.D .- dze got to the café TIME In answer to a question from the prosecutor , G.D .- dze said that he did not usually smoke , but on TIME in question he had smoked the cigarettes that were on the table . Indeed , everyone in the party , except D.A.aia and PERSON , had smoked the same cigarettes . At CARDINAL point he had noticed that there were none left , but later someone had brought some more . He had not noticed who had gone to buy more cigarettes .

G.D .- dze did not know whether their colleague PERSON .- ia had also been expected in the café that evening . He had no knowledge of any incident or altercation between his friends and anyone else in the café that evening and he had not heard anyone insult him .

When questioned on DATE , PERSON chauffeur confirmed that he had bought CARDINAL packets of K - brand cigarettes for the Minister of the Interior ’s wife at the start of the evening . Later , when he was waiting in the car for the party to end , GPE .- ov had called him and taken him to a nearby car park where ORG official car was parked . L.Tch.shvili had closed his car and walked towards GPE .- ov . As he passed by ORG he saw G.A .- ia , who was walking fast . He greeted him , but received no reply . G.A .- ia was alone . In the car park GPE .- ov told L.Tch .- shvili that he had been drinking and did not want to take D.A.aia ’s official car to go and buy some cigarettes . He asked L.Tch .- shvili to drive . They drove off in search of the cigarettes and found some near the B. supermarket . They got back to the café TIME .

On DATE the statements made by PERSON , one of PERSON friends who had discovered the body , were verified at the scene of the crime . He explained that the police had arrived before them and there were many footprints in the snow at the cemetery . PERSON pointed out the place under a tree where he had seen what looked like the red imprint left by a bloodied face . The friends had gone through the cemetery and started to explore the river gorges . They asked a young village lad who was out bird - hunting ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to help them . The lad spotted what looked like a large blood stain in the snow some way off . They saw that it led to other stains , some of which indicated that PERSON had had to lie down in the snow to rest at regular intervals . At CARDINAL point they realised that the applicants’ son must have fallen off a ledge and tried to climb back up into the wood . At the edge of the wood he had turned into the bushes and fallen in the brambles .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the investigator in charge of the case that , in breach of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the law on detention , the CARDINAL accused were sharing the same cell in prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . She argued that this gave them an opportunity to coordinate their stories to prevent the truth from emerging . She requested that the detainees be separated forthwith , in conformity with LAW ORG .

That DATE the first applicant submitted the same request to ORG , the director of ORG , and also to ORG .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG that she had received no reply to her complaint of DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the investigator in charge of the case that ORG , the above - mentioned director of ORG , who was also the brother of ORG , was making sure the CARDINAL accused were as comfortable as possible in prison , inter alia , by allowing them access to alcohol and drugs . The detainees in the neighbouring cells would often hear them laughing and having a good time . The first applicant maintained that ORG was treating them like that to prevent them from incriminating his brother ORG . She requested that the authorities stop supplying the accused with drink and drugs and test them within TIME to detect the presence of alcohol and drugs in the bloodstream . She also requested authorisation to take part in this verification procedure as the civil party ’s heir .

No action was taken on this complaint .

On DATE the head of ORG welfare service informed the first applicant that the CARDINAL accused had indeed been placed in the same cell from DATE , because of renovation work in GPE ’s prison no . CARDINAL . Once the work was completed , they had been separated . The documents submitted to ORG for the hearing confirm that the accused were placed in the same cell . There is also documentary evidence that on DATE and DATE a company did some renovation work in prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the law on detention was amended and the words “ persons under investigation in the same criminal case shall be detained separately ” were deleted .

The first applicant considered that the comfort and leniency clearly shown to the CARDINAL accused by the authorities was designed to prevent them from incriminating the senior ORG officials and the Minister ’s wife who had been at FAC . She submitted that , in actual fact , G.A .- ia , PERSON .- uri and PERSON , CARDINAL of the accused , had gone to the café after being summoned there by telephone to punish her son for having insulted the Minister of the ORG ’s spokesman .

On DATE ORG asked ORG , directed by ORG , for a copy of the criminal case file in which the Mercedes ML featured as evidence .

The file shows that the vehicle was seized on DATE as having been acquired with the proceeds of crime . On DATE , when the investigation into the present case was under way , the owner of the car lodged a complaint with ORG and the Minister of the Interior , claiming that on DATE he had seen his car being driven in GPE with new number plates ( WAW – CARDINAL ) . He said he had followed the car and taken photos of it , and had asked the driver by what right he was driving a car known to have been seized . In response , the chauffeur had threatened him . Saying that he could identify the driver , the owner of the car demanded that an investigation be opened without delay . On DATE ORG referred the complaint to ORG for “ immediate verification ” . However , the complaint was not followed up . On DATE the investigator in charge of the case took the car keys from G.A .- ia to send the vehicle to LOC and discovered that the seals had been broken . He immediately informed his superior in LOC and asked him to take action .

On DATE , at the request of the investigator in charge of the case of PERSON and PERSON , ORG decided to dismiss the CARDINAL accused from their respective posts in ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant requested that the Minister ’s wife , G.D .- dze , ORG , PERSON , GPE .- ov , ORG .- dze and ORG . M .- dze be heard again in her presence , given that the recording made by the surveillance camera at B. supermarket that she had managed to obtain did not reveal that GPE .- ov had gone there on TIME in question . She pointed out that a similar request she had made on DATE had been rejected on the grounds that the points raised had already been elucidated . She asked to be informed of the investigative measures which had helped elucidate the points raised in her complaint , as well as the conclusions that had been reached .

On DATE her request was rejected because the people concerned had already been heard several times precisely to clarify the questions raised by the applicant in her complaint . To see the content of their statements she would have to wait for the case to be referred for trial , when she would have access to the criminal file .

On DATE the investigator invited the applicants and the first applicant ’s father to be questioned about the applicant ’s public statement that someone , acting through a third party , had offered her family a sum of money in exchange for their silence . On DATE the applicants and the first applicant ’s father explained that they had expressed their indignation at such a proposal and that the person who had delivered the message could be risking his life if ever the truth were to come out . The person concerned had told them that if they did not accept the money and remain silent , their lives could be in danger .

The file shows that on DATE the prosecuting authorities offered the CARDINAL accused , in the presence of their lawyer , a plea - bargaining arrangement . In particular , they were offered a suspended sentence in return for identifying any senior ORG official or other person who had had a hand in the crime .

According to the relevant video recordings , the CARDINAL accused rejected that proposal . PERSON .- uri replied : “ Everyone who was there is now in prison . ” PERSON said : “ I am naming no names , like I said the first time I was questioned , I know nothing and nobody was involved . ” M.B.dze declared that nobody else , including the Minister of the Interior ’s wife ’s friends , was involved in the crime . After reading the offer in full , he repeated that , “ dear to him as his freedom was ” , he could not accept . G.A.ia said : “ I can not name any senior officials who were involved in the case . ” The public prosecutor asked for an explanation . G.A .- ia said that he could not accept the offer . The public prosecutor asked him again : “ You mean nobody else was involved DATE is that it ? ” G.A .- ia said yes . With the help of the public prosecutor and his lawyer , he stated in the record : “ No member of ORG or any other person was involved in this crime ; so I can not name anybody and must therefore reject the offer . ”

On DATE , CARDINAL of the mobile telephone operators gave the public prosecutor a CD with the list of numbers G.A .- ia had been in contact with on TIME in question , showing the location of the antennas covering the various calls . The list showed that G.A .- ia had been near the “ Chardin ” antenna at TIME and that later , at CARDINAL and TIME , he had had CARDINAL telephone conversations via the “ PERSON antenna . At TIME he was already back in the centre of GPE near the main square and FAC . For the other calls , the number G.A .- ia had spoken to was indicated , but not for the CARDINAL above - mentioned calls . However , cross - checking this information with other information found in another volume of the case file shows that at CARDINAL and TIME D.A .- aia called GPE .- ia in GPE .

On DATE the CARDINAL accused refused to have their statements verified at the scene of the crime .

On DATE the preliminary investigation was closed . The first applicant and L.B .- dze were given CARDINAL volumes of the criminal case file for consultation . On DATE the whole case concerning both PERSON and PERSON was sent before ORG for trial .

On DATE .- ia , ORG .- uri , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze were charged with wilful bodily harm resulting in death , and premeditated false imprisonment by a group of persons with life - threatening violence and destruction of another person ’s property ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . G.A .- ia was also charged with abuse of authority under LAW . Appended to the indictment was a list of the items of evidence collected by the prosecuting authorities during the investigation .

On DATE the ORG commenced its examination of the case . As the first applicant had not had access to the materials in the case file during the investigation , in conformity with LAW ORG , and had not been informed of the referral of the case for trial until DATE , she said she needed DATE to study the CARDINAL volumes of the criminal case file and prepare her position . She pointed out in this connection that , unlike the civil party , the accused had had unrestricted access to the file throughout the preliminary investigation , in keeping with Article QUANTITY of the ORG .

On DATE her request was refused on the grounds that the first applicant and her lawyer had had access to the file during the investigation and after the case had been referred for trial , and they would have access to it throughout the trial .

At the hearing on DATE L.B .- dze reiterated in full the various statements he had made during the investigation . He explained that he and PERSON had left the café together . PERSON .- ia had also been armed and both he and GPE .- ava had beaten him . He had been forced at gunpoint to take his clothes off . His assailants had taken his clothes away , leaving him in his underpants and socks . He had not been fully able to identify GPE .- ov , but could only be PERCENT sure that the man in the photograph was one of the assailants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the hearing on DATE . M .- dze fully confirmed the various statements she had made during the investigation . In her opinion PERSON had guessed she was at FAC because he had heard the sound of the bongo drums during their telephone conversation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . When she talked to PERSON at his table , she had her back to her friends and could not tell whether ORG .- dze had heard PERSON insult him . PERSON . M .- dze had not smoked any K - brand cigarettes . According to her , only the Minister ’s wife had smoked those cigarettes . At the table nobody had asked whether G.A .- ia was supposed to join them .

On DATE D.A .- aia fully confirmed the statements he had made during the investigation . Notably , he reiterated that the mobile phone he had used in the café was GPE .- ov ’s , with his own ORG card in it , as the battery in his own mobile phone was flat . He added that the telephone number ( CARDINAL QUANTITY ) that featured most frequently in the lists of calls made and received by each of ORG officials present in the café that night was the number of a colleague of his called M - eli .

NORP However , the criminal case materials contained a letter dated DATE issued by the relevant mobile company , according to which the telephone number CARDINAL DATE belonged to a certain K.N .- dze from the limited liability company “ NORP ” . Furthermore , the records of the telephone calls made and received by some of the persons involved , which had been obtained by the investigation at various stages and included in the case file , disclosed that the number in question had been contacted during TIME in question by :

- G.A .- ia at TIME , TIME , TIME , TIME , TIME and CARDINAL a.m. ;

- D.A .- aia at TIME ;

- G.D .- dze at TIME , TIME , TIME ;

- O.M .- ov at TIME

In addition , those records also showed that G.D .- dze and PERSON had contacted another telephone number – CARDINAL DATE several times CARDINAL and TIME , and that ORG had called ORG .- ze at TIME

Giving evidence on DATE , the Minister ’s wife PERSON fully confirmed the various statements she had made during the investigation . She added that she had not been told that GPE .- ia had also been invited to the party . ORG had often been on the telephone , but she had not heard what he was talking about because of the noise .

On DATE also fully confirmed the statements he had made during the investigation . He stated that he had learnt from GPE that GPE .- ia had been supposed to join their party in the café .

Also on DATE , G.D .- dze fully confirmed the statements he had made during the investigation , adding that he had not been told that G.A .- ia had also been invited to the party ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also said that it was not impossible that ORG or someone else had used his telephone , which he had left on the table . At CARDINAL point someone had called his number asking to speak to ORG . He himself had not made any calls to the accused . G.D .- dze also added that nobody had insulted him in the café .

In their testimonies on DATE , GPE .- ov and ORG .- dze fully confirmed the statements they had made during the investigation . ORG said that he had been unaware that their group in the café had been waiting for G.A .- ia . ORG .- dze said that she could not really remember , but did not exclude the possibility that she had gone over to PERSON table to say something to ORG . M .- dze .

At the hearing on DATE , L.Tch .- shvili confirmed the statements he had made during the investigation . He added that ORG had called him from a number he did not recognise .

Also on DATE , G.A .- ia confirmed the statements he had made during the investigation , adding that as Deputy Director of ORG he had no need to receive instructions from anybody to arrest an individual who was breaking the law under his nose . He acknowledged , however , that as time passed the discussion had gone beyond the limits of a routine job . PERSON had insulted G.D .- dze ’s mother and the “ mothers of the ORG ” who were inside the café . G.A .- ia said that he had not been carrying a gun that TIME . On the way to PERSON he had called G.D .- dze ’s number to speak to ORG , whom he had been unable to contact by any other means .

On DATE A.A .- uri , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze refused to testify and remained silent .

Still on DATE , the first applicant requested that the court , in conformity with Articles CARDINAL ( j ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the ORG , examine the following items of evidence publicly and with the participation of the parties ( “ the CARDINAL exhibits ” ) :

i. the video of the verification of L.B .- dze ’s statements , recorded at the scene of the crime on DATE ;

ii . the video of the verification of PERSON ’s statements , recorded at the scene of the crime on DATE ;

iii . the video of the verification of ORG statements , recorded at the scene of the crime on DATE ;

iv - vii . the videos of DATE showing L.B .- dze identifying G.A.ia , ORG .- uri , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze ;

viii . the video of DATE showing L.B .- dze identifying ORG ;

ix . the video of DATE showing L.B .- dze ’s second interview ;

x. the video of DATE showing L.B .- dze ’s additional hearing ;

ORG . the CARDINAL video cassettes of DATE showing ORG . M .- dze ’s additional questioning ;

xii . the compact disc containing the images recorded by the surveillance camera at the home of ORG , a wealthy businessman , on the road from GPE to the PERSON cemetery ( the GPE - GPE road ) ;

xiii . CARDINAL compact discs of CARDINAL DATE , with recordings of Th . PERSON ’s additional questioning ;

xiv . a sketch tracing the presumed movements of PERSON at the scene of the crime .

On DATE the court allowed this request only in respect of the exhibits numbered iii and xii above , but only ordered the publication of a written summary of the CARDINAL video recordings concerned . The court pointed out that the people whose statements were recorded on the other CDs concerned had already been heard by the court . Furthermore , the records of these investigative measures , which had been filmed , were in the case file and the applicant had never challenged them .

On DATE the first applicant requested that the evidence in the case file be made public and examined at the hearing , in keeping with LAW ORG .

The court rejected that request on DATE , holding that the evidence had already been examined in public and it was not necessary to examine it again .

On DATE .- dze ’s lawyer requested that the CARDINAL mobile phone operators be asked to supply records of all the telephone calls made and received by the CARDINAL accused but also by the CARDINAL people who had sat at the same table in the café as the Minister of the ORG ’s wife . The first applicant joined in this request , arguing that the case file did not contain necessary information concerning telephone calls that might have been made between the CARDINAL accused and their friends in the café , or between the accused , their friends in the café and GPE .- dze ’s chauffeur waiting in the car . She maintained that without that information it was impossible to know whether FAC had really had an altercation with her son which had nothing to do with ORG officials sitting in the café , or whether , as she suspected , after being insulted by her son the officials had called PERSON .- ia to come and punish ORG .

That request was rejected on DATE .

At the hearing on DATE L.B .- dze asked to be heard again . He then said that now he had seen FAC .- ov again and listened to him and observed him when the court had heard him as a witness , he could now say with certainty that he was indeed the man who had joined the other assailants at the cemetery and participated , with particular cruelty , in the attack on him and PERSON . L.B .- dze further stated that he had also been observing PERSON .- dze since the start of the trial and was now convinced that he had not been present in GPE . What he had said about the behaviour of the fourth man , who had arrived at the cemetery after the others , therefore concerned FAC .- ov and not ORG .- dze . L.B .- dze further explained that at the time of the investigation he had believed that the public prosecutor and he were on the same side . Later , however , he had realised that the prosecutor was strongly backing the hypothesis of an altercation between PERSON and GPE .- ia in the entrance to the café . During the different identification parades on DATE the prosecutor had advised him not to request the assistance of a lawyer , as the suspects had just been arrested and no time should be lost . The prosecutor had also advised L.B .- dze that it would be “ better ” if he could not identify FAC .- ov .

On DATE was placed under investigation for intentionally perverting the course of justice with manifestly contradictory statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the president of the court decided to allow the parties an hour to prepare their closing statements . The first applicant protested that she needed DATE , because she had not had time to familiarise herself properly with the case file , either between the time when the case was referred for trial and the start of the trial or during the actual trial , which had only lasted DATE . If she was to be able to defend her rights , she needed DATE .

Her request was rejected .

On DATE .- dze ’s lawyer , having regard to the available records of a selection of the telephone calls made and received by G.A.ia , ORG , ORG .- dze and FAC .- ov on TIME in question , asked the judge to order the CARDINAL mobile phone operators in GPE to communicate the names of the subscribers with the telephone numbers CARDINAL CARDINAL CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant additionally requested that the records of the phone calls of GPE and GPE .- dze , as well as all those present at the Minister ’s wife ’s table , also be provided . The public prosecutor objected that that information had nothing to do with the charges .

The judge rejected these requests DATE . The lawyers then challenged the judge , arguing that if he did not consider it necessary to obtain information so important for the case , he was clearly partial and incapable of pronouncing a fair judgment . The judge rejected the challenge outright .

On DATE the Tbilisi ORG , in view of the abrogation on DATE of LAW , reclassified the offences as crimes under the new LAW of that code . It thus found G.A.ia guilty of premeditated false imprisonment by a group of persons with lifethreatening violence ( LAW ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) of LAW ) , wilful bodily harm resulting in death ( LAW ) , abuse of authority ( LAW ) and destruction of another person ’s property ( LAW ) . LAW , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze were found guilty of the crimes provided for in the above - mentioned ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL .

G.A .- ia was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( DATE under LAW ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) , DATE under LAW , DATE under LAW and DATE under LAW ) . The other CARDINAL accused were sentenced to DATE imprisonment DATE under LAW ( a ) , ( c ) and ( h ) , DATE under LAW § DATE under LAW ) .

NORP The prosecution appealed against that decision , asking for the sentences to be increased to DATE respectively . The first applicant joined in the appeal , in conformity with LAW ORG . She did not consider it worthwhile lodging a separate appeal as the appeal court would have examined the case only within the framework of the charges specified in the first - instance judgment ( LAW and would not have been able to reclassify them as aggravated murder ( LAW ) as she would have wished , or to refer the case for additional investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and MONEY of the ORG ) .

On DATE the offenders were placed in GPE prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE and DATE and DATE the first applicant appealed to the president of the court that examined the case at first instance and on DATE , to the president of the criminal section of that court , requesting access to the CARDINAL exhibits in the case file before it was sent to ORG ( Articles CARDINAL ( j ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ) . The president of the court did not reply . The first applicant reiterated her request on DATE . On DATE she was told that the case file containing the exhibits had already been sent to ORG .

On DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant asked ORG to give her access to the CARDINAL exhibits in question . She pointed out that on DATE the court of first instance had rejected the same request and that she had applied in vain to the president of the court on DATE and DATE . She argued that without access to the evidence concerned she would be unable to properly defend her rights in the appeal proceedings .

No reply was received to any of these requests , except that of DATE , which was rejected on DATE . The applicant later challenged that decision , together with the appeal court ’s judgment , on points of law .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG :

- to order the CARDINAL mobile phone operators to produce the records of the telephone calls made and received TIME on DATE on the telephone numbers of the CARDINAL accused , the CARDINAL people who were at the same table in the café as Th . M .- dze , and also L.Tch .- shvili , stating the location of the corresponding antennas ;

- to give her access to the recording made by the surveillance camera at the home of a wealthy businessman on the road to PERSON TIME on DATE . The applicant explained that only a recording covering the period QUANTITY had been included in the case file by the investigating authorities and that did not show the traffic using that road TIME and after TIME ;

- to question G.D .- dze , ORG . M .- dze , ORG and ORG .- dze in order to double - check the telephone numbers these people had used on the night in question .

On DATE the applicant ’s request was rejected .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to summon the CARDINAL Ministry of the ORG investigators who had been in charge of the investigation DATE , to question them about the records they had seized from the mobile phone companies but not included in the case file . She also asked ORG to obtain those records and any other evidence the investigators might have gathered and not included in the case file .

Her request was rejected .

On DATE the CARDINAL accused refused to attend the hearing and informed ORG that they would be represented by counsel .

On DATE , DATE , ORG upheld the first - instance judgment in full . Concerning L.B .- dze ’s identification of FAC .- ov , it found the allegation ill - founded , pointing out that , in any event , ORG .- dze had confessed to being the fourth assailant , who had arrived last at the cemetery . Lastly , ORG explained that the court of first instance would not have been able to examine the question of GPE .- ov ’s involvement anyway , as FAC .- ov was not concerned by the criminal case as referred for trial ( LAW .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant applied to ORG to give her access to the CARDINAL exhibits , to enable her to defend her rights at least in cassation . She received no reply .

On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG , requesting the investigators who had been in charge of her son ’s case to be placed under investigation for abuse of authority and destruction of evidence . In particular she maintained :

- that the ORG deeds had been deliberately misclassified as wilful bodily harm resulting in death , when her son had in fact been the victim of a crime under LAW , namely aggravated murder ( committed by a group , with particular cruelty , out of self - interest , to order ) ;

- that the investigating authorities had failed to consider the possibility suggested by various aspects of the case that ORG , PERSON , G.D .- dze , GPE .- ov , ORG , ORG . M .- dze and ORG .- dze or any one of them had been involved in the crime ;

- that the investigating authorities of ORG in charge of the investigation DATE had destroyed evidence . In particular , the applicant alleged that she had obtained , by chance , a copy of the decisions of DATE and DATE in which ORG found lawful such investigative measures as requiring the mobile phone companies to submit the records of all the phone calls made and received between DATE and DATE on the telephones of GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze . However , the records of those calls , the records of their seizure , the ORG request for ORG to allow the seizure and the CARDINAL decisions mentioned above had not been included in the case file , so the court had not been able to examine them . As they were missing from the case file , the applicant presumed that the evidence must have been destroyed or concealed . In its stead , on DATE the investigating authorities of ORG had placed in the case file , for the same telephone numbers , a selection of the records of the calls concerned , namely , those made CARDINAL and QUANTITY a.m. on DATE . That incomplete information , however , did not serve the purpose of an effective investigation .

NORP The Chief Public Prosecutor having failed to reply , the applicant reiterated her request on DATE , demanding a prompt reply .

The Chief Public Prosecutor again failed to reply .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the appeal judgment of DATE and all the procedural decisions pronounced in the appeal proceedings , including the decision of DATE denying her access to the different items of evidence . In particular , she asked for the judgment of ORG to be quashed , the procedural decisions set aside and the case referred to ORG for fresh examination . The applicant stressed that her aim was to have a full and exhaustive investigation carried out . If this had been done earlier , the complicity between the CARDINAL accused and the Minister ’s wife ’s friends in the café would have been demonstrated .

On DATE the first applicant asked ORG of GPE , when examining her appeal , to grant her access to the CARDINAL exhibits . She reiterated that without examining that evidence she would not be able to defend her interests as a civil party ( Articles QUANTITY and CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( k ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the ORG ) . Her request went unanswered .

L.B .- dze and the CARDINAL convicted persons also lodged cassation appeals .

On DATE , ORG of GPE , acting as final court of appeal , found that the guilt of the CARDINAL officials concerning the destruction of another person ’s property ( LAW ) had not been validly demonstrated and acquitted them of that charge , reducing each of their prison sentences by DATE , but upheld the remainder of the earlier judgment .

Concerning the complaint about the repeated refusal of access to evidence , ORG noted that the matter had been examined at first instance and that there had subsequently been no particularly important grounds to justify its further examination in application of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG . In addition , no appeal had been lodged against the decisions of the court of first instance . Lastly , the purpose of the first applicant ’s demands had mainly been to prosecute persons external to the criminal case in point as brought against the CARDINAL accused persons . However , a court was not a criminal prosecution body under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG and the scope of its deliberations was confined to the charges in the indictment ( LAW ) .

ORG decision was served on the parties and the civil parties on DATE .

After accusing GPE .- ov at the hearing on DATE , L.B .- dze was charged with perverting the course of justice by making manifestly contradictory statements ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

On DATE he was questioned in this connection in the presence of his lawyer . He explained that at the different identification parades on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) he had not been assisted by any lawyer who could have advised him . The investigator , on the other hand , had impressed on him that it would be “ extremely serious if he identified the wrong person and that he should think carefully ” . L.B .- dze had been able to identify G.A .- ia without any doubt . The investigator had then told him that for the other suspects it would be sufficient for him to say whether there was a physical resemblance . L.B .- dze remembered that when he had been invited into an MP ’s office he had said that the man in the photograph looked like the fourth man , who had arrived later at the cemetery , but as he was not certain , he preferred not to incriminate him . He had not really been able to dispel his doubts until he had seen GPE .- ov give evidence in court . Only then had he been convinced , by the way LAW ov moved and spoke , that he was indeed the fourth assailant . To make absolutely sure , however , he had borrowed a video recording of GPE .- ov ’s hearing from the first applicant which had apparently been made in secret . After watching the recording several times , L.B .- dze had been able to identify FAC .- ov with certainty . He repeated that he could not exclude the possibility that there had been CARDINAL assailants at the cemetery , but he had only seen CARDINAL . L.B .- dze pointed out that he had said several times in court that he did not know who PERSON .- dze was . He also specified that on DATE he had not identified that person as the fourth assailant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fourth assailant had kicked him in the face , held a gun against his head and eye and threatened to kill him , and pistol - whipped him . He had then gone over to hit PERSON before coming back to him again . According to PERSON , when it was all over and he found himself alone with his assailants , FAC .- ov had suggested to his friends that they take a photograph of their bruised and naked victim with a mobile phone .

At the end of the record of that interview it is mentioned that the lawyer had wanted to ask L.B .- dze some additional questions , but the investigator would not authorise it .

On DATE , as an accused person , requested that criminal proceedings be brought against FAC .- ov , with himself as a civil party , and that a thorough medical check - up be carried out to determine how serious the after - effects of the ill - treatment he had suffered on DATE were .

On DATE his request was rejected , on the grounds that the criminal case being investigated was against L.B .- dze , for perverting the course of justice , not against FAC .- ov . The right of application to the prosecuting authorities was explained to him .

On DATE O.M .- ov was questioned as a witness in the case . He said that at TIME on DATE ORG had called him in his office and asked him to go down to the courtyard of the Ministry so they could take the official car together . They were already in town when ORG told him that he was going to ORG to wish GPE .- dze a happy birthday . As ORG mobile phone battery was flat GPE .- ov lent him his and ORG put his ORG card in it . In the café GPE .- ov found the Minister ’s wife , the young women mentioned earlier and FAC . O.M.ov ordered an alcoholic beverage . TIME after they arrived in the café , the Minister ’s wife asked him to go and find her some K - brand cigarettes , a brand they did not stock in the café . ORG gave him his car keys . He had been drinking , however , and did not want to drive , so , using ORG .- dze ’s mobile phone he called PERSON chauffeur to drive him . Before leaving the café , he went to the toilet . Outside , he met PERSON chauffeur , who took him away in ORG car in search of cigarettes . They bought the cigarettes from a night vendor near the B. supermarket . He then went back to the café . He must have been away for TIME . According to GPE .- ov , the statement made by L.B .- dze on DATE was untrue and merely the result of pressure brought to bear by the first applicant and anti - Government activists .

On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG requesting that , in the light of PERSON statement of CARDINAL DATE , and in conformity with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , GPE .- ov be arrested immediately as a prime suspect and placed under investigation , and that she be given status in the case as the civil party ’s heir . She requested that the case be taken away from ORG , which had failed to conduct an effective investigation , and that ORG take charge of the investigation of GPE .- ov ’s case .

On DATE her request was referred to ORG , which informed the first applicant on DATE that , in the framework of the criminal proceedings against L.B .- dze , the statement he had made on DATE would be verified and an “ objective and lawful ” decision taken .

On DATE the first applicant requested that the criminal proceedings against L.B .- dze be taken out of the hands of ORG for the reasons mentioned above and that ORG take charge of the case . That request was rejected as unfounded by a prosecutor from ORG on DATE .

Neither the first applicant nor her lawyer found out what the outcome of the criminal proceedings against L.B .- dze had been . On receiving the observations of the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , the applicant party learned that the case had been discontinued .

On DATE the President of GPE , along with pardoning CARDINAL other prisoners , decided to grant G.A .- ia , A.A.uri , A.Gh.ava and ORG .- dze a measure of clemency and reduce the remainder of their respective sentences by CARDINAL .

As that measure made them eligible for release on licence , the CARDINAL men applied to the competent body in ORG on DATE to be released . According to the certificates appended to their requests by the prison authorities , the men ’s behaviour had been good ( calm , courteous and on good terms with the prison authorities ) and none had received any reprimand while in detention . Based on a unanimous favourable decision of the board on CARDINAL DATE , which described the crime committed by G.A .- ia , A.A .- uri , GPE .- ava and GPE .- dze as “ physical aggression towards other persons which resulted from a verbal altercation ” ( “ urTierTSelaparakebis niadagze fizikuri Seuracxyofa miayenes moqalaqeebs ” ) , ORG decided , on DATE , to release the CARDINAL convicts on licence . It noted in particular that the men had served CARDINAL of their sentences as reduced on DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ) , and took their good behaviour into account . In the court ’s opinion their continued detention was no longer necessary to reform them .

On DATE the second applicant applied to the GPE City Court requesting that the CARDINAL men be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP laris ( ( “ GEL ) , CARDINAL ( “ EUR ” ) ) for the non - pecuniary damage he had suffered . He said that the pain caused by the murder of his only son and the ill - treatment inflicted on him before he died was a source of immeasurable suffering that would remain with him all his life .

To have his claim examined the second applicant had to pay a ORG tax of GEL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the CARDINAL individuals were ordered , in first instance , jointly to pay the applicant GEL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It was also decided to refund GEL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) of the ORG tax he had had to pay .

As submitted by the applicants on DATE and confirmed by the Government on DATE , ORG judgment of DATE had by that time become final and enforceable .

LAW of DATE amended ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

LAW ( as in force prior to the amendment of DATE )

“ Where several crimes are committed , sentences shall be pronounced for each crime .

If the crimes committed include lesser offences as well as serious or particularly serious crimes , the harshest sentence shall absorb the lighter one , or the sentences for each crime shall be added together , in part or in full , in order to determine the final sentence . However , the final prison sentence shall not exceed DATE . ”

LAW ( as amended on DATE )

“ Where several crimes are committed , sentences shall be pronounced for each crime , then added together to determine the final sentence . ”

In conformity with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , the crimes provided for in GPE CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL are serious crimes , whereas those provided for in Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL are lesser criminal offences .

Article DATE “ Murder ”

“ Murder shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL ( as in force prior to the amendment of DATE ) – “ Aggravated murder ”

“ Murder ( ... ) ;

( f ) with particular cruelty ; ( ... )

( h ) by a group ;

( i ) out of self - interest or to order ; ( ... )

shall be punishable by DATE or life imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL ( as amended on DATE and applied in the instant case ) – “ Wilful grievous bodily harm ”

“ CARDINAL . Wilful grievous bodily harm ( ... ) which is life - threatening ( ... ) shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment .

When it results in death , wilful grievous bodily harm shall be punishable by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ( ... )

Wilful grievous bodily harm committed ( ... ) ;

( e ) by a group ;

shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment .

The offence provided for in the preceding paragraph , when it results in death , shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment .

Wilful grievous bodily harm committed :

( a ) on CARDINAL or more people ;

( b ) with particular cruelty ;

( c ) out of self - interest or to order ; ( ... )

The offence provided for in the preceding paragraph , when it results in death , shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL ( abrogated on DATE ) – “ Bodily harm resulting in death ”

“ Wilful grievous or less serious bodily harm resulting in death shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment . ”

LAW and CARDINAL ( as in force prior to DATE ) – “ False arrest ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG arrest

( a ) by a group , with premeditation ; ( ... )

( c ) of CARDINAL or more people ; ( ... )

( h ) with life- or health - threatening violence ( ... ) ;

The offence provided for in the preceding paragraph ,

( a ) when committed by an organised group ;

( b ) when it results in the death of the victim ( ... ) ;

shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment . ”

LAW ( as in force prior to the amendment of DATE ) DATE “ Destruction of another person ’s property ”

“ Destruction of or damage to another person ’s property , resulting in substantial loss , shall be punishable by CARDINAL ORG community service or DATE correctional labour or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( as in force prior to the amendment of DATE ) – “ Abuse of authority ”

“ Abuse of authority by a public official ( ... ) which substantially adversely affects the rights of a natural person or other legal entity or the legal interests of society or of the ORG shall be punishable by a fine ( ... ) or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , and CARDINAL DATE disqualification from holding public office ( ... ) ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( as amended on DATE ) – “ Substantially contradictory statements by a witness or a civil party ”

“ CARDINAL . Wilful perversion of justice by a witness or a civil party by substantially contradictory statements shall be punishable by a fine or by DATE imprisonment .

The same offence committed out of self - interest or for another private motive shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment ( ... ) ”

Pursuant to LAW ORG , whilst criminal investigations are normally carried out by ORG , an investigation into an offence implicating , inter alia , a policeman , an investigator or a senior military or special law - enforcement officer should be entrusted to ORG .

Pursuant to LAW ORG , if a crime resulted in the death of the victim , civil party status should be granted to CARDINAL of his close relatives . If several relatives share the same bloodline with the deceased victim , the relatives should agree amongst themselves who should act as the civil party .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , which enumerated the rights and responsibilities of a victim or a witness participating in an identification parade , was silent about whether the victim or witness was to be assisted by a lawyer during that investigative action .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and MONEY of the ORG , the trial court is empowered to examine the case only within the scope of the charges as brought by the public prosecutor in the indictment , and to deliver either an acquittal or a conviction on the basis of the indictment and the available case materials . The trial court may not remit the case for additional investigation , unless the prosecutor personally decided to seek an aggravation of the criminal liability during the trial .

The other relevant provisions of the ORG read as follows :

LAW

“ The civil party and their counsel shall have the right to join the proceedings brought by the public prosecutor . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The civil party ( ... ) shall have the right : ( ... ) ;

( i ) to take part in the investigative measures carried out at their request ;

( j ) to acquaint themselves with a copy of the full criminal case file and all the evidence once the case has been referred for trial ; ( ... )

( m ) to take part in the judicial examination of the case , by submitting evidence and by examining the evidence produced by the other parties ( ... ) ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Upon receipt of information concerning the commission of a crime , the investigator and the public prosecutor , within the limits of their powers , shall open an investigation . ( ... ) ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ The preliminary investigation shall be opened on the basis of the information concerning the commission of the crime brought to the attention of the investigator or the public prosecutor by a natural person or other legal entity , ( ... ) , reported in the media , or brought to light during the investigation of a case by the authority in charge of the investigation ( ... ) ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ The court shall guarantee the requisite conditions for the presentation and examination of evidence by the parties , while observing its duty to be impartial ( ... ) ”

LAW and CARDINAL

“ During the examination of the case , the court of first instance shall ensure the examination of the evidence by ( ... ) studying it and , where necessary , by reading out the records of investigative measures or other documents .

The material in the file of the preliminary investigation may be made public during the judicial examination of the case only in those cases provided for in the present code . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The court shall examine the case within the framework of the charges brought against the accused , except when the prosecution changes the charges in favour of the accused . ”

LAW

“ At the request of the parties or at the initiative of the court , the clerk of the court shall read out the material collected in the file of the preliminary investigation and the records of the investigative measures . At the same time the question of the reliability , relevance and admissibility of these items of evidence shall be examined .

The documents presented by the parties shall be read out and placed on file . ”

LAW

“ The items of material evidence placed in the file during the preliminary investigation as well as any such evidence submitted to the court by the parties ( ... ) shall be examined by the court in the courtroom with the participation of the parties . ( ... ) ”

As disclosed by the ORG ’s submissions , supported by a summary of the relevant official statistical data issued by the relevant department of ORG of GPE , in DATE three persons were convicted of wilful grievous bodily harm resulting in death ( LAW ) , all of them being sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment without remission .

NORP In DATE , CARDINAL persons were convicted of false arrest by a group , with premeditation and life- or health - threatening violence ( LAW ) , CARDINAL of whom were given suspended prison sentences . The duration of those sentences varied from DATE CARDINAL persons were sentenced to DATE in prison , QUANTITY persons to DATE and QUANTITY persons to DATE . In DATE , the prison sentences imposed for the same crimes varied DATE .

Still in DATE , QUANTITY persons were convicted of abuse of authority ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . CARDINAL of them were sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment without remission and CARDINAL were given suspended prison sentences . Only on CARDINAL occasions was the penalty of disqualification from holding public office also pronounced .

The Government also submitted numerous ( CARDINAL ) judgments delivered by various courts of first instance in DATE under , inter alia , the above - mentioned CARDINAL provisions of LAW . However , the voluminous information contained in those judgments was not presented in an analytical and pertinent summary , nor was it clear whether those judgments were ever upheld by the upper courts and thus became binding in their initial wording .

NORP In reply to the Government ’s submissions , the applicants likewise submitted numerous decisions delivered by ORG in DATE upholding the lower courts’ convictions under various provisions of LAW , including Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL . The major part of that voluminous information was not presented in an analytical and pertinent summary and was thus barely comprehensible .

NORP However , amongst those decisions , as the applicants emphasised themselves , there were those concerning the case of GPE .- dze , which attracted publicity in GPE . Notably , as disclosed by the relevant case materials , in the course of a verbal altercation with a stranger in the street , the DATE boy stabbed the stranger in the right shoulder with a folding pocket knife . A subsequent forensic medical report confirmed the injury inflicted was of a superficial nature and did not cause any serious damage . The act was classified as attempted murder , and the boy was sentenced by ORG decision of DATE to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment without remission . ORG of GPE left that conviction intact by its final decision of CARDINAL DATE .