CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 avril 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .sC7640BE9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s5237572 { width:214.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 7268/05 by Zurab KHUTSURAULI against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12   April 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   A.B. Baka, President,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   R. Türmen,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky,   Mrs   A. Mularoni,   Ms   D. Jočienė, judges, and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29   December 2004, Having regard to the decision to apply Article   29   §   3 of the Convention, Having regard to the information submitted by the Government on 24   November 2006 and by the applicant’s representatives on 6   March 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr   Zurab Khutsurauli, was a Georgian national who was born in 1982 and died in 2006. He was represented before the Court by Ms   M.   Gioshvili and Ms   T.   Gabisonia, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   M.   Kekenadze of the Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted on 23 April 2004 by the Criminal Affaires Panel of the Supreme Court, consisting of one professional judge and two lay judges, for the rape and attempted murder of a four year old girl. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison under a strict regime. On 8 July 2004 the cassation court acquitted the applicant of attempted murder but confirmed the conviction for rape. The sentence was reduced to 14 years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions in prison. He also complained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 and 13 of the Convention about the Criminal Affairs Panel of the Supreme Court and an inability to interrogate certain witnesses. PROCEDURE On 5 September 2006 the applicant’s complaints under Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention were communicated to the Government. In a letter of 24 November 2006, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 11 April 2006 in a prison hospital from acute peritonitis. The Government asked the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. On 4 December 2006 the applicant’s representatives were requested to inform the Court whether the applicant had any heirs wishing to pursue the application. In the absence of any response, a reminder and strike-out warning was sent on 7 February 2007. In a reply of 6 March 2007, the applicant’s representatives submitted that no successor had been found. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant died on 11 April 2006 and that no rightful successor wishing to pursue the application has been presented. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In accordance with Article   37   §   1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29   §   3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   A.B. Baka   Registrar   President