CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEB011601 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s1791F5C1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9EC3D246 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11EE8375 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sE446CB87 { width:102.18%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8C09297D { width:7.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s16D54286 { width:27.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1238189 { width:26.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEFC97C56 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31037089 { width:20.7%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8BC0A77E { width:7.56%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s60EE1C20 { width:27.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE1C9EB9 { width:26.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EA4769A { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3EDA0141 { width:20.7%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v.   GEORGIA (Application no. 24225/19)   JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 8 and Art 9) • Discrimination on the basis of religion • Private life • Freedom of religion • Failure to comply with positive obligation to provide adequate protection to individual applicants from unlawful mob action, hate speech and other discriminatory actions by private parties in the context of their being prevented from opening a Muslim boarding school • Failure to balance competing interests at stake • Discriminatory behaviour coupled with police’s inactivity created feelings of fear and insecurity and prevented applicants from opening the school • Obvious grounds to believe applicants had been insulted and threatened because of their religious beliefs • Failure to effectively investigate and identify and sanction those responsible • Deficient and protracted criminal investigation contributed to atmosphere of official acquiescence and developed a general feeling of impunity • Failure to establish whether religious prejudice played a role in impugned events and react accordingly • Cumulative effect of inaction to stop discriminatory behaviour and investigative shortcomings Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Applicant association’s loss of opportunity for a significant period of time to use rented building for the opening of the school •   Domestic authorities’ failure to take swift measures to stop the school blockage and to connect the building to the local municipality’s sewage system   STRASBOURG 30 November 2023   FINAL   29/02/2024     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Georgian Muslim Relations and Others v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Carlo Ranzoni,   María Elósegui,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   24225/19) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Georgian Muslim Relations, a legal entity, and seven Georgian nationals (“the applicants”) listed in the appendix, on 25 April 2019; the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 3 October and 7 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the State’s alleged failure to take adequate measures to protect the applicants from unlawful mob action, hate speech and other discriminatory actions by private parties in the context of their being prevented from opening a Muslim boarding school. The applicants (except for the first applicant, Georgian Muslim Relations) relied on Articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14. The first applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. THE FACTS 2 .     The first applicant is a non-profit association, registered under Georgian law on 31 January 2013, whose main objective is to foster support for religious education and provide free education to socially vulnerable children. The remaining applicants are Georgian nationals belonging to the Muslim minority. Their details are set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Ms T. Mikeladze, Ms K. Chutlashvili and Ms   T.   Samkharadze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi, and Ms J. Sawyer, Ms   R.   Ramezaite, Ms J. Gavron, Mr P. Leach and Ms K. Levine, lawyers practising in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. ATTEMPTS TO OPEN A MUSLIM BOARDING SCHOOL IN KOBULETI 5.     On 1 August 2014 the first applicant obtained, under a lease agreement, a right to use a plot of land with a building on 13   Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti. It was decided to open a Muslim boarding school there. 6.     As alleged by the applicants, already in June 2014 when the local Orthodox Christian population had learned about the upcoming plan, they had started holding protests against the opening of a Muslim school in the neighbourhood. Between July and November 2014 local residents erected barricades at the entrance of the building preventing the applicants from entering it and finalising the necessary renovation works. As set out below, according to the applicants, their attempts to open the school were repeatedly blocked with the connivance of the police and other local authorities, resulting in the school never being opened. The incident of 23   July 2014 7 .     On 23 July 2014 the emergency response centre 112 received a call from the fourth applicant (the head of Georgian Muslim Relations, the first applicant) asking for police to intervene at the address of the school. The request was transmitted to the Kobuleti police department. On the same day police interviewed the fourth applicant in connection with the incident. According to his statement, the seventh applicant, his friend, was a representative of M&b Ltd which owned a private three-storey house on Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti. He had decided, on behalf of M&b Ltd, to rent this building out to the first applicant for the purpose of opening a Muslim boarding school in it and on 23 July 2014 had brought school supplies to the building. Neighbours from the area, including one person identified as Zh.K., told them that they were against the opening of a Muslim school in the neighbourhood and prevented the applicants from taking the items inside the building. The fourth applicant noted that no verbal or physical abuse had taken place and that he was simply asking the police to help them to take the school supplies inside the building. 8 .     On 6 August 2014 the police interviewed the seventh applicant, who confirmed the events of 23 July 2014 as described by the fourth applicant. He noted that there had been no physical or verbal abuse on the part of the neighbours and that eventually he had managed to get the school supplies into the building. 9 .     On 4 September 2014 the responsible police officer drew up a note in which he described the incident of 23 July 2014 and, with reference to the statements of the two applicants, concluded that the matter had been resolved and there was, hence, no basis to initiate a criminal investigation. The incident of 6   August 2014 10.     On 6 August 2014 the emergency response centre was informed about “a conflict between citizens” in Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti. The information was transferred to the Kobuleti police department. 11 .     On the same date the seventh applicant was interviewed in connection with the incident. He claimed that he had been verbally insulted and that people from the neighbourhood were preventing him from conducting the necessary works in the school. Av.Kh., a local resident who had been involved in the incident, was also interviewed. He noted that the local population was against the opening of a Muslim school in the neighbourhood. While confirming that they had impeded the renovation works in the building and had protested by blocking the street, he dismissed any allegations of physical and/or verbal violence. 12 .     On 12 August 2014 the responsible police officer drew up a note in which she described the incident of 6 August 2014, noting that the seventh applicant had had a conflict with neighbours. She also noted that local residents were against the opening of a Muslim school in the neighbourhood. The incident of 26   August 2014 13 .     On 26 August 2014 another incident of “neighbourhood conflict” was reported to the police. Av.Kh., who was interviewed on the same day, claimed that no physical and/or verbal abuse had taken place. He confirmed again that the local population was against the opening of a Muslim school in the area and that they were determined to continue their peaceful protests until the applicants stopped the works. The fourth applicant, who was also interviewed in connection with the incident, complained that the local population was preventing them from carrying out renovation works at the school and that they were being subjected to verbal abuse. He noted that earlier that day they had requested the police to intervene in order to de-escalate the situation. While noting that no physical altercation had taken place, the fourth applicant asked the police to assist them in being able to continue the planned works in the building. The incident of 10 September 2014 14 .     On 10 September 2014 at around 1 p.m. those protesting in front of the school slaughtered a pig and nailed its bleeding head to the school entrance door. They also fixed a big metal cross in front of the building. One of the protesters from the neighbourhood, Zh.R., stated in a televised interview that a pig had been slaughtered in front of the Muslim school because Muslims hated pigs. On the same date, the seventh applicant lodged a complaint with the local police referring to the above incident and further noting that he had received threats that the school building would be set on fire and destroyed (see paragraphs 16-37 below). The incident of 15 September 2014 15 .     According to the case file, the opening of the school on 15 September 2014 was disrupted. Local residents set up barricades at the entrance to the school building, using old tyres and wooden boards, and did not allow pupils to enter, while those already inside, including the fifth applicant, were blocked in and could not leave. Most of the protesters dispersed after some two hours, although about ten people stayed to control access to the entrance to the building. PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE APPLICANTS Criminal proceedings 16 .     On 10 September 2014 criminal proceedings were initiated under Article 151 of the Criminal Code (the offence of threat) into the allegations of the seventh applicant that he had received threats that the school building would be set on fire and destroyed. The seventh applicant, who was interviewed on the same day, provided a detailed account of the events that followed the decision to open a Muslim boarding school on Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti, including the alleged threats and insults that he had been subjected to by the local population. According to his statement, the local population had started protesting as soon as they had learned about the plan to open a Muslim school. He noted that because of their aggressive behaviour and verbal insults he had had to ask the local police for help on several occasions. On an unspecified date, sometime in late August or early September, protests had been organised in front of the school building and people had started threatening him with burning down the school building. On 10 September 2014 at around 4 p.m. he and N.B. had gone to the school and seen the bleeding head of a pig nailed to the entrance door of the school and blood spilled all over the ground. The seventh applicant claimed that he feared for his safety as he had been subjected to continuous threats and verbal insults for more than six months already. He also complained that he had been prevented from connecting the school to the Kobuleti public sewerage system. In reply to a question put to him, he noted that the school, as a preparatory educational establishment, did not require any licence according to law, and that its opening was planned for 15 September 2014. 17.     During the interview on 10 September 2014, N.B. confirmed that on 10 September 2014 he had gone to the school building together with the seventh applicant and had seen a pig’s head nailed to its entrance door. 18 .     On 11 September 2014 the investigator organised for the examination of the scene with the participation of an expert and the third applicant. According to the police report drawn up thereafter, tyres and wooden boards had been noted at the entrance to the building. Further, reddish stains had been discovered at the entrance of the boarding school as well as nails hammered to the entrance door. According to the report, no intrusion into the building itself had taken place and accordingly no damage had been identified inside the building. 19 .     On 12 September 2014 the third applicant was interviewed. According to his statement, he was a khoja , an Islamic religious person, who was supposed to teach at the new Muslim school in Kobuleti. He had learned about the incident with the pig’s head from the television. On that day he had gone to the school but had been prevented from entering the building and had left. According to his statement, another incident had taken place on 12   September 2014 when he had witnessed a verbal altercation between T.I., another member of the local Muslim community, and some locals in front of the school about its opening. The third applicant had then accompanied T.I. to the police station in order to report the incident. 20.     On the same date T.I. was interviewed. He confirmed the events of 10   September 2014. As for the incident of 12 September 2014, he stated that he had not experienced any verbal or physical abuse. 21 .     On 14 September 2014 the fourth applicant was interviewed. Reiterating his previous allegations, he noted that he had learned about the incident with the pig’s head from the third applicant. He maintained that he had been subjected to verbal assaults and also threats. 22.     Between 11 and 14 September 2014, eighty-six residents of Lermontovi Street and the neighbouring area were interviewed. While noting that they had nothing against the Muslim religion as such, they maintained that the area was mainly populated by Orthodox Christians and hence there was no need to open a Muslim school there. Moreover, they did not want the noise from the school and the praying to interfere with their daily lives. All of the residents denied the allegations of verbal insults and threats and instead complained that some of the applicants had allegedly insulted them and threatened them with the police. As regards the incident with the pig’s head, some of those interviewed claimed that they had noticed the pig’s head towards the end of the demonstration, on their way home, while others claimed that they had learned about the incident from television reports. 23 .     On 10 October 2014 the applicants’ legal representative wrote to the Minister of the Interior and the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia providing detailed information about the events that had unfolded around the opening of the Muslim school in Kobuleti and complaining that the police response had been ineffective. She claimed that the police had failed to prevent the discriminatory violence vis-à-vis the applicants and had tolerated the violation of their various rights for several months already. She requested that the Ministry of the Interior take immediate actions to ensure the opening and functioning of the school; that the general inspection of the Ministry examine whether the conduct of individual police officers in response to the incidents of violence had been adequate; and that the violent incident of 10 September 2014 and subsequent events be investigated in an efficient manner. In support of her request the applicants’ legal representative submitted, among other things, detailed statements by the third and fifth applicants. On 22 December 2014 the applicants’ legal representative sent a follow-up complaint enquiring, in particular, as to whether a criminal investigation had been initiated into the allegations of police misconduct. She further claimed that the inactivity of the police officers in question could also be considered as amounting to religious-based discrimination. In the absence of a reply, she lodged two more complaints on 18 February and 23 April 2015 concerning the inactivity of the police. These complaints contained detailed statements by the second, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth applicants about the verbal insults and humiliation that they had allegedly endured in the relevant period of time. 24 .     In May 2015 individual applicants were interviewed in connection with the events that had unfolded around the school in September 2014. In his statement of 21 May 2015, the fifth applicant noted that he had learned about the 10 September incident with the pig’s head from television reports. As regards the opening of the school on 15 September 2014, he submitted that it had been disrupted because of the local residents protesting outside the building. They had blocked the school entrance with old tyres and various wooden constructions and had not allowed anyone to get in. Although most of the protesters, according to his statement, had dispersed within around two hours, about ten people had remained behind in order to control access to the entrance to the school. During the following few days, the fifth applicant was allowed, with the consent of the local residents, to enter the school building and sleep there. He recounted one day when he had been accused of being a participant of Turkish expansion (on account of the fact that the school was allegedly owned by a Turkish businessman) and told that there was no place for a Muslim boarding school in a Christian area. He also recalled being ordered by three private individuals parked in a car in front of the school building to leave the area. The fifth applicant confirmed in his statement that as of 15   September 2014, the police had been periodically patrolling the area but that they had never intervened to stop the unlawful acts of the local population. 25 .     According to the eighth applicant, who was interviewed on 28 May 2015, he was a khoja , an Islamic religious person, who was involved in preparing the school building for its opening on 15 September 2014. He had arrived in Kobuleti on 10 September 2014. On 11 September 2014 he had gone to the school but been prevented from entering the building by Zh.K., who had told him that he was “a son of Turks” and that there was no place for them there. Over the following twelve days he had stayed and slept at the school. In the relevant period of time local residents, who had set up the barricades at the entrance of the school, had been controlling access to the area, deciding who could get in or out of the school. The police had also been patrolling; however, they had not intervened to remove the barricades. The eighth applicant noted that the local residents had called them “Tatars” ( თათარი – a term which is alleged by the applicants to have been uttered as an insulting expression insinuating, in their submission, that their Muslim faith was incompatible with their being Georgian) and participants of the “Turkish expansion” and told them to leave. He also recalled that throughout that period, he and the second applicant had been prevented from buying food in the neighbouring grocery shop on the ground that the shop belonged to locals, and they were Muslims and had to leave; those outside had been prevented from bringing food to them. An incident with the second applicant being verbally insulted outside the school had also taken place. 26 .     According to the statement of the second applicant, who was also interviewed on 28 May 2015, he was Muslim and in 2011-12 he had been working in one of the Muslim boarding schools in Georgia. He had gone to Kobuleti on 11 September 2014, after seeing television reports about the incident with the pig’s head. He had decided to stay at the school together with the fifth and eighth applicants and help with the preparations for the school opening. In total, he had stayed there for some ten days, during which period access to the school building had been controlled by the local population. The latter had been expressing various discriminatory views, including “we need no religion with foreign money” and that the applicants were “Tatars” and had to leave. He confirmed the eighth applicant’s statement as far as problems with food delivery to the school were concerned, including the incident in the grocery shop. He further recalled another incident when he had been insulted because of his religion by various persons in the area. He confirmed the police being present in the district but not intervening. 27 .     On 30 May 2015 the police re-interviewed the fourth applicant, the head of Georgian Muslim Relations. He stated that before 10 September 2014 there had been no barricades at the entrance to the school, however, each time people had accessed the school building, local residents had verbally insulted them. He noted that he had many times contacted the police seeking help, however, this had been in vain; they had not removed the barricades and had done nothing to allow the applicants unimpeded access to the building. The police had told him that unless physical confrontation occurred, they could not intervene. Eventually, according to his statement, the applicants had been forced to close the school building in January 2015. In reply to a question put to him, the fourth applicant confirmed that he had never been attacked physically but that he had had to endure constant verbal insults because of his religion. He also confirmed that the school was still closed, with the entrance door blocked and that he felt helpless as the police had done nothing in the face of the aggression and violence on the part of the local population. 28 .     The third applicant gave a similar statement, describing the events that had taken place on 10 September 2014 and afterwards. He confirmed that access to the school had been blocked by the local population and that the police had not done anything about it. On a few occasions, rather than getting into confrontations with the protesters, he had simply chosen to leave. He also recalled various verbal insults that they had all had to endure on account of their religion; he personally had been called a Turk and told that if he was Georgian, he should go to church instead. The third applicant claimed that he had felt humiliated by this type of remark. 29.     In early June 2015 a new incident concerning the school was reported. The fifth applicant and someone identified as G.D. reported that a window on the third floor of the school building had been damaged. First, they thought that the window had simply been broken, however, on 2 June 2015 the seventh applicant had examined the scene and discovered two metal fragments resembling bullets on the ground. 30.     On 11 and 15 June 2015 an investigator examined the scene, seizing two bullet-like metal fragments. He also noted damage to the wooden door on the third floor. Forensic expert examination was ordered, which established that the damage caused to the window and the door of the school building amounted to GEL 11.28 (about 4   euros), and that the metal fragments seized from the scene were shells from a pneumatic rifle and did not constitute an ammunition. 31.     On an unidentified date the case was assigned to a new investigator. On 7 April 2017 the previous investigator was interviewed. According to her statement, on 10 October 2014 when she had gone to inspect the school building and the area adjacent to it, the entrance had not been blocked and there had been no barricades in the street. 32.     Between 6 and 15 April 2017 five police officers were interviewed in connection with the incident on 10 September 2014 and the subsequent events. Four of them stated that on 10 September 2014 they had gone to Lermontovi Street, however, the street had not been blocked and no barricades could be seen. None of them had seen the pig’s head nailed to the school and none had witnessed any tensions. Two of them noted that they had learned about the incident from television reports on the same evening. Two of the police officers interviewed stated in addition that they had been patrolling in the area on 17 and 19 September 2014 and that they had not noticed anything in particular and no one had approached them with a request for help. 33.     In April 2017 a former employee of a human rights non-governmental organisation who had monitored the events and had visited the area three times in September 2014 was interviewed, as was the head of the Kobuleti municipality. 34 .     On 5 February 2019 the prosecutor issued a decision amending the qualification of the alleged offence from Article 151 (threat) to Article 156 (persecution on religious grounds). 35.     On 8 February 2019, in reply to their reiterated requests, the prosecution informed the applicants that there was no legal basis for granting any of them the procedural status of a victim. They were also told that the allegations of the police officers having committed a criminal offence had not been proven. The applicants’ subsequent appeals to the superior prosecutor and the Batumi City Court were refused on 28 March and 22 April 2019 respectively. 36 .     In the meantime, on 13 February 2019 the seventh applicant was interviewed again. While confirming his previous statement, he noted that he had not witnessed the incident with the pig’s head himself and did not know who had been involved. He also did not know who had been responsible for blocking the entrance to the school and setting up barricades. He recalled one concrete incident of verbal altercation with local residents, although he could not identify them by name. In reply to a question put to him, the seventh applicant confirmed that the school had never opened. 37 .     In 2020 additional investigative measures were undertaken, notably the questioning of several local residents from Lermontovi Street and the examination of the video-recording of the incident with the pig’s head. According to the information in the case file, the individual applicants, acting through their legal representative, regularly voiced their complaints to the prosecutor’s office that the investigation conducted into their allegations of discriminatory violence and abuse and the related complaint of police misconduct had been inadequate. Many of their complaints and requests went unanswered. The investigation is still ongoing. The inquiry conducted by the general inspection of the Ministry of the Interior 38.     On 6 October 2014 a representative of the Public Defender’s Office requested the general inspection of the Ministry of the Interior to look into the circumstances of the incidents that had occurred on 10, 15 and 16   September 2014 on Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti and to investigate the conduct of the police officers who had apparently been in the area but had failed to act. On 10 December 2014 the Public Defender’s Office was informed that the internal inquiry had not revealed any disciplinary offences on the part of any of the police officers concerned. Civil anti-discrimination proceedings 39 .     On 9 November 2014 the first, third, fifth and sixth applicants instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and three private individuals, Zh.R., A.K. and Z.R. They requested that the Batumi City Court order the respondent parties to cease their continued discriminatory acts against the applicants and to allow the latter to open a Muslim boarding school in Kobuleti. They specifically requested that the Ministry of the Interior remove the barricades, ensure secure and free access to the building and prevent all incidents of verbal abuse, coercion and threats vis-à-vis the local Muslim community. The applicants claimed a symbolic amount of GEL   1 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 40 .     According to the information in the case file, on 7 July 2015 the first ‑ instance judge conducted an on-site inspection with the participation of the parties to the proceedings. According to the inspection report, the entrance to the building was blocked by tyres and a big cross was fixed in front of the building. The representative of the Ministry of the Interior explained that it was not within the Ministry’s responsibility to remove barricades erected on private property. 41 .     On 19 September 2016 the Batumi City Court granted the applicants’ claim in full as far as three private individuals were concerned. The first ‑ instance court established that the opening of the school, planned for 15   September 2014, had been prevented by the local Orthodox Christian population. It found it established that a pig had been slaughtered on the grounds and its bleeding head had been nailed to the entrance door of the school on 10   September 2014. From that date onwards, permanent control posts had been set up by the local population, including the three individuals concerned, in order to control the movement of Muslims in the neighbourhood and to limit their access to the school. On 15 September 2014 access to the building had been blocked by wooden barricades and tyres. Those in the building had been blocked inside, while the pupils, who had come for the opening of the school, had not been allowed to enter the building. In the subsequent few days, the protesters had controlled access to the building, authorising or denying people entry. As of 27 September 2014, only the fifth applicant had been granted the right to enter. The court noted that the barricades were still in place one year after the events and that the applicants had eventually been forced to vacate the building. Having examined the behaviour and individual statements of the three private individuals, the Batumi City Court concluded that their attitude was Islamophobic. 42.     As regards the Ministry of the Interior, the court found it established that during the incident with the pig’s head on 10 September 2014, the police had not been on the ground, and that they had started routine patrolling of the area on 15 September 2014. In the following period, the police had never been approached with a request for assistance. Moreover, they had not witnessed a single incident of disorder or violence. In such circumstances, the first-instance court concluded that there was no evidence showing that the police had failed to perform their duties. Moreover, there was no evidence that they had failed to act because of a possible discriminatory motive. In this regard the Batumi City Court noted that criminal proceedings had been initiated under Article 151 of the Criminal Code concerning the allegations of a threat to burn and/or destroy a building; that various investigative measures had already been undertaken, including the interviewing of more than a hundred witnesses; and that there was no evidence that the investigation was being protracted or otherwise impeded on account of the applicants’ religion. 43 .     In conclusion the court found that the three private individuals, as representatives of a dominant religious group, had arbitrarily interfered with the applicants’ religious rights and prevented them from opening a Muslim boarding school. They had also breached the first applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. In this connection the court noted that the failure to connect the school to the Kobuleti public sewerage system had also breached the first applicant’s property rights. The court went on to find that the above actions had been motivated by the applicants’ religion and ordered the three individuals concerned to cease their discriminatory acts and to pay the non-pecuniary damage claimed. 44 .     The applicants appealed against the above decision to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal. On 29 December 2016 the appellate court decided to separate the proceedings concerning the Ministry of the Interior and transferred the case to its administrative chamber. As to the proceedings concerning the three private individuals, on the same date the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court in full. It confirmed that because of their actions, which were discriminatory on religious grounds, the applicants had not been able freely to possess and use their property; they had also been prevented from connecting the school to the Kobuleti public sewerage system; their freedom of movement had been restricted; they had been targeted by Islamophobic statements; and, lastly, their right to freedom of religion had been breached on account of the applicants not being able to open a Muslim school. The subsequent appeal on points of law lodged by three private persons was rejected as inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 16 June 2017. 45.     As to the separated case against the Ministry of the Interior, on 18   April 2017 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, confirming the reasoning of the first-instance court, dismissed the applicants’ claim in its entirety. The appellate court found it established that on 10 September 2014 when the bleeding head of a pig had been nailed to the school building, the police had not been present; that as of 15 September 2014 the police had been present on the ground to prevent possible escalation; and that as of that date onwards the police had not been asked to intervene. In view of the above-mentioned and other related circumstances, it concluded that there was no evidence to show that the Ministry of the Interior had failed to perform its duties and that that failure had been on discriminatory grounds. The appellate court further noted that a prompt investigation had been initiated into the circumstances of the alleged incident on 10 September 2014, including into the allegations of possible discrimination on religious grounds. The proceedings were ongoing, with more than a hundred witnesses already interviewed, and the fact that the investigation was yet to be completed did not suffice to show that those in charge of it were biased and had been motivated by religious prejudice. 46.     The applicants appealed, maintaining that the gist of their complaint was the failure of the Ministry of the Interior to comply with their positive obligations as a result of being religiously biased vis-à-vis the applicants. They referred to the decisions of the national courts in which it had been found that the applicants had suffered religious discrimination by private individuals. With this conclusion in mind and knowing that the police had been present on the ground at the relevant time, the applicants considered that the total denial of the responsibility of the police for the events in question was to say the least inexplicable. The applicants also argued that the protests had not been peaceful, thus falling outside the protection of national and international law; that the appeal court had incorrectly distributed the burden of proof as far as their allegations of discrimination were concerned; and that almost four years after the events, they were still unable to open the school. 47.     On 15 March 2018 the Supreme Court granted the applicants’ appeal in part. In particular, the court did not find convincing the applicants’ argument about the inaction of the police being motivated by religious bias. It concluded that despite the allegations of an insufficient response on the part of the police, the claim of discrimination on religious grounds was unfounded. At the same time, the court noted that the applicants maintained their request that the police ensure the unimpeded opening and functioning of the boarding school. In this connection it decided to return the case back to the appeal court so that the latter could examine new factual circumstances concerning the school and adopt a new decision. 48.     On 12 March 2019 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ application as far as their request concerning the police ensuring unimpeded opening and functioning of the boarding school was concerned. The court noted that in the period between 1 January 2016 and 1 January 2019 the Kobuleti police had received no information and/or complaint concerning possible impediment to the functioning of the boarding school in Kobuleti. In such circumstances, at the moment of examination of the case in court, the fact of the applicants’ being prevented from using the boarding school, could not be established. 49 .     The applicants’ appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court on 16 June 2022. From the outset the court defined the scope of the issue pending before it, noting that the allegation of the police failing to act on discriminatory grounds back in 2014 had already been examined and rejected in its decision of 15 March 2018. It reiterated in this connection that routine patrolling of the area had proved, in the circumstances, to be sufficient and adequate and that no incident which required police intervention had been reported and/or witnessed in the relevant period of time. The Supreme Court further stressed that while the case was being examined in court the applicants had not filed a single complaint and/or request with the police asking them to intervene. Accordingly, there was no evidence in the case showing that the police were failing in their duty to stop the impediment to the functioning of the boarding school. Administrative proceedings initiated by the Public Defender 50 .     On 27 July 2016 the first applicant complained to the Public Defender of Georgia about the alleged discrimination by the Kobuleti municipality and Kobuleti Water Ltd. According to the complaint, on 26 June 2014 the first applicant had entered into a contract with Kobuleti Water Ltd, a company in charge of the sewerage system in Kobuleti and owned entirely by the Kobuleti municipality, to connect the building located at 13 Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti to the public sewerage system of the city. Despite the first applicant paying in advance for the works, the building had never been connected to the sewerage system. The first applicant maintained that the company’s failure to perform its contractual obligations was the result of their prejudice towards Muslims. It requested the Public Defender to make use of its power under section 6 of the Discrimination Act to issue recommendations to the Kobuleti municipality and Kobuleti Water Ltd. 51 .     On 19 September 2016 the Public Defender’s Office issued a recommendation finding that the first applicant had been discriminated against by the Kobuleti municipality and Kobuleti Water Ltd because of its religious affiliation. It requested that the building be connected immediately to the public sewerage system so that the school could start functioning. The recommendation was not implemented and on 27 October 2017 the Public Defender of Georgia initiated administrative proceedings against the Kobuleti municipality and Kobuleti Water Ltd requesting that they be ordered to ensure and conduct, respectively, the works in order to connect the building located at 13 Lermontovi Street in Kobuleti to the public sewerage system of the city. On 8 May 2018 the first applicant joined the proceedings as a third party. On 12 October 2018 the Batumi City Court granted the Public Defender’s request. The court established that on 3 July 2014 the company had been prevented by the local Orthodox population from carrying out the necessary works. Subsequently, they had refused to conduct the works in view of the absence of security guarantees. The subsequent appeal by Kobuleti Water Ltd was found by the Kutaisi Court of Appeal to be time ‑ barred. As regards the Kobuleti municipality, their subsequent appeal was rejected by the Kutaisi Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 10 July 2019 and 18 March 2021 respectively. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that “local religious conflict” could not serve as a valid reason for the municipality to refuse to perform its contractual obligations. 52 .     According to the case file, a writ of execution was issued on 16 June 2021 requesting the Kobuleti municipality to ensure the connection of the school building to the sewerage system of the city. It appears, however, from the information provided by the National Bureau of Enforcement, that the above decision has not been enforced to date. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE The Criminal Code, as in force at the material time 53 .     Article 53 of the Crim