CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA637C022 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F406575 { height:39.95pt } .s13D05820 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sFF81EB2B { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8611E46E { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3F8B77BC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s87680A70 { margin-left:11.67pt; text-align:center; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sEAF1EF9B { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s83BD7893 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s53E36DA2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9D73D86 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s16087E0F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle }   Communicated on 27 October 2014   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 60814/10 and 60864/10 Zviad DZIDZIGURI against Georgia and Davit CHANTLADZE against Georgia (see list appended) 1.     The applicants are Georgian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Sturua, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Between early April and June 2009, thousands of opposition supporters held street protests in various parts of Tbilisi, as well as in a few other major cities of the country, on a daily basis, demanding resignation of President Saakashvili and his Government. During that period, there were several incidents where the police used allegedly excessive force against demonstrators. The present two applications concern one of such incidents, which occurred on 6 May 2009. 4.     Notably, in the morning of 6 May 2009 three young activists of the opposition forces, including one minor, were arrested for breach of public order, and placed in a short remand prison of the Tbilisi police headquarters. Their arrest provoked, later in the afternoon of the same day, a spontaneous gathering of hundreds of people in front of the police building, including the two applicants. A situation escalated when one of the protesters climbed over the fence into the police compound, and, in reply, riot police officers, who had been mobilised to protect the territory of the city’s police headquarter, started firing certain unidentified projectiles from non-lethal riot guns into the crowd at close distance. As a result of the shooting, many protesters, including both applicants, received bodily injuries of different gravity. Most of those injuries were inflicted to the upper parts of the victims’ bodies, which fact suggested, in the applicants’ opinion, that the officers were intentionally pointing their anti-riot rifles at the demonstrators’ heads. Subsequently, the riot police started dislodging the protesters from the territory, by hitting them with rubber and wooden truncheons. 5.     As disclosed by medical certificates available in the case files, the first applicant, Mr Dzidziguri, was hospitalised on the same day, 6 May 2009, with bleeding from an open skin lesion on his forehead and was diagnosed a closed head injury resulting in concussion. As regards the second applicant, Mr Chantladze, he lost his right eye as a result of the penetration of a plastic projectile into the orbit. He was subsequently granted status of a partly disabled person. 6.     On 8 and 12 June 2009 the applicants requested, by filing separate complaints, the initiation of criminal proceedings for excessive use of force by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 9 May 2009. In late June 2009 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office transmitted their complaints to Tbilisi City prosecutor’s office for action. 7.     Between July 2009 and March 2010, the applicants enquired about progress of the criminal investigation on a number of regular occasions (on 21 July and 16 November 2009, 26 January and 10 March 2010) requesting, amongst other things, to be interviewed in relation to the incident of 9 May 2009, granted the status of victim and so on. 8.     On 11, 26 March and 6 April 2010 the Tbilisi City prosecutor’s office acknowledged receipt of the applicants’ enquiries and advised them, on the latter date, to apply to the Ministry of the Interior instead, which authority turned out to be in charge of the investigation. 9.     On 12 April 2010 the applicants complained both with the Ministry of Justice, the agency supervising the prosecution authority at that time, and the Ministry of the Interior that it was unlawful for the latter authority to conduct an investigation into a possible abuse of power committed by its own agents, the riot police officers. In reply, the applicants were informed on 13 May 2010 that their complaints had been transmitted to the Tbilisi City prosecutor’s office for information. COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 11 of the Convention about an excessive and even unlawful use of force by the riot police during the dispersal of the spontaneous demonstration of 6 May 2009, making a special emphasis on the allegedly unregulated use of the non-lethal anti-riot rifles, as a result of which they had received serious health injuries, and that the relevant domestic authorities failed in their positive obligation to investigate the police abuses.     COMMON QUESTIONS   1.     Were the applicants subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, during the dispersal of the demonstration of 6   May 2009 by the police?   In particular, what was the normative-regulatory framework for the use of non-lethal anti-riot weapons by the police against the demonstrators? Did the police officers act in accordance with those regulations when using the non-lethal weapons in question? Had the police officers been trained how to use those weapons?   2. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     In view of the dispersal of the demonstration of 6 May 2009 by the police, has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?         APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence   60814/10 03/09/2010   Mr Zviad DZIDZIGURI 31/10/1964 Tbilisi, Georgia     60864/10 03/09/2010 Mr Davit CHANTLADZE 10/01/1965 Tbilisi, Georgia