CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 2016

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 15 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44674/07 Giorgi GHOGHELIANI against Georgia lodged on 24 August 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Giorgi Ghogheliani, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1974 and is currently in prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Rostiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     According to an official version of events, the applicant was arrested on 29 April 2005 at 10.00 p.m. while driving in Tbilisi together with his wife, brother in law and the latter’s friend. His personal search conducted immediately after his arrest in the presence of two independent witnesses, revealed one pill of Subutex on his person. The search record bore a note, according to which the applicant had refused, without giving any reasons, to sign the document. 3.     The applicant protested his innocence and contested that his arrest and the body search took place in the circumstances described above. Notably, he alleged that he was detained at around 7.00 p.m. His initial personal search, which allegedly had not been officially recorded, did not reveal any unlawful substance. He was thereafter taken to another place, where his repeated personal search was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. During that search one of the police officers had planted drugs on him. In support of his version of events, the applicant relied on the statements of his wife, brother in law and the latter’s friend who had been present at the moment of his arrest. He also relied on the statement of a witness who had allegedly attended the initial personal search of the applicant and on the video recording of his repeated personal search. 4.     On 7 April 2006 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant on drug charges and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The conviction was based on the statements of several police officers who participated in the applicant’s arrest and body search as well as on the testimony of two independent witnesses. The first-instance judge concluded in connection with the statements of the applicant and the defence witnesses that they were made up with the sole purpose of helping the applicant to evade criminal responsibility. The applicant claimed that during the trial he had identified on the available video recording of his search “the reddish” police officer who had allegedly planted drugs on him and requested his questioning. But that application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court. 5.     The applicant appealed his conviction complaining, inter alia , about the discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the police officers and the witnesses of the search. He claimed that the ambiguity concerning the circumstances of his arrest and search had not been elucidated, given the existence of two records of his arrest in the case file. He further emphasised that the statement of the independent witness who had allegedly attended the initial personal search of the applicant had been simply omitted from the reasoning of the trial court. 6.     By a decision of 24 July 2006 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. In connection with the applicant’s allegation that the Subutex pill had been planted on his person by one of the police officers during the search, the appeal court merely noted that this argument of the applicant had been made up for the purpose of evading criminal responsibility. By a decision of 20 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the appeal of the applicant on points of law as inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant in prison on 27   February 2007. COMPLAINTS 7.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that various procedural irregularities have undermined the fairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He further claims that the domestic courts failed to properly examine his argument that the drugs were planted by police during his personal search.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular,   (i)     Did the domestic courts duly examine the applicant’s allegation that the drugs had been planted by the police? In this connection,   (ii)     Did the refusal of the domestic courts to examine “the reddish” police officer in connection with the circumstances of the search amount to a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?