CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBC0596D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; font-size:14pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5FC2E32 { width:98.84%; border-collapse:collapse } .s81D736D9 { width:11%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s3EEAC05E { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6AA49A73 { width:18.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s42589970 { width:20.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEDA98F9 { width:24.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF8DB70BE { width:11%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4DEDE898 { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sF6399C73 { width:2.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s88D079E6 { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43CFDBE7 { width:18.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1467DF41 { width:20.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A1A0F0F { width:24.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 19 October 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54217/16 Teimuraz MIKELADZE and Others against Georgia lodged on 10 September 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all represented before the Court by Ms Tamta Mikeladze and Ms   Mariam Begadze, lawyers practicing in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     In summer 2014 several discussions took place between the Muslim community of the municipality of Adigeni and the local government authorities on the status of a building that the former claimed to be an ancient mosque. Eventually the municipality decided to convert the building into a public library. 1.     Arrest of Muslim protesters in the village of Mokhe on 22 October 2014 (a)     Circumstances surrounding the arrests, as described by the applicants and other eyewitnesses 4.     On 22 October 2014 at around 10 a.m. restoration works commenced in and around the disputed building, despite the local Muslim community’s objections. A sign placed at the site read “rehabilitation works on the Mokhe village library.” 5.     A number of police officers and cars were present on the ground, together with representatives of the local municipality. Initially approximately ten representatives of the local Muslim community gathered to find out what was happening. Gradually more people joined and the gathering turned into a protest by up to 100 local Muslims. The police formed a human chain separating the protesters from the local municipality’s representatives. 6.     At around 1 p.m. the first applicant, a village trustee (სოფლის რწმუნებული) appointed by the municipality to represent the local community, joined the protest together with his father, the second applicant. The latter reminded the police officers of their obligations under anti ‑ discrimination legislation. This allegedly irritated the policemen, who started insulting the applicants and the other protesters. 7.     According to the applicants’ account, two police officers forcefully handcuffed the second applicant, who did not resist, and put him into a police vehicle, where they tied the seatbelt around his neck. He was not given any reasons for his apprehension. The police officer allegedly squeezed the second applicant’s throat with an arm while confiscating his mobile phone. While in the car, the second applicant was allegedly told that the Muslims “need to be got out of here”. 8.     The first applicant and the fellow demonstrators headed towards the car whose driver tried to drive at a high speed through the protesters. One of the police officers swore at the Muslim women, threatening to run them over if they did not move. After one person fell to the ground the first applicant tried to stop the car, striking its windscreen. The car continued onwards and headed towards the Adigeni police station. 9.     The first applicant was arrested immediately after this incident. The police officers allegedly threw him to the ground and started beating him and swearing at him. He was then handcuffed and taken to the police station. 10.     In response to the loud objections that were being raised by the protesters the head of the Samtskhe ‑ Javakheti police station allegedly gave an order to “arrest them all”. 11.     The third applicant arrived at the protest site together with some of his fellow villagers from the village of Dertseli. He saw a villager being pinned to the ground by a non-uniformed man, who insulted the third applicant and ordered him to move away. Not realising that the man was a police officer due to the absence of a uniform, the applicant continued to move towards the officer and the villager. He was arrested and was forced into a police vehicle. He claims that he was beaten in the car and abused verbally on account of his religious beliefs. 12.     The fourth applicant worked as a librarian at a school that was located near the protest site. As he was walking towards the centre of the events he was arrested by four police officers. They allegedly physically and verbally abused the applicant and drove him to the police station, where he claims he was forced to stand by a wall for about an hour. The applicant claims he signed the arrest report under duress. 13.     In total, fourteen people were arrested that day, including the four applicants. (b)     Alleged ill-treatment at the police station 14.     The arrested applicants were taken to the Adigeni police station. 15.     The first applicant was led into a separate room three or four metres away from the hall in which the remaining protesters were being kept. On the way to the room he glanced at his father, the second applicant. This seemed to irritate the police officer, who kicked the first applicant in the back. 16.     One of the arrestees, R.I., overheard a police officer saying: “You watch what happens when he [the officer driving the car whose windscreen the first applicant struck] comes.” 17.     The arrested protesters could hear what they believed were the sounds of beating and furniture being turned over, along with inappropriate remarks. One of the witnesses reported that a police officer left the room yelling: “You no longer have the job [as a village trustee]; you are no longer employed by the municipality. You were supposed to be on our side.” 18.     According to the witnesses, the first applicant was escorted out of the room after approximately twenty minutes with signs of physical abuse on his face, such as bruises, a hematoma on his eye, and a split lip. 19.     The second applicant felt unwell due to stress. He requested a glass of water and that his handcuffs be removed. His request was denied. The third and the fourth applicants report being verbally and physically abused at the station. The applicants and the eyewitnesses report that the police officers explicitly and repeatedly used discriminatory language. 20.     The first three applicants were transferred to the Borjomi temporary detention centre. The first applicant underwent a medical check-up upon entering the institution which revealed several physical injuries.   Specifically, according to the medical report, the applicant had a red eye, a hematoma on his eye, swellings, bruises, a bump on the head, and a scratch on the back. He was referred to a civil hospital for an x-ray and additional consultations with a surgeon and a neuropathologist. Subsequently he was admitted to the Borjomi temporary detention centre. 21.     The three applicants were released the following day on the ground that their detention was no longer necessary. They were never officially charged. The fourth applicant was transferred to the Akhaltsikhe detention centre and released the next evening after being fined by the court for petty hooliganism and refusing to comply with police orders. 2.     Investigation of the incident in the village of Mokhe 22.     On 22 October 2014 a criminal investigation was opened against the first three applicants concerning their allegedly resisting police officers with the aim of interfering with the upholding of public order. 23.     On 3 November 2014 the applicants lodged a request with the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, asking it to investigate the alleged abuse of power by police officers in the light of their use of excessive force during the dispersal of the protest and at the police station, together with their use of discriminatory language. 24.     On 6 December 2014 the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia acknowledged to the applicants that there might be an issue concerning the possible abuse of power on the part of the police officers and that a separate inquiry had been opened into that matter. 25.     The four applicants requested the prosecuting authorities to grant them victim status and thus access to the case files on 12 December 2014, 17   February 2015, and 7 March 2016. The requests were rejected, the prosecuting authorities reasoning that the evidence gathered until that date had not revealed sufficient grounds for concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been victims of the alleged crimes. 26.     On 5 May 2015 the applicants’ representative lodged a complaint with the regional prosecutor that the pending investigation lacked independence and impartiality given the fact that a number of investigative actions had been carried out by the same police department at which the alleged offenders were employed. 27.   On 6 July 2015   the applicants’ representative lodged a separate request for the first applicant to be granted victim status. On 11 July 2015 the regional prosecutor’s office replied that its office had not yet gathered enough material for it to conclude that the first applicant had suffered any harm for him to be granted victim status. An appeal lodged by the first applicant with the regional prosecutor dated 16 July 2015 was rejected on 24   July 2016 on the same grounds. 28.     On 10 March 2016 the applicants’ representative received a letter from the regional prosecutor’s office stating again that the investigation was ongoing and that for the time being it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the four applicants had suffered any harm for them to be admitted as victims in the investigation. The applicants submit that on this date it became futile for them to wait for the conclusion of the domestic investigation any further due to its apparent ineffectiveness. 29.     The investigation into the matter is still pending. B.     International and domestic observations regarding the incident in the village of Mokhe 30.     In 2015 Human Rights Watch published its World Report for the year 2014. The relevant excerpt from that report reads as follows: “In October, police used disproportionate force to break up a protest in a small village and detain 14 participants demonstrating against the government’s plans to rebuild a former mosque as a library. Courts fined 11 of them GEL   250   (roughly $140) each for petty hooliganism and disobeying police orders. Authorities did not effectively investigate police conduct.” 31.     A report by the Public Defender of Georgia – The Situation Regarding the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia in 2015 – referred to the Mokhe incident and noted that “the representatives of the Public Defender’s office acquainted themselves with the arrested protesters’ physical examination reports on 22 October 2014, which confirmed [the presence of] signs of physical injury.” The Report further noted as a general concern regarding respect for the freedom of religion in the country that “one of the main problems is [the lack of] a timely, adequate and effective response to offences committed on the basis of religious intolerance and hatred ...”. COMPLAINTS 32.     The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that they were ill-treated during the dispersal of the protest and at the police station by police officers who used excessive physical force and made discriminatory remarks. 33.     They further complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the relevant authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into their complaints. 34.     Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention that their ill-treatment, the interference with their physical and moral integrity and the absence of an effective investigation into the police abuse was stemmed from the relevant authorities’ discriminatory attitudes towards the applicants’ religious beliefs. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment?   (b)     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000 ‑ IV, § 131), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted the relevant domestic remedies with respect to their complaints under Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention, this latter complaint being raised ex officio by the Court?   3.     If in the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and/or their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 8, 11 and 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their religion, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, this provision being read in conjunction with Article 3 and Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention? Appendix   N o . First name LAST NAME Date of birth Nationality Place of residence     Teimuraz MIKELADZE 15/01/1980 Georgian Village of Mokhe     Otar MIKELADZE 11/04/1957 Georgian Village of Mokhe     Malkhaz BERIDZE 25/09/1990 Georgian Village of Dertseli     Gocha BERIDZE 19/02/1988 Georgian Village of Mokhe