CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 7 November 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26083/12 Mamejan KHALILOVI against Georgia lodged on 23 April 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mamejan Khalilovi, is a Georgian national who was born in 1950 and is detained in Rustavi. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Mikautadze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 20 November 2005 a woman accused the applicant, who was her father-in-law, of having robbed her on 27 September 2005 by threatening her with a knife and acting jointly with his sons. On 24 January 2006 the applicant was indicted for armed robbery committed by a group. On 26 January 2006 the applicant, who was evading justice in Azerbaijan, was declared wanted. On 9 June 2007 the applicant’s prosecution case file was forwarded to the first-instance court, along with the bill of indictment. The case was examined in the applicant’s absence, and on 24 June 2008 the Gori District Court found him guilty as charged. During the trial the applicant’s lawyer submitted that the witnesses’ testimonies should not be preferred over an official document proving the applicant’s alibi. Notably, the lawyer referred to a document obtained from the border police during the investigation, which proved that the applicant had not been in Georgia on 27 September 2005 and thus could not have committed the impugned offence. However, the guilty verdict does not contain any reasoned explanation as to why the alibi was rejected. On 18 February 2011 the applicant, who had already been extradited from Azerbaijan to Georgia by that time, lodged an appeal. The Tbilisi Court of Appeal fully examined the case, but did not examine the victim. The prosecution claimed that she had left the country, but did not submit any relevant document. The applicant made an application for the victim to be summonsed. The court ultimately dismissed the application and thus the victim’s pre-trial testimonies were read out. The applicant reiterated that he had not been in Georgia at the time of the alleged offence. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial verdict, but did not give any valid reasons for rejecting the applicant’s alibi. On 25 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated, as the domestic court ignored his alibi, which was confirmed by an official document, and did not give him the opportunity to have the victim, the main prosecution witness, examined in his presence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Notably, did the domestic courts adduce sufficient reasoning for rejecting the applicant’s alibi (the reference to the official document confirming the fact of his absence from Georgia at the time of the commission of the crime)?   2. Was the applicant able to examine the witness against him under the conditions required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?