CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7FB4098 { width:113.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF4146F08 { width:35.6%; 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 } .sD001FFFD { width:15.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFAF4C4CE { width:25.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s42EC7385 { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77623F2C { width:35.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25F8D373 { width:15.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E4D7BE9 { width:25.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB7C6448F { width:15.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 30 January 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 53170/22 Tinatin KAKHIDZE and Others against Georgia lodged on 4 November 2022 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns verbal and/or physical assault against journalists by ultraconservative groups which held anti-LGBT rallies in relation to a pride event planned for 5   July 2021. The event was eventually cancelled because of the violent incidents. Several individuals were prosecuted in respect of the violent acts. In particular, the applicants complain about the authorities’ inability and/or unwillingness to prevent and provide appropriate redress for the violence (among other elements, the applicants allege ineffective planning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs; inaction by the police during the events complained of; and ineffective investigation and prosecution in respect of the violence, especially in respect of its instigators/leaders of the different ultraconservative groups). They submit that the official statements made by various high-ranking public officials – claiming, among other things, that the majority of the population did not support the holding of the pride event which had been aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the community – exacerbated the violence. The applicants also state that they were targeted because they are representatives of the media sources critical of the Government and/or they were associated by the homophobic groups with the LGBT+ community. The first applicant is complaining in respect of her son – a cameraman – who was violently assaulted and later diagnosed with concussion, multiple facial fractures, and haematomas. He died on 11 July 2021 of an unclear cause and a separate investigation was launched into the matter. The latter material is not provided in the case file material and the first applicant does not complain under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants rely on Articles   3, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The applicants complain that the Government failed to prevent the violence against the journalists and to   adequately investigate the incidents. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     During the events of 5 July 2021, did the relevant State authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article   3 of the Convention to undertake preventive measures aimed at protection of the applicants from attacks by private individuals? Did the authorities’ statements made in respect of the pride march exacerbate the violence which erupted on 5   July 2021?   3.     Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and lack of police protection, in compliance with the procedural obligations under Article   3 of the Convention, including in relation to the alleged instigators of the violent incidents?   4.     Were the violent acts complained of in the present case related to the applicants’ journalistic activity? Did the Government comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention as defined by the Court (see Uzeyir Jafarov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   54204/08, §   68, 29   January 2015)?   5.     Having regard to the applicants’ complaint that the assault was motivated by hatred against the LGBT community and those seen as supporting it, has there been a breach of Article   14 of the Convention, this provision being read in conjunction with Articles   3 and 10 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applicants Application no. 53170/22 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Tinatin KAKHIDZE 1950 Georgian Tbilisi 2. Miranda BAGATURIA 1997 Georgian Tbilisi 3. Irakli BAKHTADZE 1997 Georgian Tbilisi 4. Levan BREGVADZE 1999 Georgian Tbilisi 5. Guga DVALISHVILI 1994 Georgian Tbilisi 6. Tamta KAKHABERIDZE 1998 Georgian Tbilisi 7. Levani KALANDIA 1981 Georgian Tbilisi 8. Vakhtang KARELI 1990 Georgian Tbilisi 9. Luka KHACHIDZE 1993 Georgian Tbilisi 10. Guram MAISURADZE 1999 Georgian Tbilisi 11. Dea MAMISEISHVILI 1995 Georgian Tbilisi 12. Luka PERTAIA 1996 Georgian Tbilisi 13. Ketevan TSITSKISHVILI 1994 Georgian Tbilisi 14. Rati TSVERAVA 2000 Georgian Tbilisi 15. Ilia TVALIASHVILI 1987 Georgian Tbilisi 16. Nino VARDZELASHVILI 1990 Georgian Tbilisi