FOURTH SECTION

DECISION
Application no. 64987/14
Inazi TEDLIASHVILI and others
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on
24 November 2015 as a Committee composed of:
KrzysztofWojtyczek, President,
NonaTsotsoria,
GabrieleKucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Fato Arac, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2014,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent
Government on 3 April 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application
out of the list of cases and the applicants reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all
Georgian nationals who live in Gori, and are represented before the Court
by Ms J. Evans, Ms J. Gavron, Mr V. Grigoryan, Ms N. Jomarjidze,
Mr Ph. Leach, Ms K. Levin, Ms K. Shubashvili, Ms T. Dekanosidze and
Ms T. Abazadze, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy
Centre in London and Georgian Young Lawyers Association in Tbilisi.
2. The Georgian Government (the Government) were represented by
their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised
as follows.
4. On 30 April 2011 Mr Kakhaber Tedliashvili, the first and second
applicants son and the father of the third applicant, was discovered hanged
with a medical bandage in the solitary confinement cell of Rustavi prison

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

no. 6 (the Rustavi prison). He had been serving a prison sentence of

thirteen years and six months for an aggregate of firearms and drug offences
in that prison since August 2008.
A. Facts preceding Mr K. Tedliashvilis death in prison
5. According to the applicants version of the events which had
purportedly preceded his death, it was in the spring of 2010 that
M. K. Tedliashvilis relations with several security officers of the Rustavi
prison had deteriorated. Notably, he had been requested to cooperate with
them by becoming their informant in the prison. As Mr Tedliashvili had
refused that cooperation, the prison officers had started bullying him,
threatening with the use of force and/or denouncing him as an actual
informant to his fellow prisoners.
6. When the first and second applicants had visited their son in prison in
the autumn of 2010, the latter confided in them that the prison security
officers had started beating him (one of the beatings had even led, allegedly,
to a broken leg). The fact of his ill-treatment was later confirmed by
statements of two other inmates of the Rustavi prison.
7. Starting from January 2011 and until his death, Mr Tedliashvili had
regularly placed telephone calls to his parents from prison, expressing his
fear of the prison officers, naming, in particular, two persons Mr V.K. and
Mr J.I. During those telephone conversations, Mr Tedliashvili would
reiterate that his days were counted and that the two above-mentioned
prison officers, with connivance of the governor of the prison, Mr D.M., had
wanted him dead.
8. On 8 April 2011 Mr K. Tedliashvili had publicly voiced his fears for
his life for the first time by addressing written complaints to the governor of
the prison, Mr D.M, and the Public Defender of Georgia. Reiterating all the
details of his conflict with the two prison security officers and the death
threats received from them, he had requested the two authorities to
undertake urgently all the necessary measures aimed at saving his life in
prison.
9. Subsequently, on 11, 12, 13 and 18 April 2011 the first and second
applicants filed with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Custodial
Institutions, the Chief Public Prosecutors Office and the President of the
Human Rights Committee of the Parliament of Georgia similar requests to
secure their sons life and well-being in the Rustavi prison. All those
complaints and requests were left without any reaction.

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

B. Criminal investigation
10. On 30 April 2011, immediately after Mr K. Tedliashvili was
discovered hanged, an internal investigative unit of the Ministry of the
Custodial Institutions (the prison investigative unit) launched a criminal
investigation for instigation to commit suicide (criminal case
no. 073110264). One of the first investigative measures was a forensic
examination of the body, conducted by State experts.
11. On 3 May 2011 the prison investigative unit launched another
criminal investigation with respect to Mr Tedliashvilis death for possible
abuses of power committed by prison staff against the late person (criminal
case no. 42118015)
12. Between 4 May and 17 June 2011, the first and second applicants,
calling for a prompt and objective investigation of the suspicious death of
their son, repeatedly requested the prison investigative unit to provide them
with all the available case materials concerning the above two
investigations, including a copy of the results of the forensic examination.
13. By its replies of 20 May and 14 July 2011, the prison investigative
unit refused to give access to the case materials on account of the fact that
neither of the applicants represented a procedural party to either of the
ongoing criminal cases.
14. Between September 2011 and March 2012, the Public Defenders
Office, the authority acting on behalf of the applicants, and the Chief Public
Prosecutors Office exchanged correspondence in relation to the progress of
the investigation of Mr K. Tedliashvilis death. That exchange revealed the
fact that the two criminal cases nos. 073110264 and 42118015 had been
transmitted from the prison investigative unit to the Chief Public
Prosecutors Office and joined on 14 August 2012. The investigation was
still pending in its early stage, without having identified any individual
suspect.
15. In early August 2013 the first applicant was summoned by the
prosecution authority and interviewed in the capacity of a witness. She
shared with the investigator everything she knew about a conflict between
her son and the Rustavi prison security officers, Mr V.K. and Mr J.I.
16. On 6 and 16 September 2013 the first and second applicants
enquired with the prosecution authority about a progress in the
investigation. A prosecutors reply of 24 September 2013 disclosed that the
criminal case concerning the death of their son had been joined, on
16 October 2012, with another criminal case opened by the prosecution
authority against the two impugned security officers of the Rustavi prison,
Mr V.K. and Mr J.I., on account of systemic ill-treatment of prisoners
detained in that institution. The applicants further learnt that the status of
victim could not be granted to them as the results of the ongoing
investigation could not yet indicate beyond reasonable doubt that their son

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

had died as a result of any type of undue treatment committed by the two
suspects.
17. Between November 2013 and May 2014, the first and second
applicants repeatedly complained before the relevant prosecutors office
about the inability to obtain the status of victim and thus be involved in the
investigation so that they could at least somehow influence the ongoing
investigations apparent failure to elucidate the facts surrounding their sons
suspicious death. Those requests were rejected by the regional prosecutors
letters on 13 March and 19 June 2014, in which the authority would
constantly remind the applicants that the current results of the investigation
did not allow a suspicion that their son had been a victim of any undue
treatment by the two officers of the Rustavi prison.

COMPLAINTS
18. The applicants complain on behalf of late Mr K. Tedliashvili and in
their own name under Article 2 of the Convention, this provision invoked
separately and in conjunction with Article 13, about either the direct
implication of the two prison officers, Mr V.K. and Mr J.I, in the suspicious
death, or at least the relevant authorities failure to protect life, of
Mr K. Tedliashvili in prison and about the absence of effective investigation
in that regard.

THE LAW
19. On 1 December 2014 notice of the application was given to the
Government.
A. The Governments unilateral declaration
20. By a letter of 3 April 2015 the Government informed the Court that
they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the
issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike
out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
21. The declaration provided as follows:
The Government wish to express their regretful acknowledgement of a violation of
the applicants rights under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention on
account of the deficiencies identified in the course of the investigation into the death
of Mr Kakhaber Tedliashvili.
The Government, within the framework of the present declaration, undertake to
ensure the effectiveness of the ongoing investigation into the applicants allegations

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

under close scrutiny by a competent high-ranking prosecutor and in full compliance

with the principles established by the Court in order to ascertain, amongst other
things, whether the relevant authorities took all necessary measures and in good time
aimed at securing Mr KakhaberTedliashvilis life and well-being in prison.
In addition, in the light of the above considerations and taking into account the
factual circumstances of the case, the Government undertake to pay the total sum of
10,000 (ten thousand) Euros to the applicants to cover any and all pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable
to them. This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable
on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be
payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the
Court. In the event of failure to pay this within the said three-month period, the
Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until
settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points. ...

22. By a letter of 13 July 2015, the applicants informed the Court that
they were not in a position to accept the Governments unilateral declaration
for the following reasons. Thus, whilst welcoming the acknowledgement of
a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the absence of an
effective criminal investigation into the death of Mr Tedliashvili, they
expressed their disappointment about the absence of a clear
acknowledgement of a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb as
well. Maintaining their hypothesis that the two prison officers criminal
complicity had been at cause of Mr Tedliashvilis suspicious death in
prison, they argued that the respondent State should have assumed the
direct, substantive responsibility for that crime. They also requested that the
Government should increase the amount of the compensation payable to
them.
23. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that
it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of
its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions
specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37
1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list of cases:
for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue
the examination of the application.

24. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an

application under Article 37 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration
by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination
of the case to be continued (see Taktakishvili v. Georgia (dec.),
no. 46055/06, 16 October 2012).
25. The Court further recalls that it may accept a unilateral declaration
even in the absence of prior friendly settlement negotiations (see Union of
Jehovahs Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, 23-30,
21 April 2015).

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

26. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration submitted by the
Government in the present case in the light of the principles emerging from
its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar
v. Turkey (preliminary
issues)
[GC],
no. 26307/95,
75-77,
ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02,
26 June 2007; and Sulwiska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September
2007).
27. As regards the applicants arguments, the Court does not consider
them as valid objections capable of outweighing the significance of the
Governments unilateral declaration. The applicants claim that the prison
officers had been linked to the taking of Mr Tedliashvilis life is, at this
stage, nothing but a supposition which calls for close scrutiny at the hands
of competent and objective investigators at the domestic level. The Court is
thus of the opinion that, in the particular circumstances of the present case,
the Governments acknowledgement of a violation of Article 2 of the
Convention under its procedural limb, coupled with their remedial
undertaking to proceed with an effective investigation at the national level,
is rational and comprehensive enough to embrace the core of the matter and
would no longer allow the applicant to claim to be a victim of a continued
violation under this provision (see, mutatis mutandis, and as a recent
authority, Prdzyski v. Poland (dec.), no. 49284/10, 25 March 2014, and
also compare with Danelia v. Georgia, no. 68622/01, 40-46, 17 October
2006, where, in the similar absence of meaningful criminal investigations at
the domestic level, the Court was unable to assess the complaint under
substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention).
28. Indeed, the Court has established in a number of cases, including
those brought against Georgia, its practice concerning complaints about
suspicious deaths of individuals detained at State custodial institutions (see,
for example, Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, 71-95, 15 February
2011; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 65, 24 March 2009). It
reiterates that, in such situations, the fundamental character of Article 2 of
the Convention requires that there should be some form of an effective
official probe in order for the cause of the death of a prisoner to be
elucidated (see Tsintsabadze, cited above, 94 and 95; see also
Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, 87-89,
22 November 2011).
29. That being so, the Court, having closely examined the terms of the
Governments unilateral declaration, attaches particular significance to the
Governments express undertaking to conduct a probe into the cause of the
applicants death in prison. Furthermore, the Court finds that the amount of
the compensation that the Government propose to pay to the applicants
jointly is fully adequate in the circumstances of the present case.

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

30. In light of these considerations, the Court finds that it is no longer

justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 1 (c)).
Moreover, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the
topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the
examination of the application (Article 37 1 in fine).
31. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to
comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could
be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 2 of the Convention
(see Josipovi v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
B. The remainder of the application
32. The applicants reiterated their complaint about the ineffectiveness of
the criminal investigation into the death of Mr K. Tedliashvili under
Article 13 of the Convention, this provision invoked in conjunction with
Article 2.
33. However, having regard to the terms of the Governments unilateral
declaration, notably their explicit undertaking to conduct an effective
criminal investigation, the Court considers that the same issue does not
merit a second, separate examination under Article 13 of the Convention.
34. It thus finds that the applicants complaints under Article 13 of the
Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance
with Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Governments declaration
under Article 2 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring
compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike a part of the application out of its list of cases in
accordance with Article 37 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 17 December 2015.

Fato Arac
Deputy Registrar

Krzysztof Wojtyczek
President

TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA DECISION

APPENDIX
1. Mrs Inazi TEDLIASHVILI (the first applicant) was born on
14 October 1967.
2. Mr Badri TEDLIASHVILI (the second applicant) born on
9 June 1963.
3. Ms Ina LOTSULASHVILI (the third applicant) was born on
11 March 2004.