Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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:
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
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
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.
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.
Fato Arac
Deputy Registrar
Krzysztof Wojtyczek
President
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.