Lack of effective investigations: Tsintsabadze v Georgia

/

Tsintsabadze v Georgia ( Application No 35403/06)

This group of cases concerns the following substantive (between 1999 and 2011) and procedural violations (between 1999 and 2020):

  •  killing of the applicants’ son in the police operation[1] and failure to account for the circumstances of the taking of life of the applicant’s husband[2] (substantive violations of Article 2),

  • the excessive use of force during the applicants’ arrest, ill-treatment in custody or torture by police or prison officers (substantive violations of Article 3), and

  • ineffective investigations into deaths in prison,[3] following kidnapping and beating by officials of the Ministry of the Interior,[4] at the hands of officers of the Ministry of the Interior,[5] shooting of the applicants’ son in the police operation,[6] allegations of other breaches of the right to life, torture and other forms of ill‑treatment imputable to state agents  (procedural violations of Articles 2 and 3).

The Court identified various procedural shortcomings in the investigations carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including lack of independence and impartiality, failure by the investigating bodies to act with due expedition, inadequacy and lack of thoroughness of investigation, non-participation of victims, absence of appropriate forensic expertise and medical examinations.

The Court further identified various shortcomings in the judicial proceedings brought against state agents, including failure to hold adversarial public proceedings and delivery of the final decision in camera, conclusions based mainly on testimony given by the police officers involved, failure to provide the applicants with sufficient time and facilities to study case materials, disregard of the applicants’ requests for the collection of evidence, inadequate sentencing. 

Other violations found by the Court in the present judgments include non-compliance by the authorities with their obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court (violation of Article 38),[7] unlawful deprivation of liberty (violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3) and unfair criminal trial (violations of Article 6).[8]

The case was briefed on 3rd March 2022 by Tamar Abadze, from the Public Defender Office of Georgia (PDO), and Tamar Oniani, from the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA).