European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50817/06
Samson TCHANTURIA against Georgia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Georgian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by them, may be summarized as follows.

1.  Tchanturia v. Georgia, application no. 50817/06

According to the case file, the applicant, former local governor of the city of Abasha, was arrested on 6 July 2005 on suspicion of misuse of local budget funds. He was charged under Article 333 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (abuse of power) and remanded in custody for three months by a court decision of 8 July 2004. In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended several times.

On 5 December 2005 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was based on multiple witness statements and the results of various forensic examinations. The conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 27 June 2006.

According to the applicant’s medical file, at the time of his arrest he was diagnosed as suffering from various diseases, including ischemic heart disease, hypertonic disease, chronic cerebrovascular insufficiency, insulin-independent diabetes and some neurological disorders. The applicant was transferred several times to various hospitals for medical examination and treatment purposes.

During the first instance court proceedings the applicant was placed in Kutaisi no. 4 Prison and on 16 September 2006 he was transferred to Rustavi no. 1 Prison. He denounced the latter transfer, claiming on the basis of the relevant medical reports, that he was in need of an in-patient treatment. His request was apparently left unanswered.

According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in the above mentioned facilities were inhuman and degrading. He was placed in overcrowded cells, where the prisoners had to sleep in turns; the applicant slept about 5-6 hours a day. The conditions of sanitation and hygiene in the cells were unsatisfactory and the applicant’s dietary and medical needs were not met.

2.  Tskhoidze v. Georgia, application no. 51767/09

(a)  The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 28 December 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of theft under Article 177 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Georgia and sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment. The aggregate sentence of imprisonment, which included the unserved part of the applicant’s previous sentence, was set at five years, ten months and thirteen days. The applicant’s conviction was confirmed by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 16 October 2008. By a decision of 17 March 2009, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected his appeal on points of law as inadmissible.

(b)  Conditions of the applicant’s detention

On 16 May 2007 the applicant was transferred to Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, where he was immediately placed in a punishment cell. The cell, which according to the applicant had only three beds, accommodated fifteen persons. It was infected with cockroaches, lice and rats, had neither a window nor ventilation, and had an open toilet area. The detainees had to sleep in turns.

On an unidentified date the applicant was transferred to another cell in the same Tbilisi no. 5 Prison. There were six beds in this cell for fourteen detainees. The cell was infected with cockroaches and lice. Two toilets were at the end of the corridor and used by some 380 detainees at the time. The latter, thus, had a limited access to the toilets and had to use buckets inside the cells to relieve themselves, which created an unbearable smell. The windows in the applicant’s cell were covered.

The applicant stayed in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison for nine months. On 21 February 2008 he was transferred to Tbilisi no. 1 Prison, where the conditions of detention were similarly poor. He was placed in an overcrowded cell, where twenty-three prisoners shared eighteen beds; the windows in the cell, which had poor ventilation, were covered; the walls, the floor and the ceiling were damp and waste water was dripping from the ceiling, which created an unbearable smell. The cell with an extremely little space had a toilet area inside.

Some time in September 2009 the applicant was transferred to another cell in Tbilisi no. 1 Prison. According to the applicant, the cell measured around 28 square metres, contained twelve two-tier beds for twenty-four prisoners, a wooden table and a cupboard. The cell, with a concrete floor and one iron-barred window, had a separate toilet and a sink. According to the applicant, there were twenty-four prisoners in the cell at the material time.

3.  Kotrikadze v. Georgia, application no. 43398/09

(a)  The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 24 February 2007 the police arrested the applicant in connection with an incident of 18 January 2007, when, in the course of a verbal altercation in one of the restaurants in Tbilisi, G.A. had sustained fatal injuries and died. The applicant was charged with an offence under Article 239 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (breach of public order) and remanded in custody for two months on the basis of a court order of 26 February 2007. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended several times.

On 14 May 2007 the prosecutor confirmed the investigator’s request according to which the applicant, in connection with the same incident, was additionally charged with murder, under Article 108 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. On 23 May the pre-trial investigation was completed and the criminal case file, together with the bill of indictment, was sent to a first-instance court for examination.

On 17 November 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of the above-mentioned charges and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was based primarily on several witness statements and the results of various forensic examinations. The applicant appealed the above decision, claiming his innocence in connection with the murder charge.

On 17 April 2008 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, fully subscribing to the reasoning of the first-instance court, upheld the applicant’s conviction. The appellate court stated in its decision that it could not agree with the applicant’s submission that G.A. had been wounded by another person involved in the incident because this was contradicted by the evidence, including the statements of the witnesses.

On 14 May 2008 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation claim, reiterating all the arguments that he had made before the first-instance and the appeal court. On 15 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared inadmissible the applicant’s cassation claim.

(b)  Conditions of the applicant’s detention

On 26 February 2007 the applicant was placed in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison in cell no. 92 where he stayed for seven months and was subsequently transferred to cell no. 102. Both cells were heavily overcrowded, with fifty detainees in cell no. 92 containing only twenty beds and thirty-five detainees in cell no. 102 with only ten beds. The applicant had to sleep in turns and was suffering from severe sleep deprivation. Both cells had inadequate hygienic and sanitation conditions, with an open toilet area inside and no ventilation. The detainees were bathing themselves inside the cells, because there were no proper shower and bathing facilities. The outdoor exercise was limited to a short walk once every two months.

According to the applicant, throughout his stay in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison he was not provided with either basic hygienic items or food; he was dependent in this regard on his family. Furthermore, he was not allowed to have a single family visit whilst in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison.

On 26 February 2008 the applicant was transferred to Rustavi no. 2 Prison, where he was initially placed in a punishment cell for two months and then transferred to a regular cell. The conditions at Rustavi no. 2 Prison were also poor. The applicant was placed in overcrowded cells, where he had to sleep in turns; he was not provided with the basic items of hygiene and was allowed to take a shower only once a week; the smoke coming from the concrete factory located in the vicinity of Rustavi no. 2 Prison, made the prisoners’ stay in the overcrowded cells unbearable. According to the applicant, since his transfer to Rustavi no. 2 Prison he has been allowed to have one family visit a month.

COMPLAINTS

1.  Tchanturia v. Georgia, application no. 50817/06

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant challenged the conditions of his detention in various penitentiary establishments and complained about the lack of adequate medical treatment for his various diseases. He further denounced under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention. Notably, he alleged that the relevant court orders lacked sufficient reasoning and that the overall length of his pre-trial detention had exceeded the maximum period allowed by domestic law. Lastly, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention the applicant complained about the outcome of the criminal proceedings and about the alleged violation of his presumption of innocence.

2.  Tskhoidze v. Georgia, application no. 51767/09

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in various penitentiary establishments. He further challenged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted against him, complaining in particular about the assessment of facts by the domestic courts.

3.  Kotrikadze v. Georgia, application no. 43398/09

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant claimed that the detention conditions in Tbilisi no. 5 and Rustavi no. 2 Prisons were inhuman and degrading. In connection with the latter prison, the applicant particularly denounced the smoke coming from a nearby concrete factory, which made the prisoners’ stay in the overcrowded cells unbearable. The applicant further complained, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention was imposed without any specific or sufficient grounds. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Notably, he challenged the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts and claimed that the domestic procedures had been conducted in a biased manner. Lastly, he argued that the frequency of family visits in prison was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1.  Where the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in the various facilities – Kutaisi no. 4 Prison, Rustavi no. 1 Prison, Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, Tbilisi no. 1 Prison and Rustavi no. 2 Prison – compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In that regard, the Government are requested to provide detailed information concerning the conditions in which the applicants were detained, including information about the size and occupancy of the applicants’ cells in all the relevant penitentiary establishments, access to toilet and washing facilities, access to natural light and fresh air, hygiene, food, clothing, heating, ventilation and outdoor activities.

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1.  Tchanturia v. Georgia, application no. 50817/06

- Have the responsible State agencies taken all necessary measures to safeguard the applicant’s health and well-being in prison, in accordance with their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention? Was Rustavi no. 1 Prison capable of providing the applicant with the requisite medical treatment?

2.  Kotrikadze v. Georgia, application no. 43398/09

- Did the functioning of the concrete factory in the vicinity of Rustavi no. 2 Prison have an adverse impact on the applicant’s detention conditions?