Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

HRC submitted written observations to the ECtHR regarding the case of inhuman and degrading treatment

March 12, 2020
On March 9, Human Rights Center submitted the written observations to the European Court of Human Rights over the case Ketevan Khmaladze vs. Georgia. Human Rights Center submitted the initial application to the ECtHR on May 24, 2019.

The case refers to the ill-treatment of Ketevan Khmaladze by the law enforcement officers during her detention on January 16, 2016 and subsequently in the police department. Police officers physically and verbally assaulted Ketevan Khmaladze and demanded confession of the crime. This treatment inflicted intense physical and mental suffering on the applicant. The applicant argued that the State violated substantive limb of the Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because the police officers, representing the State, subjected her to inhuman and degrading treatment. The State also violated procedural limb of Article 3 by the ineffective investigation of the fact.

ECtHR gave time to the parties for friendly settlement. However, the parties could not reach agreement. On January 15, 2020, the State submitted its response to the Court and presented observations about the admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government of Georgia casts doubt on the credibility of the applicant. The State also states that it has conducted comprehensive and effective investigation over the case. At the same time, the State underlines that the investigation is still undergoing.

In response to the position of the State, on March 9, 2020, HRC argues that inhuman and degrading treatment of Ketevan Khmaladze by the police officers is substantiated by multiple evidence in the case files, such as: 

The multiple injuries on the body of the applicant were found after the detention, when she was under the State control, in the building of the Samtskhe-Javakheti Police Department.  The multiple injuries on the applicant’s body are confirmed by the report of Forensic Medical Examination.  Ketevan Khmaladze’s testimony about the methods of her ill-treatment match the nature of the injuries revealed by the expert; 

The testimonies of the applicant’s underage son and another person detained with her are concordant to the testimony of Ketevan Khmaladze and substantiate her allegation regarding her inhuman and degrading treatment. 

When the injuries on the applicant are found under the state control, the burden on proof lies on the state to provide satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the causes of the injuries, in accordance with the obligation stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights. When the disputed facts lie wholly or in large part  under the exclusive knowledge of the state authorities, under the state control, strong presumption of fact arises in respect of injuries occurring under the detention. Therefore, the State is obliged to provide satisfactory and convincing explanation as to what were the causes of the injuries. In the case of Ketevan Khmaladze, the State does not provide any explanation about the causes of injuries on the applicant’s body, while = multiple evidence in the case files, which are clear, strong and concordant to each other prove that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.  Consequently, State of Georgia violated the substantive limb of the Article 3 of the Convention.

In its March 9 communication, HRC also substantiates that the investigation conducted by the State over Ketevan Khmaladze’s ill-treatment did not meet the obligation of effective investigation.  According to this obligation, the state must take reasonable investigative steps to establish the facts of the case and secure necessary evidence.  Any deficiency from the side of investigative bodies, which undermine its ability to establish the cause of injuries or identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this obligation. 

The State has not conducted essential investigative activities over Ketevan Khmaladze’s case to reveal main facts of the case although the investigation has been underway for four years:

No investigative activities were conducted to reveal whether the applicant could have received the injuries under the state control – on January 16, 2016;
Investigative bodies gave incorrect information to the expert; 

The forensic medical examination was conducted in the premises of the police department in the presence of police officers. It is obscure why the applicant was examined in the police building, when it was possible to bring her to the relevant forensic medical department where necessary conditions would be maximally ensured for conducting the examination;
Two individuals accused by the applicant of her  ill-treatment were questioned after two years since the applicant gave relevant testimony;
Identification procedures were not conducted on those officers, whom the applicant and other individual arrested together with her accuse in ill-treatment and they stated that could identify the officers.

The abovementioned violations by the State, failure to conduct essential investigative activities to secure necessary evidence and carrying out certain investigative activities with considerable delay, undermined the establishment of facts of the case and revealing perpetrators. Therefore, the State also violated the procedural limb of the Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Human Rights Center 

News