GORGADZE v. GEORGIA
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Mr Merab Gorgadze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Batumi. He was represented before the Court by Mr L. Mamuladze, a lawyer practising in Batumi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and according to the case file, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 5 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful purchase, possession and sale of drugs. According to the record of his personal search, nine sachets containing a brownish substance were found in the right back pocket of his trousers. The search was carried out on the spot by two police officers, who rejected the applicant’s request for the attendance of independent witnesses, reasoning that there was a risk of him hiding or destroying the evidence. The applicant refused to sign the search record and specified that he had had no drugs on him. 4. According to the arrest report, which was drawn up immediately after the search, the applicant had multiple injuries on his body and face. When asked about the source of the injuries, the applicant, as noted in the report, claimed that he had fallen to the ground when running away from the police officers. 5. Later, after his transfer to the police station, an ambulance was called for the applicant. A doctor on duty conducted a visual examination and noted that the applicant had a hematoma on his left eye and several bruises on his chest. 6. On 6 July 2009 in prison the applicant was seen by a prosecutor. In the presence of his lawyer, the applicant complained that he had been severely beaten by police officers immediately after his arrest and also at the police station. A special note was drawn up detailing the applicant’s allegations, including the chain of events, the time, location, duration and methods of his ill-treatment. The applicant alleged that he had been threatened with rape. 7. The next day, the police officers who had arrested the applicant conducted an examination of the place of his arrest and concluded that the surface was uneven, with lots of rocks and holes. 8. On 17 November 2009 the Batumi City Court, whilst dropping the drug-dealing charges, convicted the applicant for unlawful possession of drugs in a particularly large quantity and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment and a fine. By a decision of 21 January 2010 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. Like the trial court, the appeal court, based its conclusions on the statements of the two police officers who had arrested the applicant and conducted his personal search. Both instances concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been the result of him having fallen several times during his attempt to escape. 9. On 17 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. As it appears from the case file, despite his complaints, no criminal proceedings have been instituted into the circumstances of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. 10. On 11 July 2013 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. An information note, in Georgian, on the proceedings after communication of an application was forwarded at the same time to the applicant. It included the information that the nature of all friendly settlement negotiations was strictly confidential. On 29 November 2013 the Government submitted a friendly-settlement proposal within the framework of the proceedings before the Court, and on 3 December 2013 the Court sent the Government’s proposal to the applicant. 11. By their letter of 11 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had disclosed the details of the friendly-settlement negotiations conducted between the parties to the media, in violation of the confidentiality rule as enshrined in Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court. They accordingly invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible. 12. In their letter the Government referred the Court to an interview of the applicant published by the news agency Reportiori on 8 April 2014. In that interview the applicant provided a brief factual summary of his case and disclosed the specific amount proposed by the Government with a view to securing a friendly settlement. He further claimed that his refusal to accept the compensation offered had “irritated the Minister of Justice, following which they have sent to Strasbourg documents with distorted facts.” 13. It appears that even before that date, on 29 January 2014, another media source – news portal Kvira, published another interview with the applicant in which the latter likewise discussed the Government’s friendlysettlement proposal and referred to the specific amount proposed by the Government. The article was accompanied by scanned copies of the relevant letters from the Court.