News

On the case Elibashvili v. Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights held that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention and concluded that the State failed to conduct independent, impartial and effective investigation into the incident. The Court indicated at the violations observed in the course of investigation and in fact, shared all arguments of the applicant with regard to the ineffectiveness of the investigation process. The Court rejected all arguments of the State. 

As the judgment states, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the link between the death of the applicant’s son and his being pursued by the police was apparent as early as 3 August 2016. Even though the relevant domestic regulations provided that offences allegedly committed by police officers were to be investigated by a prosecutor’s office, the investigation had been assigned to the police. It was only fifteen months later that the investigation was taken over by the prosecutor’s office. Hence, the most crucial stage of the investigation was conducted by an authority lacking sufficient independence from the police officers whose responsibility might have been engaged in the incident. Moreover, several major deficiencies in the investigation are directly linked to that phase. 

The European Court of Human Rights noted that video surveillance footage may constitute evidence that is critical for establishing the circumstances of the relevant events. The Court considers that the manner in which the CCTV evidence was gathered and handled in the present case was unsatisfactory. It appears that the majority of the requests to seize and obtain either road-traffic or private CCTV footage were made belatedly, with potentially important evidence being lost or deleted in the meantime. 

Secondly, the Court underlined the inconsistencies between the statements of the two police officers and the traffic accident report which had been drawn up immediately after the incident on 1 August 2016. The Court could not get any explanation from the State as to why the initial traffic accident report failed to provide a full description of the incident. Thus, the fact that the applicant’s son had been pursued by the police on foot before disappearing in the dark, and the alleged involvement of other police officers in the search, were omitted altogether from the report. “…the remaining police officers were first interviewed with almost a four-month delay. In the absence of an explanation provided by the Government, the Court finds such a delay unjustified…”

“… Last but not least, the investigation has already been ongoing for more than seven years. The Government have not provided any explanation for such a lengthy investigation. Noting the recurrent nature of the problem of protracted criminal investigations, particularly in cases concerning suspicious deaths and/or ill-treatment involving representatives of the law-enforcement authorities. The Court finds this delay unjustified,” – the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights reads. 

As regards the issue of the alleged responsibility of the respondent State for the death of the applicant’s son, the Court considers, in view of the material available in the case file that it is not in a position to reach any definite findings under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention. 

The Court held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, EUR 12,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 

On behalf of the applicant, Human Rights Center appealed the European Court of Human Rights in 2021.