MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/1531/H46-18

12 June 2025

1531st meeting, 10-12 June 2025 (DH) Human rights   H46-18 Tsintsabadze group v. Georgia (Application No. 35403/06) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments Reference documents DH-DD(2025)376, DH-DD(2023)535, DH-DD(2023)622, CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-14

 

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on	Indicator for the classification
35403/06	TSINTSABADZE	15/02/2011	18/03/2011	Complex problem
25091/07	ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI	26/04/2011	26/07/2011
21571/05	MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE	01/06/2017	01/09/2017
2316/09	KEKELIDZE	17/01/2019	17/01/2019
7088/11	GABLISHVILI AND OTHERS	21/02/2019	21/05/2019
40009/12	GOGUADZE	27/06/2019	27/06/2019
8971/10	GOGALADZE	18/07/2019	18/10/2019
2625/12	ARKANIA	25/06/2020	25/06/2020
8938/07+	KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS	02/04/2020	02/08/2020
6739/11	BOKHONKO	22/10/2020	22/01/2021
72080/12	SHAVADZE	19/11/2020	19/02/2021
44888/16	PERTAIA	13/01/2022	13/01/2022
59333/16	EDZGVERADZE	20/01/2022	20/04/2022
34720/16	KVIRIKASHVILI	28/04/2022	28/04/2022
4300/16	HAKOBYAN	23/03/2023	23/03/2023
14142/15	OCHIGAVA	16/02/2023	16/05/2023
32245/19	MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS	19/01/2023	22/05/2023
8827/19	Vladimer MTCHEDLISHVILI	14/12/2023	14/12/2023
45987/21	ELIBASHVILI	22/02/2024	22/04/2024
75969/14	MAISAIA	07/05/2024	07/05/2024
15355/15	MAMULASHVILI	04/07/2024	04/07/2024
39503/17	MUKHTARLI	05/09/2024	05/12/2024
4728/08	Ramin KIZIRIA	11/03/2014	Decisions with undertakings
39726/04	Sulkhan MOLASHVILI	30/09/2014
28103/11	Lasha LANCHAVA	23/06/2015
22318/10	STUDIO MAESTRO LTD AND OTHERS	30/06/2015
312/10	Giorgi BEKAURI AND OTHERS	15/09/2015
2146/10	Aleksandre MANUKIAN	31/01/2019

·         Co-operation project: VC 3689 Enhancing Human Rights Compliant Approach in Law Enforcement Institutions in Georgia

Case description

This group of cases comprises 22 judgments concerning various substantive (between 1999 and 2014) and procedural (between 1999 and 2017) violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of deaths in prison, during security or police operations, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, mostly imputable to law enforcement and prison agents, as well as ineffective investigations into these facts. Notably, the Court identified various shortcomings of the investigations, including lack of independence, failure to act with due expedition, inadequacy and lack of thoroughness, non-participation of victims, absence of appropriate forensic expertise and medical examinations. The Court further identified shortcomings in the judicial proceedings brought against state agents, as well as inadequate sentencing of perpetrators.

As regards 6 friendly settlements, the authorities acknowledged the existence of similar procedural violations of Articles 2 and 3 and undertook to conduct effective investigations into the allegations of violations of the right to life and ill-treatment.

Other violations[1] examined in this group include unfair criminal trial on account of accepting tainted evidence (Article 6 § 1)^[2] as well as unrecorded detention and abduction (Article 5).[3] General measures related to the violation of a right to a fair trial on account of failure to ensure witness examination (Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d))[4] and the irregularities in the manner of obtaining evidence (Article 6 § 1)[5] are supervised in the Kartvelishvili (No. 17716/08) and Rostomashvili (No. 13185/07) groups.

Status of execution

This group was last examined by the Committee of Ministers during its 1492^nd DH meeting (March 2024). An updated action plan was submitted on 31 March 2025 (DH-DD(2025)376).

Individual measures

In March 2024 the Committee closed a number of cases in this group, in which the individual measures had been adopted or could no longer be adopted. It noted with interest the progress made in the investigation of the Shavadze case, but expressed serious concern over the lack of promptness in the other pending investigations and strongly urged the authorities once again to take all the necessary measures to complete them speedily and thoroughly. It also invited the authorities to ensure that the Special Investigation Service (SIS) speedily re-examine the case files in light of the Court’s findings in the Machalikashvili and Others and Ochigava cases and inform the applicants and the Committee on the decision taken with regard to the reopening of those investigations.

In the most recent Action Plan:

The authorities invited the Committee to close the supervision of 12 cases.[6] Out of these:

·         In nine cases,[7] reopened investigations led to indictments. In one case, judicial proceedings were completed,[8] while in eight others, they are pending before the trial or appeal courts.[9]

·         Two investigations are pending.[10]

·         One investigation was terminated^[11] in January 2024, as it did not lead to any result due to lack of sufficient evidence to confirm commission of a crime by a specific individual. The authorities were not able to serve the termination decision on the applicant given that he had left the country.

As regards other pending cases:

·         In 12 cases, reopened investigations are pending.

·         In one case,[12] the SIS is examining the possibility of re-investigation.

·         In another case,[13] the SIS refused the reopening following the Court’s judgment.  

Just satisfaction: the payment remains outstanding in the Hakobyan and Bokhonko cases due to the absence of the information from the applicants on their bank details. The authorities express their readiness to pay the sums due if the necessary information is provided.

In their Rule 9 communications (DH-DD(2024)880, DH-DD(2025)537), the applicants’ representatives in the Machalikashvili and Others case, argued that the SIS’ decision not to reopen the investigation is not substantiated and expressed concern over the lack of the applicants’ involvement in the process. They requested that the Committee calls on the SIS to reopen the investigation and enable their effective participation in the proceedings by granting them a victim status. In their Rule 9 communication
(DH-DD(2025)503), the applicants’ representatives in the cases of Ochigava, Edzgveradze, and Mamulashvili, expressed concerns over the lack of effectiveness of investigations.

General measures

In March 2024, the Committee encouraged the authorities to consider taking additional measures for strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the SIS, including by further aligning its remit with the institution’s primary role of investigating serious human rights violations committed by state agents and by ensuring a stronger independence of the SIS from the prosecutorial authorities. It noted with satisfaction a July 2023 ruling of the Constitutional Court increasing the possibilities for victims to seek judicial review of prosecutorial decisions, and noted with interest also the SIS’s continued efforts to ensure victims’ access to case files. At the same time, it expressed serious concern over the persistent deficiencies in granting of formal procedural status to victims and urged the authorities to take the necessary legislative or practical measures to address this problem. The authorities were encouraged to analyse the impact of measures taken to improve the practice of classification of offences and to reflect on further actions, including possible legislative changes, as well as to strengthen the safeguards for preventing ill-treatment, by increasing the scale and effectiveness of video/audio recording of interaction between the law enforcement agents and individuals. The Committee invited the authorities to continue providing statistical data on investigations of ill-treatment and analysis thereof.

The most recent information submitted by the authorities by the updated action plan of 31 March 2025 can be summarised as follows:

·         Special Investigation Service (SIS): The institution’s geographical coverage was expanded. A dedicated department handling the cases of torture and ill-treatment was created. Following the legislative amendments in May 2024, the jurisdiction of the SIS was broadened to cover the investigation of crimes committed by a prosecutor.

·         Victims’ rights:Since the adoption of the July 2022 SIS guidelines enabling victims to access case‑files, irrespective of their procedural status, until December 2024, victims benefited from this possibility in 355 cases. In 2024, the procedural status of a victim was granted by the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) to 106 persons in cases related to ill-treatment, that are investigated by the SIS.

·         Classification of offences:After the enactment of the SIS guidelines on classification of ill-treatment related criminal offences, from August 2023 until the end of 2024, the investigation was launched into 29 criminal cases under Article 144³ (humiliation or inhuman treatment) - 15 cases between August-December 2023 and 14 cases in 2024.

·         Other measures to prevent and combat ill-treatment: In October 2024, an Order on the use of body cameras and vehicle registrars by the employees of the Investigative Unit and Operational Division of the SIS was approved. To prevent crime and ensure traffic safety, thousands of video cameras have been installed within the unified system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs all over Georgia. Video surveillance is actively being carried out within the temporary detention facilities, including medical facilities. Temporary detention cells are equipped with hundreds of cameras.

·         Statistical data:In 2024 the SIS received 2124 reports on alleged ill-treatment concerning 2 379 persons. Investigations were launched in respect of 342 persons.[14] 130 cases were classified under Article 332 (abuse of official powers) or Article 333 (exceeding official powers) and 14 cases under Article 144³ (humiliation or inhuman treatment). Prosecution was launched in respect of one person. In addition, in 2024, the GPO launched prosecution in respect of five police officers under Article 333.

As regards ill-treatment in penitentiary institutions, three officers were prosecuted under the same article. As for prosecutorial motions on removal of the accused state agents from their positions, in 2024, 16 out of 28 motions were granted by domestic courts. In 2023-2025, the SIS submitted motions on removal in 39 cases out of which 21 were granted by domestic courts.

Lastly, the authorities invited the Committee to close the supervision the case of Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze based on the general measures taken to combat torture and ill-treatment. According to the authorities, torture is not any longer systemic issue in Georgia, as confirmed by various international and regional human rights bodies.

Rule 9 communications were submitted on 22 April 2025, 30 April 2025 and 7 May 2025 by the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia (PDO) (DH-DD(2025)502), three NGOs (DH-DD(2025)565) and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (the Commissioner) (DH-DD(2025)579).

The PDO and NGOs’ submissions outlined:

·         systemic ill-treatment of protesters by law enforcement officers and ineffectiveness of investigations into these facts, in the context of the recent demonstrations in 2024-2025, as well as problems of identification of police officers due to the absence of the obligation to carry insignias; 

·         concerns over the adequacy of the SIS’s investigative remit and its lack of independence from the prosecutor’s office, as well as deficient practice; need for legislative measures to resolve the problems of classification of ill-treatment crimes;

·         insufficiency and inaccessibility of electronic recording of interaction between individuals and law enforcement.

In addition, the NGOs underlined that their ability to work in the field of prevention of ill-treatment and to participate in the execution process is undermined due to the consequences of the recent legislation and policies, including the “Foreign Agent’s Registration Act (FARA)” adopted in April 2025.

The Commissioner underlined the following concerns:

·         disturbing scale of violence against protesters and journalists by law enforcement officers and groups of people, allegedly acting with the authorities’ support or acquiescence, during mass protests which have erupted since November 2024;

·         persistent challenges in ensuring accountability of law enforcement officers, creating a sense of impunity.

·         the SIS’s insufficient degree of independence and effectiveness, failure to act with due expedition and lack of thoroughness of investigations, deficiencies in granting of official status to victims;

·         the practice of classification of ill-treatment offences and the need for legislative amendments;

·         lack of legal provisions requiring law enforcement personnel to wear visible and individually distinguishable identification.

The Commissioner emphasised that the effective execution of the judgments cannot be achieved without implementing a number of measures, including strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the SIS, ensuring proactive, prompt and thorough investigations with meaningful victim participation and suspension of officers under investigation. The Commissioner underlined the importance of the use of force by law enforcement strictly in line with international standards, full reparation to victims and effective involvement of all stakeholders (PDO, civil society) in legislative and policymaking processes.

Analysis of the Secretariat

Individual measures

1)   Twelve cases requested to be closed by the authorities

In the case of Gablishvili and Others, while some perpetrators were convicted, albeit with lenient sanctions, including owing to the application of an amnesty law,[15] others could not be held accountable due to their death or the expiration of the statute of limitations for the offence under investigation. The Committee might therefore wish to close the supervision of the judgment with regret.

Closure of the supervision is not possible in the remaining cases, where domestic proceedings are still pending either at the trial or investigation stage.[16] The Committee might wish to call upon the authorities to accelerate and bring to completion the investigative or judicial proceedings concerned. As regards the Lanchava case, the authorities are expected to inform the Committee about additional measures taken to serve the termination decision on the applicant.

2)   Pending investigations[17]

It is deeply regrettable that despite the Committee’s requests, no new investigative actions were taken, nor any conclusive findings or decisions produced in five cases[18] where reopened investigations have remained pending for five to eleven years, concerning facts that date back approximately 14 to 21 years. No measures appear to have been taken in three other cases[19] over the past one to two years. In addition, out of four cases[20] transferred to the SIS for investigation following the Court’s judgments which became final in 2023-2024, concrete investigative measures have been reported only in one case.[21] Information is awaited on granting the procedural status of victim in the Mamulashvili case.

The Committee might wish to once again express serious concern over the protracted inaction and unexplained delays in the pending investigations, many of which have been ongoing for multiple years without conclusive findings and strongly urge the authorities to take all the outstanding measures thoroughly and promptly to avoid risks of prescription and loss of evidence, and to ensure the effective involvement of victims in the proceedings. 

3)   Reopening of investigations

The Committee might wish to call upon the authorities to ensure that the SIS speedily completes the re‑examination of the criminal case materials in the Hakobyan case, in which the Court’s judgment became final more than two years ago, with a view to deciding on the reinvestigation. It is essential that an effective involvement of the victim’s next of kin is ensured.  

As regards the Machalikashvili and Others case, once this judgment became final, the applicants’ representatives raised before the SIS the need to carry out a number of investigative measures,[22] which they claim they were unable to raise previously due to delayed access to the classified case materials – a substantial defect of the investigation, according to the Court. [23]

While the SIS decided not to pursue new investigative steps,[24] mostly relying on the adequacy of the initial investigation, it does not appear that a clear and compelling rationale was provided to justify its refusals.[25]

The applicants appealed the SIS decision to the prosecutor’s office but have not received any response. Hence, to date they have not been able to have their requests for new investigative actions reviewed by the prosecutorial and/or judicial authorities. It should be recalled in this respect that, one of the factors that led the Court to find a violation in this case was that the applicants’ were deprived of the ability to request judicial review of the investigative decisions - an important procedural safeguard of accountability and transparency.[26]The judgment also underlined that the evidence it disposed of made it impossible for the Court to assess the conflicting versions, and that no judicial assessment of the exact circumstances of the fatal shot had been conducted at the domestic level (§ 104).

In these circumstances, the Committee might wish to invite the authorities to provide information on the further possible measures to address the Court’s findings fully and in a convincing manner, including through an independent prosecutorial and judicial review.

General measures

1)   Allegations of ill-treatment and their effective investigation

Reports of alleged ill-treatment and excessive use of force by police have surged,[27] notably during the mass protests of 2024–2025. The Commissioner for Human Rights’ observation of a disturbing scale of violence by law enforcement officers both during the arrest of protesters and after they had been placed in police vans, along with the PDO’s and NGOs’ conclusions that the scale and severity of human rights violations pointed to systemic ill-treatment, including torture, raise serious doubts about the adequacy and sufficiency of the measures taken by Georgian authorities to combat and prevent torture and ill-treatment. 

Serious shortcomings have also been reported in the investigation of cases of police violence, as well as violence by groups of private individuals.[28] The official statistical data of the SIS also reveal a particularly low rate of prosecutions for ill-treatment related offences.[29] This raises questions about the independence and efficiency of the existing criminal justice mechanisms in holding law enforcement officers accountable and combating impunity for torture and ill-treatment. Reports also highlighted alleged ill-treatment of journalists and the lack of effective investigations thereof.[30] In this context, it is important to recall the Court’s indications in respect of investigations related to journalistic activities given in its recent judgment in the Mukhtarli case.

The Committee might wish to strongly urge the authorities to ensure that the SIS fulfils its core mandate in an independent and effective manner, promptly identifies and thoroughly investigates all facts of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement authorities and that these investigations are duly followed by effective prosecution and dissuasive sanctioning.

The authorities could be invited to inform the Committee on the outcomes of investigations, including into the reported instances of ill-treatment during the 2024-2025 rallies, the sanctions imposed and any other measure taken in response.

While it is noted that the SIS can now investigate offences committed by prosecutors, other important measures for safeguarding the SIS independence and effectiveness, raised by the Committee during its previous examinations, remain outstanding.^[31] This includes the need to further streamline the investigative remit of the SIS and to ensure its greater autonomy from the prosecution service, as outlined in the specific recommendations put forward by the Venice Commission[32] and reiterated more recently by the Commissioner for Human Rights.[33] The Committee may wish to call upon the authorities to take these comprehensive measures expeditiously.

2)   Victims’ rights

The systemic shortcoming in criminal investigations concerning the lack of formal victim status does not appear to have been solved in a sustainable manner.[34] Such status remains a precondition for a full exercise of the rights provided in the legislation, including the ability to seek judicial review of the prosecutor’s decisions. Furthermore, the information is still missing regarding the effectiveness of the application of the judicial remedy in respect of prosecutorial decisions refusing victim status. The Committee might wish to urge again the authorities to take concrete legislative or practical measures in a swift and resolute manner to address these concerns.

3)   Classification of offences

The practice of investigating alleged crimes of ill-treatment primarily under general criminal law provisions on official misconduct is reported to persist.^[35] The statistical data suggests a decline in numbers of criminal cases classified in 2024 under specific provisions of the Criminal Code on torture and ill-treatment.[36] The Committee might therefore wish to call upon the authorities to thoroughly analyse the current policy and legislative framework, and consider improving criminal law provisions, as necessary, to ensure full compliance with the Convention requirements. The authorities could be encouraged to use the Council of Europe expertise.

4)   Suspension of state agents during investigations

The statistical data on the removal of state agents from their positions do not indicate how many of motions submitted to and granted by courts concerned cases of ill-treatment. Furthermore, information is continuously missing regarding the practice of suspension of police officers without a judicial order. The Commissioner for Human Rights observed that no law enforcement officer was suspended in line with the mechanism foreseen in the Police Law for the duration of any official investigation in the context of November-December 2024 police violence. The authorities are expected to take targeted measures and demonstrate the compliance of the judicial and administrative practice on suspension of state agents with the requirement of the Court’s case-law.

5)   Safeguards for prevention of ill-treatment

The authorities could be called upon to inform the Committee on the measures taken or planned to ensure that robust safeguards are in place against excessive use of force by law enforcement to prevent occurrences of various forms of ill-treatment during arrests and detentions.

The measures taken to equip SIS investigators and vehicles with body cameras and video recording devices are noted, however, they do not appear sufficient in the light of the persistent challenges reported, including the absence of a clear obligation for police to use body cameras and to ensure audio-video recording of interaction with individuals, as well as shortcomings related to the management of such recordings.[37]

Furthermore, requiring the law enforcement personnel to wear visible and individually distinctive identification is crucial for the prevention of ill-treatment and combating impunity.[38] The authorities should be called upon to introduce the relevant safeguards without further delay.

6)   Other measures

In the light of the Court’s findings in the case of Machalikashvli and Others, information is awaited about the measures taken or planned to prevent shortcomings related to delays in granting access to classified information to victims during investigations, as well as to ensure proper documentation of the planning and conduct phases of special operations.

7)   Role of the civil society 

In the light of the continuous serious concerns[39] expressed by NGOs, the Committee may wish to call upon the authorities to ensure that the civil society is fully enabled to be effectively involved in the work aimed at the protection of victims of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, including in the context of the execution of the present judgments. In this respect, it is recalled that the Reykjavik Declaration recognised the role of (among others) civil society organisations in monitoring compliance with the Convention and the Court’s judgments.

Finally, the authorities have requested the closure of the supervision in the Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze case (raising the problem of torture tainted trials), arguing that torture and ill-treatment no longer represent a systemic problem in Georgia. In view of the concerns outlined in the above analysis, it does not appear possible to close the supervision of general measures in this case on the basis of the above request.

Financing assured: YES