European Court of Human Rights unanimously declares Georgia v. Russia application admissible

In its decision in the inter-State case Georgia v. Russia (IV) (application no. 39611/18) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application admissible.

The case concerns the alleged deterioration of the human-rights situation along the administrative boundary lines between Georgian-controlled territory and Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“The decision is final and will be followed by a judgment on the merits at a later stage. The case concerns the alleged deterioration of the human-rights situation along the administrative boundary lines between Georgian-controlled territory and Abkhazia and South Ossetia1 . It was lodged by the Government of Georgia on 22 August 2018. It is the fourth Georgia v. Russia interState application. The President of the Court assigned the case to the Second Section and the Russian Government (“the respondent Government”) was given notice of the application on 18 June 2019. On 10 September 2019, at the request of the respondent Government, the Chamber decided to adjourn the case until the adoption of a judgment on the merits in the case Georgia v. Russia (II) (no. 38263/08). After the delivery of the judgment on the merits in that case on 21 January 2021, the proceedings in the present case were resumed on 25 May 2021. The parties submitted their observations on 15 December 2021 and on 25 February 2022.

There have been three other applications lodged by Georgia against Russia before the Court. There are also almost 250 individual applications before the Court against Georgia, against Russia or against both States concerning the armed conflict in 2008 or the process of “borderisation” which started in 2009”, reads the press release.

According to the Court, the Georgian Government alleges, in particular: “(a) that Russia has engaged (and continues to engage) in an administrative practice of harassing, unlawfully arresting and detaining, assaulting, torturing, murdering and intimidating ethnic Georgians attempting to cross, or living next to, the administrative boundary lines that now separate Georgian-controlled territory from Abkhazia and South Ossetia; (b) that Russia has engaged (and continues to engage) in an administrative practice of failing to conduct Convention-compliant investigations in this connection; (c) that Archil Tatunashvili - a Georgian civilian who was abducted while trying to enter South Ossetia - was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, tortured and murdered by persons for whom Russia bears responsibility; and (d) that Russia has failed to conduct a Convention-compliant investigation into his unlawful arrest and murder and into the unlawful arrests and murders of Davit Basharuli and Giga Otkhozoria, two ethnic Georgians arrested in separate circumstances by the de facto authorities and killed. In this regard, the Georgian Government relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention, Articles 1 (protection of property) and 2 (right to education) of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 (freedom of movement) of Protocol No. 4.”

The Court established that it had jurisdiction to deal with the case, as the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention took place before 16 September 2022, the date on which Russia ceased to be a Party to the European Convention.

“Although the Georgian government had asked the Court to consider the cases of Davit Basharuli, Giga Otkhozoria and Archil Tatunashvili not only as illustrations of the administrative practices alleged, but also as individual violations of the Convention, the Court noted that those cases were also the subject of three pending individual applications (nos. 44677/21, 3963/18 and 41776/18). It therefore decided that, in this inter-State case, it would only examine the allegations of administrative practices and would consider the three individual cases as alleged illustrations of such practices. Moreover, the Court agreed that no events which had occurred before 2009 - that is to say before the process of “borderisation” - should be taken into consideration”, reads the press release.

Oleksii Reznikov - Russia, in reality, is a paper tiger
A Korean tamada: Opening of the Korean Embassy in Tbilisi
Israeli Ambassador to Georgia - Our strategy is not to have Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip - Unfortunately, the UN cooperates with Hamas, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch work in favor of Hamas