HomeHuman RightsDoctors' Case
 Aktuelle Informationen 
 World Jurist Association
 Human Rights
   European Convention
   Preamble of the Convention
   Situation in Georgia
   Case G. Tsetskhladze
   Doctors' Case
     Statement of facts
     Alleged violations
     Release from prison
   Case of Judge N. Khazhalia

Doctors' Case

Abstract of the doctor's case

The applicants (Dr. Zviad Oboladze and Dr. Nino Lobzhanidze) are victims of arbitrary and illegal persecution,
conviction and punishment. This case involves numerous momentous violations of Georgian national law and fundamental principles of law as cited in the European Convention of Human Rights. The judgments of the domestic courts were also based upon unlawful evidence and obvious misinterpretation of law as well as upon incredible ignorance of facts and law.

 On 26 December 2005 the applicants were charged with Art. 130 (par. 2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia(1), though the second applicant was not at all responsible and the first applicant not at the time when the patient's medical condition became a critical status.

The applicants were detained at 08:07 p.m. the same day. Pursuant to the investigator's petition, the Mtskheta Regional Court, as a preventive measure, ordered both applicants to be held on three-month's pre-trial detention.

 On 9 August 2006 the Mtskheta Regional Court rendered a first instance judgment against both applicants. This judgment sentenced the applicants to prison for 3 years.

The applicant duly appealed this judgment to the Tbilisi Appellate Court. On 29 December 2006 that court upheld the judgment of the court of the first instance.

 On 29 January 2007 the Applicant appealed the decision of the Tbilisi Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of Georgia. On 23 July 2007 the Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Georgia decided the appeal not to admit the case to the hearing at the Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of Georgia. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.

It is to be mentioned that the following (see also statement of the facts), especially, the first part relating to the chronology of events that have taken place on 22 September 2005 and the involvement of both applicants, differs radically from the facts stated in the bill of indictment and the judgments based on it, where the real facts are so intentionally misrepresented that as soon as one gets familiarized with them their unreal nature becomes very clear.

Instead of the bill of indictment and the judgments being based on the evidence of the case (testimony of witnesses, conclusions of experts, other uncontradicted evidence collected by investigation), it can be stated that the facts and proofs were impudently falsified. The applicants will try to demonstrate the truth of this statement by referring to relevant annexes.

The applicants consider themselves duty-bound to contest every single intentional false interpretation of uncontradicted evidence of the case by the prosecutor's office and the courts of Georgia and to present their argumentation to the ECHR accompanied by the real evidence of the case in order that they are declared not guilty and illegal prisoners, at least at this stage, and to achieve the just rehabilitation.

There are such important errors in stating the facts there that is intolerable in case of objective investigation.

All accusations against the applicants were arbitrary contrived and not in the least define as a criminal offence by Article 130 of the Georgian criminal code. The Georgian courts' interpretation of its statute is so wild and excessively that it violates Georgian law and Human rights.

But because it was not an offence, then the whole criminal punishment should be eliminated. If the prosecutors can be made to understand that medical negligence is not a criminal act, then they will not institute criminal proceedings in such cases, let alone seek pre-trial detention.

More is so that when one considers the merits of this case, it becomes obvious that the applicants have not committed even a medical negligence.

In accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the European Court of Human Rights may declare the application admissible and review this case for a chain of substantive violation of the applicants' human rights.


Article 130: Leaving a patient in danger
(2): Failure of a physician without reasonable excuse to provide an emergency medical care to a patient in critical condition, when such failure caused the patient's death.

Ausnahmezustand in Georgien und vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen [weiter]

Rechtsanwaltskammern gegen Gesetzentwurf zur Telekommu-
nikationsüberwachung [weiter]

Schäuble fordert "Internierung", Internet- und Handyverbot für "Gefährder" [weiter]

BVerfG: Nichteheliche Kinder dürfen beim Betreuungsunterhalt nicht benachteiligt werden [weiter]

Sammelklage gegen Vorratsdatenspeicherung [weiter]

Grundrechte-Report 2007 erschienen [weiter]

Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte fordert sofortige Beendigung des Grundrechte-Ausverkaufs [weiter]

Informationen šlteren Datums finden Sie im Newsarchiv

© 2015 by Rechtsanwalt Wolfgang Schulz, Berlin | Rev: 01.04.2015