HomeHuman RightsDoctors' CaseStatement of factsStatement of facts (3)
 Aktuelle Informationen 
 Kanzlei
 Kooperationspartner
 Partnerunternehmen
 Honorare
 World Jurist Association
 Human Rights
   European Convention
   Preamble of the Convention
   Situation in Georgia
   Case G. Tsetskhladze
   Doctors' Case
     Statement of facts
       Statement of facts (2)
       Statement of facts (3)
       Statement of facts (4)
     Alleged violations
     Release from prison
   Case of Judge N. Khazhalia
 Impressum
 NEWSARCHIV

Statement of facts (3)




Statement of facts - Part 3 of 4

On 22 September 2005, i.e., the day of the patient's death, a criminal case was initiated and a pre-trial investigation begun by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Mtskheta Administration of Interior. The case was initiated on the ground that physicians had failed to provide Guliko M. with emergency medical care, resulting in her death. (see the attached Annex A.. - article 130).

On 24 October 2005 the forensic expert examination bureau of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia concluded that the cause of Guliko M's death was acute bleeding from a ruptured fallopian tube caused by an abdominal pregnancy. Death was pronounced at 3:50 p.m. on 22 September 2005. (see the attached Annex A..).

On 22 December 2005 the forensic expert examination bureau of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, reported that the gynecology department of the Mtskheta Regional Multi-Profile Hospital, Ltd., made a diagnostic error regarding Guliko M.. This diagnostic error resulted in inadequate treatment. The patient needed an immediate operation that was not provided (see the attached Annex A..).

On 26 December 2005 Levan Ga., an investigator for criminal cases in the Mtskheta Administration of Interior, issued a formal resolution accusing the first applicant in criminal case #032050636 of leaving Guliko M. in danger, a crime proscribed by article 130, par. 2 of the criminal code of Georgia. The first applicant was detained at 8:07 p.m. the same day. Pursuant to the investigator's petition, the Mtskheta Regional Court, as a preventive measure, ordered the first applicant to be held on three-month's pre-trial detention (see the attached Annex A.. - order of the court).

On 26 December 2005 Levan Ga., an investigator for criminal cases in the Mtskheta Administration of Interior, issued a formal resolution accusing the second applicant in the criminal case #032050636 of leaving Guliko M. in danger, a crime proscribed by article 130, par. 2 of the criminal code of Georgia. I. Pi., a prosecutor in the Mtskheta Regional Prosecutors' Office, sought the pre-trial detention of the second applicant on 26 December 2005. Pursuant to the investigator's petition, the Mtskheta Regional Court ordered that the applicants be held on three-month's pre-trial detention as a preventive measure (see the attached Annex A.. - order of the court).

On 26 December 2005 the same investigator, Levan Ga., filed a petition with the Mtskheta Regional Court granting bail as a preventive measure to the third accused, Dr. Tina Sv. He sought 15,000 Gel as bail. The court granted this petition and the main accused, Dr. Tina Sv., the main key-player, the manager of gynecology department who was responsible for the patient Guliko M's care at the moment when she died, was released on bail differently from the both applicants. We discuss the unlawfulness of this decision below, under the alleged violation of the relevant articles of European Convention on Human Rights and relevant argumentation.

On 27 December 2005 the director of the Mtskheta Regional Multi-Profile Hospital, Ltd., issued order #1024, dismissing the second applicant from her position as deputy-director (see the attached Annex A..).

On 4 January 2006 the first applicant's defense counsel, T. Tskimanauri, appealed the first instance court's order imposing pre-trial detention as a preventive measure of the first applicant and sought to rescind the preventive measure and also sought to stop the criminal prosecution on the ground that the first applicant had not committed any crime proscribed by the criminal code. Namely, as emphasized by the defense counsel, the first applicant's duty of care toward the patient ended at 10:00 a.m. During the entire period that the patient, Guliko M., was under his observation her medical condition was stable and thus the first applicant was not responsible for any events that developed afterwards because after 10:00 a.m. the person responsible for the patient was Dr. Tina Sv., the manager of gynecology department, to whom the first applicant had transferred the patient.

The Tbilisi Appellate Court denied defense counsel's appeal, leaving in force the Mtskheta Regional Court's pre-trial detention of the first applicant.

On 4 January 2006 the second applicant's defense counsel, T. Rukhadze, appealed the first instance court's order imposing pre-trial detention as a preventive measure of the second applicant as a preventive measure and sought to replace it with bail in amount of 5,000 Gel for the following reasons: There was no evidence supporting the accusation against the second applicant because she did not participate in either the patient's diagnosis or treatment. Her only obligation that day was to treat her own patient, Shehraza A., pursuant to a private contract for medical care that the second applicant had made with her. In addition, defense counsel presented documents regarding the second applicant's family status. Namely, she is a mother of four children, the youngest being five years old. The defense counsel also presented a document certifying that because of such a sudden separation from her mother the child was under serious stress and needed medical assistance and her mother's care. Relevant medical certificates and references delivered by the kindergarten were presented to the court (see the attached Annex A.. ---).

The Tbilisi Appellate Court left in force the order of the Mtskheta Regional Court imposing pre-trial detention as a preventive measure for the second applicant, just as it did with regard to the first applicant.

On 26 January 2006 the first applicant was moved from custody to the medical institution for the accused and prisoners (Republican Prison Hospital). On 31 January 2006 a physician of this medical institution examined the first applicant and diagnosed him as having lumbar spondylosis, ligamentitis, dorsomediolateral sequestered prolapse of disk to the right (see the attached Annex A..)

On 15 February 2006 pre-trial investigation of the case was completed. Pursuant to the bill of indictment both applicants were charged under article 130, par. 2, with "failure of a physician without reasonable excuse to provide emergency medical care to a patient in critical condition when such failure caused the death of the patient".

On 21 February 2006 the criminal case, #032050636, was presented to the Mtskheta Regional Court for examination.

__________

prior page    next page


08.11.2007:
Ausnahmezustand in Georgien und vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen [weiter]

17.09.2007:
Rechtsanwaltskammern gegen Gesetzentwurf zur Telekommu-
nikationsüberwachung [weiter]

07.07.2007:
Schäuble fordert "Internierung", Internet- und Handyverbot für "Gefährder" [weiter]

27.05.2007:
BVerfG: Nichteheliche Kinder dürfen beim Betreuungsunterhalt nicht benachteiligt werden [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Sammelklage gegen Vorratsdatenspeicherung [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Grundrechte-Report 2007 erschienen [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte fordert sofortige Beendigung des Grundrechte-Ausverkaufs [weiter]


Informationen älteren Datums finden Sie im Newsarchiv
HOME | WORLD JURIST ASSOC. | HUMAN RIGHTS | IMPRESSUM | CREDITS / DANKSAGUNG


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