Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 3 lit. "b", "c" and "d" of the Convention

Furthermore, none of the applicants' petitions made at the stage of the pretrial investigation were satisfied that brutally violates Article 230, par. 1, and Article 231, par. 1, of the criminal procedure code of Georgia, pursuant to which any party to criminal proceedings has a right to make a petition at any stage of legal proceedings. These Articles are very progressive, but under conditions, when none of the applicants' petitions were satisfied, they loose their importance and sense and remain just the empty words.

The applicants state to the Court that after they were sentenced to three-month's imprisonment their right to a defense was also continuously violated because their defense counsels were not permitted to familiarize themselves with the case materials. They were deprived of their basic right to make a timely copy the case materials. The most astonishing thing is that the judge of the Mtskheta Regional Court admitted himself that the second applicant's defense counsel, N. Lipartia, was denied the opportunity to make a copy of the protocol of the hearing. (See the attached Annex A..- - the protocol of hearing 25 July 2006). Thus Judge Gela Ki. actually admitted that he had totally neglected Article 76, pars. 1 and 3, and Article 84, par. 3, lit "l" and "o" of the criminal procedure code of Georgia, which directly state the defense counsel's right to copy the case materials.

Concerning the above violation, on 28 July 2006 the first applicant's defense counsel, Gia Joglidze, addressed a letter to the Public Defender of Georgia in which he stated: "… In this case the court has already passed to the stage of contention, where it is necessary to make a speech of defense, but I and the other defense counsels were not given this possibility. This violates the fundamental rights of the accused and their defense counsels considerably because we have not been allowed to familiarize ourselves with the protocols of the hearing despite our several requests. Because my request as a defense counsel to be permitted to familiarize myself with the protocol of the hearing has been left unresolved by the Mtskheta Regional Court and, in addition, Judge Gela Ki. has not allowed us to copy the case materials, I would like to ask you to react to this fact at your earliest convenience". (See the attached Annex A..).

This protest did not change anything, because Gia Joglidze's next letter of 14 August 2006 to the judge of the Mtskheta Regional Court, Gela Ki., states:

"In the criminal case against Z. Oboladze, N. Lobzhanidze and Tina Sv. I have addressed you several times with a request to allow me to copy, as allowed by law, the protocols of the hearing, in order to be able to prepare a speech of defense. Because you have illegally neglected my legal demand based upon Georgian legislation and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, you have in fact obligated me to prepare the speech of defense without being familiar with the protocol of the hearing. I would like also to remind you that on 7 August at the hearing you obligated me to prepare the above speech at the same hearing in 20 minutes and deigned to postpone the hearing for one day only after the prosecutor permitted you to do so". (See the attached Annex A..).

The first applicant submits to the Court that apart from the violations stated above, his right to defense was scandalously violated by Judge Gela Ki., who deprived him of the right to a final speech. Namely, at one of the hearings at the Mtskheta Regional Court the first applicant had been expelled from the hearing room because of "violation of order", as stated in the protocol of the hearing. At the next hearing, which took place on 9 August 2006 the first applicant addressed a petition to Judge Gela Ki. seeking to be allowed to attend the hearing in order to make a final speech. (See the attached Annex A.. - Zviad Oboladze's letter of 9 August 2006).

Judge Gela Ki. rejected this petition and did not allow the first applicant to attend the hearing. (See the attached Annex A.. - protocol of hearing of 9 August 2006). The fact that the first applicant had been expelled from the hearing room at the previous hearing did not deprive him of right to make a final speech. Namely, Article 208 of the criminal procedure code of Georgia states that a person expelled from the hearing can be allowed to return to it based on his well-founded petition. Although the legislation does not state what a "well-founded petition" is, considering great importance of the right to final speech, it is evident that the first applicant's petition was well-founded and it is hard to imagine what other right could be considered more important than this one. A right to final speech is a last chance for an accused to state his position, summarize the evidence collected in the case, analyze it again and try to convince the court of his lack of guilt.

The great importance of an accused's right to make a final speech is especially apparent under Article 563, par. 2, lit "j" of the criminal procedure code of Georgia, which states that a judgment must be rescinded, if the accused was not given a right to make a final speech.

The trustee of the Public Defender of Georgia, Levan Labauri, who attended the hearing, also stressed the above violation of the first applicant's right and made a protocol on this matter. Furthermore, on 6 November 2006 he filed a written petition with the Tbilisi Appellate Court seeking to be examined as a witness concerning this fact, but Judge Marina Kh. rejected this petition (See the attached Annex A..es - letter of Labauri and protocol of hearing).
Considering the foregoing, the applicants submit that their right to defense was brutally violated under Article 6, par. 3, lit "b" and "c" of the European Convention, which states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the rights to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.
The applicants emphasize that apart from violation of above provisions, lit "d" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention was also violated with respect to them.

__________

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