Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1

In order to observe the consecution, it is better to contest the trumped up accusations of prosecutors' office that have nothing to do with the evidence of the case and which, unfortunately, were totally accepted by the court and almost copied in the judgments. In this regard the applicants consider necessary to examine in details the bill of indictment and the judgment in order to illustrate degree and scales of falsification of accusation.

First of all it is to be mentioned that that the both applicants and the third accused, manager of gynecology department of the Mtskheta regional hospital Dr. Tina Sv. were charged under the same Article 130, par. 2 of the criminal code of Georgia. The accusation against them was formulated exactly with the same words, phrases and "arguments". The uncontradicted case materials, on the one hand, and partial and biased criminal proceeding against the applicants, on the other hand, gives them a possibility to conclude that such content of the bill of indictment was made intentionally in order to aggravate the applicants' situation and share with them responsibility of the third accused Dr. Tina Sv., without any relevant proof.

This aimed at releasing her on bail and, then, at adjourning the judgment's enforcement against her because of her "state of health", which means in Georgia that Tina Sv. will be practically released from responsibility and, at the same time, at creating an illusion of struggle against criminality and punishment of "real criminals" by declaring the applicants guilty and sentencing them to imprisonment. In any case, "someone should be punished".

Although, the prosecutors' office was duty-bound to consider the results of pretrial investigation, which lasted for three months before the applicants would be detained, such as the evidence of the case, testimonies of witnesses, conclusions of experts, working hours and scope of medical activity of the concerned persons, their general and specific obligations regarding the patient Guliko M and culpability or non-culpability of each of them observing the principle of individualization. Though, as mentioned above, the idée fixe of the prosecutors' office was to punish the applicants demonstratively as "negligent physicians", regardless whether or not they were really responsible for the patient's death, especially when they had such order directly from the Minister of Labor, Healthcare and Social Welfare.

So, the applicants will first discus the bill of indictment in order to demonstrate how partially investigation was conducted and the accusation perfectly fabricated.

The applicants are accused as physicians of failing without a reasonable excuse to provide emergency medical care to a patient being in a life-threatening condition that caused his/her death.

Then the bill of indictment "describes" the merits of the case as follows:

"On 22 September 2005 at 05:00 a.m. an ambulance delivered Guliko M (born 1970, …) to the reception of the therapeutics department of the Mtskheta Regional Multi-Profile Hospital, Ltd. She was suffering from stomach pains. At 05:40 the patient was moved from the reception of the therapeutics department to the gynecology department, where she was examined by the gynecologist on duty Zviad Oboladze and the deputy-director for treatment of this hospital, the obstetrician-gynecologist Nino Lobzhanidze. They made a diagnosis: "postabortal acute endometritis, pelvioperitonitis". Subsequently, at 05:50 a.m. the gynecologist Z. Oboladze and the obstetrician-gynecologist N. Lobzhanidze performed the patient's curettage". (See the attached Annex A.. - bill of indictment).

The investigator continues: "In light of the patients' symptoms, which included severe stomach pains, vomiting, data from the internal examination - the cervix of uterus painful while moving -, the gynecologists N. Lobzhanidze and Z. Oboladze did not make a differential diagnosis regarding the abdominal pregnancy along with the diagnosis made by them and, consequently, they conducted an improper treatment.

At 10:25 a.m. a head of the obstetrics department Tina Sv. came to the hospital, examined the patient Guliko M and made the same diagnosis (postabortal acute endometritis, pelvioperitonitis).

Though the patient Guliko M's medical condition was getting worse hour by hour, the patient underwent an ultrasound examination late, about 7 hours after she had been admitted to the hospital.

As a result of an ultrasound examination much free liquid was detected in Guliko M's abdomen. As a forensic expertise conclusion demonstrates, this liquid was blood that was caused by the burst of the right ovarian tube provoked by the abdominal pregnancy". (See the attached Annex A.. - bill of indictment).

The investigator Levan Ga. concludes: "The ultrasound examination's results and the patient's symptoms: state of shock, critical hematocrit level, icteric skin and mucus membrane directly indicated a ruptured fallopian tube caused by the patient's abdominal pregnancy, the only adequate treatment for which was an emergency abdomenal section and ablation of the damaged tube in order to stop the bleeding. Failure to give such treatment absolutely caused the patient's death."

"N. Lobzhanidze together with the gynecologists Z. Oboladze and Tina Sv. have violated Article 38 of the law of Georgia on healthcare, according to which they were responsible for providing emergency medical care to the patient Guliko M, who was in a life-threatening condition, i.e., for making a precise diagnosis and conducting an adequate treatment. N. Lobzhanidze could not make a precise diagnosis (the bleeding developed as a result of the rupture of the right fallopian tube caused by the abdominal pregnancy) without a reasonable excuse, did not determine the type of the liquid detected in the patient's abdomen, did not perform an immediate operation that caused the patient Guliko M's death at 15:50". (see the attached Annex A.. - bill of indictment).

And in conclusion, the investigator strongly believes that by the above actions the applicants and Dr. Tina Sv. have committed the crime proscribed by Article 130, par. 2, of the criminal code of Georgia.

If one compares the "merits of the case" given in the bill of indictment with the facts stated by the applicants (see the statement of facts), it becomes evident that the bill of indictment contains maximally filtered and poor information that misses many facts proved by the evidence of the case, which had a great importance for the right investigation of the case. That's why the applicants emphasize that the merits of the case were intentionally fabricated and the evidence falsified as they will try to prove below.

__________

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