|
|
Violations of Art. 6 par 1 - Page 6
Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1
Paragraph 4 of the bill of indictment:
Falsification of facts - First of all, according to the bill of indictment, Dr. Tina Sv. came to the hospital at 10:25 a.m. This is not true. In fact, the case materials prove that she was at the hospital already at 09:45 a.m., when the first applicant handed the patient over to her and then he joined the morning conference, which started at 10:00 a.m.
Secondly, the prosecutor, because of his superficial approach to the case, did not know that Dr. Tina Sv. was a manager of gynecology department and not a manager of obstetrics department like he noted in the bill of indictment.
The applicants emphasize that this part of the bill of indictment, namely, the time when Dr. Tina Sv. came to the hospital, is intentionally changed, because exactly at 10:25 a.m. the patient's medical condition worsened, although it did not become critical even then. After 10:00 a.m. onwards only Dr. Tina Sv. was responsible for the patient, but the prosecutors' office tries to shut its eyes at this fact.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the bill of indictment:
These are also faked. Namely, the prosecutor mentions in paragraph 5 that the patient Guliko M's state of health was worsening hour by hour. Of course, this is not true, because according to the case history records and testimony of all the experts and specialists, the patient's medical condition began to worsen at 10:25 a.m. (see the attached Annex A.. ---). As for the accusation that an ultrasound examination was made late to the patient in order to verify diagnosis, it is intentionally exaggerated, because the patient's state during clinical observation in the early morning hours did not require such manipulation.
Although, the first applicant has made a record about conducting ultrasound examination in case if the patient's state remained stable. Because it was not possible to conduct an ultrasound examination in the early morning hours, this manipulation was intended to be provided later in the morning. (see the attached Annex A..--).
As for paragraph 6 of the bill of indictment, there are such important errors in stating the facts there that is intolerable in case of objective investigation. Yes, it is true that as a result of ultrasound examination much free liquid was detected in the patient Guliko M's abdomen, but the prosecutor should absolutely mention hereby: as a result of which ultrasound examination such liquid was detected. The point is that the patient underwent ultrasound examination twice.
The first was conducted at 11:00 a.m. that is proved by testimony of an expert in ultrasound examination Gia N. himself. As a result of this ultrasound exam no liquid was detected. Besides, as the patient's urinary bladder was empty, it was decided to perform another ultrasound examination. During the hearing at the first instance court Gia N. confirmed: "if there is any liquid in abdomen, it will be detected even if urinary bladder is empty". (See the attached Annex A..---). Thus, he confirmed that as a result of the first ultrasound examination no liquid was detected. Unfortunately, neither at the hearing did the prosecutor try to argue why he referred to "much blood" detected in the patient's abdomen at that time.
__________
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
|
