|
|
Violations of Art. 6 par 1 - Page 10
Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1
Consequently, when the prosecutors' office and the court emphasize that the second applicant has participated in the patient's curettage and for this reason she was responsible for her treatment, this is a specially invented and fabricated accusation. The second applicant emphasizes the judgment of 29 December of the Tbilisi Appellate Court.
Namely, in the judgment's analytical part one can read: "Akaki B. and Levan Ch. testified that making a precise diagnosis and providing an adequate treatment was an obligation of those gynecologists, who were in touch with the patient. Therefore, all physicians having been in touch with the patient should assume their responsibility". (See the attached Annex A..- the judgment).
If we follow the logic that every physician having been in touch with patient Guliko M. should assume his/her responsibility, then, why did not the prosecutors' office and the court have the same approach to an emergency doctor, who had delivered the patient to the hospital? We must not forget the diagnosis made by emergency team - "food intoxication".
Nobody can contest that this diagnosis has nothing to do with the real reason of the patient's death. The emergency doctors knew the patient's anamnesis that she had reported to them at home. Then why could not they make a precise diagnosis?
We must neither forget surgeon Dr. T. J., who, after a therapist on duty, was the first one to examine patient Guliko M. as soon as she was admitted to the hospital and categorically excluded an acute abdomen. Following this logic, then he also was in touch with the patient; he also got involved in her examination and diagnosing. When a surgeon excludes acute abdomen, does not it not it mean that he makes a diagnosis? And if he makes a diagnosis, does not that mean that he was also responsible for the patient?
Why did not the prosecutors' office accuse and then the court declare guilty the experts in resuscitation, who were in touch with the patient and even very closely, after she was moved to the resuscitation department at 11:00? From 13:00 they knew the ultrasound examination results; they knew that the patient had internal bleeding. Then why did they leave the patient in resuscitation department? Why did not they urge the patient's doctor in charge, Dr. Tina Sv. to move the patient immediately to the operating-room?
The applicants also bring to the kind attention of the Court the analytical part of judgment of the Tbilisi Appellate Court, where the judge partially refers to expert Amiran Amiran K's testimony. Namely, Marina Kh., Judge of the Tbilisi Appellate Court, paid attention only to one sentence from the above testimony that "…if Lobzhanidze scrubbed Guliko M's uterus, then she should also assume responsibility for her ". (See the attached Annex A..--- judgment).
It is very "strange" that this was the only statement from Amiran K's testimony that seemed important for Judge Marina Kh. in order to investigate objectively whether or not the second applicant had committed the crime she was accused of. Also, even if some stretch of the imagination the second applicant had become responsible for the patient's treatment, surely the fact that the first applicant was in charge of the patient at this time gave the second applicant a "reasonable excuse" not to care for the patient after the curettage was over.
The judge totally neglected, for some reason, other statements made by the expert at the hearing in favor of the applicants and proving their innocence. Namely, expert Amiran K. mentioned at the hearing: "Based on the case history, I did not find that the patient was left without attention and care. I have not stated she was left in danger". (See the attached Annex A.. - protocol of additional examination of Amiran K at the Tbilisi Appellate Court).
If we take into account the accusation both applicants are charged with, it becomes ambiguous why the prosecutors' office and the court considered Amiran K's testimony an uncontradicted proof of the applicants' guilt. At the same hearing, when the second applicant's defense counsel asked Amiran K. if the patient was provided with non-stop exigent medical care, the expert answered: "Starting from the moment of the patient's admission, she was provided with all the necessary manipulations: ultrasound examination was performed twice, some antibiotics were administered to her". Then he made very important statement: "I repeat again, if an operation had been made between 13:00 and 14:00, we would not meet here today". (See the attached Annex A..- the protocol of the hearing).
The expert's evaluation that "the patient was provided with all the necessary manipulations", excludes by itself any guilt of the first applicant of a crime he was charged with. The above testimony does not prove at all that the patient was left in danger, at least, during the first applicant's working hours.
__________
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
|
