Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1

Especially interesting is Amiran K's second statement: "I repeat again, if an operation was made between 13:00 and 14:00, we would not meet here today". The first applicant would like to focus the Court's attention especially on the fact that the expert mentioned the period "between 13:00 and 14:00", and not between 05:15 and 10:00 (i.e., the first applicant's working hours), when the first applicant terminated his duty and handed the patient over to manager of genecology department Tina Sv., thus, observing all relevant rules. Especially interesting is Amiran K's categorical tone: "I repeat again", which means that he has insisted on his previous testimony given to the first instance court.

In this regard the applicants would like to emphasize that expert Amiran K's testimony made at the hearing at the Mtskheta Regional Court was recorded falsely in the relevant protocol of the hearing that was afterwards contended by the first applicant's defense counsel Gia Joglidze. As a result, Gia Joglidze and Public Defender of Georgia Sozar Subari have sent letters to expert Amiran K. explaining the situation to him and asking to summarize his testimony given to the Mtskheta Regional Court on 22 May 2006.

For this purpose the defense counsel and Public Defender of Georgia have put some questions to the expert Amiran K. in order to demonstrate that the protocol of the hearing had been falsified. As expected, the expert's answers were absolutely different from his testimony as recorded in the protocol of the hearing and they contained no allegation of a crime committed by the applicants (See the attached Annex A.. ---).

The first applicant refers to the judgment of the Tbilisi Appellate Court, the analytical part of which totally contradicts to the operative one. Namely, in order to prove that the first applicant was responsible for the patient's state of health also after his working hours, Marina Kh., Judge of the Tbilisi Appellate Court, made such a statement in the analytical part of judgment, which absolutely excludes the first applicant's guilt and responsibility for commission of the crime proscribed by Article 130, par. 2, of the criminal code of Georgia. Namely, one can read the following in the analytical part of judgment:

"according to the case materials that are neither contested by Zviad Oboladze himself, he remained at the Mtskheta hospital after his working hours had terminated and tried to help Guliko M. being in a critical condition. Namely, he tried to operate on her". (see the attached Annex A.. - judgment of the Tbilisi Appellate Court)

The first applicant would like to call the Court's attention to this statement, which is extremely important when determining whether or not he is guilty of the crime proscribed by Article 130, par. 2, of the criminal code of Georgia, which states absolutely, that only physician's inaction - "leaving a patient in danger" - will fall within this Article. Considering the above statement made by the judge in the judgment's analytical part, it becomes unbelievable that the first applicant was declared guilty of a crime, which can be committed only by inaction, while, as judge Maina Kh. correctly mentioned in the judgment, the first applicant remained at the Mtskheta hospital after his working hours had terminated and tried to help Guliko M. being in a critical condition. Namely, he tried to operate on her.

Considering the foregoing the applicants would like to emphasize what the prosecutors' office's approach to "uncontradicted evidence" is like. Although, this is caused not by their non-professionalism, but it indicates that their interest in keeping the applicants imprisoned was so huge that they did not abstain from fabricating intentionally the facts and made the courts to fulfill their wishes, which based their judgments upon such "uncontradicted evidence" that are more than enough in this case.

Exactly for this reason, patient Guliko M's husband - Zviad Ch., who has been declared a victim in this case, after having attended almost all hearings and getting familiar with the case materials, addressed the court twice with a letter asking not to allow the innocent people to be punished. Namely, he wrote:

" I've got familiarized with the prosecutor's speech of accusation, which I disagree with regarding Lobzhanidze's and Oboladze's guilt, because during the hearings it became clear that Tina Sv. is responsible for my wife's death, but Lobzhanidze and Oboladze are not-guilty. During these seven months I heard and analyzed the truth and do not want to burden my wife's soul. I do not want my wife's death to become a mean of my revenge. My wife's soul will not forgive me if I punish the innocent people that will make Oboladze's and Lobzhanidze's children unhappy. My family members who attended the hearings informed me about the experts' statements examined at the hearings. I also investigated as far as I could the method of her diagnosis and treatment and the reason for her death and now I am sure that the one responsible for my wife's death is Tina Sv. and not Lobzhanidze and Oboladze. I made this statement at the hearing as well and in addition I addressed you in writing".

"As for Dr. Tina Sv., it is been proved and we also knew that she was Guliko M's physician in charge and in the event of a timely operation she could save my wife. I entrust you to determine her penalty, I believe you will not make a mistake. In conclusion I would like to add that the God is the best judge". (See the attached Annex A.. - letters of Zviad Ch.).

It cannot be said that the widower was biased and partial when writing these letters, because at the beginning of the investigation he sought to punish all physicians having been in touch with her wife. Afterwards, as it can be seen from the above letters, he changed his position and approach to the case, because it was enough for him to attend some hearings and hear the testimony of experts and specialists in order to conclude that the applicants were absolutely innocent and not guilty of his wife's death. It is strange that if this simple truth became available for a man, who is not a lawyer, but who was most of all interested in finding the truth on this case, then why the prosecutors' office and the courts did not pay any attention to the evident facts proving the applicants not-guilty?

__________

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