|
|
Violations of Art. 6 par 1 - Page 14
Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1
Considering the foregoing, the applicants submit that their case was indeed unprecedented. No physician has ever been accused and then declared guilty of this crime in Georgia. Consequently, the judgment of the Tbilisi Appellate Court of 29 December 2006 was the first one in the Georgian jurisprudence's history that was made regarding Article 130, par. 2, of the criminal code of Georgia.
That's why it was not only important for legal development and establishing a common judicial practice, but it was also obligatory for the Supreme Court of Georgia to examine this case as unprecedented one, pursuant to Article 547, par. 2, of the criminal procedure law of Georgia. Even if one presumes that one or two judgments/decisions existed on such category of cases, this should not be enough for the Supreme Court in order to state that this case was not important for legal development or establishing a common judicial practice.
The applicants put a question: then, why did the Supreme Court of Georgia reject their appeals with the above motive?
The answer is very simple: the applicants do not think that it is the judges' non-professionalism. They would absolutely know that there was no precedent on such category of cases in Georgia, but even if they did not, they were supposed to investigate this issue before they would make a decision on rejection of the applicants' appeals. The fact is that the Supreme Court mentioned all three reasons listed in Article 547, par. 2, of the criminal procedure code of Georgia, absence of which causes the Supreme Court to reject any appeal.
So, the court could not just mention another reason. The most important is that, the Supreme Court's desire and readiness not to accept this case for examination was so great, that the judges did not abstain from basing their refusal on the above reasons, even if they perfectly knew that, for their part, this was a manifestation of an arbitrary approach to the applicants. But, why was the Supreme Court so interested to reject the applicants' appeals by all means? This is a "mystery".
Considering the foregoing, the applicants submit that by the Supreme Court's arbitrary decision they were finally deprived of a last chance to achieve justice on the national level and, consequently, their right to fair trial was brutally violated.
Considering the foregoing, the applicants emphasize that their right to fair trial proscribed by Article 6, par. 1, of the European Convention has been violated.
__________
prior page violations of Article 6 par. 2
|
|
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
|
