|
|
Summary
Introduction
Our client is seriously ill and innocent in prison since 11 August 2004, i.e. for almost two and a half year. It is feared seriously that if a clarification and change of his situation is not done very soon, my client is dead. He suffers from chronic form of "C" hepatitis and arterial hypertonie /second/ with crisis development.
Summary
1. Our client submits that the police and legal authorities of the Republic of Georgia have infringe his right to liberty and security, guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention and violated his rights to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
2. In early 2004 a wave of political purges started in Georgia on the pretext of struggle against corruption. Resignations were demanded of experienced but insubordinate government officials, officers in police, customs and administrative bodies, public prosecutors and judges as well against younger, more inexperienced and therefore submissive persons. Those who were unwilling to hand in his resignation “spontaneously” experienced repressions by intimidations and threats to accusation and conviction.
3. Our client refused to write an application of resignation and thereafter he was subjected to persecution by the construction of unfounded and compromising facts against him, in order to force him out of his post.
4. After futile trying to accuse our client with fabricated cases several times in the end he became victim of a wrongful conviction as a result of a produced plot.
5. On 11 August 2004 during our client’s return from the Netherlands where he bought a second-hand car, the Field Service of interior Ministry stopped and searched his car in Natakhtari. Wherein a staged search for “narcotics” was conducted.
6. Our client was arrested on the same day. As "proofs" of our client's "criminal offence“ served two compulsory so-called "eyewitnesses" who were not during the search of the car directly present and a highly doubtful video.
7. On the same basis preliminary detention as preventive measure was imposed applied by incompetent (because of dismissal) persons and under violation of the rules prescribed by Georgian law.
8. The criminal procedural code of Georgia previews that “the judicial authority controls legitimacy and justification of the acts and decisions made by searching body, investigator and prosecutor”. This requirement was not fulfilled during examination of applications, petitions of the defence and facts.
9. Though the Georgian law stipulates that the court hearing must start at the latest in 10 days (and 14 days as the case may be complicated respectively) after the judge (court) makes resolution (decision) on handing the accused over to justice and that the counsel of defence of our client made a petition on change of preventive measure (preliminary detention) to less severe one, the court never examined the legality of applied preventive measure. The court hearings were postponed again and again 10 times from 3 February until 3 June 2005 because of irresponsible default of the prosecutor, while our client was in preliminary detention and nerve-shattering uncertainty, in spite of serious illness of our client (pls. see attached Annexes A32 to A33a).
10. After the court hearing lasted for 5 months the criminal collegium of the district court made the judgment only on 8 November 2005. The court refused to give our client a fair trial and to scrutinize unprejudiced all pieces of evidence. Our client was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment with stricter then usual terms by violation of fundamental principle, ignorance of obviously contradictions of facts and inconsistent proofs.
11. Our client’s made hopefully a cassation application on 18 November 2005. His hope for fair trial, restoration of his violated rights and achieving justice by hearing of the Supreme Court did not come true. The Grand Chamber also ignored and denied obviously the facts. While the court was not shy to follow even very absurd and inconsistent arguments of the public prosecutor, it wasn’t willing to consider arguments, petitions and objections of our client and his counsel for the defence. They were mostly ignored and shot down. Facts and established legal principles were twisted. There seems to be no equality of arms.
12. And on top of that the Grand Chamber demanded proofs of innocence from our client or his defence. That shifts the burden of proof on the accused to establish the truth of his statements, holding that this could in itself constitute a violation of Article 6 (ibidem)
13. Therefore also the Grand Chamber of Georgian Supreme Court decided against our client by rejecting his annulment complaint and confirmation of the arbitrary judgment of first instance on 14 June 2006.
14. Therefore, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5 and 6, The European Court on Human Rights should accept and review this case for the substantive violation of our client’s human rights.
[zurück zur Übersicht]
|
|
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
|
