On 26 February 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard a case with clear implications for Georgia’s democratic opposition, for media freedom in that country, and for the policing of protests across Europe.

On 20 June 2019, Sergei Gavrilov, an outspoken member of the Russian Duma, was invited to sit in the chair reserved for the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament. Gavrilov proceeded to address the assembled audience in Russian, a deeply provocative act given the history between the two nations, and the ongoing occupation of Georgian territory by Russian-backed separatists.

In the hours that followed, an estimated 15,000 protestors gathered outside Parliament to express their anger at the government officials who enabled Gavrilov to take this symbolic action. An impromptu rally ensued – parliamentarians called for electoral reform and the resignation of senior figures in the Georgian government.

Around midnight, police opened fire on the crowd, with tear gas then rubber bullets. No prior warning was given and police fired indiscriminately, in some cases from elevated positions, in contravention of both Georgian and international guidelines on the use of these weapons. Police also used brutal force against protestors and journalists. Victims were punched, kicked and beaten with batons.

The dispersal operation lasted for almost seven hours. Police fired over 800 rounds of rubber bullets. 187 civilians and 38 journalists are recorded as having been hurt as the result of police action. Some lost eyes, or their eyesight. Others suffered fractures to their faces as the result of rubber bullets.

Maia Gomuri was eighteen at the time and attending her first protest. She lost her left eye after being struck by a rubber bullet. She recalls screaming while searching for an ambulance. She underwent four emergency operations and suffered constant pain for months after the protest, due to her life-changing injuries.

Giorgi Diasamidze, an experienced multimedia journalist who has been covering protests in Georgia since 2014, was attacked by a police officer while broadcasting live on Facebook, for the news platform Netgazeti. While suffering the effects of tear gas, he was led into a side street, and then to the courtyard of the Parliament building. Along the way, he was struck multiple times by police officers and repeatedly verbally abused. The phone he had been using to share updates on the dispersal operation was smashed by police.

The case, Tsaava and Others v Georgia, has taken on increased importance given the ongoing protests across the country. Last night, a series of rallies converged again on the Georgian Parliament, on the 90^th consecutive night of anti-government demonstrations.

Since 2019, the Georgian authorities have watered down the regulatory framework to permit the parallel use of what are known as ‘less-lethal weapons’ – rubber bullets, tear gas and other ‘active special means’ designed to address violent disorder. This is a violation of international standards. Police action to target dissenting voices and suppress protests has become commonplace in Georgia, and the Georgian authorities have been criticised internationally for the mass detention and ill-treatment of protestors.

The Grand Chamber hearing is scheduled for the day after Soviet Occupation Day, the anniversary of the declaration, in 1921, of a Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Red Army’s invasion of Georgia, which led to the overthrow of the Georgian government and the dissolution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, is viewed by many as an example of the effects on the Georgian people of Russian expansionism. Large crowds are expected to attend rallies across the country.

The victims hope that the Grand Chamber judgment will set clear guidance on the policing of protests and the use of less-lethal weapons, in Georgia and in all member states of the Council of Europe.

The Grand Chamber hearing

The Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) are representing 22 applicants in this case – 11 protestors and 11 journalists. All sustained injuries as a result of the police dispersal of the protest.

The Court has joined these applications to three other applications by the Georgian NGO, Human Rights Center, concerning four journalists injured at the same protest.

Lawyers from GYLA and EHRAC will argue that:

• the regulation of less-lethal weapons, particularly rubber-bullets, in Georgia is deficient, and the planning and operation of the police dispersal operation on 20-21 June 2019 was inadequate. These systemic issues resulted in the unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force against the applicants (a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
• the police action further violated the protestors’ freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 11) and the journalists’ freedom of expression (Article 10)
• After 5 years, the domestic investigation into the events of 20-21 June 2019 has been shown to be ineffective, leaving the applicants with no effective domestic remedy to redress their complaints (the procedural arm of Article 3 and Article 13)

The need for accountability

The Georgian authorities opened an official criminal investigation into misuse of authority by police officers shortly after the protest and, while hundreds of people were interviewed during this investigation, only three low-level police officers have so far been investigated and charged.

The September 2021 Amnesty Act exempted all involved from criminal liability and punishment for criminal acts related to the events of 20-21 June 2019. The three police officers charged under the domestic investigation were amnestied as a result of this Act.

Referral to the Grand Chamber

On 7 May 2024, in its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights found the State failed to conduct an effective investigation (in violation of procedural Article 3) but “refrained” from coming to a decision on the main issues in this case, on the basis that it believed that the domestic investigation was not ‘irretrievably undermined’ and could still establish the facts.

This was an unprecedented step by the Court, and so GYLA and EHRAC (with the consent of a third NGO Human Rights Center, which is representing four journalists injured in the same protest) requested a referral to the Grand Chamber, arguing that the judgment undermined key aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights. Successful requests are very rare, particularly when made by the applicants, and only occur if there is a serious issue affecting the interpretation of the Convention, or a matter of serious importance for the country concerned.

Fifteen NGOs from around the world that form the International Network of Civil Liberties Organisations (INCLO) have submitted a third-party intervention that sets out the international standards on the use of so-called “less lethal weapons”.

PEN International, PEN Georgia and English PEN have submitted a third-party intervention on the standards protecting journalists at protests and the situation of journalists in Georgia.

You can watch a recording of the Grand Chamber hearing.

The post Georgia: Injured protestors and journalists take case to Europe’s highest human rights court appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

On 12 September, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in Lapunov v Russia, a case concerning the abduction and torture of a gay man in Chechnya during an anti-LGBT purge. The ECtHR confirmed the applicant had been subjected to torture as a result of discrimination based on his sexuality, with the authorities then failing to investigate the allegations made against Chechen security services. The ECtHR found violations of Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the European Conventions of Human Rights (ECHR).

EHRAC and Human Rights Watch had filed a joint Third Party Intervention (TPI) in the case in 2020, arguing that it should be considered in the light of the persistent and systematic failure of the Russian authorities to conduct effective investigations into serious human rights violations in Chechnya, including torture and enforced disappearances, giving rise to a climate of impunity. In its judgment, the Court confirmed that it “recognises that the systemic problem [the failure to investigate] extends not only to cases of disappearances, but more generally to the ineffectiveness of investigations in Chechnya carried out in respect of complaints under [ECHR] Articles 2 [the Right to Life] and 3 [the Prohibition of Torture]… involving allegations against State agents.”

“The crime of enforced disappearance has been used in Chechnya to terrorise the population and create a climate of fear for over twenty years. The strategic litigation supported by EHRAC and our partners has resulted in countless positive judgments. However, as this case demonstrates, the Chechen authorities’ failure to address this appalling practice enables and encourages serious human rights violations against an ever-widening circle of victims. Enforced disappearance continues to exert its toll on families and communities, with wider consequences for the enjoyment of rights.”

Jess Gavron, Co-Director and Head of Legal, EHRAC

The case

Maksim Lapunov, a gay man, was abducted by state security forces in Grozny, Chechnya, in March 2017 during a purge of the LGBT community in which victims were subject to unlawful detention, torture and extrajudicial killing. He was detained without charge, in appalling conditions, for almost two weeks, during which he was tortured, physically threatened and subjected repeatedly to homophobic abuse. Prior to his release, he was forced to detail his sexual encounters, an account which was filmed by his interrogators. He was threatened with reprisals if he filed a future complaint.

It was over a week before officials sought to note Mr Lapunov’s detention in official records, and they only did so after his sister had complained to police.

Before and during his detention, Mr Lapunov came into contact with other gay men who had been or were being held in unrecorded detention. He witnessed the torture of one detainee. Two of the gay men he came into contact with have subsequently been presumed murdered by Chechen state security.

The Russian Investigative Committee in the North Caucasus Region was ordered to review the case after Mr Lapunov’s release, but there were multiple failures in the investigation, including the involvement of the Chechen police (who were at the centre of the allegations), considerable delays, loss of key evidence, and a failure to examine the area of the building where Mr Lapunov was allegedly held.

Mr Lapunov now lives abroad, having fled Chechnya for his own safety.

Our TPI

EHRAC was one of a number of organisations to intervene in this case.

With Human Rights Watch, we requested permission to submit a TPI based on our experience of litigating over 100 cases before the ECtHR concerning enforced disappearances in Chechnya, and the Chechen authorities’ ongoing failure to punish those responsible for these crimes, resulting in a climate of impunity.

In our joint TPI, we drew links between this climate of impunity and the anti-LGBT purges that were perpetrated in Chechnya in 2017 and 2019, noting that the purges did not happen in a vacuum but followed two decades of serious human rights violations in Chechnya, for which there has been no accountability.

We drew on previous ECtHR judgments in relation to enforced disappearances and other grave human rights violations in Chechnya, and to the hundreds of cases that remain under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. We referred specifically to the judgment in Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, 18 December 2012), in which the Court had found a systemic failure to investigate enforced disappearances and had provided clear guidance on urgent measures to be taken. As the ECtHR noted in this judgment, “At the time of the submissions, those measures had not yet been taken.”

We also noted that attempts by individuals in Chechnya to highlight the serious human rights violations involved, including on social media, had led to reprisals: as the ECtHR noted “the authorities… subjected (the complainants) to public humiliation, forcing (them) to publicly apologise to the Chechen leadership for their allegedly false statements and to recant their actions. The Chechen authorities had also systematically targeted human rights defenders, forcing them out of Chechnya, and thus further denying victims access to a remedy.”

The targeting of journalists and human rights defenders raising awareness of violations against the LGBTQI+ community

The targeting of the LGBTQI+ community in Chechnya was first brought to international attention by the Moscow-based newspaper Novaya Gazeta, in April 2017. Following the publication of its investigation into the anti-LGBT+ purges in February and March 2017, religious leaders in Chechnya called for ‘retribution’ against Novaya Gazeta and its employees, accusing them of ‘slander’ and labelling them ‘enemies’ of the Chechen ‘faith and motherland’. Further threats followed, and the author of the article, Elena Milashina, had to leave the country for her safety. The authorities repeatedly refused to open a criminal case into the threats.

EHRAC has taken the journalists’ case to the ECtHR, arguing that the Russian authorities’ failure to protect Elena Milashina and her colleagues, and the violation of their freedom of expression resulting from the threats, breached the ECHR. The case is a stark example of the culture of impunity that exists in Chechnya for threats and attacks against journalists and human rights defenders, which has made it impossible to investigate and speak freely on human rights abuses without fear of violence and retribution. The case is currently awaiting judgment.

The post European Court finds Russia failed to adequately investigate the abduction and torture of gay man by Chechen police, confirming culture of impunity in the republic appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

For some, enforced disappearance (ED) might sound like a relic of Latin America in the 1970s. Sadly, though, the practice of states ‘disappearing’ opponents or vulnerable minorities remains a global problem. Since 1980, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) has transmitted cases relating to 112 States, confirming the prevalence of this crime.

Lawyers litigating ED at the domestic level often find it hard to locate case law from other jurisdictions, and to navigate the jurisprudence of the mechanisms that consider these cases.

A newly-expanded online resource, the Enforced Disappearance Legal Database (EDLD) addresses these challenges by drawing together domestic, regional and international case law as well as a full range of legal standards. Users can undertake targeted legal research and comparative analysis, and explore issues arising under the normative framework of the offence of enforced disappearance.

Jessica Gavron, Co-Director of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), which has developed the database, said: “As human rights lawyers, we know the importance of drawing on case law from other jurisdictions to make progressive arguments. For all lawyers, including those working in the national courts, it’s also important to reference international standards, and to understand the threshold we need to reach to secure a positive judgment.

“Enforced disappearance is a systemic issue for many, in our region and around the world. We hope the new, expanded EDLD will help all those seeking justice and accountability for the families of the disappeared.”

The EDLD originally launched in August 2022, the result of a two-year research project completed with input from domestic and international legal experts.

The revised database, launched today to mark the UN International Day of Victims of Enforced Disappearance, has been expanded to include nearly 200 case summaries, drawn from the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, UN treaty bodies, and a number of domestic courts. The resource is available in English, Spanish, French and Russian.

The updated EDLD also provides international standards on enforced disappearances as set out in international humanitarian law and international criminal law, in addition to the previously-available information on international and regional human rights systems.

The database – the first and only resource of its kind for those seeking to litigate cases involving enforced disappearance – grew out of EHRAC’s own experiences. The independent human rights centre, based in London, works with partners in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Ukraine to challenge serious human rights violations. It was established in 2003, to litigate violations resulting from the second Russian-Chechen War. In the two decades since, the Centre has worked on over 100 cases involving ED before the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (UN WGEID).

Jessica Gavron: “Our journey with these cases has been a journey of learning, particularly in relation to the families of the disappeared. We found that we’d get a judgment, we’d secure compensation, but the families remain in this limbo of unknowing – the ongoing inaction of the state responsible might mean they never learn the fate of their relatives.

“The passage of time and the lack of meaningful progress mean you have to go back to the applicants and ask again what they want to do. With their support and consent, we have sent many of our unimplemented cases from the European Court to the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, for consideration by a further international body. By this point, the main priority of the applicants is to pursue humanitarian resolution – they want to know the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones in order to have closure.

“Given our experience, we thought it would be valuable to pool what we have learned, to create a database that would help others and connect those working on ED in different regions.”

EHRAC continues to work with its partners to litigate cases involving enforced disappearance.

Jessica Gavron: “ED is an ongoing issue for Russia. What was once a tool of war perpetrated by State Security forces during the two Russian-Chechen wars, is now being used by local law enforcement, to ‘cleanse’ minority groups and dissenters. More recently, we’ve seen the disappearance and torture of members of the LGBT community in Chechnya. The horrendous practice of ED has trickled down into ordinary policing tactics and at the same time been exported to Ukraine, where since 2014, Russia has used ED to target dissenters and members of marginalised groups, including Crimean Tatars, broadening the target group after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.”

“So, for EHRAC, ED is still a live issue, because many of our cases stemming from the second Russian-Chechen war remain unresolved for the applicants and because the practice of enforced disappearance is continuing and broadening in its application.”

The post Unique online resource provides those litigating enforced disappearance with global perspective appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found violations of the right to life (ECHR Article 2) and the prohibition of discrimination (ECHR Article 14) in a case which illustrates the Georgian authorities’ shocking failure to protect women from domestic violence. 

The latest case concerns a young woman, A.L., who was found dead in 2017, as the result of what was assumed by the authorities to be suicide.  

A.L. had reported her partner’s violent behaviour to the emergency services 16 times over the previous four years, repeatedly voicing her fears for her own life. 

Following her death, a forensic report found multiple serious injuries to A.L. sustained before her death. The investigating authorities failed to consider the possibility that A.L. might have been a victim of femicide. 

A.L.’s partner, G.K., was later found guilty by the Georgian courts of aggravated incitement to suicide, but this was changed to a conviction for domestic violence by Georgia’s Supreme Court. This court found G.K.’s history of domestic violence against A.L. to be ‘irrelevant’ and reduced his sentence from three years to one year. He was judged to have already served his time and was released. 

The judgment, delivered on 15 June, is the third recent ECtHR decision against Georgia in a case involving domestic violence, and the fifth such judgment against Georgia by an international body. All five cases have been co-litigated by EHRAC and our partners. 

Davit Javakhishvili, Head of the International Litigation Team at EHRAC’s partners Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), said: “This is a tragic story. Despite her persistent pleas for help, the state failed the victim in this case on sixteen occasions, leading ultimately to the loss of her life.  

“This judgment highlights the systemic issues that significantly impact upon the effectiveness of Georgian law enforcement authorities in combating domestic violence and gender-based crimes. It should serve as a lighthouse for Georgia and other countries, and remind us all that femicide can also manifest in the form of presumed suicide.” 

In July 2021, the ECtHR delivered its judgment in Tkhelidze v Georgia. M.T, a university professor, was murdered by her ex-husband after a prolonged period of domestic violence. In February 2022, the Court again found violations of the right to life and prohibition of discrimination in A and B v Georgia. A young woman was eventually murdered by her former partner, a police officer, following a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. The judgment in the latest case cites both these previous judgments. 

In all three cases, the authorities failed to adequately investigate repeated allegations of domestic abuse. In all three judgments, the Court identified the systemic gender-based discrimination underpinning the authorities’ failure to act. 

In the new judgment, the Court notes, “In its latest evaluation report on Georgia published in 2022, the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) noted with great concern that stereotypical and discriminatory attitudes by investigators and others in the criminal justice system were prevalent in Georgia and frequently constituted a significant barrier to justice for victims of gender-based violence (GREVIO/Inf(2022)28). The report called ‘for immediate measures to ensure a more prompt and appropriate response by prosecution services in all cases of violence against women …’ and urged the Georgian authorities to ensure on-the-job training for law-enforcement officials to overcome persistent attitudes, beliefs and practices that stood in the way of an effective police response to domestic violence.” 

“(T)he Court notes with concern that the competent investigative authority did not make enough attempts to establish responsibility on the part of the police officers for their alleged failure to respond properly to the multiple incidents of gender-based violence occurring prior to A.L.’s death.” 

While A.L.’s mother did successfully pursue a civil case related to the failure to investigate, “in the present case the civil courts did not extend their examination to the question of whether the official tolerance of incidents of domestic violence might have been conditioned by the same gender bias.” 

The Court noted that, on three occasions, A.L. had alleged violence only to subsequently withdraw those allegations. The Court noted that this behaviour was consistent with the feeling of vulnerability experienced by victims of domestic violence, adding that, “a person’s failure to lodge or the subsequent withdrawal of criminal complaints should not prevent the authorities from starting or continuing criminal proceedings against the alleged offender or relieve them of their duty to assess the gravity of the situation with a view to seeking an appropriate solution.” 

While three temporary restraining orders had been imposed on G.K. in the four years running up to A.L.’s death, the Court noted that, “the police and the prosecution authorities failed to comply with their obligations, by, among other things, failing to institute a proper criminal investigation into the years of physical and psychological abuse suffered by A.L… The Court cannot but observe that the deficient response of the law‑enforcement authorities in the present case appears to be particularly alarming when assessed within the relevant domestic context of documented and repeated failure by the Georgian authorities to prevent and stop violence against women, including domestic violence.” 

Photo credit: Mostafa Meraji via Unsplash.com

The post European Court again finds discrimination underpinning violation of right to life, in third domestic violence judgment against Georgia appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The Georgian authorities’ failure to investigate and prosecute gender and honour-based violence contributed to a woman’s death in 2014, the UN’s women’s rights committee has found. 

Khanum Jeiranova was publicly beaten and humiliated by relatives of her husband, in the presence of her children, because they suspected her of having an extramarital affair. 

The day after her beating, Khanum was found dead in a presumed suicide. She was 30 years old. Her children were 8 and 11.  

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) condemned the Georgian authorities’ failure to protect Khanum and its failure to arrest and prosecute her husband’s relatives. On the latter point, they commented that this impunity “contributes significantly to the entrenchment of a culture of acceptance of the most extreme forms of gender-based violence against women in society, which feeds their continued commission”.

“Had the Georgian authorities adequately protected Ms. Jeiranova against the gender-based violence inflicted on her, she would still be alive today.”

CEDAW member Genoveva Tisheva

A complaint was brought before CEDAW by EHRAC and our Tbilisi-based partners Union Sapari and Human Rights Centre, on behalf of Khanum’s children. 

“Khanum Jeiranova’s case remained one of the most heartbreaking topics among the members of Sapari due to the severity of inhuman treatment Khanum was subjected to by the members of her community and the utmost failure of domestic authorities to hold the perpetrators accountable.

“The positive decision of the Committee has not only served as a means of redressing Khanum’s and her children’s violated dignity and rights, but it will also assist us in pressuring the Government to take measures necessary for the elimination of gender-based violence in general.”  

Natia Gamkhitashvili, lawyer, Union Sapari

Shamed and attacked for breaking the community code of ‘honour’

Khanum Jeiranova, an ethnic Azerbaijani and Georgian national lived in the predominantly Azerbaijani Muslim village of Lambalo. On 16 September 2014, she was seen in a vehicle with a man who was not her husband by a group of her husband’s relatives, who then suspected her of having an extramarital affair.  

Six of the relatives forcibly removed Khanum from the car and took her to the village where they insulted and severely beat her, causing her to lose consciousness several times. Her children witnessed her public humiliation and beating. On arriving at the scene, Khanum’s father slapped her and took her to his home.  

That night, the village governor was called to the home of Khanum’s father, where police officers were present. Khanum informed the governor and police that her family members had told her to drink rat poison, and asked them for help. The police had to restrain her father from continuing to slap her.  

She was then taken to the governor’s house by the police and the governor, prompted by their fear for her safety. When Khanum repeatedly asked the governor and police officers in Azeri why they were not bringing the men who beat her to justice, the governor did not translate her pleas to the officer, who did not speak Azeri.  

Khanum was returned to her parents’ house the following morning by her mother, the police allowing her to return merely on the basis of a written undertaking that she would not be harmed. The next morning, Khanum was found dead by her mother, by hanging. Her mother informed the governor that she had died in an apparent suicide. The police opened an investigation into her death.  

On the basis of her family’s refusal to allow a forensic examination, none was conducted. The mullahs (Islamic clergy members) who prepared her body for burial noted she had been “beaten to a pulp”, was covered in bruises and had a deep wound and scratches around her neck.  

On 24 September 2014, her parents wrote to the Georgian authorities outlining the violence she had suffered leading up to her death, and requesting a criminal investigation.  

An investigation was opened but terminated within days, with the prosecutors concluding that Khanum had taken her own life on the basis of her “shameful” behaviour and unfaithfulness.  

Media interest in the case caused it to be re-opened, but despite repeated calls from Khanum’s family the investigation remained pending and no one was charged for eight years.

CEDAW complaint  

In 2018, EHRAC and our partners Union Sapari and Human Rights Centre brought a complaint to the CEDAW on behalf of Khanum’s children. 

In the complaint, we argued that Khanum’s treatment by her relatives, community and law enforcement evidenced discrimination based on her gender and ethnicity, in breach of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the ‘CEDAW Convention’) 

We argued that Khanum’s beating was an honour crime punishing her as a woman for “inappropriate” behaviour deemed to bring disgrace on her family, and as such it was gender-based violence; that the police and village governor had been on notice of the threat to her life; that they took no legal protective measures; and that there was no effective investigation into her death.  

We also argued that entrenched attitudes of gender-bias within the community and law enforcement and as evidenced in wider Georgian society caused and/or contributed to her death. In support of our submissions, we obtained an expert opinion on the nature and context of honour-based violence from Professor Aisha Gill, a global expert in this field.  

CEDAW finds authorities’ actions contributed to death and based on discriminatory attitudes

In its Views published in November 2021, CEDAW found that the state’s failure to investigate the gender and honour-based violence inflicted on Khanum, and prosecute those responsible, contributed towards her death.

The Committee noted the devasting impact of such impunity, and found that the Georgian authorities had failed to provide any other effective protection to Khanum or to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against her. The written undertaking relied on by the police was criticised by the Committee as “devoid of legal value” and not providing any protection for victims of gender-based violence.

The Committee was unequivocal that the ill-treatment suffered by Khanum, the failure to conduct an autopsy on the basis of the objections of relatives who posed a known threat to Khanum, the prosecutor’s description of her conduct as “dishonourable”, and the decision to close the investigation based on the conclusion that she had committed suicide because of her “shameful” behaviour, all confirm that she “was the victim of intersecting discrimination related to ethnicity and stereotypical attitudes of the police and judicial authorities”.

In light of the conduct and attitudes of the authorities, which “permitted and condoned” the treatment suffered by Khanum, the Committee found violations of Khanum’s rights under the CEDAW Convention.

The Committee called on Georgia to carry out a prompt, thorough and independent investigation into her treatment and death, and prosecute and sanction those responsible. It also recommended that her children receive adequate compensation, as well as an official apology from the state.

In its recommendations targeted at the wider legislative and policy context, the Committee urged Georgia to update all legislation, policies and measures on domestic violence to ensure they include provisions to prevent and address honour-based violence, and to strengthen measures to protect women’s rights, paying “special attention to communities that are isolated, closed and where honour-based norms apply.” 

Breaking new ground

As well as providing recognition of the state’s conduct which failed to protect Khanum and prevent her death, the Committee’s findings set two important legal precedents: it is the first decision from an international human rights body to establish substantive violations of international human rights law arising from honour-based violence; and it is the first explicit finding of intersectional discrimination by an international human rights body.

It is also the first time that the Georgian government has been asked to provide a public apology (as a distinct form of reparation under international law) to victims of human rights violations.

EHRAC and our Georgian partners are continuing to work on implementing the Committee’s recommendations.  

The post UN decides first ‘honour’ crimes case, on death of mother of two in Georgia appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the Georgian authorities failed to protect the life of a woman who was murdered following a prolonged period of domestic violence at the hands of her former partner, a serving police officer.  

In its judgment, the Court found unanimously that Georgia had violated the right to life (in both its procedural and substantive aspects) and the prohibition of discrimination.  

It highlighted “major failings” in the Georgian police’s response to the murder.

“Overall, (this) case could be seen as yet another vivid example of how general and discriminatory passivity of the law-enforcement authorities in the face of allegations of domestic violence could create a climate conducive to a further proliferation of violence committed against victims, merely because they were women. Despite the various protective measures available, the authorities had not prevented gender-based violence against the applicants’ next-of-kin, which had culminated in her death, and they had compounded that failure with an attitude of passivity, even accommodation, as regards the alleged perpetrator, later convicted of the victim’s murder.”

ECtHR judgment

The case, A and B v Georgia, was brought to the Court in 2015 by EHRAC and our partner organisation the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), on behalf of C’s mother (‘A’) and minor son (‘B’).

Tamar Dekanosidze, GYLA lawyer, said: “Femicide has always been a serious issue in Georgia, but it was largely overlooked until 2014. This is the reason why A and B v Georgia was the very first application on femicide that reached the European Court of Human Rights. 

“The case also set a very important legal precedent at the local level. In addition to prosecuting the perpetrator, the Georgian courts found the Government bodies responsible for paying moral damages to the mother of their victim because of their failure to prevent the killing.”

Tamar Dekanosidze, GYLA lawyer

“The case was also widely covered by the local media and was instrumental in mobilising and uniting different parts of society to join forces in ending violence against women.”

Failure of the police and prosecutor to protect C from D’s violence 

In 2011, aged 17, C was kidnapped for marriage by D, a 22-year-old police officer. Under constant threat from D, she began living with him until June 2012 when she returned to her parents’ house. She was two months’ pregnant with B at the time. 

In July 2012, C called the police, stating that D had threatened to kill her mother, but she received no response.  

In August 2013, D beat up C in her parents’ house following a dispute about child support payments. The police were called and three officers, all of whom were D’s acquaintances, interviewed C in his presence. One of the officers told C that ‘wife-beating’ was “commonplace”, and inaccurately recorded the details of her physical abuse. D forced C to sign the police report, threatening to kill her if she did not sign it as it was drafted. 

On the same day, C filed a criminal complaint to the local public prosecutor’s office, reporting D’s abuse and the police officer’s failure to carry out their duties with due diligence. In the complaint, she stated that D had been constantly harassing her, threatening to kill her and to abduct B. C expressly asked the prosecutor to take “all the measures necessary to end D’s violent behaviour”, and explained that as D was a police officer, she did not trust that the police would help her, which is why she directed her complaint to the prosecutor.

In September 2013, the prosecutor interviewed C, D and one of the police officers, and both D and the officer denied C’s version of events. D gave a written undertaking that he would never again verbally or physically abuse C or her family, which satisfied the prosecution, and they decided not to launch a criminal investigation. 

During the time in which D abused C and C made repeated requests for help from the law enforcement authorities, D was promoted to senior police lieutenant.  

On 25 July 2014, after C left an interview with a the Ministry of the Interior, D followed her in the street and witnesses saw them having an argument in a public park. D pulled out his service pistol and fired five shots at C, killing her instantly.

Criminal proceedings were opened against D and he was charged with C’s murder. He was convicted of her murder, and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment.  

A, acting on behalf of herself and B, filed a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, requesting a criminal investigation be opened into the authorities’ failure to protect her daughter’s life. She argued that the negligence of the police and prosecutor was motivated by gender-based discrimination. 

A criminal investigation was opened into the negligence of the police officers, but when A repeatedly inquired about its progress, she was told it was pending and no charges had been brought. A received no response to her repeated requests for information on whether an investigation into the conduct of the prosecutor had been opened.  

Subsequently A sued the Ministry of the Interior and Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the failure to protect her daughter’s life. The claim was allowed in part by the Tbilisi City Court, which ruled that the authorities had failed to take measures to put an end to gender-based discrimination and protect C’s life. 

Establishing state responsibility for the failure to protect C from domestic violence

In the application to the ECtHR, we complained of violations of C’s right to life (Article 2 ECHR) and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR), arising from the domestic authorities’ failure to protect C from gender-based violence and the failure to investigate the conduct of the law enforcement bodies to which C appealed for help before her murder.  

Recognising that D was convicted of C’s murder, the Court emphasised that the case was not about the violent actions of D, but rather about the authorities’ “inactivity and negligence” which had disastrous consequences. The Court underlined that the “lack of protection” of C from domestic violence and the “absence of an effective investigation into the law enforcement authorities’ inaction – stemmed from their insufficient acknowledgment of the phenomenon of discrimination against women”. The Court agreed with the applicants’ submission that the right to life and discrimination complaints are inextricably factually and legally interwoven and should be examined simultaneously.  

In its judgment, the Court found violations of both Article 2 (in its substantive and procedural aspects) and Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), arising from the authorities’ failure to take protective measures after being notified of D’s abuse of C, and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the conduct of the police officers and prosecutor, including the failure to examine the gender-bias that may have motivated the conduct of the law enforcement officials.  

In a robust conclusion on the State’s liability, the Court found that in disregarding a “panoply of various protective measures” and combining this with “an attitude of passivity, even accommodation” toward D, the Georgian authorities failed to protect C’s right to life.  

The applicants were awarded €35,000 in non-pecuniary damages in recognition of the damage they suffered in losing their daughter and mother.  

Setting legal precedents

The judgment provides an indisputable acknowledgment of the myriad ways in which the Georgian authorities failed in their duty to protect C from domestic violence, made even more grave given  the official status of D and his deliberate abuse of this with fatal consequences.  

The judgment also makes a number of significant contributions to the Court’s existing case law on gender-based violence:  

• It is the first case in which the Court found that the prosecution of the defendant should have examined gender bias and discriminatory motive on his part.  
• As in Tkhelidze v Georgia (also an EHRAC case), the judgment in A and B reiterates the need for an investigation into gender bias and discriminatory motive on the part of law enforcement officials.  
• A and B is only the second case on domestic violence in which the Court adopted a simultaneous adjudication of violations of the right to life and gender-based discrimination (the first being Tkhelidze). This dual approach is crucial for the Court’s recognition of the centrality of discrimination in the state’s response to gender-based violence.  
• In A and B, the Court unequivocally acknowledged the immediacy of the threat in a situation of lasting domestic violence, hence further embedding the adaptation of the Osman test (used to determine the immediacy of risks to life) established in Tkhelidze. The Court in A and B found that C’s circumstances were “clearly a lasting situation of domestic violence which means that there could be no doubt about the immediacy of the danger” to C.  

The post Georgia responsible for discriminatory failures to protect woman from police-perpetrated domestic violence   appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

Temirlan Machalikashvili was fatally shot during a raid on his family home in Duisi, Georgia, on 26 December 2017. According to the security forces, the victim attempted to detonate a hand grenade during the raid and was shot in response. Temirlan’s family have always rejected the claim that he had a hand grenade.

The 19 year old, who was from the Kist community, a small Muslim minority who live primarily in the Pankisi Gorge area that includes Duisi, was one of five local people accused of providing ongoing support – food, household items, help with finding accommodation – to members of a terrorist group.

On 19 January 2023, the ECtHR handed down its judgment in Machalikashvili and Others v Georgia, finding a procedural violation of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to life). The Court found the Georgian authorities’ investigation was too slow and narrow, flawed in key respects and not sufficiently independent. Delays in scheduling interviews with the officers involved carried a risk of collusion and the applicants – Temirlan’s parents, sister and grandmother – were not sufficiently involved in the investigation, with delays in them being given access to investigation materials and persistent refusals regarding the granting of victim status.

The case was litigated by EHRAC and our Tbilisi-based partner Social Justice Center.

“The Court has identified serious shortcomings in the investigation into Temirlan’s death, including the way in which the key evidence from Temirlan’s room was collected and handled. Largely because of those deficiencies, the Court could not resolve the crucial question of whether or not the use of force by security forces was justified.”

Tamari Samkharadze, Strategic Litigation Lawyer, Social Justice Center

The Court did not find a substantive breach of the right to life, though Judge Gnatovskyy issued a strong dissenting opinion on this point.

The case

We argued that the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death raised a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to life – both on substantive and procedural grounds. We also argued there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the basis that the manner of the SSG raid had subjected the family to inhuman and degrading treatment, and of Article 13, on the grounds that the authorities’ failure to conduct an adequate investigation had deprived the family of the right to a remedy.

Procedural violation of Article 2

On the procedural violation of Article 2, we argued a long list of shortcomings in the investigation into the victim’s death.

The ECtHR agreed, and found a procedural violation of Article 2 on the grounds that:

• the investigation was not sufficiently independent, as it was commenced by officers of the State Security Services, the authority that carried out the operation, and not by the prosecution authority
• authorities had undertaken only a limited investigation of the planning and control of the operation
• there were deficiencies with respect to examining and securing the crime scene
• interviews with security officers were unduly delayed, leading to the risk of collusion or failure to accurately remember events
• the applicants had not been adequately involved in the investigation, with delays in their being allowed access to investigation materials and persistent refusals in granting victim status.

Substantive violation of Article 2

On the substantive violation of the right to life, we argued that the domestic legal framework regulating the use of force was deficient, that the planning of the operation was inadequate, and that the government had failed to show that the shooting was absolutely necessary: the authorities had failed to prove that the victim ever held a hand grenade, and failed to explain a number of other factors, including evidence that the victim was, in fact, on his phone and using headphones at the time of the raid.

The Court found no substantive violation of Article 2. It ruled that the domestic legal framework was appropriate for the use of force. As regards the planning and operation of the raid, and whether the loss of life was absolutely necessary, while the Court was critical of the domestic authorities, and recognised the deficiencies in the investigation had rendered a definitive account impossible, it found it was impossible to decide between the conflicting version of events, and that the authorities had given a ‘plausible explanation’ for the events leading to the victim’s death. It found that the current case was not one where the ‘burden of proof’ was reversed – the authorities were not, therefore, required to explain and justify the circumstances of the death, and the applicants could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim had died in circumstances that engaged the responsibility of the authorities.

Judge Gnatovskyy, in a dissenting opinion, found that the Court was incorrect to find the ‘burden of proof’ had not shifted to the authorities, given that authorities had exclusive control over the crime scene and key evidence that would have shed light on the events; and that there were clear instances of deficient planning and operation of the event.

Articles 3 and 13

In relation to the alleged violation of Article 3, while the Court accepted that the family were severely affected by the operation, it rules that this did not go beyond what would be expected. Given the finding of a procedural violation of Article 2, the Court found no need to examine our complaint that the investigation deprived the family of the right to a remedy under Article 13 of the Convention.

You can read more about the circumstance of this case in our Key Cases summary.

The post Court finds Georgia’s failures in investigating killing of teenager breached right to life appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found Azerbaijan responsible for the death of an elderly Armenian man who died after sustaining severe injuries following his capture in 2014.

On the morning of January 28, 2014, 77-year-old farmer Mamikon Khojoyan left his home in the Tavush region of Armenia, close to the Azerbaijani border, to collect grapes. It was reported in Azerbaijani news two days later that he had been detained for being an armed guide of an Armenian sabotage group.

He was handed over to the Armenian authorities on March 4 following mediation from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). A forensic examination later revealed a number of injuries which “caused grievous bodily harm dangerous to life”. He died at home ten weeks later.

“In this shocking case, the Court called out the torture and risk to life of an elderly farmer captured and detained as an alleged ‘saboteur’ – an argument dismissed by the Court,” said Jessica Gavron, EHRAC Legal Director.

“This case highlights the innocent victims of the ongoing tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the endemic issue of ill-treatment by law enforcement and military in Azerbaijan for which there is no accountability.”

Three of Mr Khojoyan’s children brought a case before the ECtHR in September 2014, claiming their father was tortured during his captivity. They said this treatment posed a danger to his life and was not investigated.

They also claimed he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that they did not have an effective legal remedy, and his rights were violated as a result of discrimination based on his ethnic origin.

In its November 4 judgment, the ECtHR ruled that Mr Khojoyan’s rights to life and to liberty and security had been violated and that the ill-treatment to which he was subjected “amounted to torture”.

Mr Khojoyan’s children said their father had been a farmer all his life, and when he left home on January 28 he had told them he was going to collect grapes in the fields. During a criminal investigation conducted by Armenia, several witnesses reported seeing him holding a bucket and also telling them he was going to collect grapes.

On the day he was captured, a video appeared of Mr Khojoyan online in which he showed no signs of injury and could move without difficulty. In the TV report two days after his capture, he was shown with his arm in a cast, and in a broadcast the following day, he had difficulty standing upright and showed visible injuries.

“In this shocking case, the Court called out the torture and risk to life of an elderly farmer captured and detained as an alleged ‘saboteur’ – an argument dismissed by the Court.”

When Mr Khojoyan was returned to Armenia in March 2014, he was taken to hospital, where examinations revealed multiple injuries to his head, ribs, arms and other parts of his body. Forensic medical experts found a gunshot wound in his arm. The Azerbaijani authorities said that Mr Khojoyan had been shot when he attempted to flee when captured, but the Court found that his lack of injuries in the video released on the day of his capture disputed the government’s claim.

The forensic experts also reported a number of wounds, scratches and fractures which “all taken together, caused grievous bodily harm dangerous to life”. Their report revealed some of these injuries were inflicted by a blunt object and others by a sharp cutting instrument. A chemical forensic investigation also found petroleum and Apaurin in his blood and urine.

After Mr Khojoyan was returned to Armenia, the General Department of Criminal Investigation in the Armenian capital of Yerevan opened an investigation concerning “intentional infliction of bodily harm with particular cruelty and with motives of national, racial or religious hate or fanaticism”.

During the investigation, Mr Khojoyan’s daughter stated that when she visited her father in hospital, he was extremely frightened, his speech was incoherent, and he told her details of his ill-treatment, including having been severely beaten and burned. His son confirmed this account, and added that his father had sustained many injuries during his detention and his health had deteriorated badly.

In its judgment, the Court ruled that the Azerbaijani authorities had violated Mr Khojoyan’s right to life, protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, finding “that the treatment of Mr Khojoyan while in detention was dangerous by its very nature and put him at real and imminent risk”.

The Court also ruled that the ill-treatment to which Mr Khojoyan was subjected “amounted to torture”, in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

The Azerbaijani authorities disputed claims of Mr Khojoyan’s ill-treatment and said he was detained as a member of the Armenian armed forces and a saboteur, and held as a prisoner of war in adherence to the 1949 Geneva Convention.

“This case highlights the innocent victims of the ongoing tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the endemic issue of ill-treatment by law enforcement and military in Azerbaijan for which there is no accountability.”

Despite a ceasefire agreement in 1994, at the time of Mr Khojoyan’s capture, tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan remained high. However, the applicants submitted to the ECtHR that their father was a civilian and had not been involved in the conflict between the two countries.

The Court stated that the Azerbaijani government had provided no information to show Mr Khojoyan “was to be regarded as a prisoner of war”, and ruled that his right to liberty and security guaranteed under ECHR Article 5 had been violated.

Furthermore, noting the “general context of hostility and tension” between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Court ruled that the Azerbaijani authorities should have carried out an investigation into “whether ethnic hatred had played a role in the treatment of Mr Mr Khojoyan which had put his life at risk”.

The post Azerbaijan found responsible for death of Armenian man who was tortured in detention appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

We will continue to support our partners in Ukraine to challenge crimes and human rights violations resulting from the war, including those that disproportionately target marginalised communities within Ukraine. We also call on the international community to support Ukraine and act now to bring an urgent end to Russian aggression, to ensure that new and existing pathways to accountability are effective, that perpetrators are eventually brought to justice and that victims and families are provided with redress.

The post EHRAC statement on the first anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).

The website, Mapping of Accountability, is aimed at lawyers and activists, and is available in Ukrainian and English. A collaboration between the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and the Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG), it grew out of a research project to map the available routes for those seeking legal remedies.

“We hope this tool will provide a one stop shop for those practitioners who are considering building cases and submitting them to accountability mechanisms already available in relation to Ukraine.

“We have highlighted subject-matter jurisdiction, the most relevant standards and the available remedies for each of the mechanisms, in an accessible format that can be kept up to date as new options for accountability are developed.”

Nadia Volkova, Director, ULAG

Kate Levine, Senior Legal Consultant, EHRAC, said, “The war in Ukraine has already resulted in a vast number of crimes and human right violations. In the context of the Russian Federation’s expulsion from the Council of Europe, it’s important for all human rights defenders to understand the alternative potential routes to accountability.

“The mapping project which has resulted in this new site helped us to gain a clearer oversight of the changing landscape and potential avenues for redress. We built on this research to inform the work of lawyers, activists, and others working on accountability in Ukraine.

The site, which will be updated regularly, allows users to compare a range of international human rights and criminal law mechanisms including the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, the International Criminal Court, and domestic investigations into crimes in Ukraine under the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction’.

Users can read through the whole resource or use filters to identify the most suitable options for a particular crime or human rights violation.

The site also documents the efforts of States to initiate their own investigations, working under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

The Ukrainian Legal Advisory Group (ULAG) is a member of the Ukraine 5AM Coalition, which comprises 30 human rights organisations and independent experts. The Coalition seeks to document war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, to raise awareness of issue related to the conflict and to support legal claims resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. As a result, the ECtHR can only deal with applications against Russia concerning actions or omissions occurring on or before 16 September 2022. Over 17,000 applications against Russia are currently pending before the ECtHR.

The post Ukraine: new site compares routes to accountability appeared first on European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).