{"id":4576,"date":"2023-04-19T20:21:15","date_gmt":"2023-04-19T19:21:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/?p=4576"},"modified":"2023-10-07T13:58:32","modified_gmt":"2023-10-07T12:58:32","slug":"georgia-responsible-for-discriminatory-failures-to-protect-woman-from-police-perpetrated-domestic-violence","status":"publish","type":[75,72],"link":"https:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/ru\/georgia-responsible-for-discriminatory-failures-to-protect-woman-from-police-perpetrated-domestic-violence\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0413\u0440\u0443\u0437\u0438\u044f \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0442\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0443\u044e \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0442\u044c \u0436\u0435\u043d\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0443 \u043e\u0442 \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0438\u043b\u0438\u044f \u0432 \u0441\u0435\u043c\u044c\u0435, \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0430\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0435\u0439 \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Content warning: domestic violence, police violence, murder<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

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. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In its <\/span>judgment,<\/span><\/a> the Court found unanimously that Georgia had violated the right to life (in both its procedural and substantive aspects) and the prohibition of discrimination.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It highlighted \u201cmajor failings\u201d in the Georgian police\u2019s response to the murder.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

“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\u2019 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\u2019s murder.”<\/span><\/p>\n

ECtHR judgment<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The case, A and B v Georgia, was brought to the Court in 2015 by <\/span>EHRAC and our partner organisation the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), on behalf of C\u2019s mother (\u2018A\u2019) and minor son (\u2018B\u2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

Tamar Dekanosidze, GYLA lawyer, said: \u201cFemicide has always been a serious issue in Georgia, but it was largely overlooked until 2014. This is the reason why <\/span>A and B v Georgia <\/span><\/i>was the very first application on femicide that reached the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“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.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Tamar Dekanosidze, GYLA lawyer<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Failure of the police and prosecutor to protect C from D\u2019s violence\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

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\u2019 house. She was two months\u2019 pregnant with B at the time.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In July 2012, C called the police, stating that D had threatened to kill her mother, but she received no response.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In August 2013, D beat up C in her parents\u2019 house following a dispute about child support payments. The police were called and three officers, all of whom were D\u2019s acquaintances, interviewed C in his presence. One of the officers told C that \u2018wife-beating\u2019 was \u201ccommonplace\u201d, 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On the same day, C filed a criminal complaint to the local public prosecutor\u2019s office, reporting D\u2019s abuse and the police officer\u2019s 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 \u201call the measures necessary to end D\u2019s violent behaviour\u201d, 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

In September 2013, the prosecutor interviewed C, D and one of the police officers, and both D and the officer denied C\u2019s 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Criminal proceedings were opened against D and he was charged with C\u2019s murder. He was convicted of her murder, and sentenced to eleven years\u2019 imprisonment. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A, acting on behalf of herself and B, filed a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office, requesting a criminal investigation be opened into the authorities\u2019 failure to protect her daughter\u2019s life. She argued that the negligence of the police and prosecutor was motivated by gender-based discrimination.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Subsequently A sued the Ministry of the Interior and Chief Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office for the failure to protect her daughter\u2019s 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\u2019s life.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Establishing state responsibility for the failure to protect C from domestic violence<\/h3>\n

In the application to the ECtHR, we complained of violations of C\u2019s right to life (Article 2 ECHR) and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR), arising from the domestic authorities\u2019 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. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Recognising that D was convicted of C\u2019s murder, the Court emphasised that the case was not about the violent actions of D, but rather about the authorities\u2019 \u201cinactivity and negligence\u201d which had disastrous consequences. The Court underlined that the \u201clack of protection\u201d of C from domestic violence and the \u201cabsence of an effective investigation into the law enforcement authorities\u2019 inaction \u2013 stemmed from their insufficient acknowledgment of the phenomenon of discrimination against women\u201d. The Court agreed with the applicants\u2019 submission that the right to life and discrimination complaints are inextricably factually and legally interwoven and should be examined simultaneously. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019 failure to take protective measures after being notified of D\u2019s 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. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a robust conclusion on the State\u2019s liability, the Court found that in disregarding a \u201cpanoply of various protective measures\u201d and combining this with \u201can attitude of passivity, even accommodation\u201d toward D, the Georgian authorities failed to protect C\u2019s right to life. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The applicants were awarded \u20ac35,000 in non-pecuniary damages in recognition of the damage they suffered in losing their daughter and mother. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Setting legal precedents<\/h3>\n

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 \u00a0the official status of D and his deliberate abuse of this with fatal consequences. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The judgment also makes a number of significant contributions to the Court\u2019s existing case law on gender-based violence:\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n