TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): That is about an alleged torture case in which the response to the CPT by the prosecution was that the video, again, this point that the videos have been deleted after 24 hours.
AP2 (Applicant): It's not any statement by the CPT, but it seems to be a systemic problem.
AP2 (Applicant): It seems to be the response of the prosecution.
AP2 (Applicant): It may be their position where they're wanting to cover up cases, as we say is the position here.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Mirabashvili has been criticized
AP2 (Applicant): for delaying three days before he made his complaint about the incident on the 14th of December.
AP2 (Applicant): And the allegation is that he knew that there was a 24-hour policy of destroying videos, and therefore he deliberately waited.
AP2 (Applicant): He deprived the government of an opportunity to produce this evidence.
AP2 (Applicant): He was in prison.
AP2 (Applicant): He was taken out of prison, as we've heard.
AP2 (Applicant): This was early hours of a Saturday morning.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Mirabashvili, the regime he is under
AP2 (Applicant): has no right to make phone calls.
AP2 (Applicant): He has to get permission to do that, which takes a period of time.
AP2 (Applicant): He had no right to contact his lawyers other than during working hours, Monday to Friday, 10 till 6.
AP2 (Applicant): So he couldn't have contacted his lawyers over the weekend.
AP2 (Applicant): A lot of play is made of his supposed right to contact the public defender's office.
AP2 (Applicant): That's dealt with in his statement.
AP2 (Applicant): He had no knowledge of any right.
AP2 (Applicant): And in practice, that wasn't operating.
AP2 (Applicant): He had no means of contacting the public defender.
AP2 (Applicant): So what he does, he waits till Monday.
AP2 (Applicant): He has a meeting already arranged with his lawyers because there's a court hearing on the Tuesday.
AP2 (Applicant): He tells his lawyers on the Monday what's gone on.
AP2 (Applicant): And they agree that the best thing for him to do is to make a public statement at the court hearing the next day.
AP2 (Applicant): So as the chamber found, we say it's effectively the first opportunity that he could have made.
AP2 (Applicant): Who could he have complained to in the meantime when the director of the prison and the deputy director had been involved in taking him out?
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Murabeshvili also deals with this in his statement.
AP2 (Applicant): And he expresses his view of the stupidity of having any kind of 24-hour destruction policy.
AP2 (Applicant): Now in turn to two admissibility points were again raised.
AP2 (Applicant): It is said that we waited for more than six months after complain about the incident in December.
AP2 (Applicant): First of all, in fact, that's not correct.
AP2 (Applicant): We submitted information to this court within six months.
AP2 (Applicant): That's the first thing.
AP2 (Applicant): But in any event, this is a factual issue.
AP2 (Applicant): It's not an admissibility issue.
AP2 (Applicant): The Article 18 complaint had already been lodged at the outset.
AP2 (Applicant): There is no admissibility issue here.
AP2 (Applicant): The second admissibility point that was again raised was this supposed failure to appeal against the pretrial review decision to detain him.
AP2 (Applicant): As we've already said, we say there is no right of appeal.
AP2 (Applicant): And the decisions that the government have recently disclosed, four of them are irrelevant because they rate the earlier investigatory period.
AP2 (Applicant): One deals with appeal from the pretrial review stage and says there is no right of appeal.
AP2 (Applicant): And that's confirmed in the commentary that Ms. Sawyer referred to earlier.
AP2 (Applicant): May I then turn to the substantive question of a violation of Article 5.1 because
AP2 (Applicant): of the absence of legal certainty as to the time for which Mr. Mirabai Shmuley was detained.
AP2 (Applicant): We've said, we've explained, that the court failed to specify the duration of the detention, that there's just a passing reference to Article 205 and no reference in the second decision to Article 205 at all.
AP2 (Applicant): And Article 205 was referred to in the case in relation to his co-defendant, who was granted bail.
AP2 (Applicant): And so it had no relevance.
AP2 (Applicant): And therefore, we suggest there's a formulaic approach here.
AP2 (Applicant): The problem also is compounded by the fact that the nine-month period could be applied separately and consecutively to each individual charge, as happened with Mr. Ugolava and Mr. Akalaya,
AP2 (Applicant): as we've said in his case on a number of occasions.
AP2 (Applicant): And I wanted to draw the court's particular attention to the constitutional court judgments in September 2015, which you have, when the constitutional court declared Article 205 too unconstitutional in Mr. Ugolava's case.
AP2 (Applicant): This followed the application of the nine-month period twice in his case.
AP2 (Applicant): So the second order was made within eight months of the first.
AP2 (Applicant): And the constitutional court, in its judgment, said that its decision was intended to deal with the problem of pretrial detention being postponed artificially.
AP2 (Applicant): And the court also felt it necessary to say that it was impermissible to manipulate the nine-month term set for pretrial detention so as to artificially prolong it.
AP2 (Applicant): There's clearly an issue in practice, as we've heard in the cases we've referred to.
AP2 (Applicant): That's why it was declared unconstitutional in September 2015.
AP2 (Applicant): But when Mavros Vili was facing these decisions, he was subject to this uncertainty.
AP2 (Applicant): The constitutional court itself refers to the decision of this course in Sibalgiu in Croatia from 2011.
AP2 (Applicant): There, there was an Article 5.1 violation
AP2 (Applicant): founded on the basis that the domestic legislation in Croatia contained no provisions concerning the maximum detention period on the basis of detention orders adopted in separate criminal proceedings.
AP2 (Applicant): And the court said that the situation in Croatia left open the possibility for the legislation to be circumvented.
AP2 (Applicant): We say the same is true for Mr. Mravos Vili in 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): I want to come back also, Mr. President,
AP2 (Applicant): to the December 2013 incident.
AP2 (Applicant): Again, it's been said that it did not happen.
AP2 (Applicant): We strongly refute the credibility of the government's evidence.
AP2 (Applicant): We remind the court that Mr. Bramash Vili was immediately
AP2 (Applicant): denounced at the highest political level.
AP2 (Applicant): And it was announced straightaway that there would be no investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): Those statements, those instructions, we say, set the tone for any subsequent purported investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): We say both the inquiry, the ministry inquiry, and the prosecutor's investigation have been very obviously negligent.
AP2 (Applicant): Failure to scrutinize with any serious intent the movements, for example, of Mr. Patskaladze and Mr.
AP2 (Applicant): Darboseli at the relevant times, the failure to carry out any serious inquiry into the payment of very high bonuses to officials implicated in this incident, and the one type of evidence which could have been conclusive, the video evidence from the prison, is said to have been deleted, even though there's no law, no regulation, not even a single memo that shows that this was the practice.
AP2 (Applicant): Nothing at all to show that there was a policy of destroying or deleting video evidence after 24 hours.
AP2 (Applicant): The statements taken from the prison staff in 2016 are brief and formulaic.
AP2 (Applicant): Some of them even use identical wording, if you look very closely, in some of the key paragraphs.
AP2 (Applicant): And those statements suggest that these staff could have remembered what they were doing more than 2 and 1 1⁄2 years earlier in such a level of detail that's just not credible.
AP2 (Applicant): Can any of us remember what we were doing last week, even, in that much detail?
AP2 (Applicant): Such a high-level, unlawful intervention would, of course, never have been recorded.
AP2 (Applicant): So all the apparent recent evidence, which ought to show that there are no records of him leaving the prison, we say are irrelevant.
AP2 (Applicant): Such an illicit attempt to do some kind of deal with Mirambersele would, of course, never have been documented.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, I want to just pick up the point about Mr. Patskaladze's
AP2 (Applicant): movements.
AP2 (Applicant): And we've had recently disclosed, in February, a document that purports to be information taken, I think, from the electronic case management system of the prosecutor's office.
AP2 (Applicant): And we have a brief statement.
AP2 (Applicant): And then we have a series of tables which seem to show the login times for Mr. Patskaladze
AP2 (Applicant): on the 14th of December, 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): We have questions about this document, first of all.
AP2 (Applicant): The numbers are not in sequence.
AP2 (Applicant): And neither are the dates.
AP2 (Applicant): The dates are all over the place.
AP2 (Applicant): The dates are even written in a different format.
AP2 (Applicant): So some of them say 12-14-2013.
AP2 (Applicant): Some of them say 14-12-2013.
AP2 (Applicant): All of that suggests to us that this is not an automatically generated document.
AP2 (Applicant): It's been created.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, we do question it.
AP2 (Applicant): It seems to show the times he opened documents in the electronic case management system.
AP2 (Applicant): Of course, there's no explanation or inquiry as to whether if he had opened a particular document and then walked away from his computer, would it still have shown that it was open?
AP2 (Applicant): Did he have assistants or colleagues who had his login details who could have logged in on his behalf?
AP2 (Applicant): This is a national system for the prosecutor's office.
AP2 (Applicant): We understand.
AP2 (Applicant): He could have been actually been in any building.
AP2 (Applicant): And probably around 150, well, it's very difficult to be absolutely precise, around about 10 minutes he said to get him to this building.
AP2 (Applicant): So around about 2 AM.
AP2 (Applicant): So Mr. Patskaladze was logged on until 124.
AP2 (Applicant): He's in the office five minutes away from Mr. Darbyshev's office.
AP2 (Applicant): The last page of this particular document seems to say that his first date of entry onto the system was 1.48 AM on the 14th of December, which
AP2 (Applicant): is inexplicable.
AP2 (Applicant): And then there's a second entry showing logging on at 10.10 PM
AP2 (Applicant): that day, and the session ending three days later.
AP2 (Applicant): So we have, and that's just one document, if you drill down and look at one document.
AP2 (Applicant): So we have a series of questions about that.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, if I may conclude with responding
AP2 (Applicant): to Judge Joukowska's two questions.
AP2 (Applicant): First question about why it was important for the authorities to obtain information about President Saakashvili and former Prime Minister Zhvaniya in December 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): I mean, in some ways, it's of course difficult, if not impossible, for us to speculate on Mr. Barabashvili's behalf as to why he was hauled out
AP2 (Applicant): and questioned by Mr. Patzkaladze about these issues
AP2 (Applicant): at that time.
AP2 (Applicant): It's difficult for us to say.
AP2 (Applicant): On the other hand, of course, the context is one in which we're talking about Mr. Saakashvili
AP2 (Applicant): as the head of the UNM.
AP2 (Applicant): So he is the main political opponent of the authorities.
AP2 (Applicant): And he was being targeted like the UNM party.
AP2 (Applicant): Subsequent to this incident, the government made the request to interpol in relation to Mr. Saakashvili.
AP2 (Applicant): It was, as we said, was rejected in 2015 because it was considered to be political.
AP2 (Applicant): And Mr. Saakashvili was then first charged
AP2 (Applicant): in July and August 2014.
AP2 (Applicant): So he's a target.
AP2 (Applicant): In relation to former Prime Minister Zhvaniya, this, again, the context anyway, is one in which this was the period in which this government were reinvestigating the circumstances of his death.
AP2 (Applicant): And as I understand it, there were some prosecutions launched in 2014 after Mr. Rambashvili's removal.
AP2 (Applicant): On your second question, Judge Yudhkivsky, we could also, it was a question to the government, but if we could also comment briefly in relation to his involvement in the investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): On a formal, in a formal sense, he has never been recognized as a victim.
AP2 (Applicant): And therefore, he has had no access to the criminal case file.
AP2 (Applicant): He's been refused access to the video recordings, as you've seen.
AP2 (Applicant): And he's only been given information about the investigation after its conclusion in February this year, a month ago.
AP2 (Applicant): If your question was also, perhaps also, about the extent to which he was involved in the sense of, did the authorities respond appropriately to his complaints?
AP2 (Applicant): Well, we say no.
AP2 (Applicant): They didn't.
AP2 (Applicant): He said he could recognize the room where he was questioned.
AP2 (Applicant): He said he could recognize the two men who took him in the car.
AP2 (Applicant): They weren't identified.
AP2 (Applicant): He said that the two men in the car had mobile phone conversations.
AP2 (Applicant): They were never traced.
AP2 (Applicant): His lawyers have made a series of requests for evidence, which has been rebuffed.
AP2 (Applicant): So we say very clearly that he's not been involved in the process.
AP2 (Applicant): That concludes our responses.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Leach. Now Mr. Baramidze, please.
GR1 (Government): Let me start with Judge Utkivska's question regarding the effectiveness of investigation and in particular to what extent the applicant was involved in the investigations.
GR1 (Government): If I understood the question correctly, that was the essence of it.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Miravishvili was questioned on two occasions.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, he was questioned under the internal inquiry, which was conducted by the Ministry of Corrections General Inspectorate.
GR1 (Government): And on other occasion, he was also questioned by the Chief Prosecutor's Office when they started investigation.
GR1 (Government): Of course, this is already a very important involvement.
GR1 (Government): However, as I said in my speech, Mr. Miravishvili did not cooperate with investigators,
GR1 (Government): I mean, to a full extent.
GR1 (Government): Yes, he did told his story, his account, what he quote unquote remembered of that event.
GR1 (Government): But actually, as I mentioned, he said that some people were in the car, someone came up to his prison cell, and then he met someone, but he failed to cooperate with the government on specifications of the people and the room where he was allegedly taken and to whom he allegedly met.
GR1 (Government): He did not say how the people in the car, for example, looked like, or what the room where he was allegedly taken looked like.
GR1 (Government): However, if he cooperated in that sense with the government, then the government would have some other opportunities to take investigative measures, for example, to set up identification parade.
GR1 (Government): If Miravishvili would identify people, then that identification parade would make a sense.
GR1 (Government): Otherwise, it would be senseless because the person who supposedly was there should be in the parade.
GR1 (Government): In other words, he never cooperated.
GR1 (Government): And to the extent he did cooperate, to that extent, he was actually involved.
GR1 (Government): Let me also briefly mention about Mr. Juania's case.
GR1 (Government): Of course, nobody asked Mr. Miravishvili
GR1 (Government): the question about Juania at 14th of December 2013 because he never was taken to anybody to talk about this.
GR1 (Government): But to Mr. Miravishvili, there is a huge question
GR1 (Government): and a set of questions regarding Mr. Juania
GR1 (Government): in the whole of Georgian society.
GR1 (Government): And the reason why is that, is that in the morning of Mr. Juania's death,
GR1 (Government): in very, I mean, questionable circumstances, by the way, he was alleged to meet his death for the reason of gas leakage in some, I mean, conspiratory flat or something.
GR1 (Government): And the way how Mr. Miravishvili
GR1 (Government): and his colleague, general prosecutor of that time, Mr. Adesvili, told the story to the whole people of Georgia
GR1 (Government): in the morning in that tragic moment was this.
GR1 (Government): We already proved that Mr. Juania
GR1 (Government): accidentally died of the gas leakage.
GR1 (Government): How did they know in just couple of hours after Mr. Juania's death
GR1 (Government): that there was no murder, for example?
GR1 (Government): It would be very reasonable, I mean, assumption for any investigator, for any officer, including the chief prosecutor and minister of interior.
GR1 (Government): I am not saying that there was a murder.
GR1 (Government): I am, what I'm saying is, why did not they have that suspicion in the morning or in that tragic morning?
GR1 (Government): And that question is very open and unanswered by either Mr. Miravishvili
GR1 (Government): or anybody else from the previous government.
GR1 (Government): Let me talk about bonuses.
GR1 (Government): And my honorable opponent said in his speech and also later on when he answered the questions and made additional points that as if the prison officials were paid bonuses for thanking, quote-unquote, thanking Miravishvili, I mean them in Miravishvili case, how they worked in Miravishvili case.
GR1 (Government): There is no link between Miravishvili and, I mean, paying bonuses.
GR1 (Government): We are talking about the end of year, in December.
GR1 (Government): In December, usually government pays bonuses, New Year's and Christmas bonuses to employees, especially for law enforcement because they have very hard work to do.
GR1 (Government): And at that time, there were not only those prison officers who served in Miravishvili prison, but those in other prisons as well who got bonuses from the government.
GR1 (Government): The similar amounts of bonuses were dispersed in the same time in December 2013.
GR1 (Government): The prison staff in five other prisons, prison number six, prison number seven, prison number eight, number 15, and number 17.
GR1 (Government): We have already, I mean, provided the relevant materials and it is in the case file.
GR1 (Government): You can check any time that those bonuses were paid to others as well.
GR1 (Government): I don't know why my honorable colleague raised the question about consecutive application of nine months.
GR1 (Government): It is not disputed that no consecutive application of nine months was applied to Mr. Miravishvili.
GR1 (Government): We are talking right now here his case, not the case of anybody else.
GR1 (Government): And as long as the referrals to other cases of high profile, other high profile cases of former government officials are concerned, what they actually prove is the risk of esconding.
GR1 (Government): Because in other cases, many, I mean, high top level officials of Georgia charged with different criminal offenses, including Mr. Saakashvili, former president,
GR1 (Government): including Mr. Adeshvili, the former chief prosecutor,
GR1 (Government): and Mr. Datakhalaya, the closest ally of Mr. Miravishvili,
GR1 (Government): who was also implicated in the Ghergulyani case, which I mentioned in my speech.
GR1 (Government): All those absconded and are still hiding from justice.
GR1 (Government): Why would not then, why would it be unreasonable for an investigator or for the judge to assume that Miravishvili also could abscond by using his fake passport or valid international passports?
GR1 (Government): My honorable colleague raised the question about, again, about Article 18 and said that our submission regarding the inadmissibility of the applicant's claim with respect to the alleged incident of December 14 is inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): He said in reply that Article 18 was raised from the very beginning.
GR1 (Government): Yes, it was raised from the very beginning, but the matter we are talking about, the incident of December 14, 2013, was raised only at the time when the hearing of the case was at the stage of just satisfaction claims.
GR1 (Government): And this is an undeniable fact.
GR1 (Government): Also, as I said in my speech, Mr. Miravishvili,
GR1 (Government): in April, in February, or April 2014, received a letter from the chief prosecutor's office where chief prosecutor told him that the inquiry, the in-depth inquiry of this allegation, was closed because of non-existence of the body of crime.
GR1 (Government): Then Mr. Miravishvili had six months
GR1 (Government): to file the application on this particular event, on this particular allegation, but as I said, he failed to do so.
GR1 (Government): That's why on this event, his claims are inadmissible on account of, I mean, missing the deadline of six months.
GR1 (Government): This is all what I wanted to raise before you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Baramidze.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Tymoshenko against Ukraine.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 10th of August, 2011, with the court under Article 34 of the Convention by a Ukrainian national, Miss Yuliya Volodymyrivna Tymoshenko.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on the 14th of December, 2011.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Kulchytskyy, assisted by Mr. Bem, Mr.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Bogush, Miss Moiseienko, Mr. Mykytenko,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Bairachnyi, and Mr. Motliakh advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mrs. Telychenko
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Mr. Vlasenko, lawyers,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): assisted by Mrs. Senyk, counsel.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Kulchytskyy for the government
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): will speak first, and then Miss Telychenko and Mr. Vlasenko for the applicant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Kulchytskyy, please.
GR1 (Government): Honorable Court, the government of Ukraine would like to present their comments as to additional questions put by the Court.
GR1 (Government): As to the first two questions, the government would like to know that all necessary factual information with relevant documents was submitted by the government in the course of the previous stages of the proceedings before the Court.
GR1 (Government): Summarizing those facts, we would like to note the following.
GR1 (Government): During the period when the applicant was held in Kiev CISO, all her complaints about the identity of medical treatment were mainly connected with the alleged appearance of red spots on her skin and low back pain, which appeared for the first time on 5 October 2011.
GR1 (Government): With reference to those complaints, we would like to reiterate that during the aforementioned period, the applicant was receiving medical treatment which was adequate to her state of health.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, it should be emphasized that the success of treatment provided to the applicant was prejudiced by her permanent refusal from any examination.
GR1 (Government): The applicant and German doctors in their turn explained the aforementioned refusal by mistrust between applicant and state authorities, including doctors of state-run hospitals.