4.  The applicant was born in 1987. 5.  On 13 June 2006 an investigation was opened into an alleged robbery committed against D.G., an offence under Article 178 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. On the same date D.G. was formally granted victim status and questioned in connection with the incident. She claimed in her statement that, while walking in the street earlier the same day at around 3.30 p.m., she had been attacked by a young boy who had ripped her gold necklace off her. She described him as being around twenty years old with dark curly hair and around 177 cm in height, and claimed that she could identify him. A friend of hers who had witnessed the incident noted in her statement that she could not identify the alleged robber, as she had not seen his face. 6.  On 14 June 2006 a photo identification parade was organised. The victim identified the person on photo no. 4 as the robber. It appears that later an investigator made a note on the identification record that the victim had identified the person on photo no. 2. There was no explanation as to why there were contradictory notes. 7.  Immediately thereafter the applicant was named as the person on photo no. 2, and an order for his arrest was issued. 8.  On 15 June 2006, following the applicant’s arrest, an identification parade was organised. Four persons were presented at the identification parade, and the victim identified the applicant as the robber. A personal search of the applicant and a subsequent search of his home did not reveal any unlawful items. 9.  On 17 June 2006 the investigator in charge of the case wrote a letter to the prosecutor, noting that the applicant had affiliations with the criminal world and had been following “[a] thief’s traditions”, and that it should have been expected that he would commit various offences. On the same date the Tbilisi City Court, acting at the prosecutor’s request, ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. The decision was confirmed by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 26 June 2006. 10.  On 8 August 2006 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case file was sent to the trial court for examination, along with the bill of indictment. 11.  The trial opened on 28 December 2006. The victim confirmed her pre-trial statement, noting that she remembered the face of the applicant very well. The investigator who had organised the photo identification parade was also questioned by the first-instance court. He claimed that the victim had mistakenly written down photo no. 4 instead of photo no. 2 on the photo identification record. Therefore, he had subsequently made an additional note only to rectify this purely technical mistake. The first-instance court also questioned N.K., a shop assistant who had witnessed the whole incident. She described the alleged robber and claimed that the applicant had a different appearance. 12.  On 2 February 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was based on the victim’s statement in court, the results of the identification parades, and the statement which the victim’s friend had made in court. The trial court dismissed the evidence of the shopkeeper as “subjective” and aimed at allowing the applicant to escape criminal responsibility. The price of the necklace, estimated by the victim to be 300 Georgian laris (GEL – approximately 150 euros (EUR) at the material time) constituted an aggravating circumstance. 13.  The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. He requested that the victim and the investigator be examined again before the second-instance court. On 23 May 2007 the victim wrote to the appeal court, informing the judges that she was pregnant and claiming, on the basis of a medical certificate, that she had been asked to stay in bed and could not appear in court. In the meantime, the appeal court had allowed the applicant’s application for the investigator to be examined again. According to the relevant court transcript, in reply to a question concerning the report on photo identification, the investigator maintained that the victim had orally identified photo no. 2, whereas she had mistakenly written down photo no. 4 in the report. As he had noticed that mistake only after she had left the police station, he had made a note to that effect. In view of the investigator’s explanations regarding the photo identification report, the defence once again requested that the appeal court summon the victim. The applicant’s lawyer maintained that it was necessary to examine her in court in order to establish the circumstances surrounding the photo identification parade, and also to verify the value of the necklace that had been stolen. By a letter of 5 September 2007 the victim once again informed the court that, in view of her pregnancy, she could not appear in court. On the basis of that statement, the prosecutor asked the court to rely on the victim’s statement given before the first-instance court. Having heard the parties’ arguments, the appeal court concluded the following:
“... the examination of the case should continue, since as it appears from the victim’s ... application submitted to the court, she cannot appear in court because of her pregnancy, which is also confirmed by an extract from her medical file; hence, the court cannot compel her to appear. ...” 14.  By a decision of 21 September 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, whilst reclassifying the offence as a simple robbery, confirmed the applicant’s conviction and reduced his sentence to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The appeal court concluded that the results of the photo identification had been marred by procedural irregularities and dismissed them as unreliable. However, the applicant’s guilt had been proved by the victim’s consistent statements during the pre-trial investigation stage and before the trial court, by the results of the identification parade, and by the evidence given by the victim’s friend. The appeal court rejected the aggravating circumstance, concluding that the price of the necklace, as claimed by the victim, had not been proved. 15.  By a decision of 14 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law as inadmissible. 16.  On 24 March 2009 the applicant was released on probation, by virtue of a relevant court decision. 17.  According to the case file, prior to his detention the applicant was diagnosed with an acute cataract in his left eye and advised to have surgery. Following his detention, on 15 June 2006 he was placed in Tbilisi Prison no. 5. On 21 October 2006, having complained of a loss of sight in his left eye and impaired vision in his right eye, he was transferred to the prison hospital, where the diagnosis of an acute cataract was confirmed. He was further diagnosed with chorioretinitis (inflammation of the uveal tract) in his right eye. The applicant was prescribed drug-based treatment and discharged on 4 November 2006 in a satisfactory condition. 18.  On 13 January 2007 the applicant was again transferred to the prison hospital, where he stayed until 12 February 2007. He underwent blood and urine tests there and was seen by various doctors, including an ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologist confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis of an acute cataract in his left eye and prescribed drug-based treatment. The applicant was discharged from the prison hospital after his condition had improved, as noted in the relevant medical certificate. 19.  On 3 March 2007 the applicant was transferred back to the prison hospital, this time with an additional diagnosis that he had developed haziness of the vitreous body in his right eye. On 12 March 2007 he was moved back to prison for, as noted in his medical file, “non-medical reasons.” On 20 March 2007 the applicant’s mother wrote to the Prisons Department, requesting that her son be transferred back to the prison hospital. She claimed that he was suffering from a serious visual impairment of his left eye. Her request was forwarded to the Governor of Prison no. 5, where the applicant was detained at the material time, yet no reply followed. 20.  In the period April-May 2007, acting at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, a private eye clinic called Mzera Eye Clinic examined the applicant’s medical file and confirmed the diagnosis of a uveal cataract in his left eye. The expert recommended drug-based treatment followed by surgery, namely the implantation of an artificial lens. No pathology in the right eye was established. 21.  On 2 June 2007 the applicant was again transferred to the prison hospital for treatment for his cataract. On 25 June 2007 his treating ophthalmologist requested that the prison hospital organise for an eye surgeon to see the applicant. On an unidentified date the head doctor of the prison hospital wrote to Mzera Eye Clinic. He requested that the clinic send a specialist to examine the applicant, given his diagnosis. It appears from the case file that, despite the above request, the applicant was not seen by an eye surgeon at that time. 22.  In the meantime, having undergone various tests, in mid-August 2007 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from smear-negative tuberculosis of the right lung in the infiltration stage. On 31 August 2007 he was discharged from the prison hospital and transferred to a facility in Ksani for prisoners with tuberculosis. Following the diagnosis being confirmed, on 2 September 2007 he was enrolled in an anti-tuberculosis treatment programme under the DOTS programme (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course – the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of tuberculosis recommended by the World Health Organization). 23.  On 24 January 2008 the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital, where he stayed for almost two weeks. According to the entries made in his medical file, he regularly complained of a loss of vision in his left eye. He was not seen by an ophthalmologist at that time. 24.  On 2 May 2008 the applicant completed his treatment for tuberculosis. On 17 June 2008 his mother wrote a letter to the head of social services at the Prisons Department, requesting that her son be transferred to a medical establishment for prisoners with tuberculosis. On an unspecified date he was transferred back to Ksani prison, where another medical test revealed that he had had a relapse. He was diagnosed with smear-positive infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung in the disintegration stage. A decision was taken on 12 September 2008 to put him on the DOTS programme again. No entries were made in his file concerning his ophthalmological treatment at the material time. 25.  On 28 October 2008, relying on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the applicant asked the Court to indicate to the Government that he should be transferred to a medical establishment where he could access appropriate medical examinations and treatment, and have an operation to prevent him from losing his eyesight. 26.  On 3 November 2008, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, the President of the Chamber requested that the Government provide the Court with a specific treatment plan aimed at safeguarding the applicant’s eyesight. 27.  On 18 November 2008 the Government submitted the applicant’s medical file to the Court, and also gave an account of the treatment which he had been receiving in prison as of January 2007. According to the submitted information, On 14 November 2008 the applicant was seen by an ophthalmologist, who recommended that he receive treatment for conjunctivitis before a decision was made about surgery. On 18 November 2008 the applicant was advised that he could undergo the required eye operation at Mzera Eye Clinic. According to the relevant note signed by the applicant and his ophthalmologist, the applicant refused the operation offered by the prison authorities. 28.  On 24 March 2009 the applicant was released on probation.