GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF TSAAVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
(Applications nos. 13186/20 and 4 others)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 34 • No valid basis and reason allowing the Court to refrain from examining part of the case • Complaints under Art 3 (substantive), 10 and 11 neither overlapping or peripheral but central to the case • Adjournment of the complaints not appropriate on the basis of the case-file, the alleged breaches and the substantive issues at stake • No basis for striking out the complaints under Art 37 § 1
Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Use of kinetic impact projectiles by the police to disperse a demonstration in front of the Parliament building after its escalation injuring twenty of the applicants, neither strictly necessary nor proportionate • Need for strict regulation by Contracting States of the use of kinetic impact projectiles during demonstrations in view of their technical characteristics and their potential health risks, including serious injury and death • Enunciation of minimum requirements to be provided by Contracting States’ domestic legal frameworks as to the use of such projectiles • Deficient domestic legal framework and application
Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Physical ill-treatment by the police, during the dispersal of the demonstration, resulting in injuries to four of the applicants, neither strictly necessary nor proportionate
Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective criminal investigation, still ongoing for more than five and a half years, into injuries sustained by the applicants from the firing of kinetic impact projectiles and physical ill‑treatment by the police
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Use of force by firing kinetic impact projectiles against the applicant journalists and removing an applicant journalist from the Parliament building’s courtyard neither justified nor proportionate • Contracting States under a duty to have in place an effective system of protection of journalists • Interference not “necessary in a democratic society”
Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Art 11 applicable • Use of force against eleven of the applicants neither justified or proportionate • Although the dispersal decision was justified and proportionate in view of the fundamental interest of ensuring the effective functioning of Parliament in a democracy, the way it was put into effect was not • Interference not “necessary in a democratic society”
Art 38 • Respondent State’s compliance with its obligation to furnish all necessary facilities
Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Respondent State required to take both individual and general measures • Effective investigation to be carried out in compliance with Art 3 requirements, without delay and be concluded as quickly as possible • Adequate safeguards to be put in place regulating the deployment of kinetic impact projectiles to minimise the risks of death and injury stemming from their use
Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Mechanisms to prevent applicants from deriving double compensation from the Court’s judgments • Principles for estimating sums necessary to make full reparation for future loss of income due to diminished earning capacity resulting from an injury • Awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
11 December 2025
 
This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. DEMONSTRATION OF 20-21 JUNE 2019
A. Background
B. Initial phase of the demonstration
C. First episode involving tensions
D. Interim period
E. Second episode involving tensions and the dispersal of the demonstration
II. THE APPLICANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
A. Tsaava and Kmuzov (no. 13186/20)
1. Video material depicting the applicants’ circumstances
2. Medical documents relating to the applicants’ injuries
B. Svanadze (no. 16757/20)
1. Video material depicting the applicant’s circumstances
2. Medical documents relating to the applicant’s injuries
C. Baghashvili and Others (no. 20129/21)
1. Video and photo material depicting the applicants’ circumstances
2. Medical documents relating to the applicants’ injuries
D. Kurdovanidze and Others (no. 20175/21)
1. Video and other material depicting the applicants’ circumstances
2. Medical documents relating to the applicants’ injuries
E. Berikashvili (no. 39382/21)
1. Video and photo material depicting the applicant’s circumstances
2. Medical documents relating to the applicant’s injuries
III. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
A. Opening of the investigation and granting of victim status
B. Monitoring of the investigation by the Public Defender’s Office
C. Retrieval of information from non-governmental organisations
D. Examination of weapons and shells used to disperse the demonstration
E. Requests to the MIA
F. Questioning of victims and witnesses
G. Obtaining video and other material
H. Retrieval of medical documentation
I. Ordering of forensic medical examinations
J. Officers charged as part of the criminal investigation
K. Current status of the investigation
IV. DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION BY THE MIA
V. COMPENSATION CLAIMS BY SOME OF THE APPLICANTS
VI. OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES
VII. OTHER MATERIAL
A. Plan for measures aimed at safeguarding and restoring public order in Tbilisi
B. Reports about the demonstration of 20-21 June 2019
1. Special report by the PDO
2. General report by the PDO
3. Report by Human Rights Watch
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
I. CRIMINAL CODE
II. TERMINATION OF DEMONSTRATIONS AND THE USE OF FORCE
A. Assemblies and Demonstrations Act 1997
B. Police Act 2013
C. Ministerial Order no. 1002 of 2015 approving instructions for the conduct of MIA personnel during assemblies and demonstrations
D. Ministerial Order no. 1006 of 2013 on the storage, carrying and use of special means available to the police
III. AMNESTY ACT OF 7 SEPTEMBER 2021
IV. CIVIL CODE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
I. ON KINETIC IMPACT PROJECTILES
A. United Nations
1. Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement
2. General Comment No. 37 of the Human Rights Committee
B. Council of Europe
1. Resolution CM/Res(2016)2116 of the Parliamentary Assembly
2. Venice Commission Guidelines on Peaceful Assembly
C. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
D. Organization of American States
II. ON THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS AND MEDIA ACTORS IN THE COURSE OF DEMONSTRATIONS
A. Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
B. Resolution 2532 (2024) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
C. Venice Commission Guidelines on Peaceful Assembly
THE LAW
I. SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE GRAND CHAMBER
II. PRELIMINARY REMARKS: WHETHER IT IS OPEN TO THE COURT TO REFRAIN FROM DECIDING PARTS OF THE CASE
A. General principle
B. Non-examination of overlapping or peripheral complaints
C. Partial adjournment or partial striking out of the case
1. Adjournment
2. Striking out
D. Conclusion
III. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The Government
2. The applicants
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
1. Possibility for the applicants to seek compensation
(a) General principles
(b) The complaints under Article 3
(c) The complaints under Articles 10 and 11
(i) Relevant practice
(ii) Analysis in the present case
2. Ongoing nature of the investigation
IV. PROCEDURAL LIMB OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The applicants
2. The Government
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
V. SUBSTANTIVE LIMB OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The applicants
2. The Government
3. The first third-party intervener (nine members of INCLO)
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
1. General principles
(a) Use of force to disperse demonstrations or rallies
(b) Proof in relation to such matters
2. Application in the present case
(a) Injuries caused by kinetic impact projectiles (20 applicants)
(i) Source and nature of the injuries
(ii) Duty to account for the use of force resulting in the injuries
(iii) Regulation of use by the police of kinetic impact projectiles in the course of demonstrations
(α) Relevant case-law of the Court
(β) Considerations arising from the technical characteristics of kinetic impact projectiles and their potential effects on human health
(γ) Assessment of the Georgian legal framework and its application in the present case in the light of those considerations
(iv) Conclusion
(b) Alleged physical ill-treatment (four applicants)
(i) Source and nature of the injuries
(ii) Duty to account for the use of force resulting in the injuries
(iii) Conclusion
VI. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The applicants
2. The Government
3. The second third-party intervener (PEN International, PEN Georgia and English PEN)
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
1. The complaint in Berikashvili (no. 39382/21)
2. Analysis of the admissibility and merits of the complaints
(a) Admissibility
(b) Merits
(i) Existence of an interference
(α) General principles
(β) Application of those principles
(ii) Justification for the interference
(α) “Prescribed by law”
(β) Legitimate aim(s)
(γ) “Necessary in a democratic society”
VII. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The applicants
2. The Government
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
1. Admissibility
2. Merits
(a) Applicability of Article 11 of the Convention
(i) General principles
(ii) Relevant case-law with respect to Georgia
(iii) Application of the general principles in the present case
(b) Existence of an interference
(c) Justification for the interference
(i) “Prescribed by law”
(ii) Legitimate aim(s)
(iii) “Necessary in a democratic society”
(α) General principles on the necessity of the use of force by the authorities to contain or disperse an assembly
(β) Application of those principles
VIII. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
IX. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Chamber judgment
B. Submissions before the Grand Chamber
1. The applicants
2. The Government
C. The Grand Chamber’s assessment
1. General principles
2. Application of those principles
X. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Individual measures
B. General measures

Outcome for Article 3: violation