Communicated on 16 January 2019<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.54292\/18
\nSulikoLIPARTIA and Giorgi BERDZENISHVILI
\nagainst Georgia
\nlodged on 8 November 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicants for armed robbery on account of their inability to examine the only direct witness, A.K. (victim of the offence) during the trial. They argue that the victim\u2019s written and video statements as recorded by an investigator during the pre-trial investigation served as the decisive if not the sole evidence for their conviction. The applicants rely on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.\u00a026766\/05 and 22228\/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 9154\/10, 15 December 2015)?<\/p>\n
In particular:<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0Were the applicants able to examine A.K., at any stage of the proceedings? In this connection, what steps did the domestic authorities take to secure the attendance of the witness?<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0Did the statements of A.K. serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicants\u2019 conviction?<\/p>\n
(c)\u00a0\u00a0What safeguards did the domestic courts put in place to counterbalance the applicants\u2019 alleged inability to cross-examine A.K.?<\/p>\n