FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 18720\/08
\nMalkhaz BADUASHVILI
\nagainst Georgia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6\u00a0November 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Andr\u00e9 Potocki, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 2008,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Malkhaz Baduashvili is a Georgian national who was born in 1979. He was represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0S.\u00a0Abuladze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Georgian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agents, most recently Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n (a) Investigation<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0At about 2 p.m. on 10\u00a0July 2005 V.T. (\u201cthe victim\u201d) was murdered in the main square of a village.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On the day of the murder and subsequently on 22 July 2005 M.T. claimed to have witnessed the crime and gave statements to the investigating authorities. He stated that he had been sitting with the victim on a bench in the square when the applicant, who had been armed, had come and killed the victim. M.T. was the victim\u2019s cousin and the applicant\u2019s classmate.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Another witness, Z.T., stated that he had been walking near the main square of the village when he saw the armed applicant leave the area following the shooting. According to him, he subsequently learned that the victim had been killed by the applicant.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The victim\u2019s wife confirmed that on the day of the murder M.T. and the victim had left the latter\u2019s house together and gone to the square. She stated that following the murder of her husband M.T. had told her that the applicant had killed him. The victim\u2019s daughters and father gave similar statements. According to the victim\u2019s family, the applicant and the victim were on good terms, and the motives for the actions ascribed to the applicant were unclear to them.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 July 2005 a gun was seized from the applicant\u2019s home.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2005 a search warrant was issued in respect of the applicant. He was arrested and remanded in custody on 27\u00a0July 2005.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 20\u00a0September 2005 the investigating authorities carried out an inspection of the crime scene, involving M.T., to verify the particulars of his earlier statements. His participation in the investigative measure is confirmed by his signature and the signatures of two witnesses on the document produced as a result of the inspection, and by photographs included in that document.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 October 2005 M.T. asked to be questioned again. He noted that he had been overly nervous on the day of the victim\u2019s murder and wanted to correct some of his earlier statements.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 October 2005 M.T.\u2019s request was rejected by the investigator. The latter noted that, in addition to his initial statement, M.T. had given an additional statement on 22\u00a0July 2005 and further participated in the inspection of the crime scene on 20 September 2005 (see paragraph\u00a010 above). The investigator further cited M.T.\u2019s earlier statement dated 3\u00a0September 2005 confirming that he had received threats and anonymous calls from the applicant, who had asked him to alter his statements, and that he had no intention of doing so.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 November 2005 M.T. appealed to the regional prosecutor\u2019s office against the investigator\u2019s refusal to question him again. He noted that all his statements had been obtained by the investigating authorities through coercion. It does not appear that M.T. received any response to his appeal.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 November 2005 the applicant asked to confront M.T. His request was rejected by the investigator on account of M.T.\u2019s request of 3\u00a0September 2005 not to have a confrontation with the applicant owing to concerns for his safety. It was further noted that M.T. would confront the applicant during the criminal trial. A second request by the applicant to have a confrontation with M.T., dated 15\u00a0November 2005, was rejected by the investigator on 16\u00a0November 2005 on identical grounds. While the refusals were amenable to an appeal to the regional prosecutor\u2019s office, it does not appear that the applicant appealed against either of the decisions.<\/p>\n (b) Trial<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 17\u00a0July 2006 and 21\u00a0August 2006, during the trial at the first\u2011instance court, M.T. and Z.T. changed their testimony.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Both M.T. and Z.T. were questioned in court by the applicant\u2019s representative and the prosecutor.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0According to M.T., he was in a shop nearby buying mineral water for the victim when the shooting took place. He immediately ran back to the bench where the victim had been sitting to discover that the latter was unconscious with multiple wounds and was bleeding heavily. He did not see the applicant. Later that day he was questioned by police officers, who forced him to implicate the applicant so as not to leave the crime unsolved. M.T.\u2019s request to correct his initial statement was refused by the investigator. On 20\u00a0September 2005 he participated in the inspection of the crime scene and showed the investigator the exact place where the victim had been sitting. That moment was captured on camera. He also signed some papers relating to that inspection without reading their content. He never told the victim\u2019s family that the applicant had killed the victim, but the victim\u2019s family was threatening him not to alter his initial statement.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0According to Z.T., he was in Tbilisi at the time of the murder and travelled back to the village to attend the victim\u2019s funeral. He was told by the investigator to testify against the applicant as there was no witness to the crime and the police needed to solve the case.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0According to another witness, A.T., he attended the inspection of the crime scene on 20\u00a0September 2005 (see paragraph 10 above), as confirmed by his signature on the report produced as a result of the inspection. He witnessed M.T. confirming his earlier statements, which were read out loud to him, and telling the investigators that the applicant had killed the victim.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0According to the victim\u2019s wife, father, and two daughters, they were personally told by M.T. that the applicant had killed V.T. They further noted that M.T. and other persons who had witnessed the crime were under constant pressure from the applicant\u2019s family not to testify truthfully.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, he had been on good terms with the victim. However, the victim\u2019s family may have been upset with him due to an earlier incident involving the victim\u2019s daughter when the applicant found her in a car with a man and strongly reprimanded both of them. At the time of the murder, he was on vacation in another town. When the applicant heard that he was being accused of that crime he became frightened and decided not to return to his village. He went to Rustavi instead, where he was eventually arrested. He did not tell the investigators to check his alibi as he was upset by being wrongly accused of a crime.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 December 2006 the court of first instance convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and the illegal acquisition, possession and carrying of firearms, and sentenced him to 17 years\u2019 imprisonment. The conviction in respect of firearms was based on the gun seized from his home (see paragraph 8 above). It was never established that the gun was the weapon used to murder the victim. The conviction in respect of aggravated murder was based on the witness statements given by the victim\u2019s family and several other persons who relied on M.T.\u2019s pre-trial statements. The court also relied on forensic and other evidence concerning the various technical aspects of the murder and the applicant\u2019s possession of firearms.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The court dismissed an application by the applicant for pre-trial statements given by M.T. and Z.T. to be declared inadmissible on the grounds that they had been obtained under duress. It reasoned that the witnesses\u2019 allegations of coercion were not confirmed by the evidence available in the case file. Noting the statements given by the victim\u2019s family that the applicant had threatened witnesses, the court further referred to M.T.\u2019s statement dated 3\u00a0September 2005 (see paragraph 12 above) that he was under pressure to change his initial statement. It also relied on A.T.\u2019s testimony (see paragraph 19 above) that he had personally witnessed M.T. participate in the inspection of the crime scene and implicate the applicant on 20\u00a0September 2005.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. He submitted that the evidence relied on by the court was not incontrovertible, as required by domestic law, and the victim\u2019s wife and other family members were implicating him based on hearsay, and were unable to name any eyewitnesses except M.T. As regards M.T., his initial statements were inadmissible evidence, as they had been obtained under duress.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 June 2007 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction. As regards the applicant\u2019s argument that M.T.\u2019s statement had been obtained under duress and was inadmissible evidence, the court did not find it established on the facts that pressure had been applied. In particular, it took into account M.T.\u2019s statement dated 3\u00a0September 2005 saying that the applicant had exerted pressure on him to alter his initial statements. The appellate court reheard A.T., who had witnessed the inspection of the crime scene on 20\u00a0September 2005 (see paragraph 19 above). He confirmed his earlier statement that on that date he had witnessed M.T., whom he had known since childhood, confirming to the investigators his initial version of the events implicating the applicant and indicating particular details related to that account. A.T. said that during the inspection M.T. had acted casually, and there had been nothing suspicious in his demeanour, with no sign of pressure being exerted on him. As regards the applicant\u2019s objection regarding the courts\u2019 reliance on hearsay evidence, the appellate court found that the witness statements given by the victim\u2019s wife, daughter and father were corroborated by M.T.\u2019s pre-trial statements which in turn were not inadmissible evidence.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 February 2008 the Supreme Court declared an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant inadmissible.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date separate criminal proceedings were opened against M.T. and Z.T. On 26\u00a0December 2006 and 23\u00a0January 2007 respectively they were convicted at first instance of obstructing justice by giving false testimony. Both were given partially suspended sentences. The case file does not contain information about the final outcome of those proceedings.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was released from prison on 26 April 2018.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s detention conditions and medical care<\/em><\/p>\n (a) Conditions of detention<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 28\u00a0July 2005 the applicant was placed in the Tbilisi Prison no.\u00a05. According to the applicant, there was severe overcrowding in the Tbilisi Prison no. 5, he had to take turns sleeping as the cell intended for 26 persons was accommodating approximately 70-80 inmates. The toilet located in the cell did not have a door and was covered with a curtain, creating unsanitary conditions and unpleasant odours. On 27 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the newly opened Rustavi Prison no.\u00a06, and subsequently to the Rustavi Prison no.\u00a02.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Between January and March 2008 the applicant was placed in the Rustavi Prison no. 2. It does not appear that he complained to any domestic authority of any aspect of his detention conditions at that institution.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2008 the applicant was placed in the prison hospital.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 December 2008 the applicant was transferred from the prison hospital to the Rustavi Prison no. 6. According to the applicant\u2019s original complaint, he was forced to have his head shaved at the arrival at that prison. The Government provided the Court with several documents, including a note signed by the applicant stating that no such event had taken place. It does not appear that he complained to any domestic authority of any aspect of his detention conditions at that institution.<\/p>\n (b) Medical care<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 March 2008 chronic viral hepatitis C (HCV) was detected in the applicant\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 March 2008 the applicant had an HCV RNA (hepatitis C virus RNA nucleic acid amplification test) and several other examinations performed in order to determine which course of treatment he should have been provided with. However, the HCV was found to be \u201cnon-detectable\u201d and therefore no antiviral treatment was found to be necessary. The applicant was prescribed standard treatment involving medication, vitamins and blood transfusion.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 July 2009 the test to determine if antiviral treatment was warranted was repeated, and yielded identical negative results.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The HCV treatment was maintained and periodically reassessed throughout the applicant\u2019s subsequent placement in the relevant penal institutions.<\/p>\n (c) Alleged ill-treatment on 19\u00a0August 2010 and pressure to withdraw the application<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0On 19\u00a0August 2010 the applicant was transferred to Kutaisi Prison no.\u00a02. The register of incoming inmates of Kutaisi Prison no.\u00a02 contained a note stating that no injuries had been observed on the applicant\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 and 26\u00a0August 2010 the applicant complained to the Chief Prosecutor that on 19\u00a0August 2010, directly before being transferred to Kutaisi Prison no.\u00a02, he had been severely beaten by the governor of Rustavi Prison no.\u00a06 and had sustained serious injuries to his ribs, head and backbone. He claimed that the violence had related to his pending application before the Court, and that earlier on 12\u00a0August 2010 the governor had summoned him and his cellmate to his office and asked him to withdraw the application.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 August 2010 the applicant was placed in the prison hospital, at his request.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 August 2010 an investigation was opened into the applicant\u2019s allegations. On the same day the investigator commissioned a forensic medical examination to determine if there were any injuries on the applicant\u2019s body and, if so, where they had come from.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 August 2010 the applicant and his cellmate were approached by the investigator, but both refused to be questioned in the absence of their lawyers. On 29\u00a0November 2010 the applicant\u2019s cellmate again refused to be questioned without his lawyers. On the same day the applicant gave a partial statement, alleging that on 12\u00a0August 2010 the governor of Rustavi Prison no.\u00a06 had asked him to withdraw his application to the Court, in exchange for better conditions in prison.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 September 2010 the investigator questioned a doctor from the prison hospital. The doctor stated that she had met the applicant on 30\u00a0August 2010. No visible signs of injuries had been observed, nor had the applicant complained in this regard. She further noted that several tests had been carried out to determine the applicant\u2019s state of health. As a result, he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis and immediately put on a DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course) programme, the strategy for the detection and treatment of tuberculosis recommended by the World Health Organization.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0On 3\u00a0September 2010 the forensic medical examination was concluded. An expert from the National Forensic Bureau found that the applicant had a trace of a small abrasion in the area of his chin, approximately a month old, possibly caused by a hard object. A small wound, no more than three days old, was observed on the applicant\u2019s shin. The report noted that both injuries were located \u201cwithin the applicant\u2019s own reach\u201d.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The prison governor and the chief inspector of the prison\u2019s security unit, who were questioned as part of the investigation, denied that the applicant had been taken to the governor\u2019s office on 12\u00a0August or physically assaulted on 19 August 2010.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 November 2010 the doctor who had examined the applicant upon his admission to Kutaisi Prison no. 2 on 19 August 2010 noted that no signs of ill-treatment had been observed on the applicant\u2019s body and that he had not complained in this regard. Otherwise, in accordance with the established procedure, the doctor would have drawn up a relevant report. A\u00a0note had therefore been made in the register of incoming inmates that the applicant had no signs of injuries. The doctor said that the applicant had been placed in the medical wing of that prison owing to his claim that he suffered from HCV. Subsequently, the doctor was again approached by the investigator. The former noted that the small abrasions referred to in other findings might have been gone unnoticed because of the applicant\u2019s beard.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 April 2011 the doctor, nurse and duty officer who had examined the applicant upon his admission to the prison hospital on 27\u00a0August 2010 were questioned as part of the investigation into his allegations. They all noted that the applicant had had no serious injuries and had not made any complaint at the time of his admission to the prison hospital.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0Neither the Government nor the applicant updated the Court on the final outcome of that investigation.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant parts of the 1998 Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cthe CCP\u201d), in force at the material time, provided as follows:<\/p>\n Article 111: Inadmissible evidence<\/p>\n \u201c1. Evidence shall be considered inadmissible if it is obtained<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (c) in violation of the law, by using force, threat, deceit, blackmail, humiliation, or other illegal methods; …<\/p>\n 2. The burden of proof in respect of the admissibility of prosecution evidence and the inadmissibility of defence evidence rests with the prosecutor…\u201d<\/p>\n Article 117 \u00a7 2 (Witness testimony)<\/p>\n \u201cIf there is a substantial difference between the statements given by a witness at the pre-trial stage and during trial, a party may apply to the court for such a statement to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 111 of this Code…\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequacy of prison conditions and medical care in prison. He further argued that he had been physically ill-treated by a prison governor, and forced to have his head shaved.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Convention that he had not been informed about reasons for his arrest, and that the decisions approving his pre-trial detention had lacked adequate reasoning.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also submitted that the defence was deprived of an opportunity to confront the sole eyewitness during the pre-trial investigation, and that his conviction was based on hearsay evidence, in breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained about insufficiency of family visits in prison and his alleged inability to telephone them during his detention.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant further stated, in the context of Article\u00a034 of the Convention, that the prison governor who used physical force against him had also requested that the applicant withdraw his application from the Court.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complained under Article\u00a03 of the Convention about severe overcrowding in the Tbilisi Prison no. 5. Furthermore, approximately a year after the parties had exchanged their submissions concerning the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had contracted tuberculosis in prison. He also maintained, under Article\u00a06, that the criminal proceedings in his case were excessively lengthy.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention were inadequate, he was not provided with adequate medical care in prison, and was physically assaulted by a prison governor on 19\u00a0August 2010. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s health condition was duly monitored and all adequate treatment was administered during his imprisonment. They further noted that the applicant\u2019s complaints concerning the prison conditions were wholly unsubstantiated, as was the allegation of physical assault in view of the expert evidence available in the case file.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained that there had been a lack of medical supervision and treatment of his HCV, and that the prison conditions in all of the establishments in which he had been placed had been unsatisfactory. He further noted that air pollution emanated from the plant neighbouring the Rustavi Prison no. 2, and that he was unable to exercise his right to walk and to take a shower in the Rustavi Prison no. 6. The applicant maintained that he had been beaten on 19\u00a0August 2010.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention<\/em><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0Referring to its relevant case-law in respect of conditions of detention in Georgian custodial institutions at the material time, the Court reiterates the rule that whenever an applicant wished to challenge allegedly poor material conditions of detention in a Georgian prison, even if such complaints did not call for the full and meticulous exhaustion of any specific criminal or civil remedies (see, for comparison, Aliev v. Georgia, no. 522\/04, \u00a7 62 and 63, 13 January 2009, and Goginashvili v. Georgia, no.\u00a047729\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 54 and 57, 4 October 2011), it was still required, at the very minimum, that at least one of the responsible State agencies be informed of the applicant\u2019s subjective assessment that the conditions of the detention in question constituted a lack of respect for, or diminished, his or her human dignity. Without such basic conduct at the domestic level by a person who wished to challenge the conditions of his or her detention under the Convention, the Court would necessarily have difficulty in evaluating the credibility of an applicant\u2019s allegations of fact in that connection (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 1704\/06, 26 June 2007, and Janiashvili v. Georgia, no. 35887\/05, \u00a7 70, 27 November 2012).<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the material available in the case file, the Court notes that the applicant never informed any of the relevant authorities of his dissatisfaction with any particular aspect of the material conditions of his detention in any of the relevant prisons. Furthermore, in the proceedings before the Court he limited his submissions to only vague and general statements, and retracted his allegation of being forced to shave his head (see paragraph\u00a032 above). Consequently, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to discharge his burden of proof and substantiate his complaint properly (compare, amongst many other similar authorities, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a0127, ECHR 2016; Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a0122, 10 January 2012; and Ildani v.\u00a0Georgia, no. 65391\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 26 and 27, 23 April 2013).<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the material conditions of his detention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Medical care<\/em><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons were summarised by the Court in the cases of Blokhin v.\u00a0Russia ([GC], no.\u00a047152\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein); Goginashvili v. Georgia (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 69-70); Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia (no. 17012\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 39-40, 11 December 2012); and Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 41-42, 18 December 2012).<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of a lack of medical supervision in respect of his HCV. However, the information submitted by the Government indicates that the applicant\u2019s health-related issues were under constant medical supervision. According to the medical files, his condition did not necessitate antiviral treatment (see paragraphs 33-36 above). The applicant was prescribed and given standard treatment involving medication, vitamins, and blood transfusion.<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill\u2011founded, pursuant to Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that while neither of the parties furnished it with information about the outcome of the investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations that he was beaten by the prison governor on 19 August 2010, and in the absence of the Government\u2019s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the available case material, including the findings of an expert from the National Forensic Bureau, enables the Court to decide whether the complaint is well-founded.<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0In particular, while the applicant alleged that he had been severely beaten and had sustained injuries to his ribs, head and backbone, neither the doctor who examined him upon his admission to the relevant prison nor the prison hospital doctor or the expert from the National Forensic Bureau confirmed his allegations (see paragraphs 42-43 and 45-46 above). Contrary to the applicant\u2019s allegations, only a small old abrasion on his chin and one minor injury on his shin were found (see paragraph 43 above). Neither of those injuries matched the applicant\u2019s allegations and the timing of the events alleged to have taken place (see paragraph 38 above).<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that this complaint is unsubstantiated and should be rejected as manifestly ill\u2011founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. Complaints under Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his inability to confront the main witness during the pre-trial investigation and the subsequent reliance of the courts on the statement of that witness despite the latter\u2019s altered testimony during the trial, as well as the use of hearsay evidence against him, had impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings. He relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1. In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …<\/p>\n 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him …\u201d<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the requirements of Article\u00a06 of the Convention had been fully complied with, considering that the relevant judgments had been duly reasoned and the applicant had had an opportunity to question the relevant witness in an open court. They maintained that the applicant could have asked the domestic courts to declare the conflicting statements given by M.T. inadmissible on the basis that they were contradictory, but he had failed to avail himself of that right. They further maintained that the domestic legislation in force at the material time had not restricted the courts\u2019 reliance on hearsay evidence.<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaints.<\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant general principles under Article\u00a06 of the Convention have been summarised by the Court, inter alia, in the cases of Schatschaschwili v.\u00a0Germany ([GC], no. 9154\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0100-101, ECHR 2015); Ibrahim and Others v.\u00a0the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541\/08 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a0250-251, ECHR 2016); and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no.\u00a02) ([GC], no. 19867\/12, \u00a7\u00a083, ECHR\u00a02017 (extracts)).<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that while the applicant was not confronted with the witness at the pre-trial stage, he failed to appeal against the investigator\u2019s refusals to that end (see paragraph\u00a014 above). In any event, the witness in question did appear before the first-instance court. He was questioned during the criminal trial by the prosecutor and the applicant\u2019s lawyer in the applicant\u2019s presence (contrast with Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20\u00a0November 1989, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a042-43, Series\u00a0A no. 166). Therefore, the applicant had an unhindered possibility to confront the witness in the presence of a judge.<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the domestic courts\u2019 reliance on the pre-trial statements of that witness instead of his altered statement during the trial, the Court notes that where domestic judicial authorities are confronted by several conflicting versions of truth offered by the same person, their final preference for a statement given to the investigative authorities over one given in an open court does not in itself raise an issue under the Convention where this preference is substantiated and the statement itself was given of the person\u2019s own volition (see, among other authorities, Lutsenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 30663\/04, \u00a7\u00a049, 18\u00a0December 2008, and Doorson v.\u00a0the Netherlands, 26\u00a0March 1996, \u00a7\u00a078, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II).<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the domestic courts, which are normally best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605\/04, \u00a7\u00a080, 13\u00a0March 2012), addressed the witness\u2019s argument concerning police coercion, and the applicant\u2019s related request to have M.T.\u2019s pre-trial statements declared inadmissible on account of being obtained under duress. Relying on M.T.\u2019s own written statement of 3\u00a0September 2005 alleging that the applicant, and not the police, had put pressure on him to alter his initial statement (see paragraphs 23 and 25 above), and A.T.\u2019s statement that M.T. had voluntarily participated in the inspection of the crime scene and recounted his pre-trial statements without any signs of coercion or uneasiness (see ibid), the domestic courts reasoned that duress was not confirmed on the facts of the case. Therefore, in the absence of the applicant\u2019s request to declare the contradictory statements inadmissible under Article\u00a0117 \u00a7\u00a02 of the CCP (see paragraph 48 above), and considering that they were not found to have been obtained under coercion, the domestic courts adequately reasoned their position as to the admissibility and credibility of M.T.\u2019s pre\u2011trial statements.<\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the applicant\u2019s argument that the remaining evidence relied on by the domestic courts constituted uncorroborated hearsay as it consisted of the account given by the victim\u2019s family and A.T. who were not eyewitnesses, the Court has found that domestic courts\u2019 reliance on such evidence is not as such incompatible with the Convention (see Haas v.\u00a0Germany (dec.), no.\u00a073047\/01, 17\u00a0November 2005, and Baybasin v.\u00a0Germany (dec.), no.\u00a036892\/05, 3\u00a0February 2009). In this connection, the Court notes the appellate court\u2019s reasoning that the evidence in question was corroborated by M.T.\u2019s pre-trial statements (see paragraph\u00a025 above). Considering that the domestic courts regarded M.T. as a direct eyewitness, the applicant\u2019s conviction cannot be regarded as based solely on hearsay evidence.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, and bearing in mind that the applicant had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, the Court finds that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3\u00a0(d) are manifestly ill\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3\u00a0(a) and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n C. Compliance with Article 34 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that on 12\u00a0August 2010 he was asked by the governor of the Rustavi Prison no.\u00a02 to withdraw his application from the Court, and that he was subsequently beaten by that governor on 19\u00a0August 2010 before his transfer to another prison.<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already found that the allegations of physical ill\u2011treatment are manifestly ill-founded in view of the evidence available in the case file (see paragraphs 64-66 above). As regards the alleged request by the prison governor that the applicant withdraw the application pending before the Court in exchange for better conditions in prison (see paragraph\u00a041 above), even assuming that the meeting did indeed take place, the applicant was promptly transferred to another prison. Considering the applicant\u2019s continuous unhindered access to the Court, and the absence of any subsequent contact aimed at dissuading the applicant from pursuing the application, the Court finds that there are no reasons to pursue the examination of the applicant\u2019s complaint about Georgia\u2019s breach of its obligation under Article 34 not to hinder his right of individual application.<\/p>\n D. Other alleged violations of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also raised additional complaints with reference to Article\u00a03, Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3, Article 6, and Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraphs 50, 52, and 54 above). Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of the application.<\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the application in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides not to pursue the complaint raised under Article\u00a034 of the Convention;<\/p>\n Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 29 November 2018.<\/p>\n MilanBla\u0161ko\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Andr\u00e9 Potocki
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n