SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: John Darcy Tel: 03 88 41 31 56

Date: 03/06/2019 DH-DD(2019)633

Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1348th meeting (June 2019) (DH)

Communication from the applicant (29/05/2019) in the case of Merabishvili v. (Application No. 72508/13)

Information made available under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Document distribué sous la seule responsabilité de son auteur, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1348e réunion (juin 2019) (DH)

Communication du requérant (29/05/2019) relative à l'affaire Merabishvili c. Géorgie (requête n° 72508/13) (anglais uniquement).

Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 9.1 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.

DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of itsDGI author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. 29 MAI 2019

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Middlesex EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY CENTRE University London

European Human Rights Advocacy Centre Sc hool of Law Midd lesex University Th e Burroughs London NW4 48T United Kingdom Em ail: eh ra c@ mdx.ac.uk Phon e: +44 208 4 11 2826 Fa x: +44 (0)203 004 1767

DGI - Directorate General of Hu man Rights and Rule of Law Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex FRANCE E-mail: dgl execution just [email protected] [email protected] Sent by post and email

29 May 2019

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: lvane Merabishvili v. Georqia, App. No. 72508/13 {leading case, enhanced procedure) - submissions pursuant to Rule 9(1) of the Committee of Ministers' Ru les for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments

Further to our letter of 3 May 2019, we are writing to provide an additional update on domestic developments in Mr Merabishvili's case .

As noted in our letter of 3 May, on 19 April 2019, Mr Merabishvili was informed that his application for early conditional release was aga in rejected by the Parole Board (decision dated 11 April - see annex 1: decision in Georgian, and annex 2: English translation).

On 8 May 2019, the City Court aga in rejected Mr Merabishvili's application forvictim status in respect of criminal case No . 074210616801- apparently on the basis that the withdrawal of Mr Merabishvili from prison No. 9 on 13-14 December 2013 has not been confirmed (annexes 3 & 4- original decision, with English translation). We reiterate that, to date, Mr Merabishvili has accordingly had no access to the criminal investigation case files, and has been unable to exercise his rights as victim or seek to challenge the decisions made in the investigation. He notes that the Committee of Ministers expressly required him to have access to the information uncovered by the reopened investigation (CM/Notes/1331/H46-10, p. 4).

On 23 May 2019, Mr Lasha Tsatsua, from the Prosecutor's Office, wrote to Mr Merabishvili's lawyer, Giorgi Chiviashvili, to inform him that in spite of the fact that he did not have victim status, he would be granted access to the casefile (annexes 5 & 6) . On 28 May 2019, Mr Chiviashvili replied to Mr Tsatsua in order to request access for Mr Merabishvili himself to the file - a reply to that letter is now awaited. lt is understood that this offer from the Prosecutor's Office is a matter of 'goodwill', which could be revoked at any time. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. On 14 May 2019, Mr Merabishvili was questioned by prosecutors at prison No . 9, in the presence of his lawyer, Giorgi Chiviashvili. We attacha statement from Mr Chiviashvili dated 24 May 2019 (annex 7) which summarises the nature of the questioning. Mr Chiviashvili states that Mr Merabishvili confirmed that he cou Id identify the people involved in his removal (and indeed he described them in detail), but notes that he was not asked to identify t hem using either photographs or video.

Mr Merabishvili was also asked if he could provide any information about G.G . and I.M . who had been referred to in Mr Chiviashvili's letter to the Prosecutor's Office of 21 March 2019. G.G. and I.M. are special forces officers who were extensively referred to in the judgment of the European Cou rt in Mr Merabishvili's case as having been named by certain witnesses as having been involved in Mr Merabishvili's removal (see, e.g., paras. 93,110,337,340 of the Court judgment). lndeed, the Court was expressly critical of the authorities that 'no attempt was made to check whether the applicant could recognise Mr G.G. or Mr I.M .. .. ' and ' ... no attempt appears to have been made to check Mr G.G.'s and Mr I.M.'s mobile telephone records and cell tower data for the early hours of 14 December 2013 ... ' (para . 340) . lt therefore does not appear that the prosecutor had made any prior attempt (by investigating the case papers, or reading the European Court judgment) to ascertain the identify of G.G . and I.M ., or their potential relevance to the investigation, but simply sought to rely on questioning Mr Merabishvili. ln our submission, this provides further evidence of the very limited nature and narrow scope of the investigation and indeed its ineffectiveness.

We will continue to provide the Committee with further updates in the domestic proceedings in this case .

Yours faithfully, pp-~ Philip Leach Joanne Sawyer Legal Representatives of the applicant

Enes.

2 DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. DocumentDGI distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. 29 MAI 2019

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH (state emblem)

State Subordinate Institution within the Ministry of Justice of Georgia - First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia

Decision №01/19/-0389

(Without oral hearing)

April 11, 2019 Tbilisi, Gldani 7th m/district, 2nd quarter

On April 11, 2019 the First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia was convened with the following membership:

1. Tengiz Shakarashvili – Chairman of the Council; 2. Davit Nozadze – member of the Council; 3. Nana Maisuradze – member of the Council.

Council reviewed the petition received by the First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia as well as the relevant materials related to the early conditional release of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict. As a result, following was established:

1. First name, last name, patronymic: Ivane Merabishvili f/n Sergo 2. Date of birth: April 15, 1968 3. Place of birth: Adigeni 4. Citizenship: Georgia 5. Is convicted/accused of:

1. Under the judgement of February 17, 2014 of Kutaisi City Court Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was recognized to be guilty under the subparagraph “b” of the 3rd part of the article 160 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, the subparagraph “d” of the 2nd part and the subparagraph “b” of the 3rd part of the article 182 of the same Code (first episode),the subparagraphs “a” and “d” of the 2nd part and the subparagraph “b” of the 3rd part of the article 182 of the same Code (second episode), the article 164' and consequently was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 10 years. Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012 the sentence above was halved and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 5 years in the penitentiary facility.

Judgement of February 17, 2014 of Kutaisi City Court was remained unchanged by the decision of October 21, 2014 of Kutaisi Court of Appeal. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Cassation was not admitted for the trial under the decision of June 18, 2015 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

2. Under the judgement of February 27, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was recognized to be guilty under the subparagraph “b” of the 3rd part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia and consequently was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 6 years. Based on the Law of Georgia on “Amnesty” of December 28, 2012 the sentence above was reduced by ¼ the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months in the penitentiary facility. Judgement of February 27, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court was remained unchanged by the decision of October August 11, 2014 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Cassation was not admitted for the trial under the decision of February 27, 2015 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

3. Under the judgement of October 20, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was recognized to be guilty under the 2nd part of the article 332 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (edition applicable to May 31, 2006), the article 341 (edition applicable to May 31, 2006) and consequently was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 4 years. Based on the Law of Georgia on “Amnesty” of December 28, 2012 the sentence above was reduced by ¼ the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 3 years in the penitentiary facility. Judgement of October 20, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court was remained unchanged by the decision of October August 4, 2015 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Cassation was not admitted for the trial under the decision of February 29, 2016 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

4. On January 13, 2017, based on the article 286 of the Criminal Procedure of Georgia, the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia applied with the petition to Tbilisi City Court for determination the final sentence for Ivane Merabishvili, the convict. On January 16, 2017 Tbilisi City Court satisfied the petition and according to several judgement that were not enforced, determined the punishment for the convicted according to the mentioned judgements, in particular: judgements of February 17, 2014 of Kutaisi Court, February 27, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court and October 20, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court; based on the mentioned, more severe sentence absorbed the less severe sentence and consequently Mr. Ivane Meabishvili was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 5 years; the period of his imprisonment – from May 11, 2013 to January 16, 2017 has been counted in the period of serving the sentence. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

5. Under the judgement of September 22, 2016 of Tbilisi City Court Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was recognized to be guilty under the subparagraph “e” of the 5th part of the article 25,117 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, the subparagraph “b” of the 3rd part of the article 333 of the same Code and consequently was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 9 years. Based on the Law of Georgia on “Amnesty” of December 28, 2012 the sentence above was reduced by ¼ the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months in the penitentiary facility. Judgement of September 22, 2016 of Tbilisi City Court was remained unchanged by the decision February 23, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Cassation was not admitted for the trial under the decision of September 29, 2017 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

6. On October 24, 2017 the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, based on the article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia mediated before Tbilisi City Court for determination of the final sentence under the cumulative sentence. Based on the decision of October 26, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court the decision of February 23, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal and the decision of January 16, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court were cumulated; more sever sentence imposed on the basis of the decision of February 23, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal absorbed the less severe sentence imposed of the decision of January 16, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court and finally as a result of cumulating the crimes Mr. Ivane Meabishvili was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months; the period of his imprisonment – from May 21, 2013 through October 26, 2017 has been counted in the period of serving the sentence.

7. Under the judgement of May 3, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was recognized to be guilty under the 2nd part of the article 333 (edition applicable to July 1, 2004) of the Criminal Code of Georgia and consequently was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 3 years. Based on the Law of Georgia on “Amnesty” of December 28, 2012 the sentence above was reduced by ¼ the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months in the penitentiary facility. Judgement of May 3, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court was remained unchanged by the decision of October 27, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Cassation was not admitted for the trial under the decision of April 27, 2018 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

8. Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Correction, based on the article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, applied to the Tbilisi City Court for determination of final sentence with cumulating sentences against Ivane Merabishvili, the convict. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Under the decision of June 25, 2018 of Tbilisi City Court the final sentence designated within the cumulative sentence on the basis of the decision of October 26, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court and the sentence imposed on the basis of October 27, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal became cumulative. More sever sentence imposed on the basis of the decision of October 26, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court absorbed the less severe sentence imposed of the decision of October 27, 2017 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal and finally Mr. Ivane Meabishvili was sentenced to the term of imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months; in addition he has been deprived from the right to take any official position for 2 years and 3 months. The term of the sentence has been commenced from June 25, 2018 and the period of his imprisonment – from May 21, 2013 through June 25, 2018 has been counted in the period of serving the sentence.

9. On July 28, 2014 Ivane Merabishvili, the convict was accused of probable commitment of the crime envisaged by the 3rd part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The substantial trial of the case is underway at Tbilisi City Court.

10. On November 27, 2018 #9 Penitentiary Facility - with the letter #01054446 submitted to Tbilisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict for revision of the sentence on the ground of newly revealed circumstances. With the decision of January 10, 2019 Tbilisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on revoking the Decision of Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, the decision of October 20, 2014 of the same Court, the decision of September 22, 2016 and the decision of May 03, 2017 for newly revealed circumstances was not satisfied. Decisions of Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, October 20, 2014, September 22, 2016 and May 03, 2017 were remained unchanged.

On February 05, 2019 the cassation of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on the decision of January 10, 2019 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal was sent to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

On November 27, 2018 #9 Penitentiary Facility - with the letter #01054447 submitted to Kutaisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict for revision of the sentence on the ground of newly revealed circumstances. With the decision of February 13, 2019 Kutaisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on revising the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014 of the same Court was not satisfied; the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014 were remained unchanged.

On March 15, 2019 the cassation of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict regarding the Decision of February 13, 2019 of Kutaisi Court of Appeal was sent to the Supreme Court of Georgia. In the letter of March 25, 2019 of Kutaisi Court of Appeal Ivane Merabishvili, the convict was explained that he had missed the one-month term for cassation envisaged by the first part of DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. the article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. The same letter explained that according to the first part of the article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a court may, upon motion of a party, renew a time limit missed for a valid reason, unless it unlawfully restricts the rights and guarantees of the accused. On March 29, 2019 Ivane Merabishvili, the convict, in compliance with the article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, mediated before Kutaisi Court of Appeal for counting the time limit missed by him for a valid reason. On May 23, 2013 Ivane Merabishvili, the convict was placed in the #9 penitentiary facility of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia.

On February first, 2017 under the Decree #1036 of the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Ivane Merabishvili was imposed to serve the sentence in the closed type of penitentiary facility.

On July 28, 2017 the hazard risk assessment team designated the risk of increased hazard to the claimant in terms of the crimes; based on the mentioned, under the #12337 Decree of August 4, 2017 of the Director of Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was imposed to serve his sentence in the penitentiary facility of closed type.

On January 25, 2019 the hazard risk assessment team designated the risk of increased hazard to the claimant in terms of the crimes; based on the mentioned, under the #1061 Decree of January 28, 2019 of the Director of Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was imposed to serve his sentence in the #9 penitentiary facility of closed type.

6. Character, severity of the crime; circumstances and situation in which the crime was committed:

First case: Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, abusing his official position, against the will of the “International Investment Company” Ltd in May, 2009 illegally occupied and afterword, using his official position, systematically used for resting with his family the summer cottage located in Kvariati village, Khelvachauri region; the mentioned summer cottage was the subject of investigation carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia from that particular period. Protection and supervision of this summer cottage was illegally tasked to the employees of the Main Division of Adjara Autonomous Republic of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. Taking into account the official position of Ivane Merabishvili, in particular, taking into consideration the fact that he was the person in charge of disposing the assets legally owned by the Ministry of DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Internal Affairs of Georgia, he (I.Merabishvili) used his official position, made the unlawful decision on this property, which was expressed in the fact that in order to repair the above mentioned summer cottage, unlawfully owned by him at the expense of the state, in March, 2012 he instructed Otar Gogodze, the Director of the Personnel and Organizational Maintenance Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia to carry out the repair works at the costs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to the illegal instruction issued by Ivane Merabishvili, on April 21, 2012 the Main Division of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and the “Gumbati-1” Ltd executed the contract on fulfillment of repair works; consequently, for the repaid of the summer cottage in Kvariati village 131884,6 GEL was spent from the budget of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia; in this way, Ivane Merabishvili wasted for his private motive the mentioned large amount of money belonging to the state; also, 25784,7 GEL was wasted, which was transferred to the supporting personnel for the summer cottage as the salaries. In total the state-owned large amount of money – 157 669 GEL was wasted for private motive. On July 4, 2012 Ivane Merabishvili was appointed to the position of the Prime Minister of Georgia. On July 5, 2012 the “Work Seekers Registration Program” was adopted on the basis of the #234 Resolution of the Government of Georgia; the goal of this program was to support the office of the Employment State Minister in creation the work seekers’ unified base; under the Resolution #1292 of July 5, 2012 the number of out-of-staff employees within the scopes of this program was determined as 3584. Implementation of this program, the source of financing of which was the budget funds, was instructed to the LEPL “Social Service Agency” – subordinated to the control of the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia.

On October first, 2012, in the Parliamentary Election, Ivane Merabishvili – in order to suborn the electors in favor of the “United National Movement” – developed the criminal plan for bribing the electorate in favor of the “United National Movement” through the “Work Seekers Registration Program” and with the state budget-owned money and for wasting state-owned money with this purpose; he instructed to implement this plan to the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia – Zurab Chiaberashvili and the Director of the LEPL “Social Service Agency” – Ramaz Sulamanidze.

In compliance with the instruction issued by Ivane Merabishvili, the Prime Minister, on July 24, 2012 the Social Service Agency – under the agreement between Zurab Chiaberashvili and Ramaz Sulamanidze – addressed with the letter #04/44357 to the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia and without any grounding requested to increase the number of out- of-staff employees with 10932 items, while on July 26, 2012, within two days from the day of sending the mentioned letter, the Director of the Agency Ramaz Sulamanidze – with the purpose of clarification of the mentioned letter, according to the preliminary agreed criminal plan – directly applied to the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia – Zurab Chiaberashvili and again – without any justification, with a false motive, as if for technical DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. maintenance and formation of the unified base of the employment agents – requested to increase the number of out-of-staff employees by 21 864; the remuneration of those employees for two months would be 13 118 400 GEL. Based on the mentioned, on July 30, 2012 the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia applied in written to the Prime Minister of Georgia – Ivane Merabishvili and without any grounding submitted for signature the draft resolution supplied under the rule of survey of the members of the agreed with Zurab Chiaberashvili; the draft envisaged to increase the number of out-of-staff employees within the “Work Seekers Registration Program”; Zurab Chiaberashvili was indicated as a speaker.

Under the #1485 Resolution of July 31, 2012, signed by Ivane Merabishvili, the number of out- of-staff employees within the “Work Seekers Registration Program” was determined as 26 007; based on the consent of the Minister of Finance of Georgia, for remuneration of the mentioned out-of-staff employees, at the expense of reduction of the amounts envisaged for various programs within the scopes of the assignments of the Ministry, 7 754 000 GEL was added to the “Work Seekers Registration Program”. The list of out-of-staff employees in the period to September 3, 2012 were submitted to the “Social Service Agency” through the district units and service centers; the lists were based on the civilians selected from the election precincts by the local self-governmental organs throughout the country. On September 3, 2012 Ramaz Sulamanidze issued the Decree #04-814 on the rules for employment and remuneration of the additional out-of-staff employees within the scopes of the “Work Seekers Registration Program”; according to this, there should be executed the contracts with the persons indicated in the annex to the mentioned Decree, which had bee already agreed in advance with Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Chiaberashvili. The initial period of the contract and works was determined to be one month, from September 1, 2012 though October 30, 2012. About in the period to September 7, 2012 the contracts were executed with 21 837 individuals; they had to fulfill the works instructed by the Agency under these contracts; the description of works were provided for in the Annex of the contracts and implied the participation of the employees in trainings and workshops, informing the population about the “Work Seekers Registration Program”, assisting the employment agents in registration of work seekers and the monitoring of the fulfilled works; these contracts were deceptive, because their execution aimed at avoiding the restrictions established by the law of Georgia on “Political Unions of Citizens” and bribing the electorate with the state-owned money; it was expressed in the fact that the civilians at execution of the contracts were not explained the real goals of the program and the essence of the works to be fulfilled; for the money promised to them they were used in the pre-period of the Parliamentary Election of October 1, 2012 for the purposes of the political party “Unified National Movement”; with this action carried out in contradiction to the public interests the particular election subject gained the privilege, which caused the substantial violation of the legitimate interests of the state. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

On September 14, 2012, on the basis of the preliminary agreement already existed between Ivane Merabishvili, Zurab Chiaberashvili and Ramaz Sulamanidze, according to the instruction of Ivane Merabishvili, which was known by Zurab Chiaberashvili, the LEPL “Social Service Agency” – through the JSC “Liberty Bank” – illegally transferred to 21 837individuals the remuneration of works as if fulfilled them for one month – 240 GEL for each; though, these works were not fulfilled by them under the “Work Seekers Registration Program” as well as the works envisaged by the Annex of the contracts were not carried out; more – such works could not be fulfilled, because for that period not only the one-month period envisaged by the contract was expired, but the works themselves were not even initiated; in the mentioned manner state-owned 5 240 880 GEL was wasted.

2nd case: On December 18, 2004 Ivane Merabishvili was appointed to the position of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia; he held this position to June 30, 2012; according to the Law of Georgia on “Public Service” he was a political official. In compliance with the Regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, he – as a Minister – was responsible for fulfillment of the Constitution of Georgia, the international treaties of Georgia and the laws of Georgia in the fields fallen under the competence of the Ministry. He also supervised the activities and fulfillment of the decisions by the officials and the employees of the Ministry. On May 25, 2011 in Tbilisi, in the territory in front of the building of the Parliament of Georgia from about 16:00 o’clock the rally organized by the “Representative Public Rally” took place; taking into account that on May 26 the parade dedicated to the independence of Georgia would be held in Tbilisi, Rustaveli avenue, Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia issued the order on massive arrest of the rally participants after expiry of the rally term and to block in advance the passage streets from Rustaveli avenue; also, he issued the order on immediate termination of the rally and dissolution of the participants after their warning on use of force – without giving them the necessary time. This order was illegal, because it went obviously beyond the scopes of competence awarded to him. Taking into account that the rally on May 25, 2011 in Tbilisi, in the territory in front of the building of the Parliament of Georgia was peaceful and the behavior of the participants were prognostic, in such situation the Minister of Internal Affairs – Ivane Merabishvili – could effectively use the forces under his disposal and release the territory safely; in contradiction to this, dissolution of the rally with the instruction of Ivane Merabishvili was planned in such a manner that about half an hour before the expiry of the term of the rally the police occupied all the streets in the vicinity of the rally and purposefully did not leave any way for the rally participants to leave the territory; accordingly, they could not leave the territory before commencement of the dissolution of the rally. According to the Law of Georgia on “Police”, after prior notifying about physical coercion and special means, an individual should be given a sufficient time for fulfillment of the requirements of the law; in contradiction to the legal requirements on May 26, 2011 at about DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

00:10 o’clock, at the order to Ivane Merabishvili, being in the headquarter by that moment, after warning the rally participants about physical coercion and special means, the dissolution of the rally was begun immediately, without giving the participant any period of time. Police did not give the rally participant any chance to leave the territory; even after dissolution of the meeting it was impossible, and it caused the threat of physical contact and use of force between the participants and the police. In addition, in contrary to the requirements set forth in the Police Act, without taking the particular situation into account, police used simultaneously and intensively various special means: tear gas, special acoustic equipment for psychological pressure, rubber bullets, batons, water cannons; it was not necessary to use these means, because immediately upon using water cannon the rally participants began dissolution without showing any resistance, they tried to leave the territory, but they were unable to do this because the streets were blocked; they had to go into Kashveti church, Rustaveli cinema, Youth Palace and the gallery in front of the building of the Parliament. In addition, according to the instruction of Ivane Merabsivhili, the police officers with the purpose to arrest the rally participants used applied physical coercion to any of the participants with a high intensity, the rally participants surrounded by them subjected to simultaneous several attacks of the big troops of police officers, which were equipped with batons, rubber bullets, they had physical contacts with rally participants in the streets as well as in the buildings, though the resource of methods without force – water canon and other means – were not exhausted; this contradicted the requirements set forth in the Law of Georgia on Police, according to which physical coercion may be applied for prevention of an offence in case if the fulfillment of the law is not available with the methods without force use.

As a result of use of physical coercion and special means by the police many people (more than 200) were unable to leave the territory, accordingly, they had various kind of injuries and two individuals died. In addition, According to the order issued in advance by Ivane Merabishvili, the rally participants were massively and indiscriminately arrested, and it was unlawful, because according to the legislation, administrative arrest of an individual is allowed only after the other measures of influence for prevention of administrative violation are exhausted. Violent actions carried out on the basis of illegal order issued by Ivane Merabishvili in terms of excessive use of his official position resulted in infringement of legitimate interests of the civilians and the government.

3rd case: Ivane Merabishvili held the position of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia from December 18, 2004 to July 4, 2012; according to the Law of Georgia on “Public Service” he was a political official. In compliance with the Regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, he – as a Minister – was responsible for fulfillment of the Constitution of Georgia, the international treaties of Georgia and the laws of Georgia in the fields fallen under the DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. competence of the Ministry. He also was responsible for law and order and ensuring the protection of human rights and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia. On January 27, 2006, at about 23 o’clock in Tbilisi, in the pub “Sharden Pub” the individuals were gathered to celebrate the birthday of Vasil Sanodze – Head of General Inspection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia; in particular, among the guests were Tamar Merabishvili (Salakaia), wife of Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Davit Akhalaia, Head of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Oleg Melnikov, operative employee of the same Department, Guram Donadze, the Head of the Press Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Ana Kalandadze and her friend Tatia Maisuradze. Later the mentioned pub was visited by A.G and his friend L.B.; immediately upon entering the hall, A.G noticed Tatia Maisuradze and as he had close relationship with her and even he had spoken with her on phone before visited the pub, he came to her and in the presence of other members, started to talk to her loudly, with the use of obvious gestures, because Tatia Maisuradze had not told him that actually she was in the “Sharden Pub”. Communication between Tatia Maisuradze and A.G was mentioned by Zaal Kurtsikashvili, the friend of A.G, who was in the same pub; in order to avoid an expected incident, he took A.G from the table, where Tamar Merabishvili (Salakaia), wife of Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia was sitting at; he told to one of the guests there that his friend was drunk and even apologized for his behavior, though, A.G still continued saying reprimands; after this Zaal Kurtsikashvili once again spoke to A.G and called him to calm down; later Tatia Maisuradze sat at the table of A.G. and the communication with the gestures continued between them; at that moment A.G told some unrepeatable words towards one of the officials sitting at the table of the wife of the Minister of Internal Affairs. Tense conversation between Tatia Maisuradze and A.G as well as the claims against the guests siting at the table of T.Salakaia was mentioned by the members of the table here Tatia Maisuradze sat, in particular, by Ana Kalandadze; she came to the table of Tatia Maisuradze and A.G several times to learn what was going on. After Tatia Maisuradze came back to the table of Vasil Sanodze, A.G – being angry – loudly used foul language with clear gestures; Zaal Kurtsikashvili came to him again and told that he was going to leave the pub; A.G answered him that he would drink his coffee and then would also leave the place. Data Akhalaia, who was angry with A.G for the behavior of the latter, with the intention to punish him (A.G.) instructed Oleg Melnikov to carry out the relevant measures; O.Melnikov made some telephone calls, as a result, the employees were dislocated in the territory of the “Sharden Pub”, Square of Freedom, along Leselidze street and the adjacent territory, in particular, these employees were: Geronti Alania, Avtandil Aptsiauri, Aleksandre Ghachava, Mikheil Bibiluridze, Davit Kokiashvili, Ioseb Khasaia, Valerian Metreveli, etc. After a certain period of time A.G and his friend left the pub and went outside. At the instruction of Data Akhalaia, thery were followed by Oleg Melnikov, the member of the guests of the table of the DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. wife of the Minister; Oleg Melnikov intended to indicate to A.G to the employees of the Constitutional Security Department, who were dislocated in the street; Oleg Melnikov once again delivered the instruction of Data Akhalaia to Geronti Alania on illegal deprivation of libery and physical punishment of the those, after which G.Alania with his accompanying persons – Aleksandre Ghachava and Davit Kokiashvili – used force and made A.G and his friend to sit into the vehicle; they deprived illegally them the liberty and kidnaped them; they took them out of the city, to the Okrokana cemetery 6 km away from Tbilisi; on the place they were joined by Avtandil Aptsiauri and Mikheil Bibiluridze; the kidnappers made A.G and his friend to take off their cloths in freeze and cruelly beat them; at15:00 o’clock on January 228, 2006 A.G’s dead body was found by his friends; the corpse had multiple wounds; according to the forensic medical report, the wound in the larynx area was fatal as it resulted in asphyxia. L.B., friend of A.G. who was severely beaten, left A.G naked at the cemetery and managed to reach the road and find shelter temporarily in the nearest petrol station; from the station he called the patrol police crew and they transferred him the same morning to Mtatsminda- Krtsanisi Division of Internal Affairs. At the initial stage of the investigation Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs met the individuals detained for the crime against A.G in the building of so called “Moduli”; he encouraged them and drink some alcoholic beverage with them. Later there were drawn up so called “secret” letters: “secret” letter of February 24, 2006 of Data Akhalaia to Ivane Merabishvili (Letter #16/27(s)); in his turn, it was drawn up the letter of Ivane Merabishvili dated by February 24, 2006 (letter #16/12(2) to , the then Prosecutor General, on the basis of which the Minister of Internal Affairs sent to the Prosecutor General the secret notification of Data Akhalaia, then Head of the Constitutional Security Department for the relevant response, though, Ivane Merabishvili knew all the details, the individuals participant in the crime in several days from the offence; in spite of this, he did not allow the Head of Tbilisi Main Division Merab Baghaturia to arrest the high-rank officials of the Constitutional Security Department.

4th case: Ivane Merabishvili held the position of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia from December 18, 2004 to June 30, 2012; he was a governmental political official. On July 13, 2015 Ivane Merabishvili organized the assault on Valeri Gelashvili, the member of the Parliament; at the instruction of Ivane Merabishvili Erekle Kodua – with participation of his subordinated employees and the fighters of the special team – organized and headed the criminal measures, which aimed to punish physically the member of the Parliament Valeri Gelashvili and appropriate illegally his personal belongings and the firearm lawfully owned by the latter (V.Gelashvili).

5th case: DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

In July, 2004 under the leadership of Ivane Merabishvili, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Zurab Adeishvili, the Prosecutor General of Georgia the briefing was held in the administrative building of the Ministry of Security of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara – in Griboedovi street, Batumi on the issue of liquidation of the JSC :Georgian Maritime Bank”; the briefing was chaired by Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Adeishvili; the briefing reviewed the issue of transfer of the amounts to the special accounts from the accounts of the funds founded by the shareholders of the JSC “Georgian Maritime Bank” and their closed persons; for this, it was necessary to increase the financial resources in the JSC “Georgian Maritime Bank” through refunding the credits issued to the physical persons and legal entities by the Bank within the short period; in spite of the fact that in number of cases the term of loan repayment envisaged by the credit contract was not expired, Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Adeishvili issued illegal instruction to the participants of the briefing to call the borrowers of the JSC “Georgian Maritime Bank” to come to the law enforcement organ and to request from them in any form the repayment of the loan taken by them. The “Rtveli XXI” Ltd had borrowed from the JSC “Georgian Maritime Bank” the loan in the amount of 1 389 350 GEL and 574 065 USD; Vakhtang Chakhvadze, the Director of the company was summoned to the administrative building of the financial police; they were acknowledged with the decision of Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Adeishvili on repayment the loan within the short period and told that otherwise the assets of the “Rtveli XXI” Ltd would be freely transferred to the state. After the mentioned company could not manage to repay the credit timely, Givi Papuashvili, the then prosecutor called to come to the administrative building of the prosecutor’s office the founders of the “Rtveli XXI” Ltd – Teimuraz Megrelishvili and Nodar Modebadze and categorically demanded from them to transfer the assets of the “Rtveli XXI” Ltd as a donation to the state. The founders did not want to have any additional issue with the law enforcers and on September 7, 2007, at the instruction of Givi Papuashvili they notarized the donation contract, according to which 100% shareholding of the “Rtveli XXI” Ltd was transferred to the Ministry of Economy of Georgia.

7. Date of factual serving the term established under the article 72 of the Criminal Code of Georgia: 2/3 of the term of imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months, the sentence imposed under the Decision of June 25, 2018 of Tbilisi City Court – has been actually served by the convict on November 21, 2017.

8. Initiation of the sentence, completion of the sentence: Initiation of the sentence: 25.06.2018; Completion of the sentence: 21.02.2020.

9. Place of residence before placement in the penitentiary facility; where the convict will live after the release: DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Tbilisi, Petriashvili str. #27/29, apt. #18; after the release the convict will live at the same address.

10. Name (address) of the Probation Bureau – territorial organ of the LEPL Non-Custodial Enforcement and Probation National Agency, where he will appear after his conditional early release: Tbilisi Bureau of Probation.

11. Education, profession, skills: Higher education; has graduated from Tbilisi Technical University, faculty of geodesy.

12. Marital status, family conditions, convict’s relationship to the family members; whether he has minor children, disable family members, material conditions of close relatives, etc.: The convict is married; he has a wife – Tamar Merabishvili (date of birth: May 24, 1981); sons – Misho Merabishvili (date of birth: July 4, 2000); Datuna Merabishvili (date of birth: February 8, 2009); mother – Zhenia Tumanishvili (date of birth: July 3, 1944); father – Sergo Merabishvili (date of birth: April 17, 1940) and sister – Marina Merabishvili (date of birth: July 22, 1972). He has contact with the family in the form of short-term visits and telephone communication. Economic situation of the family is average.

13. Whether he has paid a fine (if any) after imposing: According to the personal file, he has not been imposed a fine.

14. Whether the victim has been compensated for a damage (in case of existence of such information): To the question, if he has any victim the accused refused the fact of damaging anyone and told he had no victim; he noted: “my cases are now under proceedings at the Supreme Court for newly revealed circumstances, so I do not want to state my position; in case if the Supreme Court after the trial of this case establishes that I am guilty, then I will obey the decision and then I will have a victim”.

15. Victim’s position (consent) towards the convict in case of existence of such information): According to the convict, he has no victim. The convict did not submitted the victim’s consent on enjoying by him (convict) the benefits envisaged by the legislation.

16. Motivation of the convict for the change; information on whether he expresses readiness to self-development and changes (his desire, future plans, skills): According to the victim, nothing has been changed about him during his stay in the facility; he even does not think about it; in general, he does not like and it is not his character to think about the past and waste time on it, it would be better if the information receives another DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. person, so he entrusts such decisions to other persons; he also notes that it is better to think about future rather than to think about the past, though, when talking about the future plan, the convict mentioned that he will return to home and will spend most time with his family, especially with his younger son, whom he does not know in fact; no other constructive plan is at this stage; he noted that refrains from thinking about the release, so he has no plans and does not think it is necessary to fix the position related to the future plan (he explained that he implied political arena).After the release the convict is going to rejoin his family; during his conversation with social employee, he did not indicate any particular future plan. To the question what is his belief, he told the most important is the axis of life, which he would transfer to his sons; he noted that he would give education to his sons, and then they would make their decision independently.

17. Information on participation in social activities during the period of serving the sentence (employment, professional, psychological-rehabilitation, sportive, cultural events): Ivane Merabishvili, the convict was offered to take part in various social activities by the social division, in particular:

· “Christmas Epistle” of December 29, 2017 – this activity implied wiring a letter or an essay by a prisoner on Christmas theme; · Intellectual game “What? Where? When?” on January 23, 2018 – social workers delivered the intellectual questions in 4 stages; prisoners had to answer in written to the questions; · February 23, 2018 – art competition; prisoners were given different materials to create their works; · April 16, 2018 - intellectual game “What? Where? When?” – social workers delivered the intellectual questions in 4 stages; prisoners had to answer in written to the questions; · May 22, 2018 - art competition; prisoners were given different materials to create their works; · July 27, 2018 – sports activity; prisoners were divided into three age categories in 4 different kind of sport; · August 16, 2018 – professional-educational program. The rehabilitation program offered by the social affairs division of the special penitentiary service; · September 5, 2018 - intellectual game “What? Where? When?” – social workers delivered the intellectual questions in 4 stages; prisoners had to answer in written to the questions; · 12.12.2018 – art competition – refusal; · 11.12.2018 - professional-educational program was not implemented; there was a questionnaire aimed at identifying who wanted to learn English language; DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The convict refused these offers; the social workers developed the relevant minutes on this issue. Regarding the participation in the social activities the convict mentioned at the meeting that he liked one offer for learning English language; he told he is going to learn some other languages as well and is interested in this offer, but for some reason the process was terminated; he refused to take part in other activities, mentioned that he does not like moulding and painting since his childhood and does not need in art therapy; he reads a lot, especially the scientific works and the books about different stages of science development.

Additional information/comments: According to the article 39 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, punishment is aimed at the restoration of justice, prevention of new crimes and resocialization of a criminal. Since the resocialization implies to make an individual a law-abiding person, preparing him/her for free and lawful life after a new socialization, which in turn is directly linked with the prevention of a new crime, consequently, in order to develop the maximally clear and unbiased characteristic, during the process of examination it was studied all the issues, which might be related to the confession and repentance of the crime, positive changes and readiness to start a new, lawful life.

Confession, repentance As he mentioned, to the question whether he had a victim, he refused any fact of incurring a damage to anyone by him and mentioned: “in case if the Supreme Court after the trial of this case establishes that I am guilty, then I will obey the decision and then I will have a victim”; accordingly, the victim does not confess to commit a crime and to have a victim, which is confirmed by the decisions against him.

To the question whether he feels a repentance, he told he feels, though, to the next question – what does these words mean to him, he answered: “what should be beyond these words? When you regret, you just regret, that is all; I cannot guess it”. In order to make the question fully understandable, the convict was given an information on the basis of a practical example; in particular, the question touched his emotion, aiming at clarifying by him how he would express his regret and repentance towards the victim; the answer was the same; he told he regretted and that was all; then he added that he has to do a lot of kindness for all (he repeated it several times); after requesting to specify who might be this “all”, he remembered his family and he had an emotion; he mentioned that he greatly regrets and is sorry for his family, that he does not know his younger son in fact and when he will be released, he will have close relationship with him; also, he told he was very sorry for his aged parents. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The close ties with the family, regret for the time not spent with him and for the lost years should be deemed to be a positive point, though, according to the purpose of the punishment, the regret and repentance, serving the understanding crime and prevention of further offence should be directed to the victim and not to his own environment.

Position towards the crime According to the convict, all the cases that were subjected to the judgement have been appealed and are now under legal proceedings at the Supreme Court; according to this circumstance, he cannot fix his position in connection with the crime committed/not committed by him, because it should be decided by the court; he told he would wait for the judgement of the Supreme Court and would obey its consequences, so he emphasized he did not want to talk about crime and cases (he repeated it several times). In relation to the records stated in the last characteristics drawn up with the purpose to discuss the issue of earlier conditional release, the beneficiary declares that he “feels the sense of responsibility for the crime committed”; to the question, what does this phrase mean, he answered that this should be fixed in a new characteristics exactly in this wording; when clarifying that this statement means nothing itself without explanation, he answered as follows: “political leader has to take responsibility for his own before his people”.

To the question, if he would change anything if came back to 2004-2005 years, he answered he did not think on this matters, on the past and added he had not any thought about the past at all.

Behavior in the facility To the question concerning his punishment recorded in his personal file he answered: “I do not want to make any comment about it, I tell you only one thing: the person participated in my withdrawal from the facility, established by the court of Strasbourg, participated in this incident from the part of the administration; I had to be more cautious”. Regarding the second punishment and the encouragement he answered he could not remember well the facts and emotions.

To the question whether he thought and fixed ever to serve the sentence in lighter regime, or to transfer to the facility of low risk, he answered that once he expressed his desire not to be alone in the cell but he was rejected; “in every 6 months they read to me some decisions of the General Inspection on determination of my special risk; accordingly I do not want any more to take care of this issue”. Though, to the specifying question, has he ever fixed his readiness to transfer to the category of law risk, he said he fixed it only once. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

According to the information received by the direction of the facility, the convict once requested to place another inmate in his cell, but he was refused; as for his desire to transfer to a low risk, he never fixed such desire. He fixed that he keeps normal relationship with the administration, especially to the medicine workers; his trust to the people has not been changed; he will always have this trust because he thinks distrust destroys the world.

Motivation of changes To the question, what has changed in him during his stay in the facility, he answered he did not think about it; “for me it is strange to think about this issue; it is more important for me the attitude of another person to me; I have not thought and do not think about what has changed in me and if changed, other people tell me about it”.

Future plans Regarding the future plans he told he has his living place, supporting social environment, wife, children, mother and father; regarding other constructive plans he mentioned that he refrains from thinking about release, so he has no plan and does not think it is necessary to fix his position regarding the future plans at this stage (he explained that he implied political arena); he told it is necessary free thinking and being outside to think about such matters.

18. Risk factors (inclination to emotional aggression, trend on anti-social behavior, psychological vulnerability, etc.): During psychological interview the convict did not show any emotional aggression, trend on anti-social behavior. Since he does not speak during the interview about the crime (s) committed, assessment of risk factors is complicated.

19. Protecting factors (ex.: motivation to change the behavior, social support, etc.): Beneficiary is married, with higher education, the individual of many interests and employment experience; he has communication skills, is polite to the persons around him; he reads and he goes in for healthy lifestyle, reveals emotional link and the sense of responsibility before his family members; he has social support from them; he reveals positive social attitude and mood; at this stage he does not have particular future plans.

20. Attitude to the crime committed: Beneficiary refrains from speaking about crime (s) committed, he only nots that declares that on the basis of the Strasbourg decision his cases are trialed at the Supreme Court and its judgement shall be binding for him in any case. In relation to the records stated in the last characteristics drawn up with the purpose to discuss the issue of earlier conditional release, the beneficiary declares that he “feels the sense of responsibility for the crime committed”; to the DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. question, what does this phrase mean, he answered that this should be fixed in a new characteristics exactly in this wording; when clarifying that this statement means nothing itself without explanation, he answered as follows: “political leader has to take responsibility for his own before his people”.

Additional information/comment: Beneficiary is well-cared and in order; he communicates eagerly, speaks loudly, the pace of speech – quick. In the very beginning of the meeting he notes that he knows the purpose of conversation, that it is related to the court judgement on his earlier conditional release and says it is already late because “today was the deadline”. He formally agreed with the specification of the goal and purpose of the conversation, though the conversation was often converted into the monologue, he gladly recalls particular episodes from his past, also assesses historical-political events; the conversation is inconsistent, frequently the associations interruption takes place and the topics are changed; signs of excitement are revealed. For clarification of general situation related to him he notes that the “Strasbourg Court’s Grand and Small Chamber established the concealed purpose in his case and gave the period of time to the Government of Georgia to June, this year to punish all the participants; he also notes that the case is about his withdrawl from the facility; that type of cases were only six in the history and even not all them were confirmed. As for the crime (s), for which he is serving the sentence, he avoids to talk about this issue. His speech about his personal features is laconic, he mentions only the key facts from his biography. In terms of his personality he emphasizes that he is interested in physics and mathematics since his childhood, this conditioned his professional choice and this choice is still valid; he likes reading since his childhood; he used to read and still reads a lot, including in the period when he took the position of a minister; currently, he says that he mainly reads books about history in the prison; his friends deliver books for him. He notes that he loves walking in addition to reading; “he meets people”; he does not complain of his health, though in the last period there was revealed a syndrome associated with eyes asymmetry (shoes it) and is related to particular tumors. He received full medical examination in the last period and “fortunately nothing was revealed”; he has no other problem with his health. He speaks emotionally and glibly about his professional achievements; he talks about Rabati castle and Rustavi car market; he notes that the Rabati castle is his “third son” and remembers that he used to leave home in the 6 o’clock every morning during the civil works on the castle in order to hold briefing there; he took architects to Spain at his own costs to show the city, which should be used as an example; he says he modeled Rustavi car market from Dubai model; he had the plan for trading in auto parts, but the times changed; he links both of these DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. achievements to his personality; regarding travelling he remembers and says “It is good to be a minister: I travelled to half of the world”. Also, he notes that many of his relatives gave testimonies against him while he told nothing against anybody; in spite of all these, he is not angry with anybody; as for his future plans, he does not say about it and notes “they want very much to pull me out of the policy, but let’s see”. After demonstrating himself from the desirable point of view, he avoids answering to number of target questions about the crime (s) for which he is serving the sentence and only says that “all those cases are public servant’s matters and now, according to Strasbourg decision, they are appealed at the Supreme Court; I will obey its judgement, never mind what kind will it be”.

21. Disciplinary fine, promotion during serving the sentence (when, what reason, etc.): The convict is encouraged once during serving the sentence.

On April 11, 2014 under the Decree #15 of the Director of #9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was allowed to enjoy a short-term additional visit.

Disciplinary fine was imposed on him twice during serving the sentence. 1. On July 9, 2014, under the Decree #19176 of the Director of #9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was restricted to use the permitted items, because the convict physically insulted to the Deputy Director of the of #9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia and verbally assaulted the employees of the administration of the Facility.

2. On March 9, 2015 under the Decree #238249 of the Director of #9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia Mr. Ivane Merabishvili was restricted to use the permitted items, because he cursed loudly in the cell against the administration of the Penitentiary Facility. Despite the warnings of the staff of the Facility, he continued to insult the employees.

22. Information on following the Regulations of the penitentiary facility, the schedule of the facility, legal requirements of the administration, legal requirements and the legal regime of the facility by the convict during serving the sentence:

The convict obeys the schedule, legal regime and the legal requirements of the administration.

23. Behavior of the convict in the facility – how does he act towards the representatives of the administration and other convicts (if he is aggressive, conflict or polite): DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The convict is polite towards the facility and the administration.

24. Previous convictions, fact of commitment of crimes in the past (article of the CC of Georgia, date and ground of the release) (in case if such information exists):

Ivane Merabishvili, the convict has no previous conviction according to the personal file.

25. Whether the amnesty, pardon, conditional early release, conditional sentence, replacement of unserved part of the sentence with the lighter one had taken place and if the consequences thereof were used (in case if such information exists):

First case: Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, under the Decision of February 17, 2014 of Kutaisi City Court the sentence - term of imprisonment for 10 years - was halved and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 5 years in the penitentiary facility.

2nd case: Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, under the Decision of February 27, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court the sentence - term of imprisonment for 6 years - was reduced by 1/4 and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months in the penitentiary facility.

3rd case: Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, under the Decision of October 20, 2014 of Tbilisi City Court the sentence - term of imprisonment for 4 years - was reduced by 1/4 and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 3 years in the penitentiary facility.

4th case: Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, under the Decision of September 22, 2016 of Tbilisi City Court the sentence - term of imprisonment for 9 years - was reduced by 1/4 and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months in the penitentiary facility.

5th case: Based on the Law of Georgia on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, under the Decision of May 3, 2017 of Tbilisi City Court the sentence - term of imprisonment for 3 years - was reduced by 1/4 and the sentence was consequently determined to be the term of imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months in the penitentiary facility.

The First Local Board of the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia refused the conditional earlier release of the convict on March 31, 2017, on September 29, 2017, on December 25, 2017, on July 4, 2018 and on January 24, 2019. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

On March 28-29, 2018 he was refused to be pardoned by the Department foe Awarding, Citizenship and Pardon of the Administration of the .

26. Whether the additional sentences were imposed (in case if such information exists): No additional sentence has been imposed on Ivane Merabishvili, the convict.

The Council discussed without oral hearing the assessment criteria provided for in the article 13 of the Rules for Review and Making Decision on the Issues of Early Conditional Release by the State Subordinate Institution within the Ministry of Justice of Georgia - Local Council of the of Special Penitentiary Service approved under the Decree #320 of August 7, 2018 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, according to which:

1. Character of the crime – seriousness of the crime: in which situation and circumstances was the crime committed, also if any crime has been committed during serving the conditional sentence; While assessing these criteria, it should be taken into account that we have the cumulative crime: the convict is judged for number of criminal case of various category, including the especially grave crime; he has carried out number of illegal actions with abusing the power and exceeding his official powers; in addition, he was the co-participant of the crime against the human health, which resulted in death of two individuals and injury, including the serious injury of more than 200 persons.

2. Behavior of the convict during the period of serving the sentence – during this period how many and what type of administrative, disciplinary punishment or encouragement was applied to the convict, also, for which particular actions was made such decision; information on the Regulations of the facility – the location of the convict, the facility’s daily schedule, legal regime of the facility and fulfillment of the obligations envisaged by the legislation of Georgia:

While assessing these criteria, it should be taken into account that Ivane Merabishvili, the convict obeys the schedule of the #9 penitentiary facility as well as the legal regime and the legal requirements of the administration; also the fact of his encouragement should be assessed positively, though, on the other hand, the attention should be paid to the fact that after the encouragement the behavior of the convict changed sharply, which resulted in two disciplinary punishment against him; also, it should be taken into account that the ground of one of the disciplinary punishment was his violent action – physical assault against the deputy director of the #9 penitentiary facility, as well as verbal assault against the employees of the facility’s administration. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

It should be taken into account the attitude of the convict to the actions carried out by him; in particular, during the conversation with social worker he does not even remember the fact of disciplinary punishment; at the same time, he could not remember the facts and emotions related to the encouragement, which indicates that the encouragement had not a significant effect on him.

3. Fact of the crime commitment by the convict in the past – how many, what type and kind of crimes was committed by him, for what type and kind of crime and how many was the convict accused: It should be evaluated positively that the convict has no previous conviction.

4. Marital status – convict’s attitude to the family members, whether he has minor children, disable family member, material condition of his relatives, etc.: The convict is married; he has a wife – Tamar Merabishvili (date of birth: May 24, 1981); sons – Misho Merabishvili (date of birth: July 4, 2000); Datuna Merabishvili (date of birth: February 8, 2009); mother – Zhenia Tumanishvili (date of birth: July 3, 1944); father – Sergo Merabishvili (date of birth: April 17, 1940) and sister – Marina Merabishvili (date of birth: July 22, 1972). He has contact with the family in the form of short-term visits and telephone communication. Economic situation of the family is average.

5. Personality of the convict: his attitude to the crimes committed, to the employees and other convicts of the facility; information on his participation in social activities during the period of serving the sentence; whether he needs special supervision from the part of the management of the facility and other significant issues, which enables to assess the convict’s personality:

While assessing these criteria, it should be taken into account that the purpose of the Council is to support the convict’s resocialization and protection of public safety; with the decision of February 25, 2019 of Tbilisi City Court the First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia was instructed to issue a new individual-administrative act towards Ivane Merabishvili after survey and examination of the circumstances having essential significance for the case. The court believed that during reviewing the motion the Council had to find out whether the purpose of the punishment is achieved – in particular the recovery of justice, avoiding a new crime and resocialization of the offender. The court clarified that resocialization means the purposeful process of making an offender an obedient citizen, a new socialization of de-socialized individual, his readiness for future free life. The Court believed that the Decision # 01/19/0114 of January 24, 2019 of the First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia failed to sufficiently ground whether the purpose of punishment is achieved for Ivane Merabishvili – prevention of a new crime and his resocialization. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

According to the mentioned, the Council pays special attention to the issue of resocialization of a convict; regarding the mentioned, the conclusions made by the specialists (social worker and psychologist) of the #9 penitentiary facility should be taken into account; the conclusions provides with the details of the relationship of the convict and his attitude to the crime committed and the victims:

· According to Ivane Merabishvili, he has no victim and accordingly, does not repent of crimes · He feels the sense of political responsibility, because, according to him, a political leader has to undertake the responsibility; at the same time, he has no sense of responsibility for the crimes committed; · According to the social worker, it should be positively assessed the convict’s close ties with the family, his regret for the time not spent with him and for the lost years should be deemed to be a positive point, though, according to the purpose of the punishment, the regret and repentance, serving the understanding crime and prevention of further offence should be directed to the victim and not to his own environment; · During serving the sentence in the #9 penitentiary facility, the convict was offered several times to take part in various social activities, though he always refused to participate in the activities; · The convict does not remember the facts and emotions related to his encouragement, which indicates that the encouragement had not a significant effect on him; · After the encouragement the behavior of the convict changed sharply, which resulted in two disciplinary punishment against him; the ground of one of the disciplinary punishment was his violent action; · No sense of repentance is shown from him for the disciplinary offence, such as physical assault towards the employee of the penitentiary facility; · The convict does not think that something has changed in him during his stay in the facility.

According to the above mentioned, the Local Council believes that Ivane Merabishvili, the convict has not been re-socialized and his attitude to the crimes of various category and kind has not been changed, though those crimes resulted in death of several individuals and injury of more than 200 persons. The convict declares that his attitude to the crimes committed may be changed by the judgement of the Supreme Court on revision of the decisions due to newly found circumstances, in particular:

· On November 27, 2018 #9 Penitentiary Facility - with the letter #01054446 submitted to Tbilisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict for revision of the sentence on the ground of newly revealed circumstances (on the ground of the decision of November 28, DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

2017 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights). With the decision of January 10, 2019 Tbilisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on revoking the Decision of Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, the decision of October 20, 2014 of the same Court, the decision of September 22, 2016 and the decision of May 03, 2017 for newly revealed circumstances was not satisfied. Decisions of Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, October 20, 2014, September 22, 2016 and May 03, 2017 were remained unchanged. Tbilisi Court of Appeal explained that the decisions indicated by Ivane Merabishvili are not grounded on the violations established by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, according to the evaluation of Tbilisi Court of Appeal, violation of the first paragraph of the article 5 and the article 18 of the Convention, in its legal essence, cannot have any influence on any of the legal norm applied in the decision to be revised or on a particular circumstance established by this decision; accordingly, these decisions are not grounded on the violations established by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. On February 5, 2019 Ivane Merabishvili’s cassation on the decision of January 10, 2019 was sent to the Supreme Court. On February 05, 2019 the cassation of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on the decision of January 10, 2019 of Tbilisi Court of Appeal was sent to the Supreme Court of Georgia. · On November 27, 2018 #9 Penitentiary Facility - with the letter #01054447 submitted to Kutaisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict for revision of the sentence on the ground of newly revealed circumstances (on the ground of the decision of November 28, 2017 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights). With the decision of February 13, 2019 Kutaisi Court of Appeal the motion of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict on revising the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014 of the same Court was not satisfied; the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014 were remained unchanged. On March 15, 2019 the cassation of Ivane Merabishvili, the convict regarding the Decision of February 13, 2019 of Kutaisi Court of Appeal was sent to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Kutaisi Court of Appeal mentioned, that the violations established by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the decision of November 28, 2017 cannot be the ground for revocation of the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014, because the Decision of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014 and the decision of October 21, 2014 are not grounded on these violations, With the letter of March 25, 2019 of Kutaisi Court of Appeal Ivane Merabishvili was explained, that he had missed the one- month term for cassation envisaged by the first part of the article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. The same letter explained that according to the first part of the article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a court may, upon motion of a party, renew a time limit missed for a valid reason, unless it unlawfully restricts the rights and guarantees of the accused. On March 29, 2019 Ivane Merabishvili, the convict, in compliance with the article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, mediated before Kutaisi Court of Appeal for counting the time limit missed by him for a valid reason. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The Council – having guided by the articles 12 and 72 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, the articles 40, 41, 42 of the Imprisonment Code of Georgia, also, having discussed the general analysis of the information and the Rules for Review and Making Decision on the Issues of Early Conditional Release by the State Subordinate Institution within the Ministry of Justice of Georgia - Local Council of the of Special Penitentiary Service approved under the Decree #320 of August 7, 2018 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, , based on the balance of public and private interests, in observation of the principle of proportionality, also, having taken into account the obligations of survey, assessment and comparison for all criteria envisaged by the legislation, has decided:

1. Petition received by the First Local Council of Special Penitentiary Service of Eastern Georgia for conditional early release of Ivane Merabishvili at this stage shall not be satisfied; 2. Petitions may be again reviewed only after 6 months, except for when the term of the sentence to be served exceeds 6 months and/or if there is any special circumstance. Review of the conditional early release of a convict is mandatory once in 6 months, if the term of the sentence to be served exceeds 6 months. The Council shall review the issue of for conditional early release on the basis of a written application of the convict. 3. Decision made shall be notified in written to the relevant penitentiary facility within 10 working days; 4. Decision may be challenged in an administrative rule within one month from the day of its official acknowledgement to the Administrative Cases Panel of Tbilisi City Court (Tbilisi, Davit Aghmashenebeli alley 12th km #6).

Chairman of the Council: Tengiz Shakarashvili (Signed. Sealed) DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibilityDGI of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. 29 MAI 2019

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH #214/11667

(State Emblem)

Judgement

On Behalf of Georgia

May 08, 2019 Tbilisi

Giorgi Kashakashvili, Judge of the Criminal Cases Investigations, Pre-Trial and Substantial Trial Panel

Of Tbilisi City Court

Without oral hearing reviewed the complaints of Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili on rejection to recognize as a victim and established the following:

According to the materials, the Division for Prosecution of Corruption Crimes of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia investigates the #074210616801 criminal case on the fact of exceeding of official powers by particular officials, the crime envisaged by the 1st part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

On April 24, 2019 Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of I.Merabishvili applied to the Criminal Cases Investigations, Pre-Trial and Substantial Trial Panel of Tbilisi City Court for revocation of the resolution of April 19, 2019 of Giorgi Gochashili, the Head (Prosecutor) of the Division for Prosecution of Corruption Crimes of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia on rejection in satisfaction of the complaint and for instructing the Prosecutor’s Office to recognize Mr. Ivane Merabishvili as a victi, indicating the following circumstances:

Under the application #1/1040 of March 21, this year the lawyer requested to recognize Ivane Merabishvili as a victim in connection with the criminal investigation of the fact of his withdrawal from the prison on December 14, 2013; the investigation on this fact was renewed on July 12, 2018 as a result of the decision of November 28, 2017 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case “Merabishvili VS Georgia” (case #72508/13); in connection with this, Davit Chkhatarashvili, the Prosecutor of Criminal Prosecution Division, made the decision on rejecting the claim on recognition as a victim. The decision shows, that at this stage the investigation is in progress over the criminal case #074210616801 and various investigative actions carried out within its scopes aiming at establishing the full factual circumstances and obtaining the evidences confirming or excluding the guilt. At this stage of investigation the fact of illegal withdrawal of Ivane Merabishvili on December 13-14, 2013 from #9 penitentiary facility is not confirmed; this is directly linked to the expediency and reasonability of recognition of an individual as a victim. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Resolution issued by Davit Chkhatarashvili on not satisfying the request above for recognition Mr. I.Merabishvili as a victim was challenged by me to the superior prosecutor in compliance with the article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

On April 19, 2019 Giorgi Gochashili, the Head of the Division for Prosecution of Corruption Crimes of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia made the decision on rejection to satisfy the challenge. The Resolution states: for awarding the status of a victim the procedure legislation envisages the presence of particular preconditions, in particular: 1) a victim should be a state, physical person or a legal entity; 2) a victim should have suffered from a moral, physical or a material damage; 3) the damage incurred to a victim should be the result of an immediate crime, i.e the causal link should be existed between the action and the damage. Absence of one of these three preconditions makes it impossible to recognize an individual as a victim. At this stage the investigation is in progress over the criminal case #074210616801; the various investigative actions carried out within its scopes aims at establishing the full factual circumstances and obtaining the evidences confirming or excluding the guilt. At this stage of investigation the fact of illegal withdrawal of Ivane Merabishvili on December 13-14, 2013 from #9 penitentiary facility is not confirmed; this is directly linked to the expediency and reasonability of recognition of an individual as a victim.

In June, 2016, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights and in November, 2017, the Grand Chamber held a violation of the articles 18 and 5 of the European Convention against Ivane Merabishvili. The Court is emphasized in the abovementioned decisions that the main purpose of the detention was to extort information against the former President.

The European Court considered that the purposes of detention of Ivane Merabishvili were illegitimate and this has a continuous character. The Court also ruled that the state did not investigate from the beginning the fact of his withdrawal from the prison, and in the investigation held later it (the Court) fixed the series of failures, on the basis of which the Court concluded that the state deliberately concealed the fact.

The Strasbourg Court found the participation of high-ranking officials in illegal activities. According to the decision, hen Chief Prosecutor and Head of the Penitentiary Department tried to withdraw Ivane Merabishvili from the prison and extort the information from him, while the then Prime Minister and the Minister of Penitentiary interfered with the investigation; as a result, the evidences significant for the case were destroyed and no necessary investigative actions were conducted.

The European Court found that the state still has illegitimate motives for Ivane Merabishvili's detention, which was confirmed by the representative of the Ministry of Justice in March, 2017 at the session of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Ivane Merabishvili has been considered by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to be the individual arrested for illegitimate purposes; his deprivation of liberty is against the European Convention.

The violation of the article 18 and 5 of the Convention shakes the system of justice, resulting in mistrust towards investigative and judicial bodies, as it reveals the fact of the use of the state official’s arrest for unlawful purposes.

At the session in December, 2018 in the decision made on the case of Mr. Merabishvili the Committee of Ministers urged the Government of Georgia to ensure the conduction of a new investigation and to organize that investigation in such a manner as to be institutionally and practically independent from any participant; the Committee also urged to conduct the investigation in the manner that would allow to identify the responsible persons and bring them to the criminal responsibilities; it was also noted that the investigation should be adequately wide-scale in order to determine whether these events influenced the criminal cases; also, the investigation should be conducted diligently and timely. The applicant, as a victim, should have the access to information discovered by a new investigation.

According to the abovementioned arguments, in accordance with the 5th part of the article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer demands to revoke the resolution of April 19, 2019 of Giorgi Gochashili, the Head of the Division for Prosecution of Corruption Crimes of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia on not satisfying the request for recognition Mr. I.Merabishvili as a victim and to instruct the Prosecutor’s Office to recognize Mr. Ivane Merabishvili as the victim (see the claim).

The court inquired and got familiarized with the materials of #074210616801 criminal case and believes that the complaint of Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of should not be satisfied for the circumstances below: According to the first and fifth parts of the article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a criminal trial participant may, in cases directly provided for and in the manner prescribed by this Code, appeal an action or decision of a court, prosecutor or investigator; an appeal may be filed at any stage of criminal proceedings, in cases directly provided for and in the manner prescribed by this Code; based on the 6th and the 7th part of the article 95 of the Same Code, unless otherwise provided for by this Code, an appeal may be filed within 10 days after the appellant learns about the action or decision that it considers unlawful and unsubstantiated. An appeal shall indicate which requirements were breached in delivering the appealed decision and the facts that demonstrate the erroneousness of the provisions of the appealed decision. Materials confirming the circumstances referred to in the appeal, including information on new circumstances that were not known when the appealed decision was made, shall be attached to the appeal; under the 2nd and the 3rd part of the article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, a body or person reviewing an appeal DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

shall, within its powers, be obliged to immediately take measures to restore violated rights and lawful interests of criminal trial participants and other persons; unless otherwise provided for by this Code, an appeal shall be reviewed and decided within three days after the appeal is submitted to the body or person authorized to make a decision on the appeal. According to the 22nd part of the article 3 of the CPC of Georgia, a victim - the State, a natural or legal person that has incurred moral, physical or material damage directly as a result of an offence; in compliance with the 5th part of the article 56 of the same Code, If there are appropriate grounds for recognizing a person as a victim or as a legal successor of the victim, the prosecutor shall issue a decree on his/her own initiative, or upon the filing of the relevant application by that person. If a prosecutor does not satisfy the application within 48 hours after it has been filed, the person in question may apply once to a superior prosecutor for recognizing him/her as a victim or a legal successor of the victim. (decision of a superior prosecutor shall be appealed to a court – decision of December 14, 2018 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia); if a superior prosecutor does not satisfy the appeal, the person in question may appeal the decision of the prosecutor to a district (city) court according to the place of investigation; under the 7th part of the same article, a judge shall deliver a ruling within 15 days with or without an oral hearing. The decision made by the judge may not be appealed. The case materials show that the investigation part of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia launched the investigation on June 21, 2016 of the criminal case 074210616801 on exceeding official power by some public officers, the crime envisaged by the first part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia; the ground for the investigation was the explanatory report of the Deputy Chief Prosecutor and the decision made by the European Court of Human Rights on June 14, 2016, according to which over the case “Merabishvili VS Georgia” the court established the violation of the article 18 and the 1st paragraph of the article 5 of the European Convention against Ivane Merabishvili in particular circumstances; these circumstances included the allegations of Ivane Merabishvili regarding his illegal withdrawal from prison on December 14, 2014 and the pressure against him. The case includes the resolution of February 11, 2017 of Amiran Guluashvili, the senior prosecutor of the investigation section of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, according to which on February 11, 2017 the investigation of the criminal case 074210616801 was terminated on the ground of absence of the actions envisaged by the legislation, because it was believed that the investigation of the case excluded the fact of illegal withdrawal of Ivane Merabishvili from #9 penitentiary facility on December 13-14, 2013. According to the decision of July 12, 2018 of Revaz Baghashvili, the Deputy Head of the investigation section of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, on July 12, 2018 the resolution of February 11, 2017 of Amiran Guluashvili, the senior prosecutor of the investigation section of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia on terminating the investigation of the criminal case 074210616801 was revoked this case was continued to DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

investigate the fact of exceeding of official powers by particular officials, the crime envisaged by the 1st part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, because of the decision of November 28, 2017 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case “Merabishvili VS Georgia”, which established the violation of the articles 18 and 5 of the European Convention against Ivane Merabishvili; the Grand Chamber indicated to the particular circumstances and raised some questions why the investigative actions had not been carried out in order to fully and completely verify the circumstances appealed by the claimant.

On July 13, 2018 the mentioned criminal case was transferred to the Division for Criminal Prosecution of Corruption of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia for investigation.

On April 03, 3019 based on the resolution of Davit Chkhatarashvili, the Prosecutor of Criminal Prosecution Division Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili was refused to recognize I.Merabishvili as a victim, grounding on the fact that the various investigative actions had been carried out within its scopes aims at establishing the full factual circumstances and obtaining the evidences confirming or excluding the guilt. At this stage of investigation the fact of illegal withdrawal of Ivane Merabishvili on December 13- 14, 2013 from #9 penitentiary facility was not confirmed; this was directly linked to the expediency and reasonability of recognition of an individual as a victim. Consequently, the resolution stated that before the establishment of the mentioned issue and obtaining the additional evidences, the request envisaged in the statement of Giorgi Chiviashvili on recognition of Ivane Merabishvili as a victim was ungrounded.

The mentioned resolution was appealed by Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili to the superior prosecutor and based on the resolution of April 19, 2019 of Giorgi Gochashili, the Head of the Division for Prosecution of Corruption Crimes of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia the request for revocation of the resolution of April 03, 2019 of Davit Chkhatarashvili, the prosecutor and recognition Mr. I.Merabishvili as a victim was not satisfied.

The court mentions, that based on the articles of the CPC of Georgia above, for awarding the status of a victim the procedure legislation envisages the presence of particular preconditions, the grounded assumption that the a victim has been suffered as a result of alleged crime from a moral, physical or a material damage; according to the 11th part of the article 3 of the CPC of Georgia, probable cause - a totality of facts or information that, [together] with the totality of circumstances of a criminal case in question would satisfy an objective person to conclude that a person has allegedly committed an offence; an evidential standard for carrying out investigative activities and/or for applying measures of restriction directly provided for by this Code. DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

In case of presence of the satisfactory ground to recognize an individual as a victim the prosecutor shall make decision on his own initiative or – in case of application of an authorized person (the person who has been suffered as a result of alleged crime from a moral, physical or a material damage) - if a prosecutor does not satisfy the application within 48 hours after it has been filed, the person in question may apply once to a superior prosecutor for recognizing him/her as a victim or a legal successor of the victim. (decision of a superior prosecutor shall be appealed to a court – decision of December 14, 2018 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia); at reviewing the complaint, the court is obliged to verify which requirements were violated at making the appealed decision/resolution and what was the error in the appealed decision’s provisions; in this case the court does not have this opportunity, because the decision made by the superior prosecutor says that Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili was rejected in satisfaction of the complaint and recognition of Ivane Merabishvilik as a victim because the various investigative actions carried out within its scopes aims at establishing the full factual circumstances and obtaining the evidences confirming or excluding the guilt. At this stage of investigation the fact of illegal withdrawal of Ivane Merabishvili on December 13-14, 2013 from #9 penitentiary facility is not confirmed; this is directly linked to the expediency and reasonability of recognition of an individual as a victim and accordingly, the demand of Giorgi Chiviashvili above shall be deemed to be ungrounded before the clarification of the mentioned issues and obtaining the additional evidences.

The court notes that awarding/cancellation of a status of victim is not the issue that should be decided by a prosecutor at his/her free discretion; in case of presence of the objective grounds and the criteria provided by the law the prosecutor is obliged to recognize a person as a victim or to revoke the status of a victim. In case of appealing the prosecutor’s decision in court, the court shall verify the correctness of the legal and factual preconditions of that decision and it (court) shall not intervene in his/her (prosecutor’s) discretion” (decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia – Khvicha Kirmizashvili, Gia Patsuria and Gvantsa Gagniashvili, the citizens of Georgia and the “Nikani” Ltd VS the Parliament of Georgia” – Batumi, December 14, 2018). Under the criminal procedural legislation, the prosecutor has the discretionary authority to make decision on initiation or termination of criminal prosecution on a particular criminal case. In this given case, the prosecutor has discretion to assess after the relevant investigative/procedural actions the factual circumstances revealed as a result of the investigation (testimonies of witnesses, expert reports, etc.) and make the final decision on recognition particular persons as victims of refuse to do so. In this circumstance for recognition as a victim it is necessary the grounded procedural decision, which should be strengthened and supported with relevant evidences.

In the circumstance when the superior prosecutor has not made the summarized decision over the case and Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili has been rejected in the complaint and recognition of I.Merabishvili as a victim because at that stage of the DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

investigation the investigative actions were carried out and the ground for recognition as a victim was not clear before the completion of the significant part of these actions, also taking into account the fact that the decision would be made in compliance with the information obtained as a result of fulfillment of these actions; also, taking into account the case materials, according to which upon renewal of the investigation of the case, the number of investigative actions are to be carried out; also, taking into consideration that at this stage of investigation not all the investigative/procedural actions are completed (this fact is confirmed with the statement of March 22, 2019 of the lawyer concerning the necessity of particular investigative/procedural actions as well as the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights), and these actions would make clear the circumstances significant for the case in order to make the summarized decision; also, taking into account the fact that the case does not contain the final decision of the superior prosecutor (on rejection in recognizing as a victim), the court lacks of the possibility to examine the reasonability of the complaint and the irregularity of the appealed decision, especially when - as it was mentioned above – the materials of the #074210616801 criminal case inquired by the court shows that the case is still under investigation, the number of investigative/procedural actions are to be carried out and in the event of obtaining the relevant evidences, the issue of recognition of Ivane Merabishvili as a victim may be again become the subject of discussion; thus, at this stage there is no factual and legal ground to satisfy the above mentioned complaint; accordingly, the court believes that the complaint of the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili should not be satisfied.

According to the above mentioned, the court – having guided the articles 95-98, the parts 5 and 7 of the article 57 of the CPC of Georgia, has established:

1. The complaint of Giorgi Chiviashvili, the lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili shall not be satisfied; 2. The decision shall not be appealed.

Giorgi Kashakashvili, Judge

(Signed. Sealed) DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

(State Emblem)

Prosecution Service of Georgia

Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia

#13/37336 May 23, 2019

To: Mr. Giorgi Chiviashvili

Lawyer of Ivane Merabishvili

(Address: Tbilisi, Dimitri Arakishvili str, #3, apt. #71)

Tel.: +995 32 231 0777

Mr. Giorgi,

As you are aware, the Division for Criminal Prosecution of Corruption Crime of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia is investigating the criminal case #074210616801 on the fact of exceeding official powers by particular public servants, the crime envisaged by the first part of the article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

In the above mentioned criminal case you are defending the interests of Ivane Merabishvili, the witness; in spite of the circumstance, that according to the criminal procedure legislation you do not represent the procedural party in terms of the criminal case #074210616801 and Mr. I.Merabishvili, the individual under your charge does not enjoy the status of a victim, we are ready to ensure the familiarization with the full materials of the criminal case #074210616801, including the video records to you when you appear at the Office of the Prosecutor General.

You are kindly asked to arrive at the administrative building of the Office of the Prosecutor General (address: Tbilisi, Gorgasali str. #24) on May 27, 2019 at 12:00 p.m in order to get familiarized with the above mentioned criminal case materials.

Sincerely,

Lasha Tsatsua

Investigator of Especially Important Cases of the

Division for Criminal Prosecution of Corruption Crime

Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia

(Signed. Sealed. Stamped: True copy of the original) DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.DGI 29 MAI 2019

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH

Legal Consulting & Services School of Law, Middlesex University The Burroughs I London NW4 48T I UK

Sent by Email to: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am representing legal interescs of Mr. Ivane Merabishvili in Georgia before the domestic Courts and other Judicial and administrative entities.

On May 14, 2019, I attended Mr. Ivane Merabishvili's interrogation at penitentiary facility N9.

The questions asked by the investigators were the following:

1. Whether Mr. Merabishvili could identify and describe characteristics of persans who had illegally removed and then returned him to the prison on December 14, 2013; 2. Whether he could provide any information regarding the persans mentioned under the initiais G. G. and I. M. in his lawyer's (my) letter chat was sent to the prosecutor's office; 3. Why during the first questioning he did not describe the persans who had removed him from the prison.

Answering the first question, Mr. Merabishvili said chat he could identify the persans who had illegally removed him from the prison on December 14, 2013, from the very beginning and ev~n now. He also described them. Namely, he identified their height, colour of their skin, race, clothing, shape of their face and other characteristics. Nevertheless, by the investigators he was not offered to participate in the face recognition, neither physically, nor using photo or video materials.

Regarding the second question, Mr. Merabishvili explained that as he remembered, the initiais G. G. and I. M. were mentioned in the decision of the ECHR and he was not able to provide any further explanation regarding it.

Regarding the third question, Mr. Merabishvili said chat during the first questioning, he had clearly stated chat he was able to identify both perpetrators.

In addition, Mr. Merabishvili has raised the following issues during the questioning:

œo8o(1:)Mo .:iM.:i1JoÔ3o~ob dN3 , 3 Dimitri Arakishvili St, 4th fioor, N71 l,.,fum,irmn Il i'.nFi., f\l 71 Thilic;1 (.;pnmi;:i DH-DD(2019)633: Rule 9.1 communication from the applicant in Merabishvili v. Georgia. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

He is still not recognized as a victim and despite such a request from him, the prosecutor's office and the court have refused to grant him this status.

Convicting judgements against him are ungrounded as admitted by OSCE-ODIHR's court monitors in their report.

He has been sentenced to maximum terms in all of the judgements.

Mr. Merabishvili has expressed his astonishment regarding public statement of the prosecutor's office, according to which Mr. Merabishvili has not described the persans who illegally removed him from the prison during the first questioning.

He also admitted, that the Parole Board of the Ministry of Justice has refused his pre-term release based on the same arguments which were annulled by the Court before.

Mr. Merabishvili has also expressed his astonishment that instead of establishing the truth, Prosecutors' Office is trying to find inconsistencies in his statements, which simply do not exist.

Lawyer

Giorgi Chiviashbili