Committee of Ministers Secretariat Du Comite Des Ministres

SECRETARIAT GENERAL

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES

Contact: John Darcy Tel: 03 88 41 31 56

Date: 26/09/2018 DH-DD(2018)928

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1331st meeting (December 2018) (DH)

Communication from a NGO (18/09/2018) and reply from the authorities (24/09/2018) in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No. 72508/13).

Information made available under Rules 9.2 and 9.6 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1331e réunion (décembre 2018) (DH)

Communication d’une ONG (18/09/2018) et réponse des autorités (24/09/2018) dans l’affaire Merabishvili c. Géorgie (requête n° 72508/13) (anglais uniquement)

Informations mises à disposition en vertu des Règles 9.2 et 9.6 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.

Middlesex El!JROPEAN HUMAIN R!IIGHTS M9.... A'DViOCACY CENTRE University London

European Human Rights Advocacy Centre School of Law Middlesex University DGI The Burroughs London NW4 4BT 18 SEP. 2018 United Kingdom Email: [email protected] SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Phone: +44 208 411 2826 Fax: +44 (0)203 004 1767

DGI - Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex FRANCE

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Sent by post and email

18 September 2018

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Ivane Merabishvili v. Georgia, App. No. 72508/13 (Leading case, enhanced procedure) - submissions pursuant to Rules 9(1) and 9(2) of the Committee of Ministers’ Rules for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments

We are writing to make further submissions as to the individual measures necessary for the full and effective implementation of the judgment in Ivane Merabishvili v Georgia in the light of the Government of Georgia’s Action Plan lodged on 4 June 2018 (CM DH-DD(2018)602, 12 June 2018). We refer to our previous submissions of 26 January 2018 and 4 May 2018.

In these submissions, we respond to specific points raised in the Government’s Action Plan. We also provide updates on domestic developments in Mr Merabishvili’s case. We note that Mr Merabishvili remains detained, as he has been since 21 May 2013. Following the release of Ilgar Mammadov on 13 August 2018, Mr Merabishvili is the only individual against whom a violation of Article 18 of the Convention has been found who remains in detention.

1. Individual Measures

a. “additional feasible investigative measures to address specific deficiencies found by the Court (in relation to alleged covert removal on 14 December 2013) … The investigation will be thorough and effective and take full account of the scope of the European Court’s findings” (para. 32); b. “adopt such legislative amendments in order to render it possible to carry out the above investigative measure [i.e. to check mobile telephone records and cell tower data]” (para. 37), with consequent amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (para. 77).

Further, the Government states that, there is no need to undertake any urgent measures to reopen the criminal proceedings against Mr Merabishvili or order his release, as he is serving a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to a number of judgments against him, not all of which were the subject of the Grand Chamber’s decision (para. 14).

We address each of these points in turn. a. Further investigation

In its Action Plan, the Government proposes to undertake further investigative measures taking full account of the Grand Chamber’s findings.

Mr Merabishvili submits that he has no confidence that a further investigation by the Prosecutor will obtain a different result from the earlier flawed investigation of June 2016-February 2017. Firstly, as it has done throughout the domestic and ECtHR proceedings, the Georgian Government continues to work from the premise that Mr Merabishvili was not covertly removed from his prison cell on 14 December 2013. In its Action Plan, the Government continues to refer to Mr Merabishvili’s “alleged” covert removal (see e.g. paras 23 onwards). This is despite the Grand Chamber’s unanimous conclusion that his allegations were “sufficiently convincing and therefore proven” (para. 350), as the Government cites (Action Plan, para. 30).

Secondly, Mr Merabishvili submits that the Government have adopted a narrow interpretation of the Grand Chamber’s decision and have instead, before the Committee, attempted to re-run arguments already determined by the Grand Chamber (Action Plan, paras 24-29). The Grand Chamber found that the investigation was “marred by a series of omissions from which it can be inferred that the authorities were eager that the matter should not come to light” and that “crucial evidence” was not recovered (para. 352). The Grand Chamber found a catalogue of fundamental flaws in Georgia’s investigations into Mr Merabishvili’s complaint of his covert removal (encompassing both the earlier Ministry of Prisons’ inquiry and the subsequent Prosecutor’s investigation) including the following:

a. Failure to verify the statements of G.T and I.P by objective means, for example by obtaining video footage of evidence given by G.G. (the then head of the special forces of the Ministry of Prisons) at the pre-trial hearing or evidence of his whereabouts on the morning of 14 December 2013 (para. 337); b. Failure to explore leads e.g. to check if Mr Merabishvili could recognise G.G. or I.M. (another special forces officer with whom it was alleged G.G. acted in concert) (para. 340); c. No attempt to check the whereabouts of G.G. and I.M. through mobile telephone records or cell tower data (para. 340);

DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. d. Video footage from prison video surveillance cameras was not recovered (paras 344, 352); e. Method used to examine footage from private surveillance and road traffic cameras was unclear (para. 345); f. Doubts about the credibility of witness evidence obtained (paras 338, 346, 347); and g. O.P. (the then Chief Public Prosecutor) and O.D. (the then head of the penitentiary department) were only interviewed nearly 3 years after the events (para. 352).

Thirdly, Mr Merabishvili expresses his serious concern that any further investigation may not be conducted with the necessary expedition for it to have any effect on him in practice. If he is not granted conditional release, Mr Merabishvili’s prison sentence is due to end on 21 February 2020.

Further, the only potential investigative mechanism in which Mr Merabishvili has confidence is an investigation by the Parliamentary Commission (a Temporary Investigative Commission, set up pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Georgia, Chapter 6, Articles 55-70). A Parliamentary Commission, set up by a majority vote of Parliament, may investigate a case, call and take evidence from witnesses, investigators and prosecutors and obtain case files. The outcome of a Parliamentary Commission is presented to a plenary session of Parliament for approval by a majority, following which the Prosecutor may take action based on the plenary’s decision. On 3 September 2017, Mr Otar Kakhidze MP requested that a Parliamentary Commission be established to investigate Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal. Despite the fact that this request remains pending before Parliament, the Government rejected this proposal in its Action Plan (para. 33).

Mr Merabishvili submits that any investigation by the authorities must address each and every failure identified by the Grand Chamber. Further, it should comply with the Court’s well- established standards on an effective investigation including that it should be capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible (Assenov v Bulgaria, No. 24760/94, 28 October 1998, para. 102), be independent, impartial, subject to public scrutiny and the authorities must act diligently and promptly (Isayeva v Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, 24 February 2005, paras. 208-13). In view of the concerns expressed above, the significant passage of time since the incident, the overtly political context of the case, the involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office in Mr Merabishvili’s removal and the fact that the Georgian authorities have already failed twice to effectively investigate the event, Mr Merabishvili requests that the Committee stipulate the conditions which any further investigation must comply with in order to be effective, including that it should be prompt and involve him as victim. In addition, we ask the Committee to request the Government to explain specifically how it intends to remedy each of the investigative flaws identified by the Grand Chamber (as set out at points (a) to (g) above). b. Amending the law to permit checking of mobile telephone records and cell tower data

The Government states that current domestic law prevents mobile telephone records and cell tower data from being examined as part of any further investigation, as the offence being investigated in relation to Mr Merabishvili’s removal falls within the category of less grave crimes (Action Plan, paras 34-36). It therefore proposes to amend domestic legislation in order to permit such investigative steps to be carried out (Action Plan, para. 37). However, the Government fails to provide any further information as to what specific amendments it proposes to make, within what time period, whether such amendments will be retrospective (i.e. could be applied in Mr Merabishvili’s case) or whether practically this would have any effect (i.e. whether the relevant records in this case continue to exist almost 5 years after the event in question). We request that

As previously submitted (see letter to Committee of Ministers dated 26 January 2018), in order to effectively implement the Grand Chamber judgment in his case, Mr Merabishvili submits that in addition to conducting a rigorous and independent investigation into his removal (see above), the Georgian authorities should:

1. Re-open the criminal proceedings against him; 2. Pending the outcome of the re-opening of the criminal proceedings, order Mr Merabishvili’s release.

Contrary to the Government’s Action Plan, Mr Merabishvili submits that the various proceedings initiated against him are inextricably linked and cannot therefore be clearly separated out. The findings of the Grand Chamber clearly demonstrate that the Court considered that the improper motives leading to its finding of a violation of Article 18 extended beyond the date of his covert removal and have continued to influence Mr Merabishvili’s treatment by the authorities to the present day. Mr Merabishvili submits that there is no objective basis to believe that the subsequent proceedings against him are untainted by the authorities’ improper motive, as found by the Grand Chamber, given the context, his high profile, the prosecution of other members of the UNM and the authorities’ attempts to put pressure on him (see letter to Committee of Ministers dated 26 January 2018). He therefore reiterates his previous requests that the criminal proceedings be re-opened and he be released pending the outcome of their re-examination.

2. General Measures

The Government also indicated that it has already undertaken a number of General Measures, in the light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment, including:

a. Extending the period of time for storing video surveillance footage from 24 to 120 hours (Action Plan, para. 66; Order N35 amended by Order N19 (20 March 2017)); b. Creation of State Inspector’s Service (Action Plan, paras 74-5). a. Video surveillance footage

The Grand Chamber criticised the Georgian authorities’ failure to recover video footage from prison video surveillance cameras, expressing doubt that the footage had been automatically deleted within 24 hours, as the Government alleged (paras 344, 352). It stated that it was “striking that surveillance footage from an establishment as prone to violence and accidents as a prison would be preserved for a shorter time than footage from road-traffic cameras – which was in this case still available twenty days after the alleged incident” (para. 344).

Responding to this criticism, the Government points to amended Order N 35 which extends the time period for storing video recordings to at least 120 hours (Action Plan, para. 66).

We continue to question the validity of the Government’s claim that video footage was automatically deleted within 24 hours. We note in particular the Grand Chamber’s own expressed doubts on this point, the witness statement of G.M. (former deputy Minister of Prisons) (para. 77)

Assuming the Government’s claim to be correct, which is not accepted, we welcome the extension of the time period for keeping video surveillance footage from prison establishments. However, we question the rationale for setting the period as 120 hours which appears to us to be unnecessarily short. We note the report of the Public Defender of Georgia, published July 2018, in which she stated:

“The minimum term for storage of recordings made by video surveillance system is not determined statutorily. According to the Ministry’s information, the surveillance systems have memory cards with individual capacities, and the terms for storage are from 2 weeks to 1 month.

The Public Defender deems it necessary that there should be a statutory obligation determined with regard to 14 days as the minimum term for storing recordings made by video surveillance cameras so that in case of allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, objective evidence could be obtained. It is noteworthy that the introduction, through a sub- legislative normative act in February 2018, of 120 hours (five days) as the minimum term for storing video recordings made in TDIs is welcomed by the Public Defender as a clear step forward. However, the Public Defender deems it is important that video recordings made in those TDIs where administrative detention is served should be stored for a longer term, for not less than 20 days.”1 (our emphasis added)

We agree with the Public Defender and recommend that the time period for storage of video surveillance footage in pre-trial detention facilities be extended to at least 20 days, but ideally longer. This is a significant safeguard against torture, ill-treatment and abuse of power.

b. State Inspector’s Service (SIS)

We welcome, in principle, the Government’s proposal to create a dedicated investigative body, the SIS, to investigate crimes committed by law enforcement structures and agents. However, we note that the proposed SIS is entirely irrelevant to Mr Merabishvili’s case as the crimes that it is empowered to investigate does not include any crimes related to Mr Merabishvili’s covert removal. We therefore propose that the list of crimes which can be investigated by the SIS be extended to include Article 333 Criminal Code (exceeding official powers).

3. Domestic Updates

We also provide the Committee with the following updates:

- On 15 March 2018, the Tbilisi City Court ruled that Mr Merabishvili’s application against the decision of the Parole Board rejecting his application for early conditional release should be rejected (see Annex 1); - On 28-29 March 2018, the Pardon Commission refused Zhenia Merabisvhili’s request for a Presidential pardon for her son (see Annex 2);

1 Public Defender of Georgia, Human Rights Situation in Closed Institutions, 2017, published July 2018, p. 27. See also Public Defender of Georgia, Annual Report 2017, p. 22.

DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. - On 4 July 2018, the Parole Board again refused to conditionally release Mr Merabishvili (see Annex 3); - Letter from 20 Members of the Parliament of Georgia to the Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Finland to the Council of Europe, dated 10 August 2018 (Annex 4); - Letter from 6 Members of the Parliament of Georgia, two former Georgian Foreign Ministers and other senior politicians to Miroslav Papa (Permanent Representative of Croatia to the Council of Europe) dated 16 August 2018, with enclosure dated 13 August 2018 (Annex 5).

Accordingly, the Committee of Ministers is requested to list the case for discussion at the 1331DH meeting on 4-6 December 2018.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Leach Joanne Sawyer Legal Representatives of the applicant

Encs.

Annex 1 18 SEP. 2018 SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION Ruling DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH In the name of Georgia

Case N3/1010-18 March 15, 2018 Tbilisi

Tbilisi City Court Chamber of Administrative Cases

Judge Nana Aptsiauri Secretary of the Hearing Natia Pitskhelauri

Plaintiff - Ivane Merabishvili Representatives - Giorgi Chiviashvili, Shota Kakhidze

Defendant – First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia Representatives – Aleksandre Toria, Tinatin Shamugia, Zviad Tabatadze

Subject of the suit – Making administrative-legal act void and ordering the defendant to issue new administrative-legal act regarding early conditional release of the plaintiff.

Description:

1. Demand of the suit 1.1 To make the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017, void; 1.2 To order the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia to issue a new individual administrative-legal act regarding early conditional release of Ivane Merabishvili (protocol of the March 15, 2018, court hearing).

2. Position of the defendant 2.1 Defendants – representatives of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia did not recognize the suit and supported the response. According to the representatives of the defendant, the Council made a decision following the rules provided by General Administrative Code of Georgia, Imprisonment Law of Georgia and Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015. Decision of the Council is grounded and is based on factual circumstances from the personal case file of the convict. Requirements of the law has not been violated while preparing and issuing the decision. Thus, there are no grounds for making the decision void and issuing new administrative-legal act.

3. Factual Circumstances 3.1 Established factual circumstances 3.1.1 Ivane Merabishvili, born on April 15, 1968, was found guilty by the verdict of the Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, for violation of paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 160, paragraph D of the Part 2 and paragraph B of the part 3 of the Article 182 (first episode), paragraphs A and D of the Part 2 and paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 182 (second episode) and Article 1641 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was halved and the final term was established for 5 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Kutaisi Appeal Court of October 21, 2014, left the verdict of the Kutaisi City Court of the February 17, 2014, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of June 18, 2015, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, was found guilty for violation of paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of August 11, 2014, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the February 27, 2014, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of February 27, 2015, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014, was found guilty for violation of the Part 2 of the Article 332 (the version acting before May 31, 2006) and Article 341 (the version acting before May 31, 2006) of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 3 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of August 4, 2015, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the October 20, 2014, unchanged. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of February 29, 2016, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. On January 13, 2017, Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, addressed Tbilisi City Court according to the Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, with the motion to define the final term of punishment for the convict Ivane Merabishvili. On January 16, 2017, Tbilisi City Court has fulfilled the motion and based on several unexecuted verdicts, has defined the final punishment for the convict according to these verdicts, namely: verdicts of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, of Tbilisi City court of February 27, 2014 and of Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014, based on which, more severe punishment sentenced to Ivane Merabishvili has absorbed less severe punishment and finally convict Ivane Merabishvili was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 2 year and 3 months. Period of being in prison – from May 21, 2013, till January 16, 2017, was counted as part of a served sentence. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of September 22, 2016, was found guilty for violation of paragraph E of the Part 5 of the Article 25,117 and paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 6 years and 9 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of February 23, 2017, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the September 22, 2016, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of September 29, 2017, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. On October 24, 2017, Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, addressed Tbilisi City Court according to the Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, with the motion to define the final term of punishment for the convict Ivane Merabishvili. On October 26, 2017, Tbilisi City Court has fulfilled the motion and based on several unexecuted verdicts, has defined the final punishment for the sentenced person according to these verdicts, namely: verdicts of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, of Tbilisi City court of February 27, 2014, of Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014 and of Tbilisi City Court of September 22, 2016, based on which, more severe punishment sentenced to Ivane Merabishvili has absorbed less severe punishment and finally convict Ivane Merabishvili was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months of imprisonment. Period of being in prison – from May 21, 2013, till October 26, 2017, was counted as part of a served sentence. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of May 3, 2017, was found guilty for violation of the Part 2 of the Article 333 (the version acting before July 1, 2004) of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the May 3, 2017, unchanged. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017, is currently disputed at the Supreme Court of Georgia. Convict Ivane Merabishvili was charged for committing a crime according to the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The main hearing of the case is proceeding at the Tbilisi City Court. According to case materials, on July 28, 2017, Convicts’ Threat Assessment Team has defined high threat risk for Ivane Merabishvili. Based on this, by the order N12337 of August 4, 2017, of the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili’s prison term was defined to be served at closed type prison facility and was placed at the N9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia (ground for the order N12337 of August 4, 2017, - protocol of the secret meeting of the Convicts’ Threat Assessment Team of July 28, 2017). Convict Ivane Merabishvili refused to accept the order N12337 of August 4, 2017, of the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections. It was established that on November 21, 2017, Ivane Merabishvili has factually served two thirds of sentence - 6 years and 9 months - defined by the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court on October 26, 2017. Beginning of the sentence adopted by the verdict of Tbilisi City Court on October 26, 2017 – 26.10.2017. The end of the sentence – 21.02.2020. Beginning of the sentence adopted by the verdict of Tbilisi City Court on May 3, 2017 – 03.05.2017. The end of the sentence – 03.08.2019. The Court relies on following evidences: - the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017. - personal case of Ivane Merabishvili.

3.1.2 Materials of the case prove that Ivane Merabishvili does not have precious convictions. He has been punished twice while serving the prison term. Namely, by the order N19176 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.07.2014 Ivane Merabishvili was prohibited to use allowed objects, because he physically insulted Deputy Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia and verbally insulted employees of the Facility’s administration. By the order N238249 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.03.2015 the use allowed objects was limited, because the convict was loudly insulting administration of the Penitentiary Facility from his cell. By the decision (case N 3/2599-14) of the Chamber of Administrative Cases of Tbilisi City Court, on October 24, 2014, appeal of Ivane Merabishvili was partially satisfied – part of the order of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.07.2014, regarding prohibiting use of the personal computer by Ivane Merabishvili as a measure of disciplinary punishment, was made void. The rest of the appeal was not satisfied. This decision has entered legal force. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

By the decision (case N 3/1695-15) of the Chamber of Administrative Cases of Tbilisi City Court, on June 10, 2015, appeal of Ivane Merabishvili was partially satisfied – part of the order of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.03.2015, regarding prohibiting use of the personal computer by Ivane Merabishvili for four months as a measure of disciplinary punishment, was made void. The rest of the appeal was not satisfied. This decision has entered legal force. The Court relies on following evidences: - the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017. - personal case of Ivane Merabishvili.

3.1.3 Materials of the case prove that Ivane Merabishvili has been rewarded once while serving the prison term. Namely, by the order N15 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 on 11.04.2014, he was allowed an additional short meeting. The Court relies on following evidences: - the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017. - personal case of Ivane Merabishvili.

3.1.4 On December 25, 2017, the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia has reviewed without oral hearing the motion and appropriate materials regarding early conditional release of the convict Ivane Merabishvili. By the decision of the Council N001/17-3550 (the issue of early conditional release of the convict Ivane Merabishvili was reviewed only in regards of the punishment ruled by the judgement of Tbilisi City Court on October 26, 2017) the motion was not satisfied at the current stage. While reviewing the case, the Council inquired attitude of the convict towards administration of the prison facility, that currently he does not express aggressive behavior towards the staff of the Penitentiary Facility N9 and obeys legal requirements of the administration. Positively assessed the fact of rewarding him and reviewed information regarding his family circumstances. On the other hand, the council paid attention to the character and gravity of the crime, namely that there is an aggregation of crimes. The convict was found guilty for crimes of different category and gravity, including for especially grave crime. He has committed number of crimes abusing his official position and authority. In addition, the convict was accomplice in a crime against human health causing injuries, including intentional severe injuries by the group, of more than 200 individuals. Attention was also paid to the fact that while serving the prison term, the behavior of the convict has twice caused disciplinary sanctions, including for violent act. The council has also noted the fact that Threat Assessment Team has defined high threat risk for the convict. While discussing the issue of early conditional release by the Local Council, the gravity and character of the crime, as well as circumstances in which this crime was committed, had special negative influence. Thus, the Council considered that at this stage the negative opinions accompanying these criteria were not nullified and outweighed by other positive criteria. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The Court relies on following evidences: - the protocol of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017. - the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017. - personal case of Ivane Merabishvili.

Motivational Part:

4. Summary of the court conclusion As a result of hearing the materials of the case and explanation of the sides, reviewing the legal and factual basis of the case and legally assessing evidences in the case, the court has concluded that the motion should not be satisfied.

5. The laws on which the Court relied General Administrative Code of Georgia, Imprisonment Law of Georgia and Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015.

6. Legal assessment 6.1 According to paragraph 1 of the Article 22 of the Administrative Process Code of Georgia, the suit with the request to make void an administrative-legal act can be filed. According to sub-paragraph D of the paragraph 1 of the Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, individual administrative act is a legal act issued by an administrative body under the administrative law establishing, modifying, terminating, or confirming the rights and obligations of a person or a limited group of persons. The decision of an administrative body to refuse to address an applicant’s issue within its competence, as well as any document issued or confirmed by an administrative body that may have legal consequences for a person or a limited group of persons, shall also be counted as an individual administrative act; Judging from the contents of the above mentioned norm, the court believes that the decision N001/17-3550 of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia of December 25, 2017, disputed by the plaintiff, contains all the elements of legal definition of individual administrative-legal act provided by sub-paragraph D of the paragraph 1 of the Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, which provides grounds for assessing it as an individual administrative-legal act. Thus, according to sub- paragraph A of the paragraph 1 of the Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, when reviewing the suit, the compatibility of individual administrative-legal act with appropriate norms regulating issuing of acts according to General Administrative Code of Georgia, Imprisonment Code and other subordinate acts, should be checked. 6.2 The Court admits that Imprisonment Code defines rules and conditions of enforcing the verdict ruled by the court in regards to a limitation of a freedom within criminal case, guarantees of legal defense of convicts and accused persons, regulates activities of institutions from imprisonment DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

and detention enforcement system, establishes rules and conditions for participation of state institutions, civil society organizations and citizens in enforcement of imprisonment and detention. According to the Article 1 of the Imprisonment Code, the purpose of the legislation of Georgia on the enforcement of detention and imprisonment is to enforce detention and imprisonment, prevent new crimes and re-socialize convicted persons. At the same time, the enforcement of detention and imprisonment in Georgia is carried out under the principles of legality, humanity, democracy, equality before the law and individualization of punishment. The court indicates that rules of early conditional release from the punishment are defined by the Article 40 of the Imprisonment Code. According to paragraph 1 of the above mentioned Article, a convicted person may be released on parole only if he/she has actually served: a) at least half of the term of the sentence of imprisonment imposed for committing a crime of little gravity; b) at least two thirds of the term of the sentence of imprisonment imposed for committing a grave crime; c) at least three fourths of the term of the sentence of imprisonment imposed for committing an especially grave crime; d) three fourths of the term of the sentence imposed on a person who was previously released on parole, and the release on parole was revoked based on paragraph 5 of this article; e) three fourths of the term of the sentence imposed on a person whose previous term of sentence which had not been actually served by him/her, was changed by less severe sentence, and whose changed sentence was set aside on the basis of Article 73(10) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to the Article 41 of the above mentioned Code, the Local Council of the Ministry is a body that reviews issues related to the release on parole and commutation of sentences. According to the paragraph 1 of the Article 42 of the same code, if a convicted person, except for a high risk convicted person, has actually served the term established by law for the release on parole, the penitentiary institution shall immediately file a relevant application with the Council and notify the convicted person about it. If an additional time is required to obtain and process the necessary information, the penitentiary institution may file this application within seven days. According to paragraph 3 of the same Article, the Council reviews a case by oral hearing and/or without oral hearing, in compliance with administrative procedures. The decision to deny a parole, or to admit the case for oral hearing or to release a convicted person on parole is taken by the Council without oral hearing, according to the assessment criteria determined by the Minister. The decision shall include the main circumstances of the case and details of the convicted person. The paragraph 4 establishes that when reviewing an application, the Council takes into account the conduct of the convicted person during his/her imprisonment, the criminal acts committed by him/her in the past, his/her character family status, the nature of the crime committed and other circumstances that may influence the decision of the Council. According to the paragraph 5, the Council shall conduct an oral hearing if it considers that it is necessary to obtain additional information from the convicted person to decide his/her release on parole. By oral hearing, the Council shall decide to deny or grant parole to the convicted person. 6.3 Rules and conditions of early conditional release of the convict are provided in more details by the Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015. According to this statute, Local Council of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation is a permanent body reviewing the issues provided by the Articles 40, 42 and 43 of the Imprisonment Code. The aim of the Council is to support re- DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

socialization of the convict and protect public safety. Article 6 of the Statute defines the authority of the Council, including authority to review the convict’s early conditional release from punishment, provided by sub-paragraph A of the paragraph 1 of the same Article. According to the Article 7 of the Statute, the council adopts decision at the meeting. There are two types of meetings: without oral hearing and with oral hearing. The council reviews accepted motions without oral hearing. At the meeting without oral hearing, the Council adopts decisions to refuse the motion, or to admit the case to oral hearing, or regarding early conditional release of the convict. According to paragraph 1 of the Article 10 of this Statute, the bases for initiating the review of the case are Articles 42 and 43 of the Imprisonment Code. Paragraph 1 of the Article 15 of the same subordinate regulation defines that the meeting without oral hearing is held only with participation of the member of the Council and representatives of the Council staff. According to paragraph 4 of the same Article, when reviewing the case of a convict without oral hearing, the Council is guided by evaluation criteria defined by this Statute. According to the Article 5, when reviewing the case of a convict without oral hearing, the Council adopts decisions by open voting. Article 13 of this Statute provides evaluation criteria. Namely, evaluation criteria are: a) character of a crime – when evaluating according to this criteria, the attention should be paid to the gravity of the crime committed, in what circumstances and situation the crime was committed, as well as if the crime was committed during conditional sentence; b) behavior of the convict while serving the sentence - when evaluating according to this criteria, the attention should be paid to how many and what type of disciplinary, administrative and rewarding actions were used against the convict while serving the sentence, as well as what were the specific actions causing this decision. The attention should also be paid to information regarding following the statute and schedule of the prison facility, fulfilling the responsibilities according to Georgian legislation and keeping to security regime of the facility, while serving the sentence. c) previous conviction or crimes committed in past by the convict - when evaluating according to this criteria, the attention should be paid to the number, gravity and character of the crimes committed in past. Also, to the character and gravity of crimes and quantity of previous convictions. d) family circumstances - when evaluating according to this criteria, the attention should be paid to the attitude of the convict towards family members, having minor children, other family members who have no ability to work, financial conditions of close relatives and etc. e) character of the convict - when evaluating according to this criteria, the attention should be paid to the attitude of the convict towards the crime committed, employees of the facility and other convicts, information regarding participation in social activities whiles serving the sentence, necessity for special supervision from the administration of the facility and other important aspects, enabling to assess an individual. According to paragraph 2 of the same Article, the convict is accessed based on the evaluation criteria defined by paragraph 1 of this Article. According to paragraph 3, when reviewing the case based on sub-paragraph “a” of the paragraph 1 of the Article 6 of this Statute, one of the following decisions may be made: a) regarding early conditional release of the convict; b) regarding having an oral hearing of the case, in case if the Council finds it necessary to receive an additional information from the convict in order to decide the early conditional release of the convict; c) regarding refusal of the early conditional release of the convict. Based on the analysis of the above mentioned legal norms, the court believes that deciding the issue of the early conditional release of the convict from the punishment is the discretionary DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

authority of the Local Council of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, since it has to adopt a decision according to evaluation criteria provided by the Article 13 of the Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015, which will be dictated by beliefs of the members of the Council and based on qualified assessment of the objective and subjective circumstances of the disputed issue. In the case currently under review, it has been established that the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia has reviewed the case without oral hearing based on criteria provided by the Article 13 of the Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015, inquired attitude of Ivane Merabishvili towards administration of the prison facility, that currently he does not express aggressive behavior towards the staff of the Penitentiary Facility N9 and obeys legal requirements of the administration. Positively assessed the fact of rewarding him, reviewed information regarding his family circumstances, but paid attention to the character and gravity of the crime, as well as to the fact that while serving the prison term, the behavior of the convict has twice caused disciplinary sanctions. The council has also noted the fact that Threat Assessment Team has defined high threat risk for the convict. Based on the above mentioned, the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, as a result of analyzing the information received, made a decision to refuse in satisfying motion regarding early conditional release of the convict. The court points to sub-paragraph “l” of the paragraph 1 of the Article 3 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, according to which discretionary authority is an authority, which provides freedom to an administrative body or an individual to choose the most acceptable decision out of several options provided by the legislation, based on protection of public and private interests. Articles 6 and 7 of the same Code define norms and conditions of exerting discretionary authority. The court admits that regarding individual administrative-legal act issued within discretionary authority, the court can only discuss the compliance of the disputed act with the requirements of the legislation, i.e. its legality. When settling the dispute, the court follows the requirements of the law and not considerations of expediency. Thus, the court cannot discuss the aspects of expediency of the disputed decision, since the revision of the expediency of the act goes beyond the limits of judicial control, which is established by constitutional principle of separation of power. The court explains that, while discussing legality of exerting discretionary authority, the court must inquire how well grounded is the chosen decision of the issue, made by administrative body, which on its side, must be based on unbiased inquiring, establishing and evaluation of the facts regarding the case. The court reviews legality and grounding of the chosen decision, rather than its expediency. An administrative body must substantiate that the decision made was the most acceptable out of existing options. Regarding this case, the Court believes that evidences provided does not reveal exertion of discretionary authority by the defendant exceeding limits set by legislation and/or ignoring the aim for which the Council has such authority. The evaluation of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia completely corresponds to the DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

requirements provided by the subordinate normative act, since, as already mentioned, the convict is assessed by the Council based on the criteria provided by the Article 13 of the Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, approved by the order N138 of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia on October 19, 2015. One of these criteria is the character of the crime, evaluating which, an attention should be paid to gravity, circumstances and situation in which the crime was committed. When making the decision, the defendant paid attention to the above mentioned criterion and found it inexpedient to release the convict. The Court shares the position of the Council regarding character and gravity of the crime. Taking into consideration that there has been no illegitimate exertion of discretionary authority and the Court has no possibility to discuss the expediency of the disputed act, the Court believes that while making the disputed decision, the Council fully took into consideration behavior of the convict while serving the sentence, characteristics of the convict, his family circumstances, the character of the crime committed by him and other circumstances, which could influence the decision of the Council. The court believes that, the evidences provided does not prove that discretionary authority has been exerted by exceeding limits set by legislation and/or ignoring the aim for which the Council has such authority. The evaluation of the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia completely corresponds to the requirements provided by the subordinate normative act. 6.4 The Court explains that grounds for making administrative-legal act void are provided by the Article 601 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, where the paragraph 1 establishes that administrative-legal act is void if it contradicts the law or other requirements regarding preparing or issuing it as provided by legislation, has been substantially violated. In addition, the paragraph 2 of this Article specifies that issuing of an administrative-legal act at the meeting held in violation of Articles 32 or 34 of this Code, or in violation of administrative proceedings provided by the legislation, or such violation of a law, in absence of which a different decision would be made regarding the issue, can be considered as a substantial violation of preparing or issuing of an administrative-legal act. According to the Paragraph 1 of the Article 32 of the Administrative Process Code of Georgia, the Court is authorized to decide on making the administrative act void regarding the suit under Article 22 of the same Code, in case if an administrative act contradicts the law and it causes direct and personal (individual) harm to the legal right or interest of the plaintiff or causes illegal limitations. According to the Article 33 of the same Code, in case if refusal to issue an administrative-legal act contradicts the law or the time limits of issuing has been violated and this directly and personally (individually) harms legal rights or interests of the plaintiff, the Court will make a decision regarding the suit mentioned in the Article 23 of this Code, to order an administrative body to issue an administrative-legal act. Noting above mentioned circumstances, the Court believes that in this case there has been no violation of the Article 601 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, the disputed decision has been issued in accordance with requirements of the law, thus, there is no ground to make the disputed act void and to order the defendant to issue a new administrative-legal act.

7. Procedural expenditures DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

7.1 According to the Paragraph 2 of the Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, in case if the appeal is rejected, the court expenditures will be paid by plaintiff in favor of state budget, while according to the Paragraph 2 of the Article 37 of the same Code, the court expenditures imply the state tax, which has been paid by the plaintiff in proportion to subject of the dispute. Thus, the Court believes that the state tax should remain unchanged.

Resolution Part:

The court has followed Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 22 and 23 of the Administrative Process Code of Georgia and Articles 8, 55, 244, 248, 249, 257, 364 and 367 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia and

Ruled:

1. The suit of Ivane Merabishvili is not satisfied. 2. The tax paid by the plaintiff – 100 GEL, is considered paid in favor of the state budget. 3. The decision can be disputed within 14 days after the sides receive the grounded decision, by filing an appeal through the Chamber of Administrative Cases of the Tbilisi City Court (at 12th km, N6 David Agmashenebeli Alley, Tbilisi) at the Chamber of Administrative Cases of the Tbilisi Appeal Court (at N7a Grigol Robakidze Avenue, Tbilisi).

Judge Nana Aptsiauri DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. DGI 18 SEP. 2018

Annex 2 SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH

Excerpt from the letter of Pardon Commission

Excerpt from the letter N3209 of April 5, 2018 –

On March 28-29, 2018, Pardon Commission has refused:

Sentenced person - Ivane Merabishvili

Head of the Special Reporting Unit of the N9 Facility D. Kharitonashvili DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. DGI 18 SEP. 2018

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION Annex 3 DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH

Ministry of Corrections and Probation First Local Council of Eastern Georgia

Decision N01/18-0678 (Without oral hearing)

July 4, 2018 Tbilisi, 27 Zurab Abjaparidze str.

On July 4, 2018, First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia has assembled composed of following members: 1. Vladimer Dzmanashvili – acting Chairman of the Council; 2. Temur Shengelaia – member of the Council; 3. Tamar Devdariani – member of the Council; 4. Nana Maisuradze – member of the Council; Has reviewed the motion and related materials submitted to the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, regarding early conditional release of the convict Ivane Merabishvili and

Established:

1. Name, surname, patronymic: Ivane Merabishvili, Sergo 2. Date of birth: 15.04.1968 3. Place of birth: Adigeni 4. Citizenship: Georgian 5. Charged for/sentenced for:

I. By the verdict of the Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, was found guilty for violation of paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 160, paragraph D of the Part 2 and paragraph B of the part 3 of the Article 182 (first episode), paragraphs A and D of the Part 2 and paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 182 (second episode) and Article 1641 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was halved and the final term was DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

established for 5 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 1 year and 6 months. The decision of Kutaisi Appeal Court of October 21, 2014, left the verdict of the Kutaisi City Court of the February 17, 2014, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of June 18, 2015, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. II. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of February 27, 2014, was found guilty for violation of paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 1 year, 1 months and 15 days. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of August 11, 2014, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the February 27, 2014, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of February 27, 2015, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. III. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014, was found guilty for violation of the Part 2 of the Article 332 (the version acting before May 31, 2006) and Article 341 (the version acting before May 31, 2006) of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 3 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 2 year and 3 months. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of August 4, 2015, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the October 20, 2014, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of February 29, 2016, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. IV. On January 13, 2017, Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, addressed Tbilisi City Court according to the Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, with the motion to define the final term of punishment for the convict Ivane Merabishvili. On January 16, 2017, Tbilisi City Court has fulfilled the motion and based on several unexecuted verdicts, has defined the final punishment for the convict according to these verdicts, namely: verdicts of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, of Tbilisi City court of February 27, 2014 and of Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014, based on which, more severe punishment sentenced to Ivane Merabishvili has absorbed less severe punishment and finally convict Ivane Merabishvili was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 2 year and 3 months. Period of being in prison – from May 21, 2013, till January 16, 2017, was counted as part of a served sentence. V. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of September 22, 2016, was found guilty for violation of paragraph E of the Part 5 of the Article 25,117 and paragraph B of the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment. Based on the DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 6 years and 9 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of February 23, 2017, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the September 22, 2016, unchanged. By the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia of September 29, 2017, the appeal was not found admissible for the review. VI. On October 24, 2017, Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, addressed Tbilisi City Court according to the Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, with the motion to define the final term of punishment for the convict Ivane Merabishvili. On October 26, 2017, Tbilisi City Court has fulfilled the motion and based on several unexecuted verdicts, has defined the final punishment for the sentenced person according to these verdicts, namely: verdicts of Kutaisi City Court of February 17, 2014, of Tbilisi City court of February 27, 2014, of Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2014 and of Tbilisi City Court of September 22, 2016, based on which, more severe punishment sentenced to Ivane Merabishvili has absorbed less severe punishment and finally convict Ivane Merabishvili was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months of imprisonment. Period of being in prison – from May 21, 2013, till October 26, 2017, was counted as part of a served sentence. VII. By the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of May 3, 2017, was found guilty for violation of the Part 2 of the Article 333 (the version acting before July 1, 2004) of the Criminal code of Georgia and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment. Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017, left the verdict of the Tbilisi City Court of the May 3, 2017, unchanged. The decision of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017, is currently disputed at the Supreme Court of Georgia. VIII. Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, addressed Tbilisi City Court according to the Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, with the motion to define the final term of punishment for the convict Ivane Merabishvili. On June 25, 2018, Tbilisi City Court has merged the final verdict of Tbilisi City court on October 26, 2017, and verdict of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017. More severe final verdict of Tbilisi City court on October 26, 2017, has absorbed less severe verdict of Tbilisi Appeal Court of October 27, 2017, and final verdict for Ivane Merabishvili was set for 6 years and 9 months. In addition, he was deprived of the right to be appointed at public service for 2 year and 3 months. Counting of a prison term for convict Ivane Merabishvili has begun from June 25, 2018. Period of being in prison – from May 21, 2013, till June 25, 2018, was counted as part of a served sentence. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

IX. Convict Ivane Merabishvili was charged for committing a crime according to the Part 3 of the Article 333 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The main hearing of the case is proceeding at the Tbilisi City Court. On May 23, 2013, the convict Ivane Merabishvili was placed at the N9 Penitentiary Facility of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia. On February 1, 2017, by the order N1036 of the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili’s prison term was defined to be served at closed type prison facility. On July 28, 2017, Convicts’ Threat Assessment Team has defined high threat risk for Ivane Merabishvili, based on which, by the order N12337 of August 4, 2017, of the Director of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili’s prison term was defined to be served at closed type prison facility. 6. Character, gravity, circumstances and description of the crime: First case: Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili, using his official position, against the will of the owner LTD International Investment Company, illegally occupied summer house in village Kvariati, Khelvachauri District, in May 2009 and afterwards systematically used it together with his family for holidays. The Ministry of Internal Affairs was conducting an investigation regarding this house from the same period. Securing of the house was illegally ordered to the employees of the Adjara Autonomous Republic Main Division of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Ivane Merabishvili, having an official authority to handle legal property of the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to his official position, used his position, made an illegal decision regarding this property, namely – he ordered the Director of the Human Resources and Organizational Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Otar Gogodze to conduct renovation works of the above mentioned summer house, which was under his use illegally, using the finances of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Due to the illegal order of Ivane Merabishvili, on April 21, 2012, an agreement was signed between the Adjara Autonomous Republic Main Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and LTD Gumbati-1 and 131 884,6 GEL was spent from the budget of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia for full renovation of the summer house in village Kvariati. Thus, Ivane Merabishvili has embezzled the above mentioned large sum from the state funds. Additionally, 25 784,7 GEL was embezzled for the salaries of the personnel serving at the summer house under illegal use of Ivane Merabishvili. In total, 157 669,3 GEL from state funds were embezzled for personal reasons. On July 4, 2012, Ivane Merabishvili was appointed as Prime-Minister of Georgia. On July 5, 2012, by the decree N234 of the Government of Georgia “Job Seekers’ Registration Program” was approved, the goal of which was to support the Office of the State Minister of Employment of Georgia by creating unified database of the job seekers. By the decree N1292 of July 5, 2012, of the Government of Georgia, the quantity of part-time (not in permanent staff) employees was defines as 3584. Implementation of this program, which was financed from the state budget, was assigned to the LEPL Social Service Agency, working under the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia. In order to bribe voters in favor of political party United National Movement at the October 1 Parliamentary Elections of 2012, Ivane Merabishvili has worked out a criminal plan of using DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

“Job Seekers’ Registration Program” and finances from state budget to bribe voters in favor of the political party United National Movement and thus embezzle state funds. The implementation of this plan was assigned to the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia, Zurab Tchiaberashvili and the Director of the LEPL Social Service Agency, Ramaz Sulamanidze. On July 24, 2012, according to the assignment from the Prime-minister Ivane Merabishvili and by the agreement between Zurab Tchiaberashvili and Ramaz Sulamanidze, Social Service Agency addressed the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia with the letter N04/44357, requesting to increase the quantity of part-time employees by 10932 without any grounds. On July 26, 2012, two days after sending the above mentioned letter, the Director of the Agency, Ramaz Sulamanidze, according to agreed criminal plan, directly addressed the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia, Zurab Tchiaberashvili, clarifying the previous letter and requesting to increase number of part-time employees by 21864, again without any grounds and false motivation, as if for technical support of employment agents and creation of unified database. The two months’ salary for this staff would be 13 118 400 GEL. Based on this, on July 30, 2012, the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia addressed the Prime-Minister of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili with the letter and without any grounds provided draft decree for signature, agreed with Zurab Tchiaberashvili and gone through the process of questioning of the Members of Government, regarding increase of quantity of part-time employees within the “Job Seekers’ Registration Program”, the presenter of which was assigned Zurab Tchiaberashvili. By the decree of the Government of Georgia, N1485 of July 31, 2012, signed by Ivane Merabishvili, the quantity of the part-time employees within the “Job Seekers’ Registration Program” was defined as 26027, while, with the permission of the Minister of Finance of Georgia, an additional 7 754 000 GEL was given to the “Job Seekers’ Registration Program” for the salary of part-time employees, after certain cuts in other programs under the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia. Lists of the part-time employees were submitted to the Social Service Agency in the period until September 3, 2012, through regional branches and service center, selected by local self-government bodies throughout the Georgia from local citizens according to electoral districts. On September 3, 2012, Ramaz Sulamanidze issued an order N04-814, regarding regulations of recruitment and giving salaries to the part-time employees within the “Job Seekers’ Registration Program”, according to which agreements would be signed with the individuals listed in the annex of the same order, as previously agreed with Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Tchiaberashvili. Initially the term of the employment contracts and fulfillment of the work was defined for 1 month, from September 1, 2012, until September 30, 2012. In the period until about September 7, 2012, agreements were signed with 21837 individuals, who were supposed to fulfill assignments given by the Agency, described in the annexes of the agreements and involved participation of employees in trainings and seminars, informing the population regarding the “Job Seekers’ Registration Progrram”, supporting employment agents in registering job seekers and monitoring of the work done by the employment agents. These agreements were misleading, since their goal was to avoid limitations set out by the law of Georgia “on Political Union of Citizens” and bribing of voter by state funds, namely: while signing the agreements, citizens were not introduced to the real aims of the program and the essence of their job. On the contrary, promised certain amount of money, they were used for DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

electoral reasons in favor of the political party United National Movement in the pre-election period before the Parliamentary Elections of October 1, 2012. By this action, directed against public interest, certain electoral subject gained advantage, which caused substantial violation of state legal interest. On October 14, 2012, according to preliminary agreement among Ivane merabishvili, Zurab Tchiaberashvili and Ramaz Sulamanidze, based on the order of Ivane Merabishvili, regarding which Zurab Tchiaberashvili was informed as well, LEPL Social Service Agency has paid through JSC Liberty Bank each of the 21837 individuals one-month salary of 240 GEL, without them fulfilling their duties foreseen by “Job Seekers’ Registration Program” and annex of the agreement, fulfillment of which was not possible because by this moment, not only the one month term foreseen by the agreement has not passed, but the work has not begun yet as well. Thus, 5 240 880 GEL of state funds has been embezzled. Second Case: On December 18, 2004, Ivane Merabishvili was appointed as the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia and occupied this position until June 30, 2012. According to Law of Georgia “On Public Service”, he represented state political official. According to the statute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, he, as a Minister, was responsible for fulfillment of the Constitution of Georgia, Georgia’s international treaties and Georgian laws in the sphere within the competence of the Ministry. Conducted official supervision of the decisions and activities of the Ministry’s officials and other employees, within regulations set out by the law. On May 25, 2011, from about 16:00 a rally organized by Representative Public Assembly was held on the territory in front of the Parliament building in Tbilisi. Motivating by the fact that on May 26, a parade regarding Georgia’s Independence Day was to be held on Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi, Minister of internal Affairs Ivane Merabishvili ordered mass detention of demonstrators after the deadline of the rally expired and preliminary blocking of the streets adjacent to the Rustaveli Avenue for this reason. In addition, he ordered to cancel the rally immediately and disperse it as soon as the warning regarding the use of force was made, without giving them proper time. Above mentioned order was illegal, since it clearly was beyond the authority provided by the law, because the rally of May 25, 2011, in front of the Parliament was peaceful and actions of the demonstrators were predictable. In such circumstances, Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili could effectively use forces under his command and safely clear the territory from the demonstrators. On the contrary, by the order Ivane Merabishvili, the dispersal of the rally was planned in a way that half an hour before the deadline of the rally expired, the police occupied every street around the territory and did not leave an exit for the demonstrators deliberately, as a result they were not able to leave the territory before the dispersal began. According to the Georgian Law “on Police”, after issuing a warning regarding use of physical force and special equipment, an individual must be given enough time to obey the law. In contrary to the requirements of the law, on May 26, 2011, at about 00:10, after the demonstrators were given a warning regarding the use of physical force and special equipment, their dispersal began immediately, without giving them any time, by the order of the Ivane Merabishvili who was at the command center by that time. Police did not allow the demonstrators to leave the territory even after the dispersal of the rally began, thus increasing danger of physical contact and use of force between the demonstrators DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

and the police. In addition, police simultaneously and intensively used different special equipment, in violation of law and without taking into account the specific situation: water cannon, tear gas, special acoustic device of psychological influence, rubber bullets and batons. Use of these equipment was not necessary as demonstrators began to disperse without any resistance right after the water cannon was used and tried to leave the territory, but they were not allowed to do so, because the adjacent streets were blocked and they had to find the shelter in the buildings of Kashveti Church, Rustaveli cinema, Palace of Youth and the Gallery of the Parliament. In addition, police intensively used physical coercion while detaining the demonstrators, as ordered by Ivane Merabishvili, namely: demonstrators, who were surrounded and had no path left to exit, were attacked by numerous police squads using batons and rubber bullets simultaneously from several directions. They physically confronted demonstrators, in the streets, as well as inside the building, when possibility of using nonviolent methods – water cannons and other equipment - was not exhausted yet. This contradicts the requirement of the Georgian Law “on Police”, which states that physical coercion may be used to stop the violation of the law in case if nonviolent methods do not ensure execution of the law. Due to physical coercion and indiscriminate use of special equipment by the police, number of (more than 200) individuals, who were not allowed to leave the territory of the rally, have received different body injuries, while two of them have died. In addition, according to an order of Ivane Merabishvili, demonstrators were detained indiscriminately and in large quantities, which was illegal, because according to the law an administrative detention of an individual is permitted only when other measures of stopping administrative violation are exhausted. Violent actions applied based on the order of Ivane Merabishvili, which was given abusing official authority, has caused violation of legitimate interests of the state and its citizens. Third case: From December 18, 2004, until June 30, 2012, Ivane Merabishvili served as the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia and according to paragraph G of the Part 3 of the Article 1 of the Law of Georgia “On Public Service”, he represented state political official. He, as a Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, was responsible for strengthening of rule of law and ensuring of the protection of human rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia. On January 27, 2006, at about 23:00, in café-bar “Sharden Bar” in Tbilisi, following individuals were gathered to celebrate the birthday of the Head of General Inspection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Vasil Sanodze: Tamar Merabishvili (Salakaia) wife of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili, Davit Akhalaia, Head of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Oleg Melnikov, operational officer of the same department, Guram Donadze, Head of the Press Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ana Kalandadze and her friend Tatia Maisuradze. Later, A.(S)G. and his friend L.B. arrived at the same bar. When entering the bar, A.G. noticed Tatia Maisuradze and since he had close relations with her and spoke with her on the phone before arriving at the bar, approached her and in front of others began talking with her in a rough manner and high tone, because Tatia Maisuradze concealed from him the fact that she was in “Sharden Bar”. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

This quarrel between Tatia Maisuradze and A.G. was noticed by the friend of A.G., Zaal Kurtsikashvili, who was in the same bar. In order to avoid possible problems, he took A.G. away from the table of the wife of the Minister of internal Affairs, T. Merabishvili (Salakaia) and told one of the persons sitting there that his friend was drunk and apologized for his behavior. Despite this, A.G. continued to make reproaches. As a result, Zaal Kurtsikishvili made another rebuke to A.G. and asked him to calm down. Later Tatia Maisuradze moved to the table where A.G. was sitting and their conversation involving sharp gestures continued, during which A.G. spoke regarding one of the officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs sitting at the Minister’s wife’s table in insulting manner. Tense conversation between A.G. and Tatia Maisuradze and remarks regarding them was noticed by the members of the Tatia Maisuradze’s table, namely by Ana Kalandadze. She approached the table of A.G. and Tatia Maisuradze several times to find out what was going on between them. After Tatia Maisuradze returned to Vasil Sanodze’s table, A.G. who was angry with this fact, made insulting remarks loudly using sharp gestures. Because of this, Zaal Kurtsikashvili approached him and told that he was leaving the bar, regarding which A.G. replied that he would leave the bar after drinking the coffee as well. By the order of Data Akhalaia, who was angry for A.G.’s behavior, Oleg Melnikov made several phone calls to physically punish A.G. As a result of these calls, officials of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Geronti Alania, Avtandil Aptsiauri, Aleksandre Ghachava, Mikheil Bibiluridze, Davit Kokiashvili, Ioseb Khasaia, Valerian Metreveli and others arrived near “Sharden Bar” towards Freedom Square and Leselidze Street. After certain period of time, A.G. and his friend left the bar and went out. Following the order of Data Akhalaia, Oleg Melnikov went after them to point out A.G. for the officials of the Constitutional Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Oleg Melnikov once again delivered Data Akhalaia’s order to Geronti Alania – to restrain their freedom illegally and physically punish them, after which G. Alania, together with other accompanying persons, Aleksandre Ghachava and Davit Kokiashvili, pushed A.G. and his friend into the car by force, illegally restrained their freedom and abducted them out of the city, towards Okrokana cemetery, 6 kilometers away from Tbilisi. At the spot, they were joined by Avtandil Aptsiauri and Mikheil Bibiluridze. Abductors stripped off A.G.’s and his friend’s clothes in a hard frost and beat them severely. On January 28, 2006, at about 15:00, on the territory adjacent to Okrokana cemetery friends of A.G. discovered his corpse with numerous wounds. According to the conclusion of the forensic expertize, the wound in the area of the throat has caused asphyxia and the death. Friend of the A.G., L.B., who was left at the cemetery severely beaten and naked, managed to reach the road and temporarily find a shelter in the nearest gas station. From there, he contacted patrol police, who took him to the Matatsminda-Krtsanisi police station the same morning. At the initial stage of the investigation, Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili met with the individuals detained for the crime against A.G. at the “Moduli” building, where he cheered them up and took an alcoholic drink with them. Later the “secret” letters were composed: “secret” letter N16/27(S) of February 24, 2006, from Data Akhalaia to Ivane Merabishvili; “Secret” letter N16/12(S) of February 24, 2006, from Ivane Merabishvili to Prosecutor General of Georgia, Zurab Adeishvili, in which Minister of Internal Affairs was DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

sending secret letter of the Head of Constitutional Security Department, Data Akhalaia, to the Prosecutor General for further reaction, while Ivane Merabishvili in a few days after the crime was committed, knew precisely all the details of the case and identities of those involved. Despite this, he did not allow the Head of Tbilisi Police Main Division, Merab Baghaturia to detain the officials of the Constitutional Security Department. Fourth case: From December 18, 2004, until June 30, 2012, Ivane Merabishvili served as the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia and he represented state political official. On July 13, 2015, Member of the Parliament, Valeri Gelashvili was physically assaulted, organized by Ivane Merabishvili. By the order of Merabishvili, Erekle Kodua, using officials and special task unit members subordinated to him, organized and headed criminal act aimed at physical punishment of the Member of the Parliament of Georgia, Valeri Gelashvili and illegal seizure of his personal belongings and legally owned firearm. Fifth case: In July 2004, a meeting was held in the administrative building of the Ministry of Security of Adjara Autonomous Republic, on Griboedovi Street in Batumi, with participation of then Prosecutor General of Georgia, Zurab Adeishvili and Minister of State Security of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili, regarding the case of liquidation of JSC Maritime Bank of Georgia. At the meeting, which was headed by Zurab Adeishvili and Ivane Merabishvili, transfer of amounts from the accounts of foundations created by the stockholders of the JSC Maritime Bank of Georgia and related individuals to special accounts was discussed. This required increase of financial resources at JSC Maritime Bank of Georgia by the way of returning loans given to individuals and legal entities in the shortest period, despite the fact that in some cases terms of loan agreements had not expired yet. Ivane Merabishvili and Zurab Adeishvili gave an illegal assignment to the participants of the meeting to summon debtors of the JSC Maritime Bank of Georgia to law enforcement agencies and demand from them return of loans by any means. LTD Rtveli XXI had a loan from JSC Maritime Bank of Georgia of 1 389 350 GEL and 574 065 USD. Director of this company, Vakhtang Chakhvadze was summoned to the administrative building of the Financial Police, was told about demand of Zurab Adeishvili and Ivane Merabishvili regarding return of the loan in the shortest period and warned that in case if he did not, the property of LTD Rtveli XXI would be transferred under state ownership. After this company failed to return the loan in time, then prosecutor Givi Papuashvili summoned founders of LTD Rtveli XXI, Teimuraz Megrelishvili and Nodar Modebadze to the administrative building of the Prosecutor’s Office and categorically demanded from them to give the property of Rtveli XXI under state ownership. The founders decided to avoid additional troubles with law enforcement agencies and on September 7, 2004, under the directions of Givi Papuashvili, signed a gift certificated according to which they gave 100% of shares of LTD Rtveli XXI to the Ministry of Economy of Georgia. 7. Date of factually serving the term according to Articles 72, 73, 74 and 98 of the Criminal Code of Georgia: On 21.11.2017 has factually served 2/3 of the term sentenced. 8. Beginning of the sentence, end of the sentence: Beginning of the sentence: 25.06.2018 End of the sentence: 21.02.2020 9. Place of residence before placing to the prison facility: DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Before being arrested, the convict lived at Tbilisi, Petriashvili Street N27/29, apt. N18. According to the convict, after being released he will live at the same addressed. 10. Name (address) of the territorial branch of the LEPL The National Agency of Execution of Non-custodial Sentences and Probation, where the convict will appear after early conditional release: Tbilisi Probation Bureau. 11. Education, profession, skills: With higher education. Has graduated Engineering-Geodesy Faculty of Tbilisi Technical University. 12. Marital status – family circumstances – attitude of the convict towards family members, whether he has minor children, other family members with disabilities or not, financial condition of close relatives and other: Married. Has wife – Tamar Merabishvili (born on 24.05.1981); Children – Misho Merabishvili (born on 04.07.2000), Datuna Merabishvili (born on 08.11.2009); Mother – Zhenia Tumanishvili (born on 03.07.1944); Father – Sergo Merabishvili (born on 17.04.1940); Sister – Marina Merabishvili (born on 22.06.1972). Contacts family members during short meetings at prison facility and by phone. Financial condition of the family is average. 13. Fines and status of their payment (in case if such information exists): According to personal case file, he has not been fined. 14. Reimbursement of the damage inflicted to an aggrieved person (in case if such information exists): According to convict, he has no aggrieved persons. 15. Position of the aggrieved person (consent) towards the convict (in case if such information exists): According to convict, he has no aggrieved persons. 16. Motivation of the convict towards changes. Information regarding his readiness towards self-development and change (desire, future plans, skills): The convict plans to return to the family after release. 17. Information regarding participation of the convict into social activities while serving the prison term (employment, professional, crafts, psychological-rehabilitation, sports, cultural events): During his stay at the N9 penitentiary facility of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, he has not participated in social activities. 18. Risk-factors (susceptibility towards emotional aggression, tendency of antisocial behavior, psychological vulnerability, etc.): Based on psychological interviewing, the convict does not express emotional aggression, no tendency of antisocial behavior has been observed. 19. Defensive factors (e.g. motivation to change behavior, social support, etc.): DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

The beneficiary speaks adequately, easily establishes contact, is visually well-organized. Problems regarding adapting with the environment is not observed. While serving in a solitary confinement, he follows healthy way of life, reads scientific literature. Does not have specific future plans, but positively views the future and would like to spend time with his family. 20. Attitude towards the crime committed: The beneficiary feels responsibility for the crime committed. 21. Disciplinary punishment or reward during serving the prison term (when, the reason and description): He was rewarded once during the prison term: 1. By the order N15 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 on 11.04.2014, he was allowed an additional short meeting.

Has been subjected to disciplinary punishment twice during the prison term: 1. By the order N19176 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.07.2014 the convict was prohibited to use allowed objects, because he physically insulted Deputy Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia and verbally insulted employees of the Facility’s administration. 2. By the order N238249 of the Director of the Penitentiary Facility N9 of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia, on 09.03.2015 the use allowed objects was limited, because the convict was loudly insulting administration of the Penitentiary Facility from his cell. Despite the warning given to him by the employees of the facility, he continued to insult them. 22. Information regarding fulfillment of the statute and schedule of the penitentiary facility, legal requirements of the administration, duties according to the law and maintaining the regime of the facility by the convict during the period of serving the prison term: The convict follows everyday schedule, legal regime and requirements of the administration. 23. Behavior of the convict within the facility. His attitude towards the representatives of the facility administration and other prisoners (aggressive, conflictual, or polite): The convict is polite towards the facility and representatives of the administration. 24. Facts of committing crime in past, past convictions (an Article of the Criminal Code of Georgia, date of release and grounds) (in case if such information exists): According to personal case file, the convict Ivane Merabishvili has not been convicted in past. 25. Use of an amnesty, pardon, early conditional release, conditional sentence, change of unserved sentence towards less severe form of punishment and their results (in case if such information exists): First case: Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment sentenced by Kutaisi City Court on February 17, 2014 – 10 years – was halved and the final term was established for 5 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Second case: Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment sentenced by Tbilisi City Court on February 27, 2014 – 6 years – was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. Third case: Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment sentenced by Tbilisi City Court on October 20, 2014 – 4 years – was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 3 years of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. Fourth case: Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment sentenced by Tbilisi City Court on September 22, 2016 – 9 years – was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 6 years and 9 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. Fifth case: Based on the Law of Georgia “on Amnesty” of December 28, 2012, the term of imprisonment sentenced by Tbilisi City Court on May 3, 2017 – 3 years – was reduced by one fourth and the final term was established for 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment in the penitentiary facility. 26. Any additional punishment (in case if such information exists): Convict Ivane Merabishvili has not been sentenced to any additional term. The Council, based on evaluation criteria defined by the Article 13 of the Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils, has discussed without oral hearing and inquired attitude of the convict towards administration of the prison facility, that currently he does not express aggressive behavior towards the staff of the Penitentiary Facility N9 and obeys legal requirements of the administration. Positively assessed the fact of rewarding him and reviewed information regarding his family circumstances. On the other hand, the council paid attention to the character and gravity of the crime, namely that there is an aggregation of crimes. The convict was found guilty for crimes of different category and gravity, including for especially grave crime. He has committed number of crimes abusing his official position and authority. In addition, the convict was accomplice in a crime against human health causing injuries, including intentional severe injuries by the group, of more than 200 individuals. Attention was also paid to the fact that while serving the prison term, the behavior of the convict has twice caused disciplinary sanctions, including for violent act. The council has also noted the fact that Threat Assessment Team has defined high threat risk for the convict. While discussing the issue of early conditional release by the Local Council, the gravity and character of the crime, as well as circumstances in which this crime was committed, had special negative influence. In addition, behavior of the convict during his imprisonment was reviewed – how many and which types of disciplinary actions were used against him. Thus, the Council considered that at this stage the negative opinions accompanying these criteria were not nullified and outweighed by other positive criteria. The Council, guided by Articles 12 and 72 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the Prison Code of Georgia, as well as by Statute of Quantity and Territorial Jurisdiction of Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia and based on the analysis of the information provided has

Decided

1. The motion filed to the First Local Council of Eastern Georgia of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation of Georgia regarding early conditional release of the convict Ivane Merabishvili has not been satisfied at this stage. 2. The motion can be reviewed again only after 6 months, except the case when term of the sentence does not exceed 6 months and/or if there is special circumstance. Reviewing of the issue regarding early conditional release of the convict is mandatory every 6 months. If the prison term remaining does not exceed 6 months, the council reviews early conditional release of the convict based on convict’s written appeal. 3. The proper penitentiary facility should be informed regarding this decision in a written form within 10 working days. 4. The decision can be disputed by administrative regulations within one month after its official introduction, at the Chamber of Administrative Cases of the Tbilisi City Court (David Aghmashenebeli Alley 12th km, N6, Tbilisi)

Acting Chairman of the Council: Vladimer Dzmanashvili DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Annex 4 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said ~rRepresentative, \~ without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. C::::: PARLIAMENT OF GEORGIA PARLIAMENTARY MINORITY

DGI 18 SEP. 2018

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH HE Ambassador Satu MATTILA-BUDICH Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Finland to the Council of Europe Chairperson of the CM/DH Strasbourg, France .. August 10 2018

Your Excellency, Dear Ambassador

With this letter, we am transmitting to you, as the Chairperson of Human Rights Meetings of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies (CM/DH), the attached address to the members of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies signed by 20 members of Parliament of Georgia.

We would be most grateful for your support in distributing the attached address to the members of the Committee.

Yours faithfully,

David Bakradze, Minority Leader Chairman of European Georgia – Movement for Liberty Member of the Georgian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Giorgi Kandelaki, MP Member of the Georgian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Attachment: Four (4) pages

To: members of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe

Dear Ambassador,

As you are aware, in its landmark decision published on 14 June 2016 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that fundamental rights of the former Prime Minister of Georgia – imprisoned since 2013 – were violated by the Georgian state party. The Court specifically established that Article 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights was breached in relation to Article 5 and that the authorities pursued “ulterior motive” and “hidden agenda” when prosecuting him. On 27 November 2017 the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court confirmed the earlier unanimous decision.

In almost 60-year history of the European Court there are only seven cases, including that of Mr Merabishvili, in which breach of Article 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights was established, but first time ECtHR’s Grand Chamber has addressed the issue. Mr Merabishvili is only third politician in relation to whom this breach was established by the Strasbourg Court and the first case of this kind in the history of Georgia. Article 18 of the Convention is essentially an article prohibiting governments to use restrictive measures (such as arrest and/or prosecution) for reasons other than those considered legitimate by the Convention - for instance, political motivation. In other words, in addition to declaring Mr Merabishvili’s continued detention in breach of article (5§3) of the Convention, the Court unanimously established that the reasons of restrictive measures applied to Mr Merabishvili (arrest and detention) were not those declared by the Government of Georgia, but rather the Government was politically motivated in those actions. Thus, while the Court does not use definition of “political prisoner” in any of its cases, this decision, virtually declares Mr Merabishvili to be a political prisoner just like Mr Lutsenko, Ms Timoshenko and others were.

Unfortunately, reaction of the Georgian authorities to this landmark judgment has been disappointing. Senior Georgian Government figures have tried to downplay its significance and have argued that payment of 4,000 EUR to Mr Merabishvili would constitute its actual execution. In addition, by exploiting timeframe allowed by relevant procedures to their limit, the Georgian State party has been trying to delay discussion of the matter by the CM DH.

In the Annual Human Rights Report presented to the Georgian Parliament on 12 July of this year the Georgian Public Defender (Ombudsman) Nino Lomjaria (see Annex I) called the Georgian authorities for timely execution of the judgment also mentioning that in most cases when violation of Article 18 is found member states tend to release individuals in question.

Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that the implementation of the execution is still not on the agenda of the DH meeting in September not least because the Georgian Government has chosen to fully exhaust deadlines allowed by different procedures, essentially pursuing delay tactics. In this light, our most sincere request to members of the Committee of Ministers would be to discuss the execution of the judgment without further delay at earliest possible convenience and call upon the Georgian authorities to release Mr Merabishvili as it has done in all other Article 18 judgments.

Sincerely,

Irakli Abesadze, MP

David Bakradze, Chairman

George Bokeria, MP

Mamuka Chikovani, MP

Khatuna Gogorishvili, MP

Tengiz Gunava, MP

Otar Kakhidze, MP

Giorgi Kandelaki, MP

Sergi Kapanadze, MP

Lela Keburia, MP

ZazaKedelashvili, MP

Elene Khoshtaria, MP

Irma Nadirashvili, MP

Sergo Ratiani, MP - .a

Zur ab Tchiaberashvili, MP

George Tsereteli, MP

George Tugushi, MP

Lasha Damenia, MP

George Gviniashvili, MP

Akaki Bobokhidze, MP

ANNEX I

Annual Report of the Public Defender of Georgia The Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia for 2017

6.3. THE CASE OF IVANE MERABISHVILI

In the case of Ivane Merabishvili, the European Court of Human Rights found a serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person for the purposes other than those prescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights.207 For the restoration of this right, Georgia has yet to carry out effective measures. The violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with a serious interference with the right to liberty of person is a rare occasion in the European Court’s practice.208 In such cases, the respondent states mostly respond with the domestic measures involving the applicant’s release.209209 The Public Defender of Georgia deems that for the enforcement of the European Court’s judgment regarding Ivane Merabishvili, the Georgian authorities, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, should take all necessary individual and general measures for comprehensive and timely execution of the judgments as required by article 46 of the European Convention.210

207 Merabishvili v. Georgia, application no. 72508/13, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 November 2017. 208 The violation of Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were only found in 7 cases: Gusinskiy v. Russia ( application no. 70276/01); Cebotari v. Moldova (application no. 35615/06); Lutsenko v. Ukraine (application no. 6492/11); Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (application no. 49872/11); Merabishvili v. Georgia (application no. 72508/13); Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 69981/14); and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 919/15). All the applicants, except for Ilgar Mammadov have been released from the places of deprivation of liberty. 209 Among other examples, the following cases are noteworthy: Ukraine released former Prime Minister Tymoshenko by a parliamentary resolution and released former Minister of Internal Affairs by a presidential pardon; Azerbaijani journalist Rasul Jafarov was also released by a presidential pardon. Information is available at: https://rm.coe.int/compilation-decisions-2014-2018-en-/168077e33a, (accessed on 4.3.2018). 210 Under Article 46.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Annex 5Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. DGI 18 SEP. 2018

SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION Tbilisi, 16 August 2018 DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH

HE Ambassador Miroslav PAPA Chair of the Ministers' Deputies of the Council of Europe Permanent Representative of Croatia to the Council of Europe Strasbourg,France

E-mail: [email protected]

Your Excellency,

With this letter, we the undersigned, applying to you as the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies regarding the execution of the ECHR Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia, which is pending at the Hu man Rights meetings of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies.

We would highly appreciate your support in providing the members of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies with the attached information about the details of the case in question.

Attachment: Jpages.

Yours faithfully,

Roman Gotsiridze Member of Parliament of Georgia Chair of the Faction "United National Movement"

Nick Melia Member of the Parliament of Georgia Chair of the United National Movement Political Council

Salome Samadashvili Member of the Parliament of Georgia Deputy Chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations Head of Mission of Georgia to the European Union (2005- DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Tinatin Bokuchava Member of the Parliament of Georgia Deputy Ambassador to the Swiss Confederation, Deputy Chief of Georgia's Mission to the United Nations Office at e eva (2010-2012)

Koba Nakopia Member of the Parliament of Georgia

Azer Suleimanov Member of the Parliament of Georgia

Giorgi Baramidze ~ Vice Prime Minister, St e inis er of t tlantic Integration of Georgia (2005-2012)

Grigol Vashadze Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia (2008-2012y / J

Petre Tsiskarishvili 1/ Head of Georgia's Dele tian to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2008-2012)

Levan Bezhashvili

Auditor General of Georgia (2008-2 21J

Akaki Minashvili _? ) Chair of the Foreign Relations ommittee of the Parliament of Georgia (2008-2012)

Irakli Kavtaradze Deputy Chair of the Foreign Re lat s Co mittee of the Parliament of Georgia (2008- 2012)

Dimitri Shashkini Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia (2009) Minister of Education and Science ofGeorgia (2009-2012) Minister of Defence of Georgia (2012) <----._,.-L·:...______~==-oç.,:------· Khatia Dekanoidze Director of the Police Academy of Georgia (2007-2012) Minister of Education and Science of Georgia (2012) DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Eka Tkeshelashvili Former ti?~ ~· Minister for foreign "':;::-=>- affairs of Georgia

Levan Duchidze Former Ambassador of Georgia I // .,/ .1-.,'-1,,.,<.1 -- to Germany / i • -·· DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Government of Georgia refusing to execute the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR

13.08.18

On November 28, 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), by a majority, found violations of Articles 5§3 and 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights in the case of former Prime-Minister of Georgia, Ivane Merabishvili. This Decision of the Grand Chamber upholds the unanimous decision of the Fourth Section of the ECHR adopted in June of 2016. In almost 60-year history of the ECHR there are only seven cases, including that of Ivane Merabishvili, in which breach of Article 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights was established by the section of the ECHR and the first one by the Grand Chamber. Ivane Merabishvili is only third politician in relation to whom this breach was established by the Court and first case of this kind in the history of Georgia. As of today, Mr Merabishvili remains the only person remaining in custody after winning Article 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 18 of the Convention is essentially an ai1icle prohibiting govemments to use restrictive measures (such as arrest and/or prosecution) for reasons other than those considered legitimate by the Convention - for instance, political motivation. In other words, in addition to declaring lvane Merabishvili's continued detention in breach of article 5§3 of the Convention, the Fourth Section unanimously and the Grand Chamber by majority established that the reasons of restrictive measures applied to Merabishvili (arrest and detention) were not those declared by the Govemment of Georgia, but rather the Government was politically motivated in those actions. Thus, while the Court does not use definition of "political prisoner" in any of its cases, this decision, virtually declares Mr Merabishvili to be a political prisoner just like Mr Lutsenko, Ms Timoshenko and others were. The basis of the Article 18 finding in Mr Merabishvili's case was his covert removal from his prison cell on December 14, 2013, when he was taken to meet the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia and the Head of the Georgian Prison Service, who attempted to blackmail him into giving information about former President Saakashvili, and about the death of former Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania. The Government of Georgia has always denied that this ever occurred, and continued to do so throughout the litigation of the case, including at the Grand Chamber. However, the Grand Chamber explicitly found that the cove11 removal did happen (as the Fourth Section had found earlier). There was unanimity on this point - in other words, the dissenting judges did not dissent on the basis of any factual dispute about the cove1i removal. Despite this finding, in the light of statements made by Ministers after the Grand Chamber judgment was handed down, the Georgian Government appears to continue to deny that Mr Merabishvili's covert removal and questioning ever took place. In all but one of the other cases in which the ECHR has found a violation of Article 18, the complainants were subsequently released - and in none of the cases did the Court expressly call for the complainant's release. The only exception until August 13, 2018, was the case of Jlgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan who, similar to Mr Merabishvili, was detained and subsequently convicted to 7 years. As a consequence of the failure of the Azerbaijani authorities to release Mr Mammadov, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, responsible for the Supervision of execution of judgments of the ECHR, decided on 5 December 2017 to instigate infringement proceedings and as a consequence, the Azerbaijani Govemment was taken back before the ECHR, charged with failing to implement the judgment in that case. On August 13, 2018, Mr Mammadov was released by Appeal Court, changing his conviction to conditional sentence. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

ln previous cases in which the Court has found violations of both Articles 5 and 18 in the course of criminal proceedings, the question of the re-opening of the domestic proceedings, or other alternative means of ensuring the rehabilitation of the applicants, was central to the supervision process pursued by the Committee of Ministers. Mr Merabishvili submits that any finding of a violation of Article 18 is so serious that, in effect, it taints the criminal justice process, as one which simply cannot be relied on. It is emphasized that, in his case, the Grand Chamber's finding was based on the applicant's covert removal involving both the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia and the Head of the Georgian Prison Service. The Court also took account of the 'bitter political antagonism between [political parties] UNM and Georgian Dream' (para. 329), noting that courts in France, Greece and the United Kingdom had tumed clown requests by the Georgian authorities for the extradition of two high-ranking former officiais from UNM on the basis, inter alia, that the criminal prosecutions against them were politically motivated (para. 330). The findings of the Grand Chamber demonstrate the Court's view that the improper motives which led to its finding of a violation of Article 18 extended beyond the date of Mr Merabishvili 's covert removal and have continued to influence his treatment by the authorities to the present day. For example, the Grand Chamber drew attention to the authorities' subsequent comments on and investigation into bis removal. In particular, it noted that the inquiry conducted by the General Inspection of the Ministry of Corrections in December 2013, as well as an investigation carried out by the Chief Prosecutor' s Office in June 2016 - Febrnary 2017, into his removal were "marred by a series of omissions from which it can be infened that the authorities were eager that the matter should not corne to light" including the fact that "crncial evidence" such as the footage from prison surveillance cameras were never recovered. Fm1her, the Grand Chamber highlighted as "pai1icularly telling" the Govemment's submissions during the hearing itself that there was still a "huge question" for Mr Merabishvili in relation to Mr Zhvania's death (para. 352). Y et another important fact, putting under question an inquiry into covert removal of Mr Merabishvili from his prison cell conducted by the General Inspection of the Ministry of Corrections in December 2013, is participation of then Head of General Inspection, Mirza Subeliani, into cover up of another crime. In December 2017, two teenagers were killed by peers, among whom were son of Mr Subeliani and his close relative. Mr Subeliani, who worked at the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia at that time, allegedly participated in concealing of their crime and later influenced the investigation. The decision of the court on this case stirred a mass protests in Georgia and caused a political crisis in May-June of 2018. As a result of this crisis, the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia bas resigned, Mirza Subeliani was detained and Parliamentary Investigative Commission for this case was set up. Despite this, the protest rallies continued and unofficially this crisis served as a reason for the resignation of the Prime-Minister of Georgia a few days later. Number of opposition politicians, including former President and representatives of different parties and organizations claim that Mirza Subeliani remained untouchable for six months until mass protests, because he owns video footage of covert removal of Mr Merabishvili from his prison cell in December 2013, when he was the Head of General Inspection of the Ministry of Corrections and headed the inquiry. According to them, Mr Subeliani has been blackmailing the representatives of the govemment using these recordings to ensure that his son remains clear in this case. 1 The attention should also be drawn to the 2015 report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on Georgia, in which the CPT states that current condition of detention of Mr Merabishvili "could be considered as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment."

1 See Annex 1 DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

In the latest annual report, the Public Defender of Georgia refers to Mr Merabishvili' s case, noting that "the Govemment of Georgia has yet to conduct effective measures to ensure restoration of [Mr Merabishvili 's rights ]" (para. 6.3 ). The Public Defender "believes that in order to execute the decision of the European Court regarding Ivane Merabishvili, the Govemment of Georgia, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, must conduct every necessary individual and general measures to execute the decision of the Court fully and in timely manner, as required by Article 46 of the European Convention."

The report goes on to make two recommendations - ( 1) to the Govemment of Georgia - to conduct individual, as well as general, measures to fully restore the rights violated against Ivane Merabishvili and (2) to the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia - to conduct a new, effective, thorough and detailed investigation regarding the fact of removal of Ivane Merabishvili from the prison cell and prosecute every possible offender.

On June 15, 2018, Public Defender of Georgia, Nino Lomjaria made a statement underlining that ECHR has confinned cove1i removal of Mr Merabishvili from his prison cell and called to investigate, identify and punish everyone involved in it.

On June 4, 2018, the Govemment of Georgia has submitted before the Committee of Ministers the Action Plan and comments of the Govemment with respect to the execution of the case - Merabishvili v. Georgia. Govemment states that there is no need of any urgent individual measures, e.g. release of the applicant, because he serves his sentence on the basis of several criminal judgements and not all of them have been subjected to the Court's adjudication in its Grand Chamber judgement. This argument is typical response coming from Govemments' when violation of Article 18 is being found together with Article 5. That is what Govemments of Ukraine and Azerbaijan brought to react on pressure regarding Applicants' release - as were the cases of Tymoshenko, Lutsenko and Mammadov. It is noteworthy, that Government of Georgia has launched numerous criminal cases against applicant and some of them are still pending, so that justification presented cannot be considered as a valid argument in this case, because violation of Article 18 together with Article 5 is so serious that, in effect, it taints the criminal justice process, as one which simply cannot be relied on. In the cases in which the European Court has found a violation of Article 18, the complainants were subsequently released - that is emphasized in the letter of Committee of Ministers of December 5, 2017, to instigate infringement proceedings in the case of Mammadov v. Azerbaijan and as a consequence, Azerbaijan was taken back before the European Court, charged with failing to implement the judgment in that case. Committee of Ministers called for immediate release of the Applicant, despite the fact that Mr Mammadov was also convicted in 2014 for 7 years, like Mr Merabishvili and he also served his sentence in Prison.

As for Mr Merabishvili's convictions - Govemment of Georgia in 2013 has officially invited OSCE ODIHR for Monitoring the trials of former high level officials. Monitoring group stated, that "Based on the above observations regarding specific fair trial rights difficulties - often of a systemic nature - it can be concluded that the respect of fair trial rights in the monitored cases was not fully guaranteed by the Georgian criminal justice system". And particularly about the case against Mr Merabishvili has emphasized, that "In a case where the defendant was convicted of exceeding official powers, the court failed to say what the limits of the defendant's powers were, and how the defendant exceeded those limits, aside from noting that the defendant did not have the authority to commit illegal acts. In order to assess whether and how a defendant exceeded official powers, the limits of those powers must first be established". Therefore, even the minimum standards for substantiation of Judicial Decisions were not met.

The Govemment of Georgia declare their readiness to conduct additional investigative and legislative DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

measures in order to address specific deficiencies found by the Court in relation to alleged covert removal of the applicant from his prison cell on 14 December 2013. It should be noted, that On 3 September 201 7, MP Otar Kakhidze requested that the Parliament of Georgia set up an independent inquiry commission to investigate Mr Merabishvili's removal from prison. This request is still pending before the Parliament.

Following Mr Merabishvili becoming eligible for parole, having served 4 years and 6 months (i.e. two thirds of his sentence), in December of 2017, the Parole Board considered his application for early conditional release as required by domestic law. According to Criminal Code of Georgia and Imprisonment Code of Georgia, a convict is eligible for early conditional release after serving two thirds of the sentence if the crime falls in the category of "grave crimes" or after serving three quaiiers if the is falls in "especially grave crimes". According to the judgements of the courts, the most severe sentences of Mr Merabishvili fall in the category of "grave" crimes. Although the Parole Board is an independent body, a number of high ranking politicians, including Ministers and Members of Parliament, made statements advocating that Mr Merabishvili should not be released from custody, in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome of Mr Merabishvili' s application for release. 2 On December 25, 2017, the Board refused Mr Merabishvili's early conditional release on the grounds of the gravity of the crimes for which he was sentenced, as well as due to new verdict (for 2 years and 3 months) adopted by the court in May of 201 7. The decision of the Parole Board was disputed by attorneys of Mr Merabishvili at the Appeal Court in March 2018, but the case is still pending.

Later, on June 25, 2018, by the decision of the court, the new verdict was absorbed by the previous, most severe sentence (6 years and 9 months), three quarters of which Mr Merabishvili has already served in prison. Therefore, no grounds were left for the Board to refuse Mr Merabishvili's early release. Despite this, on July 4, 2018, the Parole Board again refused to release Mr Merabishvili on the grounds of gravity of the verdicts against him. He therefore remains in prison. On 16 January 2018, Zhenia Merabishvili, Mr Merabishvili's mother, submitted an application for a Presidential Pardon. On March 28-29, the Pardon Commission under the Administration of the President, dismissed this request. Thus, as mentioned in the beginning, as of today, Mr Merabishvili rernains the only person remaining in custody after winning Article 18 of the European Convention of Hu man Rights. The response of the Georgian Govemment to the Grand Chamber judgment should fully recognize the gravity of the European Court' s acknowledgment of the misuse of power in the course of criminal proceedings against a leading opposition politician. In view of the severity of a finding of a violation of Article 18, Mr Merabishvhili submits that the appropriate approach of the Georgian authorities to implementing the Grand Chamber's judgment should be as follows: 1. to instigate a rigorous, independent investigation into Mr Merabishvili 's covert removal on 14 December 2013 to ensure the accountability of those responsible; 2. to re-open the criminal proceedings against him in order to achieve full restitutio in integrum, a process which might justify the quashing of his conviction; and 3. pending the outcome of the re-opening of the criminal proceedings, to order Mr Merabishvili' s release.

' See Annex 2 DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Annex 1

Statements of the representatives of opposition and different organizations regarding the role of Mirza Subeliani in lvane Merabishvili's case

27. 05.18 - Former President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili - Mirza Subeliani was a Head of the General Inspection of the Ministry of Corrections... [he] participated in the removal of Vano Merabishvili from the prison cell. Since Vano Merabishvili' s case is in the Strasburg court and this was a crime , they cannot touch this persan. It seems that he owns certain documents. Thus, they covered up Mirza Subeliani's family. 19 .04.18 - Head of Law Enforcement Reform Center, Zviad Kuprava - I have the information that Mirza Subeliani has Vano Meraboshvili's footage. When it happened he was the head of the General Inspection at the Ministry of Corrections and had exclusive access to the video footage. Today, Subeliani black.mails the prosecutor's office.

31.05.18 - Secretary General of the European Georgia, Giorgi Ugulava - there is a high probability that this is connected to the removal of Vano Merabishvili from the prison cell. Mirza Subeliani was a Head of the General Inspection at that time. In this case they cover not only him, but [Chief Prosecutor] Shotadze and [former Chief Prosecutor] Partskhaladze. 31.05.18 - Member of the UNM, Levan Khabeishvili - high ranking officials are involved in this. Discussion regarding the fact that Mirza Subeliani owns footages of the removal of Vano Merabishvili has been ongoing for months and this does not make this case to see the end. 12 .06.18 - Member of the Republican Party, Tamar Kordzaia - Mirza Subeliani has video footage of the removal of Vano Merabishvili from his prison cell .. . Case of Vano Merabishvili's removal is destroying this government and maybe this caused their infighting, because this case may pull others as well .. .

15.06.18 - Public Defender of Georgia, Nino Lomjaria - 1 have repeatedly noted that the investigation should be revised and it should be found out who and why was involved in this process. The investigation and the government should take this step as it is related to other systemic problems that lead to informai governance in the law enforcement systems. For example, we know that Mr. Mirza Subeliani was arrested, he pleaded guilty, but this does not change anything . We had repeatedly heard that he was a former high-ranking official of the Ministry of Corrections and his influences were connected to Vano Merabishvili's removal from prison. This was in fact confirmed by the Strasbourg Court. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Annex 2

Statements of Government officiais and MPs regarding the decision of the ECHR and possible release of lvane Merabishvili

02.11.17 - Minister of Justice, Tea Tsulukiani - no matter what the Strasbourg Court's decision is, it will not cause Vano Merabishvili' s release. 28 .11 .17 - It is impossible, he was already found guilty, - was an answer of the Mayor of Tbilisi, Kakha Kaladze, to the demands of the Parliamentary Minority of releasing former Prime Minister Vano Merabishvili based on the decision of the ECHR. 28.11.17 - Minister of Corrections, Sozar Subari - Merabishvili's custody will not be revised. This decision of the court does not have anything in common with Merabishvili's custody. 28.11.17 - MP Levan Gogichaishvili - This decision will not affect the condition of Vano Merabishvili, the cases that were launched against him, the verdicts that were made regarding him and the cases that may be launched in future. 28.11.17 - MP Anri Okhanashvili - This decision does not mean that Mr. Merabishvili is being released or will be released.

29.11.17 - Minister of Justice, Tea Tsulukiani - Since the dispute is over now, I can openly declare that despite of what Strasbourg has established regarding removal from the cell, that is not important for me 30.11.17 - MP Levan Gogichaishvili - Decision of Strasbourg will not affect the ongoing verdict that Vano Merabishvili has, as well as the charges that are against him. Other charges may be brought against him in future, since the investigation is constantly working regarding the crimes that he has committed during those years.

02.12.17 - MP Nukri Kantaria - Strasbourg is of course a very authoritative institution, but even it is not above the sky ... Of course, liberation is not threatening Merabishvili and I would like to say, as I said before, everyone should be cairn in this regard. Everyone must serve their sentence and large part of society still believe that this is a very small sentence for those crimes that he has committed. 17 .12.17 MP Archil Talakvadze, Leader of the Parliamentary Majority ( commenting the statement of MPs of Estonia calling for the release of Vano Merabishvili) - the appeal belongs to 4 people, one of them was the Georgian governmenf s hired consultant in 2008. The European Court has clearly stated in its decision that political motivation in Mr Merabishvili's case and his detention is excluded. 20.12.17 - Minister of Justice, Tea Tsulukiani - violation of the article 18 is not what you have been expecting for. You have been waiting for granting the status of the political prisoner through the Strasbourg court and could not manage that. If you ask me if Vano should be released from the prison, I believe that it should not happen. because he is serving a sentence. 21.12.17 - Minister of Justice, Tea Tsulukiani - do not tell the society that the result was the same as in the cases of Lutsenko and Tymoshenko. Every day of Vano Merabishvili's custody was admitted as legal by Strasbourg court! This is the answer and nothing else can be said regarding this question. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Additional statements of Government officiais and MPs regarding decision of the ECHR

28.12.17 - MP Sopio Kiladze, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Parliament and member of the Parole Board - even if we [Parole Board] made a decision in favor of Vano Merabishvili, it is theoretically impossible for him to leave the prison facility in the nearest future ... in case if we used the practice that previous government had, accumulation of sentenced years, and if not the amnesty passed during our government, Vano Merabishvili would have to spend about 31 years in pnson.

28.12.17 - MP Tamar Khulordava - now it is important to see the decision of the Committee of Ministers. The decision of the Committee of Ministers is mandatory for Georgia and Georgia will accomplish it I believe, as we have one of the best records of accomplishing the decisions of the Committee.

23 .01.18 - Vice-Speaker of the Parliament, Tamar Chugoshvili - there is only one episode from the period of his detention, regarding which ECHR established the violation. Regarding this single specific episode, the government will obey the decision of the Ministers' Committee. Ministers' Committee should declare what will be considered as an execution of the decision of the court. I am sure that his release will not and cannot be discussed. Vano Merabishvili is convicted completely legally and fairly and therefore, I am sure that his release will not be discussed. As for that specific episode, I think it will be necessary to launch an investigation into this episode. I am not the one who decides that. Ministers' Committee should establish that.

03.02.18 - President of Georgia, Giorgi Margvelashvili - today Vano Merabishvili is known as the victim by Strasbourg. When we were in the confrontation, could we imagine that in a few years Europe would ask us why this man is a victim?! I used to say about Merabishvili that it would return to us badly that we had to be a little bit more cautious. Today, no one has asked any reply from anyone for this public-political absurd that Vano Merabishvili is a victim. 14.02.18 - President of Georgia, Giorgi Margvelashvili - I don't think Saakashvili and Merabishvili should be pardoned. I cannot go through the details with you, why - yes and why- no. But if I considered that they should be pardoned I would not approach to the matter with taking a political component into account in the process of pardon. 09.05.18 - President of Georgia, Giorgi Margvelashvili - Merabishvili's rights were violated during his imprisonment, but this does not mean that he is a political prisoner ... Let them work out their problem in Strasbourg themselves. I must not always correct their mistakes. Let them take responsibilities. I was saying to investigate the fact of [Merabishvili's] removal from his prison cell. They refused and it came back to us as assault. Someone said that Merabishvili's case is lost in Strasbourg and I am repeatedly told that Merabishvili is a political prisoner and did someone say "I am guilty because this case came to Strasbourg?!"

19 .06.18 - Minister of Justice, Tea Tsulukiani - [MP Otar Kakhidze] is lawyer of Merabishvili and is fighting for his release, but this release cannot and will not happen. DH-DD(2018)928 : Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from a NGO in Merabishvili v. Georgia and reply from the authorities. 9/24/2018 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

საქართველოს იუსტიციის სამინისტრო MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF GEORGIA

1111111111111111 IIIII Ill lllllll Ill Ill KA010146056871718 საქართველო, ქ. თბილისი, 0114, გორგასლის ქ.24 ა. ტელ.: 2 40–51–48, 2 40-58-36; ელ.ფოსტა: [email protected] 24 a, Gorgasali str., 0114, Tbilisi, Tel.: 2 40–51–48, 2 40-58-36, E-MAIL: [email protected] №8926 24 / September / 2018

Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Case Merabishvili v. Georgia (Application No. 72508/13) – Grand Chamber

Dear Sir/Madam,

We hereby acknowledge the receipt of your letter (Ref: DGI/COV/PRK/Ima) dated 19 September 2018 with accompanying documents concerning the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia.

According to the well-established practice of providing updated information regarding execution of pending cases, the Government of Georgia will present updated Action Plan with respect to the case of Merabishvili during October 2018.

In the light of the aforementioned, among other issues, the comments of the Government concerning the above communication will be provided within the framework of updated Action Plan.

Sincerely,

SIGNED/SEALEDr--'I Head of the Department of the State Representation to ELECTRONICALLY UJ Beka DZAMASHVILI the International Courts

ﬁle:///tmp/tomcat8-tomcat8-tmp/e4d3374b-7b4b-4e4f-b019-3c425ec41249.html 1/1