The European Court of Human Rights has referred the case concerning the dispersal of protests near the Georgian Parliament in June 2019 to its Grand Chamber. This decision follows a panel of five judges’ review, which determined that the case raises significant questions about the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, known as Tsaava and Others v. Georgia, involves allegations of excessive force used by authorities during the protests, which were sparked by a Russian lawmaker’s controversial speech in the Georgian Parliament.
Background of the Protests
The protests on June 20, 2019, were triggered by the appearance of a Russian lawmaker, Sergei Gavrilov, in the Georgian Parliament. Gavrilov’s presence and his speech from the Speaker’s chair during a session of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy incited widespread outrage among Georgians. Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the Parliament building in Tbilisi, expressing their anger and demanding political accountability. The situation quickly escalated as protesters attempted to storm the Parliament, leading to clashes with riot police.
The authorities responded with force, using tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons to disperse the crowd. The violent dispersal resulted in numerous injuries among protesters, journalists, and bystanders. The events of that night, referred to as “Gavrilov Night,” have since been a focal point of political and social discourse in Georgia. The protesters’ grievances extended beyond the immediate incident, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of relations with Russia and domestic political issues.
The case brought before the European Court of Human Rights involves 26 Georgian nationals who were either participants in the demonstration or journalists covering the event. They allege violations of their rights under several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to an effective remedy.
Legal Proceedings and Findings
The initial judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, delivered on May 7, 2024, found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 in respect to 24 of the applicants. The Court refrained from making a decision on the substantive aspect of Article 3 and the complaints under Articles 10 and 11. The judgment highlighted the failure of the Georgian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of excessive force used during the dispersal of the protests.
The decision to refer the case to the Grand Chamber was made on September 23, 2024. Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a case can be referred to the Grand Chamber if it raises serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or issues of general importance. The Grand Chamber, composed of 17 judges, will now review the case and deliver a final judgment. This process underscores the significance of the case and its potential implications for human rights jurisprudence.
The applicants in the case have argued that the excessive use of force by the authorities violated their rights and that the subsequent investigation was neither thorough nor impartial. They seek recognition of these violations and appropriate remedies. The Georgian government, on the other hand, has defended its actions, citing the need to maintain public order and security during the protests. The Grand Chamber’s judgment will be crucial in addressing these conflicting perspectives and setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Implications for Human Rights and Governance
The referral of the Georgian protest dispersal case to the Grand Chamber has significant implications for human rights and governance in Georgia and beyond. It highlights the importance of accountability and transparency in the use of force by state authorities. The case also underscores the need for effective legal mechanisms to address allegations of human rights violations and ensure justice for victims.
For Georgia, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for its political landscape and its relationship with international human rights institutions. A ruling against the Georgian government could prompt reforms in law enforcement practices and the handling of public demonstrations. It may also influence public opinion and political dynamics within the country, particularly regarding the government’s approach to civil liberties and democratic governance.
On a broader scale, the case sets a precedent for how the European Court of Human Rights addresses allegations of excessive force and the right to peaceful assembly. The Grand Chamber’s judgment will contribute to the development of human rights standards and the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will also serve as a reference for other countries facing similar issues, reinforcing the principles of accountability and the rule of law.
The decision to refer the case to the Grand Chamber reflects the complexity and importance of the issues at stake. It underscores the role of the European Court of Human Rights in safeguarding human rights and providing a forum for addressing grievances. As the case progresses, it will continue to draw attention to the challenges of balancing security and civil liberties in democratic societies.
