The European Court of Human Rights has delivered its ruling in the case of Kezerashvili v. Georgia. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court of Georgia's annulment of the acquittal of the former Minister of Defense was not unreasonable. However, it determined that an article of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated in relation to Kezerashvili.
News
Trending stories
Davit Kezerashvili submitted his application to the Strasbourg Court on February 17, 2022, following the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision on September 7, 2021, to overturn the Court of Appeal's acquittal and sentence him to five years in prison in the so-called Training Case.
At the Strasbourg Court, Kezerashvili argued under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which heard his case, lacked independence and impartiality. He specifically questioned the impartiality of Judge Shalva Tadumadze, who had served as Chief Prosecutor of Georgia in 2018–2019.
Kezerashvili further claimed that the Supreme Court's final judgment against him was unfair, as it had overturned the lower court's acquittal without conducting an oral hearing or providing adequate justification. He also alleged that his prosecution and conviction were driven by ulterior motives aimed at silencing him as a political opponent, in violation of Article 18 (scope of application of restrictions on rights).
The judgment of the Strasbourg Chamber, which includes Georgian Judge Lado Chanturia, was published today, December 5.
“It could not overlook that once Shalva Tadumadze had been appointed as Prosecutor General, he had been answerable for the ongoing activities of the prosecution service, including those in relation to the applicant’s high profile case as the appeal on points of law had been lodged by it just one month before. His inclusion in the bench of judges which later heard the applicant’s case was, in such circumstances, sufficient to cast doubt on the objective impartiality of the Supreme Court in its ruling. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of lack of objective impartiality,” the Court stated.
Regarding the Supreme Court's annulment of the acquittal through written proceedings, the Court observed that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s review was confined to specific legal issues and did not involve a full examination of the case.
The decision noted that Kezerashvili had chosen not to personally participate in any of the oral hearings conducted by the lower courts. Consequently, the Strasbourg Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision to forego an oral hearing did not violate his right to be present, as he himself had claimed.
Concerning the validity of the Supreme Court's decision, the Strasbourg Court considered that the main argument raised by Davit Kezerashvili before the Supreme Court had been addressed, albeit indirectly.
“Namely, the applicant had maintained throughout the proceedings that he could not have been held accountable for embezzlement because some training had actually been provided, as evidenced by witness statements. The Supreme Court addressed this but took the view that the witness statements were irrelevant to determining whether the contract had been implemented. In this respect, the Court emphasised that the absence of the relevant documents – the final quarterly report and the delivery and acceptance certificate to be concluded with the Ministry of Defence upon completion of the training programme – which the Supreme Court considered to be the crucial element warranting the applicant’s conviction, had not been disputed by the applicant at any stage of the proceedings against him,” the decision states.
The Strasbourg Court did not find the Supreme Court of Georgia's conclusions to be arbitrary or manifestly ill-founded to the extent that they undermined the fairness of the proceedings or amounted to a “denial of justice.” Accordingly, the Strasbourg Court determined that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to annul the acquittal through written proceedings.
Concerning the former Minister of Defense’s claim that the charges against him were politically motivated, the Court noted in its judgment that the broader political context alone did not constitute sufficient evidence.
“The other points raised by Mr Kezerashvili, notably allegations relating to Shalva Tadumadze’s links with the ruling party and to an off-the-cuff response given by the Prime Minister to a question following a speech he had given in Parliament were insufficient evidence of an ulterior motive being behind his prosecution and conviction,” the Strasbourg Court ruled, dismissing Davit Kezerashvili’s complaint under Article 18 as manifestly ill-founded.
Davit Kezerashvili had sought EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damages, but the Court held that the finding of a violation in the case constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary harm he may have suffered.
