European Court finds Violation of Right to Life in Georgian Case

The European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the European Convention on the Right to Life in the case of Sakvarelidze v. Georgia and ordered the respondent State to pay EUR 25,000 as the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. 

The case originated in an application against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by a Georgian national, Ms. Mariam Sakvarelidze (“the applicant”), on 18 June 2010.

The applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for a road traffic accident that had cost the lives of her son and sister and that the subsequent criminal investigation had been ineffective.

On 4 June 2013, the Government were given notice of the application under Article 2 of the Convention.

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Tbilisi.

On 22 and 23 November 2003, widespread popular protests took place in Georgia. Together with the sequence of events surrounding the change of power, these became known as the “Rose Revolution” As the relations between the relevant political actors were tense at that time, various police forces were mobilized, often patrolling the streets of Tbilisi in their official vehicles. A state of emergency was formally declared by the relevant authorities during those two days.

At around 5.30 p.m. on 22 November 2003 an armored military vehicle (AMV) driven by a State agent, who was either a law-enforcement or military officer at the material time (see paragraph 14 below), violently hit a car, in which the applicant and her family members were traveling, in a street in Tbilisi. As a result of the accident, the applicant’s son, who had been driving the car, and her sister died, while the applicant and her nephews, minor children, sustained serious bodily injuries.

According to the applicant’s version of the events, which was disputed by the Government, the driver of the AMV fled from the scene of the accident without informing the police, calling an ambulance or otherwise providing help to the passengers of the car.

Citing various provisions of the Convention, the applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for the road traffic accident of 22 November 2003 which had cost the lives of her son and sister and that the subsequent criminal investigation had been ineffective. The Court, being the master of the characterization to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider the application under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 2

"Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”

The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation of the fatal road traffic accident of 22 November 2003 was not effective. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

"The applicant claimed 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim as excessive. The Court, making its assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage," reads the verdict of The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

See the full report