Demonstrators
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 38. The Criminal Code of 1999, as it read at the material time, recognised discrimination based, among other grounds, on religion, as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a criminal offence (Article 53). Under the Code, the exceeding of official powers resulting in a substantial violation of individuals’ rights (Article 333) and violent resistance towards police officers while the latter engaged in activities aimed at the upholding of public order (Article 353) were both criminal offences. 39. Articles 370-71 of the Criminal Code provided for criminal liability in respect of witnesses who gave false testimony or refused to testify. Article 371 1 provided a sanction of one to three years’ imprisonment for “obstruction of justice” where such obstruction consisted of giving essentially contradictory statements. 40. Article 166 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984 defined minor hooliganism as “swearing and cursing in a public place, [causing] insulting harassment to a person, or other similar actions which disturb public order and peace.” It was punishable by a fine and/or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention. Article 173 of the Code provided that “disobeying a lawful instruction or order [issued by] a law enforcement officer ... or insulting the latter” was punishable by a fine of minimum 250 and maximum 2,000 Georgian laris (GEL) or fifteen days’ administrative detention. 41. Ministerial order no. 34 issued by the Minister of Justice on 7 July 2013 regulated questions regarding investigative jurisdiction in criminal cases. The order, as in force at the material time, provided that an investigation into an offence possibly committed by, inter alia, a police officer, was to be entrusted to a prosecutor. OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL 42. A report by the Public Defender of Georgia (საქართველოს სახალხო დამცველი ) entitled “The Situation Regarding the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia in 2015” referred to the incident in the village of Mokhe and noted that “the representatives of the Public Defender’s office [had] acquainted themselves with the reports on the physical examination on 22 October 2014 of the arrested protesters; [those reports had] confirmed [the presence of] signs of physical injury.” The Public Defender’s report furthermore expressed a general concern regarding the lack of “timely, adequate and effective responses to offences [allegedly] committed on the basis of religious intolerance and hatred ...” 43. In 2015 Human Rights Watch published its World Report for the year 2014. The relevant excerpt from that report reads as follows: “In October, police used disproportionate force to break up a protest in a small village and detain 14 participants demonstrating against the government’s plans to rebuild a former mosque as a library. Courts fined 11 of them GEL 250 (roughly $140) each for petty hooliganism and disobeying police orders. Authorities did not effectively investigate police conduct.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION 44. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, both alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had been physically and verbally assaulted by police officers during their arrests and/or detention; those assaults had been motivated by the authorities’ discriminatory attitudes towards the applicants’ religion, and the ongoing criminal investigation into the related complaints had been ineffective. The cited provisions read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” AdmissibilitySubmissions by the parties Submissions by the parties Submissions by the parties (a) The Government 45. The Government submitted that the treatment complained of had not reached the minimum level of severity necessary to attract the application of Article 3 of the Convention: namely, the injuries sustained by the first applicant had been minor and had been acquired as a result of his resistance during arrest. As regards the remaining three applicants, despite allegations of physical ill-treatment, no evidence regarding the presence of any injuries had been presented, and their account had been inconsistent. 46. The Government furthermore stated that the applicants had failed to lodge their application with due expedition, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 47. As regards the alleged discriminatory attitudes of the authorities, the Government stated that the applicants had failed to exhaust the relevant domestic remedies, given that they had failed to lodge a complaint with the Public Defender of Georgia and/or to institute civil proceedings for damages. (b) The applicants 48. The applicants submitted that the minimum level of severity had been attained in the present case, emphasising that all of them had felt humiliation on account of the police officers’ use of excessive force during their arrests, their use of discriminatory slurs on account of the applicants’ religion, and the atmosphere of fear and intimidation at the police station. The second, third, and fourth applicants added that the absence of physical injuries on their bodies could not be taken to indicate the absence of suffering. 49. The applicants furthermore submitted that given the authorities’ constant reassurances that the investigation in their case had been ongoing, they could not be reproached for attempting to avail themselves of that remedy before lodging their complaints with the Court. 50. As regards the exhaustion of additional remedies in so far as their complaint concerning the discriminatory attitudes of the authorities was concerned, the applicants submitted that the criminal investigation into the relevant events had constituted an adequate and sufficient remedy. The Court’s assessment 51. In so far as the objection regarding the applicants’ diligence in lodging their complaints is concerned, the Court takes note of the Government’s submission on the merits that the criminal investigation – whose outcome the applicants awaited before submitting the present application – had been effective within the meaning of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 56 below). The Court has already addressed a similar objection in another case against Georgia, finding it inconsistent and holding that the applicants in that case could not be reproached for attempting to duly exhaust a remedy that could not be seen as inherently ineffective (see Gablishvili and Others v. Georgia, no. 7088/11, §§ 48-51, 21 February 2019, with further references). There is no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Accordingly, and having regard to the developments in the investigation (see paragraphs 25 and 33-34), the Government’s objection should be dismissed. 52. As regards the objection relating to the applicants’ alleged failure to exhaust remedies in respect of their complaints concerning discriminatory treatment at the hands of the police, the Court notes that the national authorities were expected, as part of the criminal investigation into the applicants’ complaints, to look into any possible discriminatory motives behind the alleged ill-treatment (see, among other authorities, Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 141, 7 October 2014). Therefore, the applicants were not obliged to pursue another remedy (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 177, 25 June 2019). Accordingly, the Court rejects the objection without assessing whether any additional effective remedies existed in respect of the relevant complaints. 53. Finally, the Court considers that the question of whether ill ‑ treatment, as described by the applicants, was perpetrated against them and attracted the application of Article 3 of the Convention is, in the particular circumstances of the present case, to be assessed on the merits of their complaints under the said provision. 54. The Court, therefore, concludes that this part of the application, concerning the complaints summarised in paragraph 44 above, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsSubmissions by the parties Submissions by the parties Submissions by the parties 55. The applicants reiterated their submissions summarised in paragraph 48 above. In addition to maintaining their account as submitted at domestic level (see paragraphs 22, 24, 28 and 32 above), the applicants made the following remarks: (1) the first applicant specified that he had been beaten at the police station by “approximately 4-8 police officers (two of whom had also beaten him at the protest)”; (2) the second applicant stated that a seatbelt had been twisted around his neck in the police car; and (3) the third applicant stated that police officers were beating him “for about 10 minutes” before arresting him, and that he had been forced to stand facing the wall for two hours at the police station. The first, the second and the third applicants also submitted reports made on 8 September 2016 – two days prior to lodging the present application – by individuals apparently working as psychiatrists at a non-governmental organisation. The documents restated the mentioned applicants’ account to conclude that the events of 22 October 2014, as described by them, had caused them psychological suffering. 56. In addition to their submissions summarised in paragraph 45 above, the Government stated that the applicants’ account had evolved at domestic level and before the Court to the point that the complaint had become inconsistent. They furthermore emphasised that they had fully discharged their obligations under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, despite a certain delay in the opening of a separate criminal investigation into the applicants’ complaints, their allegations of ill ‑ treatment had been duly addressed by the investigative authorities in charge of the criminal case against them, and a prosecutor had subsequently carried out all the relevant investigative measures anew. The Court’s assessment (a) Scope of the case 57. In view of the allegation of police ill-treatment supposedly motivated by religious intolerance and the related complaint that the criminal investigation did not adequately address this element, the Court will subject the applicants’ complaints to an examination under Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court considers it appropriate to start its examination of the merits of the application by first addressing the complaint about the inadequacy of the investigation and then turning to the question of whether the State can be held responsible for the alleged ill-treatment. (b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigation (i) General principles 58. Where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see El ‑ Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 182, ECHR 2012). In order to be “effective”, such an investigation must firstly be adequate, which means that it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and to a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and of identifying and – if appropriate – punishing those responsible (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 103, 5 July 2016). It must also be sufficiently thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill‑founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 325, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). Any deficiency in the investigation that undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see El ‑ Masri, cited above, § 183, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 120, ECHR 2015). A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Bouyid, cited above, § 121). 59. Furthermore, for an investigation to be effective, the institutions and persons responsible for carrying it out must be independent from those targeted by it. This means not only a lack of any hierarchical or institutional connection but also practical independence (ibid., § 118). Lastly, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another (see El ‑ Masri, cited above, §§ 184-85). 60. When investigating alleged incidents of violence, such as ill‑treatment, State authorities have the duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask possible discriminatory motives, which the Court concedes is a difficult task. The respondent State’s obligation to investigate possible discriminatory motives for a violent act is an obligation to use its best endeavours, and is not absolute. The authorities must do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of violence induced by, for instance, racial or religious intolerance, or violence motivated by gender ‑ based discrimination (see, among other authorities, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 67, 12 May 2015, with further references). Treating violence and brutality with a discriminatory intent on an equal footing with cases that have no such overtones would be turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights. A failure to make a distinction in respect of the way in which essentially different situations are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, for instance, Begheluri, cited above, § 173, and Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 94, 14 January 2021). (ii) Application of those principles to the present case 61. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints concerned their arrest near the disputed building and also their initial detention at the police station. The first three applicants lodged their related complaints with the prosecution authorities on 5 November 2014 – slightly less than two weeks after the events (see paragraph 22 above). As regards the fourth applicant, he appears to have complained of ill-treatment, without success, during the administrative-offence proceedings opened against him on the day following the disputed events (see paragraph 17 above); he later (on 17 December 2014) joined the proceedings concerning the complaints lodged by the first three applicants (see paragraph 28 above). 62. While the first applicant’s complaints were supported by medical evidence indicating the presence of physical injuries (see paragraphs 12-14 above), and the second applicant’s medical documentation recorded that he had felt unwell during his detention (see paragraph 15 above), the remaining two applicants did not present signs of injuries (see paragraph 16 above). The Court takes note of the reports made on 8 September 2016, almost two years following the events complained of and just two days before the present application was lodged (see paragraph 55 above). These reports merely repeated the applicants’ account and were not, at any rate, submitted to any domestic authorities. The Court cannot, therefore, afford any probative value to such documents. However, in so far as the relevant complaints relate not only to the circumstances of the applicants’ arrest but also to their detention at the police station and the alleged continued use by the police officers of religiously motivated derogatory insults (see paragraphs 8, 24 and 28-29 above) and the alleged physical ill-treatment of the first applicant at that station, supposedly creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear while all four applicants were under the full control of the authorities, such complaints were, at least in part, supported by witness statements (see paragraphs 22 and 29-30 above). Considering that Article 3 is not limited to acts of physical ill-treatment but also covers the infliction of psychological suffering (see, among other authorities, Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 42, 8 October 2020, with further references), such circumstances might have reached the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicants’ allegations therefore amounted, cumulatively, and in the circumstances of the present case, to an arguable claim of ill‑treatment triggering the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, for the authorities to conduct an effective investigation. 63. As regards whether the investigation was actually effective, the Court notes that the authorities took the first indispensable step, recording the applicants’ state of health when in detention (see paragraphs 12-16 above). 64. As for the next steps, the Court first notes that the undisputed presence of injuries on the first applicant’s body was sufficient to trigger the domestic authorities’ obligation to investigate, of their own motion, the origin of such injuries (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007). Even accepting that the first applicant’s alleged refusal to undergo a medical examination or cooperate with the authorities (see paragraph 12 above) may have created an initial difficulty, the authorities’ obligation to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the allegations of ill ‑ treatment was triggered, at the latest, at the moment when the first three applicants submitted, on 5 November 2014, their complaints, requesting that an investigation be carried out by an institutionally independent prosecutor (see paragraph 22 above). 65. In so far as the Government allege that the investigation against the first three applicants, which started immediately (see paragraph 18 above), constituted an effective forum for their complaints of ill-treatment, the Court notes that it was being conducted by staff at the very same police station against which the applicants’ complaint was made. Such an investigation was neither institutionally, nor practically, independent (see the above-cited cases of El ‑ Masri, § 184, and Bouyid, § 118). What is more, despite the domestic regulation providing that an investigation into an offence possibly committed by, inter alia, a police officer, was to be entrusted to the relevant prosecutor (see paragraph 41 above), it was the investigators of the Adigeni police station who questioned the individuals whom the applicants had designated as eyewitnesses to their alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 23 above). These witnesses, the majority of whom were themselves charged as part of the administrative-offence proceedings (see paragraph 17 above), were questioned without the presence of their lawyers. They retracted the signed statements given by them earlier and obtained by the applicants’ representatives and were threatened with criminal prosecution for any future alteration of their account (see paragraphs 22-23 and 39 above). The implementation of such an important investigative measure by authorities who did not, in the slightest, satisfy the requirement of independence was a step that undermined the effectiveness of any subsequent independent criminal investigation into the first three applicants’ complaints. 66. The Court furthermore observes that the substantive as well as the personal scope of the criminal investigation into all applicants’ complaints remained limited even after December 2014, when a separate investigation was opened by a prosecutor and the fourth applicant lodged his complaint (see paragraphs 27-28 above): it does not appear to have addressed the episode involving their arrest or the second, third, and fourth applicants’ allegations (see, for instance, paragraphs 35-36 above). Additionally, the material available to the Court demonstrates that after August 2015 there was a lengthy period of inactivity and that the investigation was resumed in 2021, at a time when it would be more difficult to collect all evidence as with the lapse of time the prospects that an effective investigation can be undertaken will increasingly diminish (see paragraphs 34-35 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 41, 17 October 2013, in fine ). 67. The Court also observes that despite the applicants’ repeated complaints concerning the police use of derogatory language both during their arrest and at the police station, and the fact that the domestic legislation provided that discrimination on the grounds of religion should be treated as a bias motive and an aggravating circumstance in the commission of an offence (see paragraph 38 above), the criminal investigation failed to address such allegations. The prosecutor’s decision of 2021 to charge the police officers implicated in the events emphasised the physical element of the alleged violence, disregarding altogether the complaints of derogatory language used by the police and of the related psychological suffering made both by the first applicant and by some of the witnesses on whose account the prosecutor appears to have relied (see paragraphs 35-36 above). Accordingly, the national authorities failed in their duty to take all reasonable steps to investigate any possible religious motive and to establish whether or not religious prejudice may have played a role in the events complained of, as required under the Convention (see paragraph 60 above). 68. Lastly, to date – that is to say almost seven years after its opening –the investigation into the alleged police abuse has not produced any conclusive findings. Such a prohibitive delay, for which no explanation has been provided, is in itself incompatible with the State’s obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation (see Goguadze v. Georgia [Committee], no. 40009/12, § 52, 27 June 2019; Gogaladze v. Georgia, no. 8971/10, § 54, 18 July 2019; and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze, cited above, § 39). As the Court has emphasised on previous occasions, although there may be obstacles or difficulties that prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill ‑ treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Bouyid, cited above, § 133, and Kekelidze v. Georgia [Committee], no. 2316/09, § 31, 17 January 2019). In this regard, the Court reiterates that justice delayed is often justice denied, as the existence of unreasonable periods of inactivity and a lack of diligence on the authorities’ part in conducting the proceedings renders the investigation ineffective, irrespective of its final outcome (see, mutatis mutandis, Shavadze v. Georgia, no. 72080/12, § 36, 19 November 2020; see also X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 188, 2 February 2021). 69. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, in respect of all four applicants. (c) Alleged ill-treatment (i) General principles 70. The relevant general principles are summarised in the case of Bouyid (cited above, §§ 81‑90) and Yusiv v. Lithuania (no. 55894/13, §§ 53-56, 4 October 2016). Principles applicable in the context of conflicting accounts of events have been summarised in the cases of Creangă v. Romania ([GC], no. 29226/03, §§ 88-89, 23 February 2012) and El-Masri (cited above, §§ 151-52). (ii) Application of those principles to the present case 71. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicants’ allegations are contested by the Government on all accounts, furthermore noting their alleged inconsistency (see paragraphs 45 and 56 above). 72. The Court agrees that inconsistencies and changing versions of events may lead to the conclusion that the assertions made are not reliable. In the present case the applicants’ accounts, which were given at different points in time, displayed some variations as to the duration and specifics of the alleged ill-treatment. Notably, the first applicant did not maintain his initial submission regarding the presence of a third policeman in the room in which he had allegedly been ill-treated (compare paragraphs 24 and 32 above); the second applicant first mentioned in November 2014 having been insulted in the police car by B.A. on account of his religion and having been unable to breath due to the allegedly excessive force used to restrain him (compare paragraphs 22 and 24 above); the third applicant’s statement of January 2015 described the alleged physical ill-treatment as having been slapped rather than beaten in the car (compare paragraphs 24 and 32 above ); and the fourth applicant initially complained of alleged ill-treatment lasting one minute, whereas he later mentioned it must have been two or three minutes (compare paragraphs 28 and 32 above). Additionally, in the submissions before the Court the first applicant noted that more than two officers had been involved in his alleged ill-treatment at the police station, the second applicant mentioned having had a seatbelt twisted around his neck in the police car, and the third applicant stated that his alleged ill-treatment had lasted ten minutes, adding that he had been forced to stand facing the wall for two hours at the police station (see paragraph 55 above). Having carefully examined those variations, the Court does not consider that they were of such nature as to undermine the general consistency and main thrust of the applicants’ complaints about the use of excessive force and discriminatory language by the police during the arrests and at the police station. 73. As concerns the first applicant’s complaints of physical ill-treatment, they were supported by evidence showing signs of injuries (see paragraphs 12-14 above). Even if these injuries were considered to have been of a “minor” nature (see paragraph 33 above), it is undisputed that the first applicant must have received them at some point during his contact with the authorities – either during his arrest or subsequently at the police station (see paragraphs 35-36 and 45 above). The burden was therefore on the authorities to provide a plausible explanation in that regard. 74. While the Government’s explanation suggests that the first applicant was injured as a result of resisting police officers (see paragraphs 45 and 56 above), apparently implying that the police had used necessary physical force to restrain and/or put the first applicant’s arrest into effect, it was incumbent on the investigation authorities to establish the mechanism of infliction of such injuries and/or the restraining technique and force used that led to the injuries, if indeed their cause was force used to arrest the first applicant and to overcome his resistance to arrest, as alleged by the Government. Although there is evidence that a police car was damaged during events leading to the first applicant’s arrest, no injuries appear to have been inflicted on any of the officers who arrested him (see paragraphs 20-21 above; compare and contrast Iljina and Sarulienė v. Lithuania, no. 32293/05, § 50, 15 March 2011 in fine, and Gablishvili and Others cited above, §§ 62-63). Nor has the criminal investigation into the alleged resistance towards police officers reached any conclusion on this account (see paragraph 26 above; also contrast Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, §§ 49-51, 27 November 2008). 75. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the Government have not satisfactorily explained the source of the first applicant’s injuries and, therefore, have not shown that the use of force against the first applicant was lawful and strictly necessary and that his injuries were caused otherwise than by ill-treatment by the police (see Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, § 101, 6 July 2017; see also Yusiv, cited above, § 59, and Mikiashvili v. Georgia, no. 18996/06, § 76, 9 October 2012). Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the injuries inflicted on the first applicant. 76. However, in so far the first applicant’s complaint concerning the use of discriminatory language by the police is concerned, some witnesses denied that this happened during the arrest (see paragraph 19 above), while others confirmed it had (see paragraph 34 above). Similarly, several witnesses noted that discriminatory slurs had been uttered at the police station (see paragraphs 29-30 above), yet others flatly denied this (see paragraph 31 above). While the Court has found that the domestic authorities’ failure to address this complaint, which was at least arguable, was in breach of their procedural obligations under Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see paragraphs 66-69 above), the case-file does not enable the Court to accept that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a discriminatory treatment by the police contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention. 77. As regards the remaining applicants and their allegations of physical ill-treatment, the Court observes that no medical evidence demonstrating presence of injuries was submitted, and the witness evidence relevant to their allegations contained a conflicting account (compare, for instance, paragraphs 19, 29-31 and 34 above). Additionally, as concerns the alleged use of discriminatory language by the police, and the complaint that the three applicants witnessed the first applicant’s ill-treatment at the police station, the Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that such treatment was inflicted on the three applicants in the circumstances described by them (see paragraphs 73 ‑ 76 above). It is necessary to emphasise, however, that the Court’s inability to reach a conclusion as to whether the three applicants’ treatment during their arrest and subsequent detention at the police station was contrary to Article 3 – either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention – derives considerably from the failure of the domestic authorities to effectively investigate the relevant allegations, which – as the Court has already found above – was in breach of their procedural obligations under those provisions (see paragraphs 61-69 above). 78. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, as far as the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention is concerned, there has been a violation of that provision, taken alone, in respect of the first applicant and no violation of that provision, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, in respect of the remaining three applicants. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 79. Relying on the same facts, the applicants furthermore submitted that they had suffered a breach of their rights under Articles 8, 11, and 13 of the Convention. 80. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and the findings in respect of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention (see paragraphs 56-78 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 81. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” Damage 82. The fourth applicant claimed 110 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage arising out of a fine imposed on him in the administrative-offence proceedings. As regards non-pecuniary damage, all four applicants requested that the Court determine its amount. 83. The Government submitted that there were no grounds to make the award. 84. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. By contrast, having regard to the nature of the violations found, and ruling on an equitable basis, it awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the first applicant EUR 3,900, plus any tax that may be chargeable, and the remaining applicants EUR 1,800 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable. Costs and expenses 85. The applicants claimed 8,775 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of the costs of their representation before the Court by two of their lawyers, who are based in London (see paragraph 2 above), submitting, in support of that request, time sheets prepared by those lawyers on 10 April 2017. The applicants additionally claimed GBP 210.70 in respect of various administrative expenses and GBP 2,801.6, EUR 269.82, and 3,053.61 United States Dollars (USD) for translation costs incurred by the same lawyers. In that regard, they submitted copies of invoices signed by the translators. 86. The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated and excessive. 87. The Court notes that a representative’s fees are actually incurred if the applicant has paid them or is liable to pay them. Accordingly, the fees of a representative who has acted free of charge are not actually incurred. The opposite is the case with respect to the fees of a representative who, without waiving them, has simply taken no steps to pursue their payment or has deferred it. The fees payable to a representative under a conditional‑fee agreement are actually incurred only if that agreement is enforceable in the respective jurisdiction (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 371, 28 November 2017). In the present case, the applicants did not submit documents showing that they had paid or were under a legal obligation to pay the fees charged by their British representatives or the expenses incurred by them. In the absence of such documents, the Court finds no basis on which to accept that the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants have actually been incurred (ibid., §§ 361-62, 364-65 and 372 ‑ 73; see also Vazagashvili and Shanava v. Georgia, no. 50375/07, §§ 105-108, 18 July 2019, and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze, cited above, § 61). 88. It follows that the claim must be rejected. Default interest 89. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in respect of all applicants, and a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant. It held, however, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the substantive aspect of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant, and no violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 in respect of the three other applicants. The Court found, in particular, that the Georgian Government had not satisfactorily explained the source of the first applicant’s injuries and, therefore, had not shown that the use of force against him had been lawful and strictly necessary and that his injuries had been caused otherwise than by ill-treatment by the police. As regards the remaining applicants and their allegations of physical ill-treatment, it observed, in particular, that no medical evidence demonstrating presence of injuries had been submitted.