Georgian protesters injured after alleged police brutality represented by MDX human rights centre

The case at the European Court of Human Rights could have massive repercussions for the policing of protests across Europe

A human rights law centre based at Middlesex University is representing Georgian protesters and journalists who were injured, allegedly as the result of police brutality.

The case at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights could have major repercussions for Georgia’s democratic opposition, as well as media freedom in the country and the policing of protests across Europe.

On 20 June 2019, around 15,000 people gathered outside the Georgian Parliament after Sergei Gavrilov, an outspoken member of the Russian Duma, addressed the chamber in Russian. This was considered a deeply provocative act given the long history between the two nations, and the ongoing occupation of Georgian territory by Russian-backed separatists. 

The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), which is part of Middlesex University’s School of Law, and the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) are representing 26 protesters and journalists who were reportedly injured when police broke up the protest. 

Just before midnight, without warning, police opened fire on the crowd, with tear gas and then fired hundreds of rubber bullets. Police are also accused of using brutal force against protestors and journalists as victims were allegedly punched, kicked and beaten with batons.

In total, 187 civilians and 38 journalists reported injuries. The applicants in the case include those who lost eyes and some who suffered fractures to the face as the result of the use of rubber bullets.

‘For more than five years, the applicants in this case have sought justice through the Georgian courts. However, the authorities have repeatedly failed to conduct a meaningful and effective investigation into the events of 20 June 2019. Not a single law enforcement officer has been held criminally responsible for their actions, reinforcing the sense of impunity.’ 

Camilla Alonzo, a lawyer at EHRAC

In the hearing at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on February 26, EHRAC and GYLA argued:

• ·        the regulation of less-lethal weapons, particularly rubber-bullets, in Georgia is deficient, and the planning and operation of the police dispersal operation on 20-21 June 2019 was inadequate. These systemic issues resulted in the unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate use of force against the applicants (a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) 
• ·        the police action further violated the protestors’ freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 11) and the journalists’ freedom of expression (Article 10) 
• ·        after 5 years, the domestic investigation into the events of 20-21 June 2019 has been shown to be ineffective, leaving the applicants with no effective domestic remedy to redress their complaints (the procedural arm of Article 3 and Article 13)

The victims hope that the eventual Grand Chamber judgment will set clear guidance on the policing of protests and the use of less-lethal weapons, in Georgia and in all member states of the Council of Europe.

Toby Collis, a Lawyer at EHRAC, said: ‘The applicants hope that, in its judgment, the Court will require Georgia to change its domestic legislation and practice, to bring both into line with international standards, and to act to ensure that officials, at all levels, are held accountable for their actions.’

EHRAC works with lawyers in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine to challenge human rights violations.

Jessica Gavron, Co-Director of the EHRAC, said: ‘This case provides a great example of EHRAC’s collaboration with partner lawyers. GYLA’s knowledge of the applicants as well as the domestic framework and procedures - including the Georgian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective domestic investigation into the events of 20 June 2019 - were key to the case.

‘We show solidarity with our partners, like GYLA, who operate in an increasingly challenging environment, and we provide support wherever it is needed on our co-litigated cases.’

A version of this article originally appeared on the EHRAC website.