In a unanimous judgment, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has today (5 December) found Georgia to be in breach of Article 6.1 (Fair Trial Rights) of the European Convention of Human Rights in respect of David Kezerashvili, a former member of the UNM Government in Georgia and the part owner of the opposition TV station, Formula TV.
The finding fatally undermines the legitimacy of Mr Kezerashvili's conviction in absentia in Georgia, which formed the basis of Mr Kezerashvili's Strasbourg challenge. Previously, an English extradition Court had found that the desire to prosecute former UNM politicians was a purpose behind the Government of Georgia's attempts to extradite him from the UK for the same matter and thus rejected the request on the basis it was politically motivated.
The allegation concerned alleged embezzlement in respect of a contract for the delivery of training services to the Georgian armed forces immediately in advance of the Russian incursions into the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, where it was clear in evidence presented to the trial court in Georgia and reviewed by it and the appeal court in considerable detail – and where both acquitted Mr Kezerashvili - that the training was delivered, contrary to the prosecution's case.
The challenge to the Strasbourg Court was whether his subsequent conviction by the Georgian Supreme Court was in breach of Mr Kezerashvili's Article 6.1 ECHR fair trial rights. The Strasbourg Court expressly found that it was.
This is a significant victory for Mr Kezerashvili, the Court finding that there was "objective bias" in the Supreme Court by the presence of the Chief Justice, who had previously been the Prosecutor General, appointed under the Georgian Dream Regime (of which Mr Kezerashvili is a known opponent), noting the high profile nature of Mr Kezerashvili's prosecution and "the political sensitivity of the criminal proceedings against him". That objective bias meant the decision of the Supreme Court was in breach of Mr Kezerashvili's ECHR fair trial rights.
Mr Kezerashvili mounted a number of arguments before the Strasbourg Court. The Court's finding of a breach of Article 6.1 makes clear the conviction is unsafe.
Extraordinarily, the Georgian Minister of Justice in a statement issued following the Judgment does not state that the European Court of Human Rights Court found against the Government of Georgia. That omission presents a deliberately false picture of what the European Court decided, which was that Mr Kezerashvili's human rights had indeed been breached by the Georgian authorities.
The Georgian Government has also suggested in its reaction to today's Judgment that the Strasbourg Court's finding supported the conclusion that Mr Kezerashvili had embezzled funds from the Georgian Government and that his prosecution was not politically motivated. The Judgment does no such thing. The Court did not consider whether the allegations against Mr Kezerashvili were made out, only whether his rights under the European Convention had been violated – plainly concluding that they had been. In the finding that there was a breach of Article 6.1, the Court considered other arguments and found that additional grounds for a breach of Article 6.1 and Article 18 (restriction on rights for an unauthorised purpose) were not made out on the evidence as presented.
The political nature of the proceedings against Mr Kezerashvili remains clear for all to see, not least now in the Government of Georgia's reaction to the finding that it has breached Mr Kezerashvili's human rights and its deliberate misdescription of what the European Court has decided.
Mr Kezerashvili was represented by Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG KC and Tim Parker of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Michael Drury of BCL Solicitors and Georgian lawyers.
A summary of the Judgment by the barristers instructed can be found here on the Blackstone Chambers website, and the Judgment itself can be seen here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
