Trial in camera and public statements of defendant’s guilt violated fair trial and presumption of innocence
JUDGMENT
Mamaladze v. Georgia 03.11.2022 (app. no. 9487/19)
SUMMARY
Presumption of innocence and public statements by government officials and prosecutors about the accused. Publicity of trial.
The appellant was a high priest. He was accused and sentenced for attempted murder against the Patriarch’s secretary, because he was caught on a group trip with the victim, carrying cyanide hidden in his suitcase, which leads to the death of whoever consumes it. A search on his computer showed internet searches about cyanide. The trial was decided to be held behind closed doors, while elements of the case file were leaked to the press and senior officials (Minister of Justice, Prime Minister and prosecuting authorities) made statements about his guilt. He sued for violation of due process and presumption of innocence.
The ECtHR found that the domestic courts had adequately considered his arguments regarding the conditions of the search, the seizure of his luggage and the reliability of the evidence obtained, and had rejected them with reasoned decisions during the criminal trial. However, they had not adequately responded to the applicant’s request regarding the possibility of partial publicity of the trial, which affected his right to be presumed innocent.
The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the complaint regarding the termination of the in camera proceedings.
Finally, the ECtHR ruled that some of the statements of the persons of the executive power and the prosecuting authorities, who supported with statements that if “[this substance] had been used, the criminal intention of the accused would have been realized”, as well as the publication of audio-visual material of the case file encouraged the public to believe the applicant’s guilt before the court’s decision and found a violation of the presumption of innocence.
PROVISIONS
Article 6 par. 1
Article 6 par. 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Giorgi Mamaladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Tbilisi
(Georgia). At the relevant time he was an archpriest and the director of a medical clinic under the
authority of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
On 2 February 2017 a journalist, I.M., contacted the prosecuting authorities to tell them that
Mr Mamaladze had asked for his help in obtaining cyanide and that he believed a plot was underway
to murder someone working at the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
An investigation was immediately opened and a judge authorised covert investigative measures. I.M.
secretly made audio and video recordings of his discussions with Mr Mamaladze, who said that he
was in a rush to obtain the poison as he was intending to join a delegation accompanying the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia (the spiritual leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church) to Germany
for medical treatment. Mr Mamaladze discussed in particular Sh.T, the personal secretary to the
Patriarch, saying that he did not like her and that he saw her as standing in the way of his career.
Mr Mamaladze was arrested on 10 February 2017 when he was about to board an aeroplane for
Berlin. His checked-in luggage was seized and sealed, then opened at the Chief Prosecutor’s Office,
in his presence. White powder, later found to be “natrium cyanide”, was found in a small box inside
some shoe cleaner. He was charged the next day with “preparation of murder” for plotting to kill
Sh.T.
The Tbilisi City Court subsequently found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’
imprisonment, concluding that he had intended to poison Sh.T. His conviction was based on the
poison found in his suitcase, as well as on I.M.’s incriminating evidence, over 80 witness statements,
and audio and video recordings and data retrieved from the applicant’s computer and telephone
showing searches on the Internet about cyanide and its impact on the human body. The court also
noted that Mr Mamaladze’s defence had been inconsistent and had kept on changing.
From the early stages of the criminal proceedings, a non-disclosure obligation was imposed on
Mr Mamaladze, the victim and the witnesses. The domestic courts also subsequently allowed the
prosecutor’s application to close the trial to the public. The courts based this decision in particular
on protection of the right to privacy of various individuals involved in the case and of religious and
moral principles, and on preventing the risk of prejudice to the ongoing criminal investigation.
In his pleadings Mr Mamaladze objected to the non-disclosure obligation and requested that the
trial be open to the public at least in part, without success.
Multiple public statements had been made immediately following Mr Mamaladze’s arrest, by the
then Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, as well as by the prosecuting
authorities who also subsequently disclosed some of the covert recordings and text messages of
discussions between I.M. and Mr Mamaladze. The main witness against him, I.M., also gave a
38-minute interview to a journalist describing in detail their meetings and his suspicions.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
Mr Mamaldze essentially alleged that the key evidence – the cyanide found in his suitcase – had
been planted and that he could not challenge the use of that evidence in court against him.
The Court noted, however, that the seizure of his luggage, although not based on a judicial warrant,
had taken place in urgent circumstances – Mr Mamaladze had been about to take a plane – and had
been preceded by judicially-ordered covert investigative measures. Furthermore, a member of
airport security staff, considered by the courts as a neutral witness, had confirmed that the suitcase
could not have been tampered with and that the seal had been intact for the search.
In any case, the courts had addressed Mr Mamaladze’s arguments about the circumstances of the
search and seizure of his luggage and the reliability of the evidence obtained, and had dismissed
them in reasoned decisions in the course of the criminal trial.
Above all, the poison found in the suitcase had not been the only evidence on which
Mr Mamaladze’s conviction had been based.
In those circumstances, the Court found that the proceedings in the case, considered as a whole, had
not been contrary to Article 6 § 1.
On the other hand, the Court found that the trial court had not sufficiently addressed
Mr Mamaladze’s argument regarding the possibility of only partly closing the trial. His request would
have required an explicit reasoned reply, given the strong public interest in the case and the fact
that the holding of the trial in camera had been central to his complaints about the non-disclosure
obligation and a breach of his right to be presumed innocent. That failing had not been remedied in
the proceedings in the upper courts as the appeal hearing had also been held in camera and the
Supreme Court’s decision had been via a written procedure. There had therefore been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 as concerned the complaint with regard to the closure of the proceedings.
Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence)
The Court noted in particular that statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Justice had not explicitly claimed that Mr Mamaladze had committed a crime. By contrast, the
statement by the Deputy Prime Minister had been more explicit. Additionally, certain of the
prosecuting authorities’ statements, claiming for example that if “[that substance] had been used,
the criminal intent of the accused would have been implemented” had gone beyond merely
informing the public of the charge against Mr Mamaladze.
Furthermore, their disclosing material showing, among other things, Mr Mamaladze’s apparent
attempts to obtain cyanide, with a statement saying that “it had been established” that he had
googled kalium and natrium cyanide on the Internet “for the purposes of murdering [the victim]”
had not respected the discretion and circumspection necessary with regard to Mr Mamaladze’s right
to be presumed innocent.
Moreover, they had not apparently attempted to enforce the non-disclosure agreement in respect
of the main witness, who had been able to freely make accusations in the media.
Overall therefore the public had been encouraged to believe that Mr Mamaladze had been guilty
before the trial court had reached its verdict, in violation of Article 6 § 2.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
aThe Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary
damage sustained and made an award of 9,418 Georgian laris in respect of costs and expenses.
