The European Court of Human Rights on December 16 ruled against Georgia in a case of an attack on LGBT demonstrators on May 17, 2013, arguing that the “unprecedented violence” against LGBT activists occurred with the state connivance.

“The Court found that whether or not the 27 applicants had sustained physical injury was not decisive. They had been put in a situation of intense anxiety and emotional distress. They had been surrounded and outnumbered by a mob and physically and verbally attacked, with homophobia clearly playing a key role. Such a situation was not compatible with respect for their human dignity and reached the threshold of severity for the complaints to come under the scope of Articles 3 and 14.

Firstly, the Court looked at the investigation into the violence against the applicants.

It called into question its independence and impartiality, noting that it had been carried out by the same unit of the Ministry of the Interior which had been responsible for ensuring safety at the rally.

Furthermore, even if two separate criminal cases had been opened, no tangible results had been achieved in either.

Such protraction exposed the authorities’ long-standing failure – perhaps unwillingness – to investigate homophobic and/or transphobic violence. It was imperative that the authorities investigate the possibility that discrimination played a part in the commission of an offence, given the well-documented hostility against the LGBT community in Georgia at the time.

It therefore held that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the hate-motivated ill-treatment of the 27 applicants, in violation of Article 3 read together with Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court then examined the authorities’ alleged failure to take proper measures to protect the LGBT demonstrators from the mob.

It considered that the authorities had had to have been aware in advance of the risks associated with the event. The counter-demonstrators had made their intentions clear beforehand, and the Government’s argument that the high turnout had been unexpected was not convincing. The authorities could moreover have learnt from their mismanagement of the previous year’s LGBT rally. The authorities had therefore been under an obligation to provide heightened State protection.

However, the only response had been unarmed police officers in thin human cordons and a prior dispersal plan, which in practice had proved to be chaotic.

Such failure to take effective measures had been compounded by evidence of official connivance, and even active participation in individual acts of prejudice.

In particular, the Court noted the video-footage, filmed by independent journalists, of the police not only not reacting when counter-demonstrators had started to break through the cordons but in some places actually opening them up. It was especially concerned by the images of senior officials, taking part in negotiations with the priests, remaining indifferent in the face of serious threats to public order.

Lastly, the Court was convinced by the clear and consistent version of events submitted by the applicant who had had to escape from his aggressors disguised as a police officer. It found that the police officers involved in the incident had humiliated the applicant, which went against the State’s obligations under Articles 3 and 14.

The Court therefore concluded that there had been a further violation of Article 3 read together with Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court considered that the authorities had never made it their priority to put in place effective measures to protect the applicants. They had not evaluated the resources necessary in the planning phase of the event and had limited their role to designing a dispersal plan. It therefore found that the State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention.

The Court held that Georgia was to pay the applicants amounts totalling overall EUR 193,500. In particular, it awarded EUR 10,000 euros to the applicant who had suffered concussion and EUR 6,000 to the applicant who had been humiliated by the police in the supermarket”.