Composition of the Board:

Besik Loladze – Chairman of the hearing;

Otar Sichinava – Member, Rapporteur Judge;

Lali Fafiashvili – Member;

John Khetsuriani – Member.

Secretary of the Hearing: Darejan Chaligava.

Title of the case: The Public Defender of Georgia v. the Parliament of Georgia.

Subject of the Dispute: Constitutionality of the following words “if an illness is caused by breach of regime for holding a detainee (prisoner) in the detention places” in the second part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia with respect to paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia.

Participant of the Hearing: Claimant and the representatives of the Public Defender of Georgia – Ms Tamar Charbadze, Vakhtang Menabde and Giorgi Mshvenieridze; Respondent: the representative of the Parliament of Georgia – Mr. Batar Chankseliani.

I

1. On 11th of April 2007, a constitutional claim (Registration N423) was lodged with the Constitutional Court of Georgia by the Public Defender of Georgia. The respondent is the Parliament of Georgia. On 18th of April 2007, the President of the Constitutional Court of Georgia referred the constitutional claim N423 to the Second Board of the Constitutional Court for consideration and adjudication on the matter of admission of the case for consideration on merits. The Second Board of the Constitutional Court admitted the constitutional claim N423 for consideration on merits by a Recording notice N2/4/423 on 6th of December 2007.

2. Subject of the Dispute is the words “if an illness is caused by breach of regime for holding a detainee (prisoner) in the detention places”. Disputed norm is placed in the second part of Article 162 (Compensation for damage incurred as a result of illegal or unjustified detention) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia.

3. The Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia considered the merits of constitutional claim N423 with oral hearing on 15th, 16th and 17th of September 2009 at the open sittings.

4. The Claimants declare that the liberty of an individual is inviolable as guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article, a person arrested or detained illegally shall have the right to receive compensation. The scopes of compensation shall be determined by paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia, under which complete compensation of damage sustained illegally by officials of the state bodies shall be guaranteed.

5. The Claimant side indicates to the International acts, under which the right to compensation shall be guaranteed if a person’s liberty and security are unlawfully restricted. According to paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, “Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation”. The right to compensation is also recognized by paragraph 5 of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”.

6. Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not extend to cases, when a person is “detained by mistake”. The Claimant’s side believes that this term implies the case, when an investigating authority have collected the evidences, there were grounds for applying detention as a restrictive measure, however a person has been found un-guilty in the end. Article 165 applies to such situation, when the rule of detention has been breached, as there were not any grounds for its application as a restrictive measure.

7. The Claimant separates the disputed norm and Article 165 from other Articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia that regulate the matters on compensation for damage. The Claimant underlines the circumstance that the Respondent, in case of illegal detention, has not disputed about compensation for damage inflicted on a person. The Respondent does not call the scope of compensation into question, but he deems Article 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code as legal ground for compensation for damage. In the Claimant’s opinion, Article 224 and in general, Chapter XXVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code protects persons, whose legality of detention is not any longer disputable.

8. The Claimant makes distinction between Articles 165 and 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Article 221 is a general norm relating to damage inflicted on a person as a result of any illegal or unjustified acts performed by procedure authorities (bodies). Article 221 does not link the matter on compensation with detention only. It is possible that a person be illegally convicted or accused without detention, but according to this Article, he/she still entertains the right to compensation. Besides this general norm, there are special norms, among them Article 165.

9. The structure of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Claimant’s opinion, has been designed in such way that the norms determining how to repair the rights infringed by relevant procedural act are tied with the norms regulating the procedural act. The Claimant draws a parallel with Article 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the matter of compensation in case of illegal or unjustified detention. Like this Article, Article 165 is associated with application of detention as a restrictive measure and establishes the compensation for damage in case of unlawful detention. In particular, the Claimant explains the reference of detention in the first part of Article 165 as being an omission. This term may also imply the arrest of a person as an accused.

10. In the Claimant’s position, the disputed norm makes it possible not to make full compensation for physical damage inflicted on a person during unlawful or unjustified detention. Physical damage shall be compensated only in the event if it is caused by breach of regime for holding a person in prison facilities. Stemming from this, the disputed norm does not comply with requirements of the Constitution of Georgia stipulating the full compensation for damaged inflicted on a person by public officers.

11. The Claimant declares that damage inflicted on health of an imprisoned person, without breach of regime, may cause such circumstances that are directly connected with being held in detention facility. For example, an unlawfully detained person may come down with cardiovascular, neural or respiratory tract diseases or exacerbation of these diseases may occur, let it say, because of being held in the closed space. Under such circumstances, a person is deprived of possibility to claim reimbursement for physical damage. The connection of cause and effect between unlawful detention and origin of a disease or its exacerbation is ignored.

12. According to the Respondent’s opinion, under paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia, a physical person shall have the right to compensation only in specific instances – if other norms of the present Article have been violated and his/her unlawful detention or arrest has occurred. The stage for holding a person in detention, to which the disputed norm applies, does not fall within the ambit of operation of this constitutional norm.

13. The Respondent considers that the 2nd part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not work either positively or negatively for a person at the stage of his/her arrest or detention. Respectively, the allegation that the disputed norm deprived a person of the right to compensation, when unlawful or unjustified detention has occurred against him, is groundless.

14. The Respondent is confident that their interpretation of the disputed norm is correct, despite the title of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code – “Compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention”. He quotes from the decision (judgment) N1/5/323 dated 30 November 2005 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the case “Citizens of Georgia Giorgi Vacharadze, Artur Kazarov, Levan Chkheidz, Giorgi Berishvili, Shorena Oskopeli and Nino Archvadze v. the Parliament of Georgia”: “name and title do not always define the content of the matter”. The Respondent explains distinction between the title of Article 165 and content of the disputed norm by legislative omission. The legislative omission, stemming from the practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia (Judgment N2/3/250-269 dated 9 July 2004 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the case “Temur Zhorzholiani, the Chairman of Conservative (Monarchist) party of Georgia and Igor Giorgadze, Initiative Group of Voters v. the Parliament of Georgia), does not represent the ground for recognizing the norm as unconstitutional.

15. The content of the second part of Article 165, under the Respondent’s opinion, is defined by reservation as prescribed by the disputed norm. He considers the matter as technical as the disputed norm, in case of sharing the version of interpretation of its content provided by the Respondent, is out of the context.

16. The Respondent does not challenge that in case of unlawful detention, a person may sustain physical damage from even psychological attitude towards detention and not only from the breach of regime for holding a detainee. Under his stance, in such case, the physical damage should be fully compensated and this shall be fulfilled in accordance with the Chapter XXVIII (Rehabilitation and compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified acts by the criminal procedure authorities) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

17. The Respondent refers to Articles 221 and 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Under Article 221, despite the outcome of the case, the damage that was inflicted on a person as a result of unlawful or unjustified acts, among them act of detention, by Criminal Procedure authorities should be compensated. The first part of Article 222 ensures that all fees and payments shall be paid when compensating the damage sustained as a result of unlawful or unjustified acts by the Criminal procedure authorities during the rehabilitation, nevertheless the charge of officials from those prosecuting authorities.

18. The Respondent differentiated the second part of Article 165 and Article 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The 2nd part of Article 165 deals with matters on compensation for the physical damage sustained due to breach of regime for holding a detained person, while Article 224 speaks about compensation for the physical damage inflicted on a rehabilitated and victims of an unlawful and unjustified procedure act. According to the 2nd part of Article 165, the subjects responsible for causing the damage are penitentiary facilities and their staff. On the instances as provided by Article 224, the physical damage is caused by criminal procedure authorities and their staff. Herewith, Article 224 does not apply to the physical damage caused by the penitentiary facilities and their employees. Besides, the 2nd pat of Article 165 deals with detention related matters only, and other Articles of the Chapter XXVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code covers other procedure acts undertaken by criminal procedure authorities.

19. The Constitution of Georgia establishes the compensation for the damage caused by the State against a person only on those instances, when the State shall commits an unlawful act against him/her. The Respondent believes that the 2nd part of Article 165 analogically settles the matter on compensation for the damage. The given Article implies that a person shall receive the compensation in case of negligence of the norms determining the regime for holding a detained person by the State. Hence, the disputed norm is in line with the Constitution of Georgia and there is no ground for recognizing it as unconstitutional.

II

1. The issue of constitutionality of the 2nd part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia is raised with respect to paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia. The positions of the parties to the case with regard to compensation for the damage inflicted on a person by unlawful act of the state authorities and the scope of compensation do not differ. Nevertheless, the Board finds it necessary, with the purpose to constitutional-legal assessment of the disputed norm, to interpret the requirements as provided in the mentioned norms of the Constitution of Georgia.

2. Paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia in general deals with the damage caused by the state, self-government bodies and officials. This norm envisages constitutional guarantees of both material and procedural nature. In addition, everyone is insured with the legal remedies - to apply to a court. The scales for compensation, that is the damage should be fully compensated, are clearly established. Such formulation of the constitutional norm leaves the narrow scope of free action for a legislator, predominantly implying the regulation of procedural matters with close adherence to the constitutional requirements.

3. Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia relates to the specific case of compensation for the damage caused by unlawful act of the state bodies and officials. This norm as opposed to paragraph 9 of Article 42, based on its content, extends only to physical persons unlawfully arrested or detained, as it is impossible to arrest or detain a legal person.

4. Separation of the matter on compensation for the damage caused during unlawful arrest or detention in paragraph 7 of Article 18 is linked to the paramount importance of human’s liberty and inviolability. The Constitutional Court in its judgment N2/1/415 of 6th of April 2009 on the case “the Public Defender of Georgia v. the Parliament of Georgia” has underscored the significant place of the human right to liberty and inviolability in the system of human rights (II-1), the difficulty for interference with this right in comparison with interference with other rights (II-2) an high quality of strictness for constitutional and legal assessment. (II-6). When assessing constitutionality of the disputed norm, the Board takes into account the approach developed by the practice of the Constitutional Court.

5. The text of paragraph 7 of Article 18 does not directly provides for the legal remedies and the scales of compensation for a person who was unlawfully arrested or detained, however this norm of the Constitution implies the given requirements. Paragraph 7 of Article 18 is closely linked to paragraph 9 of Article 42 which, to a certain extent, fills the matters laid down therein with requirements related to the legal remedies and completeness of compensation for the damage.

6. The Constitution of Georgia recognizes human and his/her rights as supreme value. The Constitutional system of values rest upon the priority and respect for fundamental rights with which the narrow interpretation of paragraph 7 of Article 18 fails to be compatible. The norms of the Constitution of Georgia shall not be construed in such way to let the State fully or partially disclaim the responsibility for violation of human rights and to deprive the victim of effective opportunity for restoration of the rights.

7. The precondition for the right to compensation as provided by paragraph 9 of Article 2 and paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia is not only the fact of unlawful act from the part of the state bodies and officials, but also, simultaneously, the circumstance that by unlawful act, among them that of detention, a person sustained material or non-material damage. When establishing the connection of cause and effect between unlawful act by the state bodies and officials and the damage inflicted on a person, the damage should be fully compensated.

8. The Board, as opposed to the Respondent position, believes that “person detained illegally” as provided by paragraph 7 of Article 18 does not imply only the person whose detention took place in contravention of the other requirements of only this Article of the Constitution of Georgia. “Illegally detained”, by itself, implies the violation of the norms of the Constitution of Georgia when detaining a person, nonetheless requirements for detention as defined by law are rather wider, than it is established under the Constitution. A person has the right to compensation as prescribed by paragraph 7 of Article 18, upon his/her detention in violation of general law and not only the supreme law – the norms of the Constitution. The state of affair is not either changed by the first sentence of paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia, which provides for that “Violation of the present Article (18) shall be punishable by law”. The first sentence of paragraph 7 of Article 18 deals with application of relevant sanctions against infringers of requirements of the same Article. This norm does not relate to the compensation for the damage sustained upon illegal arrest or detention and it is not righteous to use its wording with regard to the matter on compensation.

9. The Board does not consider as righteous the Respondent’s appeal to the International experience when discussing the aforementioned issue, as the analysis of which will lead to different outcome. Paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the European Convention for protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as opposed to paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia, indicates that everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article (5) shall have an enforceable right to compensation. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is also relevant. For example, in the “Benham v. Untied Kingdom” case, the Court held that paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention defines an enforceable right to compensation only for those who has been the victims of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5.

10. Paragraph 5 of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right, as opposed to paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the European Convention, gives an enforceable right to compensation to everyone, who has been the victims of unlawful arrest or detention. According to the interpretation of the Human Rights Committee, arrest or detention made in contravention not only of the provisions of Article 9 in itself, but also of the requirements under the domestic legislation is held unlawful within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 9 of the Covenant (A v. Australia, Communication N560/1993, 30 April 1997, par.9.5). Therefore, under paragraph 5 of Article 9, the damage sustained upon detention made in contravention of the requirements under the domestic legislation is subject to compensation.

11. The contradiction in principle between the positions of the parties to dispute is expressed in different interpretation of the content of the disputed norm. Sharing one of the versions by the Constitutional Court will lead to different effect of constitutional and legal assessment. The Respondent’s position excludes the assessment of the disputed norm with respect to paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia. If the challenged norm, based on its content, does no apply to unlawful arrest or detention, then it is impossible to assess it within the scope of paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution.

12. The Board can not agree with the Respondent’s assertion that the point is that there is legislative omission in the 2nd part of Article 165. The content of this norm may be divided in two parts. The first part deals with the form and purpose of compensation for the physical damage, under which “the physical damage shall be compensated by the state in the form of pecuniary payment in compensation for the costs of medical treatment, loss of working capabilities or demotion,…”. This part is followed by the disputed norm, which determines the condition of compensation for the damage and it clearly has the form of reservation: “…. If an illness has been caused by breach of the regime for holding a detainee in the places of detention”.

13. The title of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia is “compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention”, which reflects its content. The first part of the Article speaks about the property damage, the 2nd part of it – physical damage, and the third part of it – moral damage i.e. every possible occasion for damage sustained as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention is provided in certain sequence. The Board deems the Respondent’s position as groundless, under which a legislator has broken the logical and sequential substantial chain as defined by this Article and placed the norms in the second part, which applies not to unlawful or unjustified detention, rather the damage caused in a different way. This assumption is backed up the fact that the Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code, where Article 165 is located, deals with restrictive measures, among them detention. Article 165 logically concludes the series of Articles related to detention – Article 159 (detention), Article 160 (Rule on selection of detention as a restrictive measure), Article 163 (Rule on extension of detention period), Article 164 (release from detention), Article 165 (Compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention).

14. The Respondent party appeals to the judgment N1/5/323 of 30 November 2005 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the case “Citizens of Georgia Giorgi Vacharadze, Artur Kazarov, Levan Chkheidze, Giorgi Berishvili, Shorena oskopeli and Nino Archvadze v. the Parliament of Georgia”. He provides a quote from the motivational part of the judgment “name or title does not always determine the content of the matter”. This is an opinion offered by the Specialist, which was shared by the Constitutional Court; however, this opinion was stated in different context with reference to title and content of the article. As to the reference of title of Article of the normative act to its content, in the Board’s opinion, it should reflect at least the main features of the content of an Article. The content of an Article determines its title and not the other way around. The Board allows chance that the title of an Article may not fully envisage the every aspect of its content, but this clearly does not apply to interrelation of title and content of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. It is obvious that this Article fully and in particular, its second part regulates relations related to compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention. The purpose of Article 165 and the disputed norm are also clear – regulation of relations arising from compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention.

15. There are other norms, apart from Article 165, in the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, that envisage compensation for the damage. The Respondent party considers that compensation for the physical damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention should be made based on precisely these norms, in particular based on Chapter XXVIII (Rehabilitation and compensation for the damage caused as a result of unlawful and unjustified act by the Criminal procedural bodies) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia and Articles contained in this Chapter. The Board thinks that it is not of decisive importance whether or not the application of the Articles of Chapter XXVIII as referred by the Respondent, is extended to only those persons towards who there is the ground for rehabilitation, if the area of application, according to the cycle of persons, are wide involving the persons detained unlawfully, but towards who there are no grounds for the rehabilitation as prescribed by Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. In the first occasion, in general, to draw parallels between Article 165 and the norms of Chapter XXVIII would be irrelevant. In the second occasion, Article 165, which applies to specific unlawful detention, shall be a special norm with respect to Articles 221, 222, and 224 dealing with, in general, the damage caused by unlawful or unjustified procedural act. Furthermore, Article 165 gives emphasis to one of the elements on the rule of detention – validity and lawfulness of detention.

16. Like compensation for the damage caused by unlawful or unjustified detention, Chapter XIX (arrest) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia regulates the matters on compensation for the damage cause upon unlawful or unjustified arrest. In the Board’s opinion, separate regulation of compensation for the damage upon unlawful or unjustified arrest or detention is caused by the fact that the violation of an important good such as a human’s liberty occurs at this moment. It is logical that a legislator has adopted special regulation for compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unlawful or unjustified arrest or detention.

17. As a result of legal analysis that were conducted, the Board arrives at a conclusion that the second part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia including the disputed norm, regulates the matters related to compensation for the physical damage inflicted on a person as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention and it is not independently applicable in the practice precisely with respect to this relation and not the other ones. Therefore, the disputed norm is subject to constitutional and legal assessment in the light of its compatibility with both paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia.

18. The disputed norm narrows the circle of those subjects that have the right to request and receive the compensation for damage caused as a result of unlawful or unjustified detention. The norm that has been challenged distinguish from the circle of those persons, those who fell ill because of breach of the regime for holding a detainee in the places of detention. This contradicts paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution of Georgia, which determines the right to compensations, without exceptions, for every unlawfully detained person. The disputed norm is not either consistent with paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia, where it is clearly indicated that everyone shall be guaranteed to receive the compensation for the damage caused by the state bodies and officials. Any exception, in terms of the subjects of the basic right, is also excluded under this norm.

19. The disputed norm, by unconstitutionally narrowing circle of subjects of the basic right, deprives persons outside of this circle not only of the right to compensation, but also of the legal remedies for this right. The challenged norm violates relevant requirements of Articles 18 and 42 of the Constitution from this angle as well.

20. The Constitution of Georgia does not permit establishing such exceptional occasions, when the damage caused as a result of unlawful detention or any other unlawful act conducted by the state bodies and officials is not compensated. Stemming from the disputed norm, physical damage is not compensated at the time, when it is true that there is the link of cause and effect between unlawful or unjustified detention and illness of a person, but breach of the regime for holding a detainee in the places of detention has not occurred. Hereby, it is worth to underline that convergence of the position of the parties on the matter that not only breach of the regime may inflict the physical damage on a person upon his/her unlawful and unjustified detention. Detention is not ordinary and usual event in the life of a human being. It is associated with certain negative feelings and stress, moreover, if detention bears unlawful or unjustified nature. In its way, all of this may be reflected in the health of a detained person, by triggering the onset of a disease or exacerbating the already existing disease. The physical damage may be caused by holding of a person in the detention facility even in case of regime observance, when conditions of detention, closed space and etc results in onset or progressive worsening of a disease.

21. It is true that restriction of liberty in any form always causes discomfort, but a detained person, within reasonable limits, is still obliged to endure it, when certain standards are met. The European Court of Human Rights underlines that there is a degree of suffering, which is inevitably linked with detention (Papon v. France, 25 July 2002, par.40) and the punishment related to restriction of liberty, in every event, causes the difficulties and sufferings. The same cannot be said about a person, who has been unlawfully or unjustifiably detained. He/she is not obliged to endure the discomfort arising from detention, which is expressed in impossibility or restriction to enjoy a whole range of rights and freedoms. Holding in detention of an unlawfully detained person is illegal by itself, despite the fact whether any requirement of the regime has been breached or not.

22. Breach of the regime for holding a detainee, by itself, aggravates the situation, but the very fact of holding in the regime may cause the damage to a person who was unlawfully or unjustifiably detained. Because of this, he/she may even suffer the physical damage. In the case “ Papon v. France”, the European Court of Human Rights indicated that detention per se inevitably affects detainees who suffer from grave diseases. Therefore, the very fact of detention, despite as to what circumstances it passes, supposes certain degree of suffering and this stress, on the one hand, is incompatible with the clinical picture of some diseases, and on the other hand, increases , on its own, the risk of coming down with a disease. A person, who is subject to this discomfort and suffering within the limits of restrictive measure that has been administered in violation of law and unjustifiably selected, is granted by the Constitution of Georgia with the right to compensation for any damage being in causal connection with detention.

23. Paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia envisage the full compensation for the damage inflicted on a person. The requirement on the volume of compensation for the damage is unambiguous and clear. The disputed norm based on its content also reduces the scales of compensation. It envisages not the full-scale compensation, but only in the part, which deal with the breach of the regime for holding a detainee. Such decision on the amount of the compensation for the damage is against the requirements of the above mentioned norms of the Constitution of Georgia.

24. As a result of constitutional and legal assessment, it is made clear that the words of the second part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia “If a illness is caused by the breach of the regime for holding a detainee in the places of detention” does not comply with standards established by paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia.

III

Stemming from the aforementioned, having been guided by paragraph 7 of Article 18, paragraph 9 f Article 42, subparagraph “f” of the first paragraph and paragraph 2 of Article 89 of the Constitution, subparagraph “e” of paragraph 1 of Article 19, paragraphs 2 and 8 of Article 21, paragraphs 2, 4, 7 and 8 of Article 43, Article 45 of the organic law of Georgia “On the Constitutional Court of Georgia”, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7, paragraph 4 of Article 24, Articles 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the law of Georgia “On the Constitutional legal proceedings”,

The Constitutional Court of Georgia
rules:

1. To uphold the constitutional claim N423 (The Public Defender of Georgia v. the Parliament of Georgia).

2. To declare as unconstitutional the words of the second part of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia ““If a illness is caused by the breach of the regime for holding a detainee in the places of detention” with respect to paragraph 7 of Article 18 and paragraph 9 of Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia.

3. The present judgment shall be in force from the moment of its public delivery at the hearing of the Constitutional Court.

4. The present judgment is final and shall not subject to appeal or revision.

5. Copies of the present judgment shall be sent to the parties, the Supreme Court of Georgia, the President of Georgia and the Government of Georgia.

6. The present judgment shall be published in “Sakartvelos Sakanonmdeblo Matsne” within 15 days.

Members of the Board:

Besik Loladze,

Otar Sichinava,

Lali Papiashvili,

John Kheturiani.