ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 2013 society and fear amongst prisoners as well as ensuring that the State’s upright denouncement of torture and other ill-treatment is not questionable. The Office of the Public Defender has forwarded all of the ill-treatment-related information to the Georgian Chief Prosecution Office for further examination and response. According to reply letters received from the Prosecution Office, instead of opening criminal cases and conducting investigation through its relevant divisions, the Chief Prosecution Office usually forwards these materials to the Ministry of Corrections. In some cases, the Chief Prosecution Office has refrained from commencing investigation based on information received about alleged ill-treatment of prisoners stating that they will examine and deal with these allegations within the ongoing criminal cases that have already been opened. Individual stories of prisoners described above and other cases are the examples of the prosecution office’s such practice. A.B., a convicted prisoner, complained of being verbally abused and beaten up by about twenty officials from the Penitentiary Department. The Public Defender’s Office forwarded A.B.’s written complaint to the Chief Prosecution Office for their response. By its Letter no. 13/7629 dated 7 February 2014, the Prosecution Office informed the Office of the Public Defender that on 26 September 2013 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Corrections opened Criminal Case no. 073250913006 under Article 3782(1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia to investigate alleged storage and carrying of a prohibited item by prisoner A.B. As part of investigative measures, A.B. was interrogated and the allegations he raised in his testimony, including alleged ill-treatment against him, were examined. On 23 December 2013, the Criminal Case no. 073250913006 was terminated on the ground that no elements of the impugned criminal offense were found. Information provided by D.O. and N.B., convicted prisoners, alleging ill-treatment administered against them by the administration of Penitentiary Institution No. 6 were forwarded by the Public Defender’s Office to the Chief Prosecution Office for their response. By its Letter No. 13/5654 dated 30 November 2013, the Prosecution Office informed the Public Defender that on 30 November 2013 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Corrections opened a criminal case no. 073301113004 under Article 3782(1) of the Criminal Code of Georgia to investigate alleged storage and carrying of a prohibited item by prisoners D.O. and N.B. A forensic evidence taking was ordered but no report has been produced this far. Investigation is ongoing. It should be noted that the Prosecution Office’s letter said nothing about any results of their examination of the alleged ill-treatment against the prisoners. The Office of the Public Defender forwarded a copy of a protocol of our conversation with D.B., in which the prisoner complained of having been subjected to ill-treatment on the part of staff of the Penitentiary Institution No. 2 to the Chief Prosecution Office for their response. Through its Letter No. 13/6703 dated 11 November 2013, the Prosecution Office replied that the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Corrections opened investigation into Criminal Case No. 073250913005 under Article 3782 of the Criminal Code of Georgia; however, no separate investigation has started concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the prisoner. Information provided by I.F. and G.K., convicted prisoners complaining of alleged ill-treatment administered against them in Penitentiary Institution No. 19, was forwarded by the Office of the Public Defender to the Chief Prosecution Office for their response. By its Letter No. 13/4738 dated 27 January 2014, the Prosecution Office informed the Public Defender that our information with appended materials had been forwarded to the Inspectorate-General of the Ministry of Corrections. One criterion the European Court of Human Rights uses to determine whether or not an allegation of ill-treatment was effectively investigated is whether the investigation was independent and impartial. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Court has been reiterating its stance in a series of judgments against Georgia that an institutional connection between the investigators and those implicated by the applicant in the incident raises legitimate doubts as to the independence of the investigation conducted.13 The Court has further specified that investigation of alleged ill-treatment must be carried out independently from the criminal charges involving the victim, since the purpose of the criminal proceedings against the accused person (who is the victim of ill-treatment) is either to find him innocent or guilty of these criminal charges brought up 13 Mikiashvili v. Georgia, Judgment of 9 October 2012, par. 87; Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, Judgment of 15 February 2011, par. 78; Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, Judgment of 26 April 2011, par. 243. NPM Report 8