Accused Persons on the Case of Murad Tsurtsumia were Sentenced to 10 and 9 Years of Imprisonment

Popkhadze and Burdzenidze were charged under paragraph 6 of Article 117 of the Criminal Code of Georgia envisaging intentional grave damage to health, resulting in the destruction of human life; further, they were charged under the Article 126 (Violence) and under paragraphs 2(c) and 3(a) of the Article 143 of the Criminal Code envisaging imprisoning a person unlawfully for the purpose of concealing or facilitating any other crime committed with a prior agreement by a group of persons. 

On January 2, 2020, on the so-called Dampalo Cemetery located in the 3rd settlement of Varketili in Tbilisi, Zurab Popkhadze, an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Vakhtang Burdzenidze, the person accompanying Popkhadze, beat 24-year-old Murad Tsurtsumia to death over a car dispute. The accused persons also beat Mukhran Chkhvirkia, the brother of the murdered person, who managed to escape from the scene.

Murad Tsurtsumia suffered grave injuries incompatible with his life causing his death at a hospital on January 4, while Mukhran Chkhvirkia was hospitalized in Gori Military Hospital with numerous grave injuries as a result of group violence committed against him.

On January 6, the prosecutor's office declared the mother of the deceased as the legal successor of the victim on the case of death of Murad Tsurtsumia and further declared Mukhran Chkhvirkia as a victim. 

HRC was defending the legal interests of Murad Tsurtsumia's family. Although the accused Vakhtang Burdzenidze was interrogated twice, he was never detained and was released under a written statement. On January 8, following the request of HRC and other NGOs, Vakhtang Burdzenidze was arrested. 

At the first stage of the investigation into the case, the human rights organizations called on the State Inspector to apply to the prosecutor's office to retrieve the case files of Tsurtsumia. The organizations were not in consent with the statement made by the Office of State Inspector saying that as the Prosecutor's Office was conducting the investigation also under other articles of the Criminal Code, the State Inspector had no powers to conduct the investigation.

The Human Rights Center