Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Conclusion of Expertise that Cast Doubt in Investigation Results

September 9, 2009

Tako Khutsishvili

Three years have passed since Zurab Vazagashvili and Aleksandre Khubolov were killed close to the tennis-pitches in Tbilisi by the officers of the criminal police department; the killed people were suspected for organized robber.

The Prosecutor’s Office tried to estimate whether the policemen had exceeded their power or not during the operation but they ceased the investigation on April 20, 2007. According to the investigation, policemen had not exceeded their power.

In March and April of 2009, based on the request of the Public Defender, scientific-research center of the independent expertise at the Georgian Technical University carried out alternative expertise of the case. Subari said the expertise conclusion casted doubt whether the policemen had used appropriate force against the killed people.

Public Defender gave a special press-conference regarding the fact yesterday.

“At last, three years later, alternative expertise was done based on the request of the public defender. The results not only casted doubt in the investigation, but completely changed the conclusions made by the investigation,” said Subari.

Results of the alternative expertise are different from the results of the expertise that are included in the case materials.

According to the materials provided by the prosecutor’s office, the suspects opened fire at the policemen. The investigation claims it was proved by the smashed rear window of Vazagashvili’s car and a hole in the front window of the police car.

According to the conclusion of the expertise done on June 26, 2006 by the investigation the bullet was shot at the front window of the police car from the rear window of Vazagashvili’s car (IOI 823). To reinforce the arguments the expertise attached the scheme to their conclusion. The expertise carried out by the public defender demonstrated that similar shot was impossible. The same expertise concluded that investigation could not receive the abovementioned information based on the scheme and other details. The location of the car and trajectory of the shot do not coincide with each other.

Independent expertise concluded that nobody had fired from the car of Vazagashvili because trace of gun-powder was not found in the car.

There are some other circumstances that cast doubts in other conclusions of the initial expertise. According to case materials, the left upper part of the rear window was smashed. The policemen said in their testimonies that the suspected people had fired from inside the car in this direction. The expertise of the public defender shows that the rear window was broken after the accident.

“On May 20, 2006 reception agreement between two parking areas on the removal of the car from the special parking area of the MIA (Ortachala 600 Ltd) to the inner parking area of the administrative building of the MIA does not state anything about damaged rear window. All other damages of the car are indicated in the agreement in details. It means, during the removal the rear window was not damaged and it was destroyed later as an evidence,” said Subari.

Public Defender said the video-recording spread by the MIA also shows that the rear window of Vazagashvili’s car was not damaged at all.

One more detail that makes the investigation results unreal is bullet-sheds discovered by the investigation. Sozar Subari said the investigation did not identify the withdrawn bullet-sheds. Besides that, there are only 40 sheds in the case material while the initial expertise concluded that 70 bullets were shot in the car.

Policemen said in their testimonies to the investigation that they stopped shooting when the car crashed the post. But the video-recording spread by the MIA showed that policemen were shooting at the car after it crashed; that means the policemen continued shooting after the car of Vazagashvili had crashed the post. Public Defender doubts the witnesses made false testimonies.

Based on the abovementioned circumstances the Public Defender prepared 127-page conclusion which will be handed to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia in near future. The ombudsman requests to start preliminary investigation again. “The investigation has committed many serious violations. Everything was done to falsify evidences that could prove usage of excessive power by the policemen; consequently, we think the investigation shall start again,” said the Ombudsman.

Attorney Zaza Khatiashvili thinks that independent expertise demonstrated unprecedented fact in Georgia: “I can say that it is bill of particulars on Vano Merabishvili. These claimings could not be falsified without the permission of Merabishvili and Adeishvili. Public Defender managed to do what other people could not dare during the regime of the current government.”  

Public Defender thinks that based on their conclusion many governmental officials will be punished. “Of course I do not hope that it will happen soon because those criminals are decision-makers now; however, time for their punishment will also come,” said Subari.

News