The Public Defender of Georgia would like to respond to the investigation of the murder of teenagers on Khorava Street and provide information about the examination of the case by the Public Defender’s Office.

Representatives of our Office studied the case materials related to the murder and covering up/not reporting of the crime as intensively as possible and sent them to the court. We managed to study 10 volumes of case materials in detail in 5 days; we managed to critically realize the most important case materials and compare the documents with each other. We have not yet familiarized ourselves with the details related to witness tampering, which are being intensively investigated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs at this stage. However, in the nearest days, the Ministry of Internal Affairs will gradually introduce the materials of the mentioned investigation to us.

The Public Defender is studying the case in two directions: firstly, whether all necessary investigative actions have been carried out or whether the investigative activities conducted were sufficient; and secondly, whether certain persons, whose responsibilities were possible to identify, have been identified.

At this stage, we have identified certain circumstances and we’d like to provide information about it to the public. As a result of the examination of the case, a question emerged about why the investigation did not seize the clothes of one of persons participating in the fight, while the mentioned investigative action was conducted in relation to other participants of the fight. Despite the fact that a number of statements were made about the fact that the majority of witnesses refused to give a testimony, our examination showed that during the questioning of witnesses, they had not been asked the kind of questions that could specify and/or identify the role of these or other persons in the crime. At the same time, some witnesses, who with high probability had important information for the investigation, were not questioned or interrogated at all.

It should also be noted that grounds for raising a responsibility in terms of covering up a crime existed not only in relation to the persons charged before June 9, but other persons as well. Investigative actions in connection with the above were delayed or not carried out at all.

At the same time, the guilt of the individuals involved in the fight, which may not be immediate executors of the murder, but may have committed another crime (for example, the alleged wounding of one of the participants in the fight) is to be studied.

Despite the fact that the forensic examination of the abovementioned was carried out late, the examination results and the testimonies of the witnesses indicated the alleged commission of another crime (wounding of a person). No investigation has been launched in relation to these circumstances. We also think that the dismantlement of the so-called shed is problematic, since we do not know who gave a permit for his. It is noteworthy that the original condition of the shed has not been exactly identified.

We have yet to investigate the materials of the trial, which will be introduced to us in the court. It is also important to see the verdict, which is still not available for us. We will present a final conclusion to the public after analyzing all the materials.

We would also like to welcome the active investigative process being conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to our observation, numerous investigative actions are being carried out simultaneously and several persons were reportedly charged. We think that filing charges against those persons will answer at least some of the questions. We hope that the Ministry of Internal Affairs will answer the questions in relation to the case.

It should be noted that after fully studying the case materials, one of the subjects of our assessment will be the effectiveness of the investigation conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs since June 2018.