Identoba and Others v Georgia (Application No. 73235/12)

In brief

The European Court of Human Rights held that the Georgian authorities’ failure to protect participants in a peaceful LGBT International Day Against Homophobia march from a foreseeable violent counter-demonstration violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) read together with Article 14 (non-discrimination), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) read together with Article 14. The Article 3 violation, found by six votes to one and only for the thirteen individual applicants, also rested on the failure to investigate effectively, including the bias motive (paras 75–78, 81); the Article 11 violation was unanimous (para 100); several complaints were declared inadmissible. The Court emphasised the foreseeability of the violence and the state’s positive obligation to plan adequate protective measures.

Key provisions

• Article 3 + 14 ECHR — positive obligation of protection from foreseeable hate violence : Where authorities know or should know of a risk of bias-motivated violence reaching the Article 3 severity threshold, state authorities have a positive obligation to plan and implement protective measures and to investigate effectively; failure to do so engages Article 3 read with Article 14 (paras 65–67, 70–72, 74, 77, 80–81). The Court’s findings are framed as homophobic bias; it made no finding about transphobic violence, though it recalled that Article 14 covers gender identity (para 96).
• Article 11 + 14 ECHR — freedom of assembly with effective protection : The right to peaceful assembly carries a corollary state duty of effective protection where foreseeable counter-protest threatens its exercise.

When relevant

When assessing a State’s Convention obligations to protect a public assembly and to investigate bias-motivated violence. Read-across to safeguarding policies where transphobic harassment or hostile-environment risk is foreseeable, and to the boundary between a general duty of care and a specific positive obligation, is toolkit analysis by analogy; the judgment does not deal with them.