Published on 9 February 2026
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 41776/18
Giorgi TATUNASHVILI and Rusudan TATUNASHVILI
against Russia
lodged on 22 August 2018
communicated on 19 January 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the detention and alleged torture to death of the applicants’ son, Mr Archil Tatunashvili, in Tskhinvali in February 2018 by the de facto South Ossetian authorities (see also Georgia v. Russia (IV), no. 39611/18, §§ 29-34, 9 April 2024). The applicants also complain of the extreme distress they suffered upon receiving his mutilated body one month after his death.
Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their son had been unlawfully detained in Tskhinvali, tortured, and killed by the de facto South Ossetian authorities, and that the respondent Government bore responsibility for those acts and had failed to conduct an effective investigation. They further alleged that the events in question had constituted inhuman treatment in breach of their own rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case as a result of the alleged killing of Mr Archil Tatunashvili by the de facto South Ossetian authorities and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in this regard (see Georgia v. Russia (IV), no. 39611/18, §§ 26, 30 and 33-34, 9 April 2024)?
 
2.  Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of Mr Tatunashvili’s alleged torture and/or the applicants’ own suffering upon receiving his body and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in this regard (see Georgia v. Russia (IV), cited above, §§ 38-46)?
 
3.  Do the applicants have standing to complain about Mr Tatunashvili’s detention (see, for the general principles, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 97-100, ECHR 2014)? If so:
 
4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of Mr Tatunashvili’s arrest and detention by the de facto South Ossetian authorities (see Georgia v. Russia (IV), cited above, §§ 52-55)?
 
5.  Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the delay in transferring Mr Tatunashvili’s body to his family (see Girard v. France, no. 22590/04, §§ 96-111, 30 June 2011)?
 
6.  Did the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints (see, for general principles, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V)?