In particular, according to the assessment of the European Court, the Georgian legislation regulating the use of force/weapons by law enforcement officers met the standards established by the Strasbourg Court. The Court took into account the fact that the operation to arrest Temirlan Machalikashvili was carried out in the context of the fight against terrorism, and armed resistance was expected from him. According to the decision of the European Court, the version established by the investigation is reliable, that Temirlan Machalikashvili, during his arrest, did not obey the instruction of a member of the special forces and tried to use a hand grenade, at which time a shot was fired at him. According to the assessment of the Strasbourg court, there is no evidence that would give rise to a reasonable assumption that Temirlan Machalikashvili died under such circumstances that would trigger the state's responsibility. Accordingly, no violation of the essential part of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention was established.

As for the procedural issue, the European Court noted that the Prosecutor's Office immediately started an investigation into the case, although the initial investigative actions were carried out by the State Security Service as part of the counter-terrorist operation, therefore, the same body obtained the initial evidence of the person who conducted the operation.

The European Court did not share the arguments of the applicants that the investigation carried out by the Prosecutor's Office was limited only to establishing the circumstances of the wounding of Temirlan Machalikashvili and noted that the members of the special task force were also questioned about the instructions given to them before the special operation, which testifies that the Prosecutor's Office was investigating not only the conduct of the special operation, but also its planning.

The court also responded to the claim of the complainants regarding the movement of the hand grenade after the special operation and stated that since Temirlan Machalikashvili was wounded during the operation, it was necessary to provide him with first aid on the spot, which is why it became necessary to remove the items in the room, including the hand grenade. According to the court's assessment, it is true that due to the aforementioned, further investigation was hindered in establishing separate circumstances, however, the need to find first aid for a seriously injured person should be given priority over the need to keep the investigation site intact.

According to the decision of the Strasbourg Court, the authorities of the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia took a number of measures in order to fully collect the evidence. Almost everyone involved in and related to the incident was interviewed, including the appellants, the officers involved in the operation of the Special Tasks Department, their supervisors, as well as medical personnel, a number of examinations were conducted and other types of evidence were obtained, although the special forces were interviewed after five weeks because their identity was not made public and the appropriate procedures were ongoing.

The European Court positively evaluated the participation of the applicants in the present case in the investigation process. In particular, the complainants had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the investigation material, and the investigative body met the complainants' demands regarding the conduct of investigative activities. It was at their request that the head, deputy head and officers of the anti-terrorist department of the State Security Service were additionally questioned. However, the court also noted that they could not get to know the secret part of the case until the final stage of the investigation.

Due to the individual deficiencies mentioned at the initial stage of the investigation, according to the European Court, the procedural part of Article 2 of the Convention was violated.

As for the claims of the petitioners regarding their improper treatment during the special operation, they are clearly unfounded.

The Strasbourg court, based on the documentation submitted by the government, first noted that the counter-terrorist operation served the legitimate purpose of arresting Temirlan Machalikashvili and searching his house. Accordingly, the court did not question the reasonable grounds and necessity of the counter-terrorist operation. As for the psychological impact of the operation, due to the nature of the counter-terrorist operation, the European Court found that the stress caused by the operation is an accompanying emotion, and there is no evidence within the scope of the case to prove that the applicants suffered more negative emotional effects based on the actions of the representatives of the State Security Service than those associated with this type of special operation process. While discussing this issue, the court also emphasized the fact that the applicants, at the first stage, did not make any claims regarding the actions of the representatives of the State Security Service.

The court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs.

The European Court of Human Rights published its decision on the case "Machalikashvili and others v. Georgia" and determined that Article 2 of the European Convention (right to life) was not violated in the essential part.

In particular, according to the assessment of the European Court, the Georgian legislation regulating the use of force/weapons by law enforcement officers met the standards established by the Strasbourg Court. The Court took into account the fact that the operation to arrest Temirlan Machalikashvili was carried out in the context of the fight against terrorism, and armed resistance was expected from him. According to the decision of the European Court, the version established by the investigation is reliable, that Temirlan Machalikashvili, during his arrest, did not obey the instruction of a member of the special forces and tried to use a hand grenade, at which time a shot was fired at him. According to the assessment of the Strasbourg court, there is no evidence that would give rise to a reasonable assumption that Temirlan Machalikashvili died under such circumstances that would trigger the state's responsibility. Accordingly, no violation of the essential part of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention was established.

As for the procedural issue, the European Court noted that the Prosecutor's Office immediately started an investigation into the case, although the initial investigative actions were carried out by the State Security Service as part of the counter-terrorist operation, therefore, the same body obtained the initial evidence of the person who conducted the operation.

The European Court did not share the arguments of the applicants that the investigation carried out by the Prosecutor's Office was limited only to establishing the circumstances of the wounding of Temirlan Machalikashvili and noted that the members of the special task force were also questioned about the instructions given to them before the special operation, which testifies that the Prosecutor's Office was investigating not only the conduct of the special operation, but also its planning.

The court also responded to the claim of the complainants regarding the movement of the hand grenade after the special operation and stated that since Temirlan Machalikashvili was wounded during the operation, it was necessary to provide him with first aid on the spot, which is why it became necessary to remove the items in the room, including the hand grenade. According to the court's assessment, it is true that due to the aforementioned, further investigation was hindered in establishing separate circumstances, however, the need to find first aid for a seriously injured person should be given priority over the need to keep the investigation site intact.

According to the decision of the Strasbourg Court, the authorities of the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia took a number of measures in order to fully collect the evidence. Almost everyone involved in and related to the incident was interviewed, including the appellants, the officers involved in the operation of the Special Tasks Department, their supervisors, as well as medical personnel, a number of examinations were conducted and other types of evidence were obtained, although the special forces were interviewed after five weeks because their identity was not made public and the appropriate procedures were ongoing.

The European Court positively evaluated the participation of the applicants in the present case in the investigation process. In particular, the complainants had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the investigation material, and the investigative body met the complainants' demands regarding the conduct of investigative activities. It was at their request that the head, deputy head and officers of the anti-terrorist department of the State Security Service were additionally questioned. However, the court also noted that they could not get to know the secret part of the case until the final stage of the investigation.

Due to the individual deficiencies mentioned at the initial stage of the investigation, according to the European Court, the procedural part of Article 2 of the Convention was violated.

As for the claims of the petitioners regarding their improper treatment during the special operation, they are clearly unfounded.

The Strasbourg court, based on the documentation submitted by the government, first noted that the counter-terrorist operation served the legitimate purpose of arresting Temirlan Machalikashvili and searching his house. Accordingly, the court did not question the reasonable grounds and necessity of the counter-terrorist operation. As for the psychological impact of the operation, due to the nature of the counter-terrorist operation, the European Court found that the stress caused by the operation is an accompanying emotion, and there is no evidence within the scope of the case to prove that the applicants suffered more negative emotional effects based on the actions of the representatives of the State Security Service than those associated with this type of special operation process. While discussing this issue, the court also emphasized the fact that the applicants, at the first stage, did not make any claims regarding the actions of the representatives of the State Security Service.

The court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs.