1. Why did the investigative agencies fail to carry out a whole range of necessary investigative measures regarding M. K.? Including the following:
a) While the testimonies given by witnesses confirmed that, after the fight, there were red stains resembling blood on the clothes of M. K. and the video recording that featured in the case and the testimony by M. K.'s brother, Luka Kalandia, confirmed that the latter threw the red-stained clothes into a maintenance hole in the vicinity of their apartment block, why was not M. K.'s residence searched?b) Why did the investigators not try to find the clothes that M. K. wore during the incident?
2. When the forensic analysis of the 12 wounds on the deceased Davit Saralidze's body carried out by the defence raised suspicions that they were inflicted using different weapons, why was there no intensive investigation carried out to establish possible culpability of other perpetrators of the crime or accomplices?
3. Why was the main person involved in the first conflict that occurred in the restroom, D. G., questioned only on the 13th day after the crime had occurred rather than during the very first days of the investigation? It is also suspicious that one of the participants of the fight, T. N., was, too, questioned belatedly.
4. Why did the Ministry of Internal Affairs and then the Prosecutor's Office not question the parents - father, Mirza Subeliani, and mother, T. K. - of the main participant of the confrontation between the teenagers, A. S.? The investigators did not question A. S.'s aunt and M. K.'s mother, L. K., either.
5. Why was the investigation unable to document the exact measurements of the shed? Were the members of the investigating team informed about the dismantling of the shed, who gave the permission to dismantle it and why?
6. Why did the investigation not question all the witnesses who were present, saw or had any kind of information about the crime? Why did the investigators not obtain all video recordings which could show the route of the teenagers after the murder?
7. Why did the investigation not study the phones and social network activities of the participants of the confrontation which were, in all likelihood, used to plan their meeting? According to the investigator, the phones were not confiscated in order to conduct subsequent covert investigative measures, however, the investigative agencies did not carry out covert investigative measures concerning the confrontation participants.
8. Why was an investigation not initiated concerning one of the clash participants, G. M., being wounded in the back and why was a person who wounded G. M. not identified considering the fact that the investigation knew about G. M. being wounded as early as on 2 December? G. M. himself confirmed that he was wounded by a person wearing a green jacket, which was corroborated by the witnesses as well. It is noteworthy that the investigation also knew that D. G., an underage participant of the clash, wore a green jacket.
9. Why did the investigation not pose all the necessary questions to the expert, for example, regarding the number of objects which were allegedly used to inflict injuries on Davit Saralidze?
10. Are investigative measures being carried out to identify and hold accountable the officials whose inaction or purposeful action created obstacles to the investigation and complicated the administration of justice on this case?
11. We also have questions for the agency which conducted forensic expertise on the case, specifically:
It is our opinion that the law enforcement bodies must provide exhaustive answers to all the questions listed above.a) Why did the expert fail to protect the object of examination from being damaged?b) Why did the expert not envisage a possibility of damage to one of the key pieces of evidence, namely, the weapon of murder of Davit Saralidze - the knife, and why was the expert examination not conducted in the environment in which such damage would not occur?c) Was it possible to prevent the piece of evidence from being damaged?