[7] Assanidze was arrested on 4 October 1993 under "suspicion of illegal financial dealings in the Batumi Tobacco Manufacturing Company and the unlawful possession and handling of firearms".
[14] The Ajarian High Court gave its judgment based solely on the evidence given by the three members of the group involved in the kidnapping who had been found guilty when the case was first tried in 1996 and convicted the defendant.
The criminal file does not contain incontrovertible evidence capable of supporting a guilty verdict; the judgment is, moreover, self-contradictory and based on inconsistent conjecture and depositions from persons interested in the outcome of the proceedings that were obtained in breach of the procedural rules.
[26][27] The underlying issue here was the refusal by the Ajarian authorities to recognise the Georgian government as its sovereign, instead standing resolutely that they had judicial autonomy to act as the administration saw fit.
[35] The Court interpreted the wording of Article 2 § 3 of the Constitution and found that Georgia held "jurisdiction" over the Autonomous Republic of Adjara for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[36][37][38] Further, Georgia had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights without making specific mention of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic or any challenges that would prohibit the State upholding the treaty across its territories.
[40] Citing Article 35, § 4, of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court deemed it necessary to declare that evidence regarding Assanidze's detention up until 11 December 1999 to be inadmissible.
[45] The Grand Chamber ruled unanimously that the applicant had been deprived of his right to liberty and security afforded to him by Article 5 § 1 and was being detained without legal authority or certainty of release.
[46][47] The Court could find no exception in common or treaty law that would justify the applicant's deprivation of liberty despite examining a number of cases and Article 5 § 1 in depth.
[50][51] The judgment text goes on to say that "it is inconceivable that in a State subject to the rule of law a person should continue to be deprived of his liberty despite the existence of a court order for his release".
[52] In finding a breach regarding the arbitrary imprisonment the court found it unnecessary to examine the applicant 's complaint regarding the place of detention as it added nothing to the violation.
[60][61] For this reason the Court held by fourteen votes to three that there had been a failure to comply with a legally enforceable and final decision and therefore amounted to a breach of the convention.
[64] Using the powers afforded by Article 41 the Court, noting the extreme circumstances of the applicant's detainment, ordered that Assanidze be released at "the earliest possible" date.
[68] In addition to the sum awarded for damages the Court followed, inter alia, the previous decision in Maestri v. Italy that held should a violation be found, the Government must consider adopting domestic legislation to prevent any future breaches of similar nature from occurring.
[66] After the ruling, the newly-sworn President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the Adjarian authorities to immediately release Assanidze and threatened with "appropriate measures" in case of failure to comply.