GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 29 bona fide status (see Raimondo, cited above, § 30; Arcuri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 2001-VII; Morabito and Others v. Italy (dec.), 58572/00, ECHR 7 June 2005; Butler v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41661/98, 27 June 2002; Webb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56054/00, 10 February 2004; and Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 87-91, 18 December 2008; compare also with the more recent case of Silickienė, cited above, §§ 60-70, where a confiscation measure was applied to the widow of a corrupt public official). 108. Having regard to all the above considerations the Court finds, by analogy, that the civil proceedings in rem in the present case, conducted under the procedure regulated by Article 37 § 1 of the CCP and Article 21 §§ 4 to 11 of the CAP, can likewise not be considered to have been arbitrary or to have upset the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this connection the Court also attaches importance to the similar conclusions of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which found the civil proceedings in rem to be devoid of any arbitrariness (see paragraphs 37-43 above) Indeed, it was only reasonable to expect all three applicants – one of whom had been directly accused of corruption in a separate set of criminal proceedings, whilst the remaining two were presumed, as the accused’s family members, to have benefited unduly from the proceeds of his crime – to discharge their part of the burden of proof by refuting the prosecutor’s substantiated suspicions about the wrongful origins of their assets. Moreover, those civil proceedings for confiscation clearly formed part of a policy aimed at the prevention and eradication of corruption in the public service, and the Court reiterates that in implementing such policies, respondent States must be given a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime (see, for instance, Yildirim v. Italy (dec.), no. 38602/02, ECHR 2003-IV, and Butler, cited above). (β) Whether the domestic courts acted without arbitrariness 109. Notwithstanding the above finding, the Court observes that it must also ascertain whether the applicants, as the respondents in the civil proceedings for confiscation, were afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting their arguments before the domestic courts (see, Veits, cited above, §§ 72 and 74, and Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV). 110. In this connection the Court notes that the Ajarian Supreme Court, as well as transmitting the public prosecutor’s claim together with all the supporting documents, duly summoned all three applicants to make written submissions in reply and to take part in an oral hearing (contrast with Silickienė, cited above, § 48, and Veits, cited above, § 58). Those summonses were served at the applicants’ postal addresses twice, with the domestic court even postponing a hearing on one occasion, but the first and