Article 3 ECHR - Prohibition Of Torture Flashcards
What were the key concepts in the jalloh v. Germany case ( art 3)
Evidence obtained in violation of art 3
What are the facts of the case jalloh v. Germany
In this case, the applicant is caught by police in the act of exchanging drugs for money. When confronted by police, the applicant swallows a plastic baggie containing the drug. The applicant is taken to the hospital, and administered an emetic through a tube in his nose, in order for him to vomit up the drug. He does not consent to this procedure and is held down by officers while it is performed. He vomits up the drug, and it is used as evidence to secure his criminal conviction.
What was the issue in the case jalloh v. Germany
Was the evidence obtained in violation of Art 3 ECHR which protects against inhumane or degrading treatment?
If so, does using that evidence to secure the applicant’s criminal conviction constitute a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Art 6(1) ECHR?
What rule did the case jalloh v. Germany establish with relation to article 3
Compliance with art 3 is based on an assessment of the following factors:
- extent to which forcible intervention was necessary to obtain evidence
- health risks for the suspect
- manner in which the procedure was carried out and the physical and mental suffering it caused
- Degree of medical supervision available
- Effects on the suspects health
-the severity of a measure for the purpose of art 3 is assessed by assessing:
1. Duration of treatment
2. Physical and mental effects
3. In some cases, the sex and state of health of the victim
What was the conclusion of the case jalloh v. Germany case?
There was a violation of art 3 and art 6(1) ECHR becuse:
-the authorities could have waited for the dugs to pass naturally
-significant health risks: people have died from the procedure
- manner in which it was administered was humiliating
-medical history of applicant wasnt taken
How did the case jalloh v. Germany define inhuman
premeditated, applied for hours at stretch, caused either actual
bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering
Define the word degrading the way the court defined it in jalloh v. Germany case
Arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possible breaking their physical or moral resistance
What were the key concepts of the gafgen v, Germany case
-evidence obtained in violation of art 3
-how does such evidence relate to art 6(1)
What a re the facts of the gafgen v. Germany case
The applicant in this case has murdered a child. Despite the child already being dead he attempts to extract a ransom from the parents, but is arrested. He consults with a lawyer for 30 minutes. At this point the police believed the child to still be alive, so the Deputy Chief of Police in Frankfurt ordered a subordinate officer to threaten the applicant with considerable physical pain (including sexual violation) if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts. In the course of this
questioning, the officer hit the applicant several times. Because of this threat, the applicant disclosed
the location of the boy’s body, and went with officers to where they uncovered the child’s body. After returning to the police station, the applicant is again allowed to consult with his lawyer.
What was the issue in the case gafgen v. Germany
Did the threats issued by police constitute torture or inhumane or degrading treatment such that they violated art 3 ECHR?
If so, did these threats influence the fairness of the trial as to constitute a violation of art 6(1) ECHR
What rule was established by gafgen v. Germany
Rule: To determine if the measure reaches the minimum level of severity to engage Art 3
ECHR, we assess
• Duration of the treatment
• Physical/mental effects
• In some cases: sex, age, and state of health of the applicant
• The purpose for which the treatment was inflicted together with intention or motivation
behind it.
How did teh court define torture in the case gafgen v. Germany
deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering for the goals of obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation. The threat of such conduct, provided it is real and immediate, can be considered at least inhumane treatment for the purposes of Art 3 ECHR.
How to determine if there was in interference with the right to silence or privilege against self- incrimination constituting an art 6(1) violation?
• The nature and degree of the compulsion used to obtain the evidence(e.g the nature of teh compulsion was quite severe, such that it violated art 3 ECHR)
• The existence of relevant safeguards(laws)
• The use to which the material was put
What was the conclusion of the case gafgen v. Germany
There has been a violation of art 3 ECHR, but not of art 6(1) ECHR
