Although there is no requirement that either inhuman or degrading treatment result from an intentional act, the absence of intent may be taken into account in the consideration of damages.82 Evidence going to torture: Whether particular treatment amounts to torture is often a question of degree and will depend on inferences drawn from the circumstances of the case, the available evidence and any resultant injuries. In Denizci v Cyprus83 the ECHR held that the intentional ill-treatment of the applicants, who were detained and beaten by police officers, did not amount to torture. The ECHR was unable to establish whether the officers aimed to extract a confession and unable to determine the precise manner or severity of the beatings. Further, there was no evidence that the illtreatment had long term effects. In Salman v Turkey84 the ECHR found that the suffering of the victim, who was detained in good health and later died, amounted to torture. He sustained bruising and abrasions to his feet and a broken sternum. The ECHR considered the nature and degree of the ill-treatment and drew strong inferences that it occurred during interrogation, particularly since the authorities had provided no other plausible explanation for the injuries. Detention: Regardless of whether a state is a party to any relevant treaty, the general international law prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment applies to all 81 V v United Kingdom (1999) ECHR (Series A) No 9 at [71]. Price v United Kingdom, judgment of the ECHR, 10 July 2001 at [34]. 83 Denizci and Others v Cyprus, judgment of the ECHR, 23 May 2001. 84 Salman v Turkey, judgment of the ECHR, 27 June 2000. 82 78