and from hospital for treatment was a disproportionate measure that amounted to inhuman
and degrading treatment.
The Court took security requirements into account but
considered that the applicant’s state of health made handcuffing unnecessary.
•
In Iwanczuk v Poland110 permission for the detainee to vote in parliamentary elections
while he was awaiting trial on fraud charges was subject to a body search. The applicant
was subjected to humiliating remarks about his body and verbal abuse. Permission to vote
was denied when he refused to remove his underpants. The ECHR held that the applicant
had been subjected to degrading treatment, as there were no compelling reasons to justify
the strip search. The applicant had no previous convictions or history of violence and the
search was intended to cause feelings of humiliation and inferiority.
Detention: force-feeding
Force-feeding a detainee involves degrading elements which, in certain circumstances, can
contravene the prohibition on torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In X v Germany the
prisoner was on a hunger strike. The European Commission was satisfied that the authorities
acted solely in the best interests of the applicant when choosing between either respecting his
will not to accept nourishment, and thereby incurring the risk of injuries or death, or taking
action to secure his survival, although such action might infringe the applicant’s human
dignity.111
Detention: blind folding
In Öcalan v Turkey112 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed serious
terrorist offences. He was blindfolded from the moment of his arrest in Kenya until his arrival
in prison in Turkey the following day. The ECHR held that blindfolding the suspect did not
amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in the circumstances, as the applicant was
blindfolded for reasons of security and was not interrogated while blindfolded.
110
Iwanczuk v Poland, judgment of the ECHR, 15 November 2001.
X v Germany (1984) 7 EHRR 152 at [153-154].
112
Öcalan v Turkey, judgment of the ECHR, 12 March 2003.
111
84