Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
20 janvier 2011
Facts
The applicant was sentenced to several terms of imprisonment and in view of his dangerousness, very tight security arrangements were put in place during the trial and hearings. The applicant claimed that the officers wearing masks had subjected him to a series of particularly thorough strip-searches, including visual examinations of the anus, during which they used force if he refused to bend over and cough. The searches were video-recorded and usually took place in the presence of a police officer. He had undergone a full-body search between four to eight times a day during the trial.
Complaint
The applicant complained about the full-body searches and the surveillance regime to which he was subjected during his trial. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court accepted the fact that the applicant’s history and criminal background had justified substantial security measures. However, the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to very frequent and successive full body searches, and that the practice of conducting the searches by masked men was liable to cause feelings of anxiety. Moreover, the full-body searches had been recorded on video, and the rules on this kind of practice had not been clearly defined at that time, which led to a violation of his human dignity. In addition, the searches had not been based on any pressing need to ensure security or prevent disorder or crime. Therefore, although they had taken place over a short period, the body searches had caused feelings of arbitrariness, inferiority and anxiety to the applicant, which led to a degree of humiliation that exceeded the normal level of humiliation caused by body searches. The Court concluded that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.