Fundamento destacado: 82. Habida cuenta de todas las circunstancias del caso, el Tribunal considera que la medida impugnada alcanzó el nivel mínimo de gravedad requerido para entrar en el ámbito de aplicación del artículo 3. Las autoridades sometieron al demandante a una grave injerencia en su integridad física y mental en contra de su voluntad. Le obligaron a regurgitar, no por razones terapéuticas, sino para recuperar pruebas que podrían haber obtenido igualmente por métodos menos intrusivos. La forma en que se llevó a cabo la medida impugnada podía despertar en el demandante sentimientos de miedo, angustia e inferioridad capaces de humillarle y envilecerle. Además, el procedimiento entrañaba riesgos para la salud del demandante, entre otras cosas por no haberse obtenido previamente una anamnesis adecuada. Aunque no era esa la intención, la medida se aplicó de forma que causó al demandante tanto dolor físico como sufrimiento mental. Por lo tanto, ha sido sometido a un trato inhumano y degradante contrario al artículo 3.
[Traducción de LP]
82. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the impugned measure attained the minimum level of severity required to bring it within the scope of Article 3. The authorities subjected the applicant to a grave interference with his physical and mental integrity against his will. They forced him to regurgitate, not for therapeutic reasons, but in order to retrieve evidence they could equally have obtained by less intrusive methods. The manner in which the impugned measure was carried out was liable to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority that were capable of humiliating and debasing him. Furthermore, the procedure entailed risks to the applicant’s health, not least because of the failure to obtain a proper anamnesis beforehand. Although this was not the intention, the measure was implemented in a way which caused the applicant both physical pain and mental suffering. He has therefore been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
[Idioma original]
JALLOH v. GERMANY JUDGMENT
In the case of Jalloh v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:
Luzius Wildhaber, President,
Christos Rozakis,
Nicolas Bratza,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Georg Ress,
Giovanni Bonello,
Lucius Caflisch,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Matti Pellonpää,
András Baka,
Rait Maruste,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Javier Borrego Borrego,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2005 and on 10 May 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the lastmentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 54810/00) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Sierra Leonean national, Mr Abu Bakah Jalloh (“the applicant”), on 30 January 2000.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr U. Busch, a lawyer practising in Ratingen. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Stoltenberg, Ministerialdirigent, and, subsequently, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the forcible administration of emetics in order to obtain evidence of a drugs offence constituted inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. He further claimed that the use of this illegally obtained evidence at his trial breached his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
4. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court. By a decision of 26 October 2004, it was declared partly admissible by a Chamber of that Section, composed of Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President, Georg Ress, Lucius Caflisch, Rıza Türmen, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska and Alvina Gyulumyan, judges, and Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.
5. On 1 February 2005 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 of the Rules of Court).
6. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Georg Ress, whose term of office expired on 31 October 2004, continued to sit in the case (Article 23 § 7 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4). Jean-Paul Costa, Rıza Türmen and Margarita TsatsaNikolovska, who were unable to take part in the hearing, were replaced by András Baka, Giovanni Bonello and Ján Šikuta (Rule 24 § 2 (a) and § 3). At the final deliberations, Snejana Botoucharova, substitute judge, replaced Ljiljana Mijović, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 3)
[Continúa…]
