received no compensation for the loss of her personal belongings or the emotional distress caused by the destruction of her home reached the threshold of both Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costello-Roberts

result of a breach of Article 1, by which “[t]he High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of [the] Convention” (see Costello-Roberts

circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts

Article 3 treatment, it may, however, fall foul of Article 8 of the Convention which, inter alia , provides protection of physical and moral integrity under the respect for private life head (see Costello-Roberts

The same holds true insofar as degrading treatment is concerned (Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30).

have been met cannot be assessed with reference to the applicant’s chances of success alone, since this provision does not guarantee any particular outcome (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Costello-Roberts

As regards school discipline, the Court held as follows in its above-cited judgment in Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom : ‘27.

Article   3 may nonetheless breach the private-life aspect of Article   8, if the effects on the applicant’s physical and moral integrity are sufficiently adverse (see, mutatis mutandis , Costello-Roberts

Denmark , judgment of 7 December 1976, Series   A no. 23, §   50, Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C, §   26-27, where in providing

he is authorised by the domestic courts to discharge them, the Court is not persuaded that the State could avoid responsibility by delegating its obligations to this person (see, mutatis mutandis, Costello-Roberts

  the   Netherlands , cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v.

not reach the severity of Article 3 treatment may nonetheless breach Article   8 in its private-life aspect, where there are sufficiently adverse effects on physical and moral integrity (see Costello-Roberts

The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C, p. 59, § 30).

Neither is the mere fact of placement in a punishment cell as a penalty for having violated prison discipline sufficient to constitute degrading or inhuman punishment (see Costello-Roberts v. the United

which does not reach the severity of Article 3 treatment may nonetheless breach Article 8 in its private-life aspect where there are sufficiently adverse effects on physical and moral integrity (see Costello-Roberts

Croatia , no. 41526/10, §§   141-43, ECHR 2012; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25   March 1993, §   36, Series A no.

Belgium , 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70; and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C).

circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts

the States have a duty to   protect the physical and moral integrity of an individual from other persons (see X and Y v. the Netherlands , 26 March 1985, §§   22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts