CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 11 juillet 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAF1F3329 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s5D5DC104 { width:5.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s286BBD5B { width:90.43pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD64447 { width:5.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2B9FDB28 { width:128.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0BAE19D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s713C5326 { width:154.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7A0DEE62 { width:114.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9093EDF4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8AF0E86E { width:213.9pt; display:inline-block } .s16D8D4DD { width:203.57pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .sF072AA1D { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sD6DE1560 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic }     GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF JALLOH v. GERMANY   (Application no. 54810/00)                     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 July 2006       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 E arly, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2005 and on 10 May 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned 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 Tsatsa-Nikolovska, 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). 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits. 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 November 2005 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mrs   A.   Wittling-Vogel , Ministerialdirigentin ,   Agent , Mr   H.   Brückner , Oberregierungsrat , Mrs   C.   Kreis , Staatsanwältin , Mr   J.   Klaas , Oberstaatsanwalt , Mr   K.   Püschel , Professor     (Institut für Rechtsmedizin Hamburg) , Mr   H.   Körner , Oberstaatsanwalt ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   U.   Busch , Rechtsanwalt ,   Counsel , Mr   A.   Busch , Unternehmensberater ,   Adviser .   The Court heard addresses by Mr A. Busch and Mrs Wittling-Vogel as well as their answers and the reply of Mr Püschel to questions put to them. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Cologne (Germany). 10.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Investigation proceedings 11.     On 29 October 1993 four plain-clothes policemen observed the applicant on at least two different occasions take a tiny plastic bag (a so ‑ called “bubble”) out of his mouth and hand it over to another person in exchange for money. Believing that these bags contained drugs, the police officers went to arrest the applicant, whereupon he swallowed another bubble he still had in his mouth. 12.     The police officers did not find any drugs on the applicant. Since further delay might have frustrated the conduct of the investigation, the public prosecutor ordered that emetics ( Brechmittel ) be administered to the applicant by a doctor in order to provoke the regurgitation of the bag ( Exkorporation ). 13.     The applicant was taken to a hospital in Wuppertal-Elberfeld. According to the Government, the doctor who was to administer the emetics questioned the applicant about his medical history (a procedure known as obtaining an anamnesis). This was disputed by the applicant, who claimed that he had not been questioned by a doctor. As the applicant refused to take the medication necessary to provoke vomiting, he was held down and immobilised by four police officers. The doctor then forcibly administered to him a salt solution and the emetic ipecacuanha syrup through a tube introduced into his stomach through the nose. In addition, the doctor injected him with apomorphine, another emetic that is a derivative of morphine. As a result, the applicant regurgitated one bubble containing 0.2182 grams of cocaine. Approximately an hour and a half after being arrested and taken to the hospital, the applicant was examined by a doctor and declared fit for detention. 14.     When visited by the police in his cell two hours after being given the emetics, the applicant, who was found not to speak German, said in broken English that he was too tired to make a statement about the alleged offence. 15.     Pursuant to an arrest warrant that had been issued by the Wuppertal District Court, the applicant was remanded in custody on 30 October 1993. 16.     The applicant maintained that for three days following the treatment to which he was subjected he was only able to drink soup and that his nose repeatedly bled for two weeks because of wounds he had received when the tube was inserted. This was disputed by the Government, who stressed that the applicant had failed to submit a medical report to prove his allegation. 17.     Two and a half months after the administration of the emetics, the applicant underwent a gastroscopy in the prison hospital after complaining of continuous pain in the upper region of his stomach. He was diagnosed as suffering from irritation in the lower area of the oesophagus caused by the reflux of gastric acid. The medical report did not expressly associate this condition with the forced administration of the emetics. 18.     The applicant was released from prison on 23 March 1994. He claimed that he had had to undergo further medical treatment for the stomach troubles he had suffered as a result of the forcible administration of the emetics. He did not submit any documents to confirm that he had received medical treatment. The Government, for their part, maintained that the applicant had not received any medical treatment. B.     Domestic court proceedings 19.     In his submissions dated 20 December 1993 to the Wuppertal District Court, the applicant, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, objected to the use at his trial of the evidence obtained through the administration of emetics, a method he considered to be illegal. By using force to provoke the regurgitation of the bubble of cocaine, the police officers and the doctor concerned were guilty of causing him bodily harm in the course of their duties ( Körperverletzung im Amt ). The administration of toxic substances was prohibited by Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 34 below). His bodily functions had been manipulated, since bodily activity had been provoked by suppressing the control reactions of the brain and the body. In any event, administering emetics was a disproportionate measure and therefore not authorised by Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs   33 and 35-40 below). It would have been possible to obtain evidence of the alleged offence by waiting for the bubble to pass through his system naturally. The applicant further argued that the only other method authorised by Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have been irrigation of the stomach. 20.     On 23 March 1994 the Wuppertal District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, suspended, and probation. It rejected the defence’s argument that the administration of emetics under Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a disproportionate means of recovering a bubble containing just 0.2 g of cocaine. 21.     The applicant appealed against the judgment. 22.     On 17 May 1995 the Wuppertal Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced the length of the suspended prison sentence to six months. It further ordered the forfeiture ( Verfall ) of 100   German marks that had been found on the applicant at the time of his arrest on the ground that it was the proceeds of sale of two drug bubbles. 23.     The Regional Court found that the evidence obtained following the public prosecutor’s order to provoke the regurgitation of the bubble of cocaine was admissible. The measure had been carried out because further delay might have frustrated the conduct of the investigation. Pursuant to Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the administration of the substances in question, even if effected against the suspect’s will, was legal. The procedure had been necessary to secure evidence of drug trafficking. It had been carried out by a doctor and in compliance with the rules of medical science. The defendant’s health had not been put at risk and the principle of proportionality had been adhered to. 24.     The applicant appealed against this judgment on points of law. He argued in particular that Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not authorise the administration of emetics, as it did not permit the administration of life-threatening substances by dangerous methods. Furthermore, Article 81a prohibited measures such as the one in question that resulted in a suspect effectively being forced to contribute actively to his own conviction. He further submitted that the impugned measure had violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Law ( Grundgesetz – see paragraphs   31-32 below), and disregarded in particular the right to respect for human dignity. 25.     On 19 September 1995 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the Regional Court’s judgment did not contain any error of law that was detrimental to the accused. 26.     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He reiterated that the administration of emetics was a disproportionate measure under Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 27.     On 15 September 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible under the principle of subsidiarity. 28.     It considered that the administration of emetics, including apomorphine, a morphine derivative, raised serious constitutional issues with respect to the right to physical integrity (Article 2 § 2 of the Basic Law – see paragraph 32 below) and to the principle of proportionality which the criminal courts had not yet addressed. 29.     The Federal Constitutional Court found that the applicant had not availed himself of all the remedies at his disposal ( alle prozessualen Möglichkeiten ) to contest the measure before the criminal courts in order to avoid any underestimation of the importance and scope of the fundamental right laid down in Article 2 § 2, first sentence, of the Basic Law ( um eine Verkennung von Bedeutung und Tragweite des Grundrechts des Art. 2 Abs.   2 Satz 1 GG zu verhindern ). 30.     It further stated that the administration of emetics did not give rise to any constitutional objections of principle either with respect to human dignity protected by Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law or the principle against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 read in conjunction with Article   1 § 1 of the Basic Law. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC, COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE 1.     Domestic law and practice (a)     The Basic Law 31.     Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law reads as follows: “The dignity of human beings is inviolable. All public authorities have a duty to respect and protect it.” 32.     Article 2, in so far as relevant, provides: “1.     Everyone shall have the right to the free development of their personality provided that they do not interfere with the rights of others or violate the constitutional order or moral law [ Sittengesetz ]. 2.     Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. ...” (b)     The Code of Criminal Procedure 33.     Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     A physical examination of the accused may be ordered for the purpose of establishing facts of relevance to the proceedings. To this end, blood samples may be taken and other bodily intrusions effected by a doctor in accordance with the rules of medical science for the purpose of examination without the accused’s consent, provided that there is no risk of damage to his health. 2.     Power to make such an order shall be vested in the judge and, in cases in which delay would jeopardise the success of the examination, in the public prosecutor’s office and officials assisting it ...” 34.     Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure on prohibited methods of interrogation ( verbotene Vernehmungsmethoden ) provides: “1.     The freedom of the accused to make decisions and to manifest his will shall not be impaired by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, the administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis. Coercion may be used only in so far as it is permitted by the law on criminal procedure. Threatening the accused with measures that are not permitted under the law on criminal procedure or holding out the prospect of an advantage that is not contemplated by statute shall be prohibited. 2.     Measures which impair the accused’s memory or ability to understand and accept a given situation [ Einsichtsfähigkeit ] shall not be permitted. 3.     The prohibition under sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply even if the accused has consented [to the proposed measure]. Statements obtained in breach of this prohibition shall not be used [in evidence], even if the accused has agreed to their use.” 35.     German criminal courts and legal writers disagree as to whether Article   81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the administration of emetics to a suspected drug dealer who has swallowed drugs on arrest. 36.     The view taken by the majority of the German courts of appeal (see, inter alia , the decision of the Bremen Court of Appeal of 19 January 2000, NStZ-RR 2000, p. 270, and the judgment of the Berlin Court of Appeal of 28   March 2000, JR 2001, pp. 162-64) is that Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure can serve as a legal basis for the administration of emetics in such circumstances. 37.     For example, in its judgment cited above, the Berlin Court of Appeal had to deal with the case of a suspected drug dealer who agreed to swallow ipecacuanha syrup after being threatened with its administration through a nasogastric tube if he refused. It found: “Pursuant to Article 81a § 1, first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a physical examination of the accused may be ordered for the purpose of establishing facts of relevance to the proceedings. ... (a)     Contrary to the view taken by the appellant, legal commentators are almost unanimous in agreeing that the administration of emetics in order to obtain quantities of drugs the accused has swallowed involves a bodily intrusion within the meaning of that provision (see HK -Lemke, StPO , 2nd edition, § 9; Dahs in Löwe ‑ Rosenberg, StPO , 24th edition, § 16; KK -Senge, StPO , 4th edition, §§ 6, 14; see, with regard to Article   81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rogall, SK ‑ StPO , Article 81a, § 48 and NStZ 1998, pp. 66-67, and Schaefer, NJW 1997, pp. 2437 et seq . ; contrast Frankfurt Court of Appeal, NJW 1997, p. 1647 with note by Weßlau, StV 1997, p.   341). This intrusion also does not violate human dignity protected by Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law or the principle against self-incrimination contained in Article 2 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 1 § 1 of the Basic Law. Pursuant to Article 2 § 2, third sentence, of the Basic Law, interferences with these basic rights are permitted if they have a statutory basis. The Federal Constitutional Court has already found on several occasions that, as a statutory provision enacted by Parliament, Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure meets this requirement ... Furthermore, it has found more specifically that the administration of emetics in reliance on that provision did not give rise to any constitutional objections of principle either (see Federal Constitutional Court, StV 2000, p. 1 – the decision in the present case ). It did not, therefore, find it necessary to discuss in detail the opinion expressed by the Frankfurt (Main) Court of Appeal ( NJW 1997, pp. 1647-48) which is occasionally shared by legal writers (see Weßlau, StV 1997, pp. 341-42), ... that the administration of emetics forces the accused to contribute to his own conviction and to actively do something he does not want to, namely regurgitate. This Court does not share the [Frankfurt Court of Appeal’s] view either, as the right of an accused to remain passive is not affected by his or her having to tolerate an intervention which merely provokes ‘involuntary bodily reactions’. ... (e)     ... this Court does not have to decide whether the evidence obtained by the administration of emetics may be used if the accused has refused to comply with his duty to tolerate the measure and his resistance to the introduction of a tube though the nose has been overcome by physical force. That point is not in issue in the present case ... The Regional Court ... stated that [on the facts of] the case decided by the Frankfurt (Main) Court of Appeal it too would have excluded the use of the evidence obtained because of the clearly disproportionate nature of the measure. It did, however, expressly and convincingly demonstrate that the facts of the present case were different.” 38.     In its judgment of 11 October 1996, however, the Frankfurt (Main) Court of Appeal held that Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not authorise the administration of emetics. The case concerned the administration of an overdose of ipecacuanha syrup to a suspected drug dealer by force through a nasogastric tube and his injection with apomorphine. The court found: “The forced administration of emetics was not covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even Article 81a does not justify the administration of an emetic by force. Firstly, the administration of an emetic constitutes neither a physical examination nor a bodily intrusion carried out by a doctor for examination purposes within the meaning of that provision. It is true that searching for foreign objects may be justified by Article 81a ... However, the emetic was used not to search for foreign objects, but to retrieve objects – whose presence was at least probable – in order to use them in evidence ... This aim was more akin to searching for or seizing an object within the meaning of Articles 102, 94 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure than to a physical examination ... – although those provisions do not, on the face of it, include forcible interference with a person’s physical integrity as a possible measure. ... Secondly, an accused is not the object of criminal proceedings ... The forced administration of emetics violates the principle of passivity [ Grundsatz der Passivität ], since its purpose is to force the accused actively to do something that he is unwilling to do, namely regurgitate. This is neither permitted under Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor compatible with the position of the accused in criminal proceedings. ... Consequently, the conduct of the prosecuting authorities constitutes unlawful interference with the accused’s physical integrity (Article 2 § 1, first sentence, of the Basic Law). ... The forcible administration of emetics in the absence of any legal basis therefor also violates the duty to protect human dignity and the accused’s general personality rights (Articles   1 § 1 and 2 § 1 of the Basic Law). ... The prohibition on obtaining the evidence [in that manner] and the other circumstances of the case prevent this evidence from being used in court. ...” 39.     According to many legal writers, Article 81a of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the administration of emetics to suspected drug dealers in order to obtain evidence (see also the authors cited above at paragraph   37). This view is taken, for example, by Rogall ( NStZ 1998, pp.   66-68 and Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozeßordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz , München 2005, Article 81a StPO , § 48) and by Kleinknecht and Meyer-Goßner ( StPO , 44th edition, Article 81a, § 22 – administration of emetics permitted for the investigation of serious offences). 40.     A considerable number of legal writers, however, take the view that the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 81a in particular, does not permit the administration of emetics. This opinion is held, for example, by Dallmeyer ( StV 1997, pp. 606-10, and KritV 2000, pp. 252-59), who considers that Article 81a does not authorise a search – as opposed to an examination – of the interior of a defendant’s body. Vetter ( Problemschwerpunkte des § 81a StPO – Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Brechmittelvergabe im strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren , Neuried 2000, pp. 72-82, 161) considers that the forcible administration of emetics through a nasogastric tube is irreconcilable with the rules of medical science, disproportionate and liable to damage the defendant’s health. (c)     Medical expert opinions on the forced administration of emetics to suspected drug dealers 41.     Medical experts disagree as to whether the forcible administration of emetics through the insertion of a nasogastric tube is advisable from a medical point of view. While some experts consider that emetics should be administered to a suspect in order to protect his health even if he resists such treatment, others take the view that such a measure entails serious health risks for the person concerned and should not therefore be carried out. 42.     The medical experts who argue in favour of the forcible administration of emetics stress that even if this measure is not primarily carried out for medical reasons, it may nevertheless serve to prevent a possibly life-threatening intoxication. As the packaging of drugs swallowed on arrest is often unreliable, it is preferable from a medical standpoint for emetics to be administered. This measure poses very few risks, whereas there is a danger of death if the drugs are allowed to pass through the body naturally. Drugs can be extracted from the stomach up to one hour, in some cases two, after being swallowed. Administering emetics is a safe and fast method (the emetic usually takes effect within 15 to 30 minutes) of retrieving evidence of a drugs offence, as it is rare for them not to work. Even though the forcible introduction of a tube through the nose can cause pain, it does not pose any health risks as the act of swallowing can be induced by the mechanical stimulus of the tube in the throat (see, inter alia , Birkholz, Kropp, Bleich, Klatt and Ritter, “Exkorporation von Betäubungsmitteln – Erfahrungen im Lande Bremen”, Kriminalistik 4/97, pp.   277-83). 43.     The emetic ipecacuanha syrup has a high margin of safety. Side ‑ effects to be expected merely take the form of drowsiness, diarrhoea and prolonged vomiting. Rare, more serious complications include Mallory-Weiss syndrome or aspiration pneumonia. These may occur if the person concerned has sustained previous damage to his or her stomach or if the rules governing the administration of emetics, notably that the patient is fully alert and conscious, are not observed (see, for example, Birkholz, Kropp, Bleich, Klatt and Ritter, cited above, pp. 278-81, and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, “Position Paper: Ipecac Syrup”, Journal of Toxicology , Clinical Toxicology , vol. 42, no. 2, 2004, pp. 133-43, in particular, p. 141). 44.     Those medical experts who argue against the administration of emetics by force point out in particular that the forcible introduction of emetics through a nasogastric tube entails considerable health risks. Even though it is desirable for drugs to be eliminated from the suspect’s body as quickly as possible, the use of a nasogastric tube or any other invasive method can be dangerous because of the risk of perforation of the drug packaging with potentially fatal consequences. Furthermore, if the tube is badly positioned liquid may enter the lungs and cause choking. Forced regurgitation also involves a danger of vomit being inhaled, which can lead to choking or a lung infection. The administration of emetics cannot therefore be medically justified without the consent of the person concerned, and, without this consent, this method of securing evidence will be incompatible with the ethics of the medical profession, as has been illustrated in particular by the death of a suspect following such treatment (see, inter alia , Odile Diamant-Berger, Michel Garnier and Bernard Marc, Urgences Médico ‑ Judiciaires , 1995, pp. 24-33; Scientific Committee of the Federal Medical Council, report dated 28 March 1996 in response to the Federal Constitutional Court’s request to assess the dangers involved in the forcible administration of emetics; and the resolution adopted by the 105th   German Medical Conference, Activity Report of the Federal Medical Association, point 3). (d)     Practice concerning the administration of emetics by force in Germany 45.     There is no uniform practice on the use of emetics to secure evidence of a drugs offence in the German Länder . Since 1993, five of the sixteen Länder (Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse and Lower Saxony) have used this measure on a regular basis. Whereas some Länder discontinued its use following the death of a suspect, others are still resorting to it. In the vast majority of cases in which emetics have been used, the suspects chose to swallow the emetic themselves, after being informed that it would otherwise be administered forcibly. In other Länder , emetics are not forcibly administered, partly because, on the basis of medical advice, it is regarded as a disproportionate and dangerous measure, and partly because it is not considered a necessary means of combating drugs offences. 46.     There have been two fatalities in Germany as a result of the forcible administration of ipecacuanha syrup to suspected drug dealers through a tube introduced through the nose into the stomach. In 2001 a Cameroonian national died in Hamburg. According to the investigation, he had suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of stress caused by the forcible administration of emetics. He was found to have been suffering from an undetected heart condition. In 2005 a Sierra Leonean national died in Bremen. The investigation into the cause of his death has not yet been completed. The emergency doctor and a medical expert suggested that the applicant had drowned as a result of a shortage of oxygen when water permeated his lungs. Criminal investigations for homicide caused by negligence have been launched against the doctor who pumped the emetic and water into the suspect’s stomach and against the emergency doctor called to attend to him. 47.     As a consequence of the fatality in Bremen, the Head of the Bremen Chief Public Prosecutors ( Leitender Oberstaatsanwalt ) has ordered the forcible administration of emetics to be discontinued in Bremen for the time being. Pending the outcome of the investigation, a new procedure has been set up by the Senators for Justice and the Interior. Under this procedure, a person suspected of swallowing drugs must be informed by a doctor about the risks to his health if the drugs remain in his body. The suspect can choose to take emetics or a laxative if a medical examination discloses that it poses no risks to his health. Otherwise, he is detained in a specially equipped cell until the drug packages are passed naturally. 2.     Public international law, comparative law and practice (a)     United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 48.     The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984 (resolution 39/46), provides: Article 1 § 1 “For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” Article 15 “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” Article 16 § 1 “Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in Article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (b)     Case-law of United States courts 49.     In Rochin v. California (342 US 165 (1952)), the United States Supreme Court reversed the petitioner’s conviction for unlawful possession of drugs. On the basis of information that the petitioner was selling narcotics, three state officers entered his home and forced their way into his bedroom. They unsuccessfully attempted to extract by force drug capsules which the petitioner had been observed to put into his mouth. The officers then took him to a hospital, where an emetic was forced through a tube into his stomach against his will. He regurgitated two capsules which were found to contain morphine. These were admitted in evidence in the face of his objection. The Supreme Court held on 2 January 1952 that the conviction had been obtained by methods in violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. 50.     Mr Justice Frankfurter, delivering the opinion of the Court, found: “Applying these general considerations to the circumstances of the present case, we are compelled to conclude that the proceedings by which this conviction was obtained do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism about combating crime too energetically. This is conduct that shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents – this course of proceeding by agents of government to obtain evidence is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities. They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation. It has long since ceased to be true that due process of law is heedless of the means by which otherwise relevant and credible evidence is obtained. This was not true even before the series of recent cases enforced the constitutional principle that the States may not base convictions upon confessions, however much verified, obtained by coercion. ... It would be a stultification of the responsibility which the course of constitutional history has cast upon this Court to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind but can extract what is in his stomach. To attempt in this case to distinguish what lawyers call ‘real evidence’ from verbal evidence is to ignore the reasons for excluding coerced confessions. Use of involuntary verbal confessions in State criminal trials is constitutionally obnoxious not only because of their unreliability. They are inadmissible under the Due Process Clause even though statements contained in them may be independently established as true. Coerced confessions offend the community’s sense of fair play and decency. So here, to sanction the brutal conduct which naturally enough was condemned by the court whose judgment is before us, would be to afford brutality the cloak of law. Nothing would be more calculated to discredit law and thereby to brutalize the temper of a society.” 51.     In State of Ohio v. Dario Williams (2004 WL 1902368 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.)), the Ohio Court of Appeals held on 26 August 2004 that the pumping of the defendant’s stomach in the face of his objections was not an unreasonable search and seizure. The defendant was observed engaging in a hand-to-hand transaction typical of drug dealing. When police officers ordered the defendant to their vehicle, he put something in his mouth and ran off. In the opinion of the court, flushing out the defendant’s stomach by gastric lavage by a physician in a hospital setting was not an unreasonable measure, even though the defendant violently objected to the procedure and had to be sedated. Swallowing the cocaine, which had been seen in the defendant’s mouth, put his life in jeopardy and he was destroying evidence. 52.     Mr Justice T.E. McMonagle, delivering the Court of Appeals’ opinion, found: “19.     Williams directs us to Rochin v. California , 342 US 165 (1952), ... one of the prominent cases on intrusive searches. ... 21.     Rochin is not dispositive, however. After Rochin , the United States Supreme Court decided Schmerber v. California , 384 US 757 (1966), 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, in which a police officer ordered an individual suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood test at the hospital where he was being treated for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The Supreme Court noted that ‘the Fourth Amendment’s proper function is to constrain, not against all intrusions as such, but against intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances, or which are made in an improper manner’. ... Finding no Fourth Amendment violation, the Court set forth several criteria to be considered in determining the reasonableness of an intrusive search: 1) the government must have a clear indication that incriminating evidence will be found; 2) the police officers must have a warrant, or, there must be exigent circumstances, such as the imminent destruction of evidence, to excuse the warrant requirement; and 3) the method used to extract the evidence must be reasonable and must be performed in a reasonable manner. ... 23.     Applying the Schmerber factors to the facts of this case, it is apparent that the pumping of Williams’ stomach was a lawful search and seizure. First, the officers observed Williams in an area known for illegal drug activity engage in a hand-to-hand transaction indicative of drug activity. When he saw the officers, he put whatever was in his hand in his mouth and then ran away. This behavior was a ‘clear indication’ to the officers that Williams had secreted drugs in his mouth. Moreover, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that Williams’ life could be in jeopardy after they observed crack cocaine in his mouth and saw him trying to chew it and swallow it. Furthermore, Williams was destroying the evidence necessary to convict him of drug possession. Accordingly, this case falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. 24.     Finally, it is apparent that the method and manner of the search were not unreasonable. The facts indicate that a physician administered Williams’ medical treatment in a hospital setting, according to accepted medical procedures ... 25.     In Schmerber , the United States Supreme Court expressed an acceptance of a search conducted in a reasonable manner by a physician. The physician is certainly more qualified than a police officer to determine the extent to which a procedure is life threatening. 26.     Assuming that [a defendant] swallowed the cocaine, if the drugs were packaged in such a way as to be impervious to intestinal processes, the physician would certainly be in a position to pump the stomach of the [defendant], which is a reasonable medical procedure less traumatic than the forced emetic in Rochin . Again, this is the kind of conduct that Schmerber finds more reasonable because it is done in the confines of a hospital with appropriate medical supervision.” (c)     Practice concerning the administration of emetics in the member States of the Council of Europe 53.     The Government submitted a survey based on information obtained from the governments of the member States of the Council of Europe via their Agents or, if the government concerned had not provided information, from the German Embassy in the country concerned. According to the survey, emetics are forcibly administered to suspected drug dealers in practice in four countries (Luxembourg, Norway, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Germany). In thirty-three countries emetics are not used against a suspect’s will to retrieve drug bubbles that have been swallowed (Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom). In three countries (Croatia, Poland and Slovenia) there is a legal basis for the use of emetics, but no information was supplied as to whether this measure is applied in practice. No information with respect to the use of emetics in practice was obtained from six member States (Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Monaco). 54.     The applicant partly contested the Government’s findings. He noted that the Government had said that three countries other than Germany (Luxembourg, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Norway) permitted the administration of emetics to suspected drug dealers and used the measure in practice. However, he said that the Government had failed to adduce any evidence of emetics being administered by force against the accused’s will in those member States. With respect to Norway in particular, the applicant disputed that the forcible introduction of a nasogastric tube as in his case was legal. As regards the administration of emetics in Croatia, Poland and Slovenia, he contested the existence of any legal basis for such a measure in those countries, irrespective of the position in practice. Consequently, Germany was the only Contracting State which was proven to actually resort to the impugned measure. In all the other member States the authorities waited for the drugs to pass through the body naturally. 55.     Other materials before the Court confirm the parties’ findings that emetics are not forcibly administered in practice in several Convention States examined (Belgium, Estonia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom). In these States, the au