CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 avril 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206 April 2017 Zherdev v. Ukraine - 34015/07 Judgment 27.4.2017 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Minor held in handcuffs and underwear at police station for two and a half hours and subsequently placed in cell with adults: violation Facts – The applicant, a sixteen-year-old boy, was interviewed at a police station in connection with a murder investigation. He was left in his underwear for several hours and subsequently placed in a cell with adults. Law – Article 3 ( substantive aspect ): The applicant was left handcuffed in just his underwear at the police station for at least two and a half hours. The authorities clearly had a valid reason for taking his clothes which could have provided physical proof of his involvement in the crime. However, even if there was no conclusive evidence before the Court that the authorities had intended to humiliate or debase him, the applicant was a minor and there was no explanation for their failure to provide him with replacement clothes or some other covering sooner and to keep him handcuffed in that state for at least two and a half hours. The applicant reported that the incident had left a particularly strong impression on him in view of the possibility that he might be charged with a sex offence and thus exposed to a risk of rape in prison. The fact that the applicant, a minor facing the criminal-justice system for the first time, was left handcuffed and almost without clothes for at least two and a half hours in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability could be considered of itself to raise an issue under Article   3. Moreover, his placement, in violation of domestic law, with adult detainees for the following three days must have contributed to his feelings of fear, anguish, helplessness and inferiority, and so diminished his dignity. The applicant had thus been subjected to “degrading” treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court also found unanimously a violation of the procedural aspect of Article   3, a violation of Article 5 §   3 in view of the length of the applicant’s detention and no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3 regarding the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. (See also Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], 23380/09, 28   September 2015, Information Note   188 ; and Lyalyakin v.   Russia , 31305/09, 12   March 2015, Information Note   183 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes