CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 janvier 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115 January 2009 Filiz Uyan v. Turkey - 7496/03 Judgment 8.1.2009 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Refusal to remove handcuffs from   prisoner brought in for gynaecological examination and presence of male guards in the consultation room:   violation   Facts : The applicant was convicted for being a member of a terrorist organisation and sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment. In 2001, following a prison doctor's referral, she was handcuffed and taken to a public hospital by three male and one female security officers in order to undergo a gynaecological scan. The consultation room where the applicant was taken was situated on the ground floor of the hospital and had no bars on the windows. The applicant's handcuffs were not removed and the male security officers refused to leave the consultation room for security reasons although they did agree to stand behind a folding screen. The applicant refused to be examined in such circumstances. She subsequently instituted proceedings against the male security officers for misconduct, arbitrary treatment and insulting behaviour, but the competent authorities dismissed her complaints. Law : The security officers had acted in compliance with the domestic legislation, which provided that for security reasons all prisoners convicted for terrorist-related offences were not to be left alone in consultation rooms and were to remain handcuffed at all times. While recognising the security risk in the applicant's case, the Court considered that the insistence on the use of handcuffs during the examination as well as the presence of three male security officers in the consultation room had been disproportionate. It noted the existence of other practical alternatives, such as the female officer staying in the room with the applicant and one of the male officers being posted outside the unsecured window of the consultation room. The authorities had chosen to apply the strict measures prescribed under the domestic law rather than to allow a more flexible approach depending on the particular risk presented by the prisoner and the type of medical examination to be performed. The security measures used must have caused the applicant humiliation and distress beyond that inevitably associated with the treatment of a prisoner and were capable of undermining her personal dignity. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three).   © 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