CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2006

.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. 87 June 2006 Pandjikidzé and Others v. Georgia (dec.) - 30323/02 Decision 20.6.2006 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment 115-day hunger strike by detainee: inadmissible   In 1999 the Security Ministry initiated a public prosecution against a group that was suspected of plotting to overthrow the incumbent regime. The investigation was carried out by an investigative group made up of thirteen investigating officials from the Security Ministry, one of whom was the head of the group, and other investigators from the Interior Ministry. The head of the investigative group allowed the Security Ministry to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party. Conversations of some of the applicants were recorded. Those of the applicants who were arrested complained that they had not had access to a lawyer until the judicial investigation stage, and that the lawyers assigned to them were not those of their choosing. Senior officials declared on the first national television channel, mentioning the names of three of the applicants, that terrorists had been arrested, that the overthrow of the regime had thus been forestalled, and that the individuals concerned faced life imprisonment and the confiscation of their property. In 2001 a bench consisting of one judge and two lay magistrates sentenced the applicants to imprisonment for plotting against the regime. The applicants, who lodged an appeal on points of law, complained that the judicial investigation into their case had been conducted by the Security Ministry, even though the Minister had been a civil party in the case. Their appeal was dismissed. One of the applicants went on a 115-day hunger strike while being held in pre-trial detention. Communicated under Article 3 (alleged ill-treatment in the police station, inadmissible in respect of the hunger strike), Article 6(1) [length of proceedings, independence of the investigating body, composition of the trial bench, non-adversarial use of recordings], Article   6(2) [statements on television prior to trial], Article 6(3)(c) [access to a lawyer during police custody and right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing after judicial investigation has begun] and Article   6(3)(d). Concerning the hunger strike by one of the applicants, to show disagreement with the criminal proceedings against him, he had never been force-fed and had not complained to the Court that the authorities should have taken such action. Even if his state of health must have declined, it did not appear from the case file that his life had been exposed to an obvious danger as a result of the authorities’ attitude, and therefore that force-feeding would have been justified by any “medical imperative”, or that he had been deprived of medical treatment appropriate to his state of health, or that he had been medically unfit to remain in prison: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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