CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2011

.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. 137 January 2011 El Shennawy v. France - 51246/08 Judgment 20.1.2011 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Repeated, video-taped, full body searches by masked security-force personnel: violation   Facts – The applicant was sentenced to several terms of imprisonment, including one imposed following an Assize Court trial held from 9 to 18   April 2008. In view of his dangerousness, exceptionally tight security arrangements were put in place concerning, for instance, the conditions of his temporary removal from prison and his supervision during the hearings. The applicant was placed under the supervision of officers of the regional security and intervention force (ERIS) throughout the trial. He claimed that officers wearing masks at all times had subjected him to a series of particularly thorough strip-searches, including visual examinations of the anus during which they used force if he refused to bend over and cough. The searches were video‑recorded and usually took place in the presence of an officer from the national police intervention force (GIPN). The applicant lodged several appeals against the measures, without success. Law – Article 3: According to the Conseil d’Etat , the applicant had undergone a full body search between four and eight times a day. The searches had gone beyond the normal routine applicable at the relevant time. Full body searches were carried out mainly on high-risk prisoners like the applicant, who had belonged to that category since 1977. The applicant’s history and criminal background had justified substantial security measures when he was being taken from prison to the Assize Court. He had undergone a series of searches by the various law-enforcement officials supervising him – prison officers and police officers – although the Ministry of Justice recommended avoiding successive searches of this kind, which it considered to be unwarranted particularly where a prisoner was being handed over by the ERIS to the GIPN. Between 9 and 11   April 2008, when the applicant had returned to the prison for lunch, the searches had been extremely frequent. As to the searches conducted by masked men, the Court saw no reason to depart in the instant case from its recent finding expressing concern at this intimidating practice which, while not intended to humiliate, was liable to cause feelings of anxiety. Furthermore, the full body searches had been recorded on video, at least during the opening days of the trial, although the rules governing the video-recording of searches had not been clearly defined and a 2009 memorandum stated that searches should not be video-recorded, as this could be construed as a violation of human dignity. The searches in question had not been based on any pressing need to ensure security or prevent disorder or crime. Although they had taken place over a short period, they had been liable to arouse in the applicant feelings of arbitrariness, inferiority and anxiety characteristic of a degree of humiliation going beyond the level which the strip-searching of prisoners inevitably entailed. The Court took note in that regard of the 2009 Prison Act, which provided a legislative framework for the searching of prisoners and imposed tight restrictions on full body searches, permitting them only where rub-down searches or electronic detection methods were insufficient. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   13. Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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