CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 septembre 1993

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1993 Klaas v. Germany - 15473/89 Judgment 22.9.1993 Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Treatment received and witnessed in the course of an arrest: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   First applicant (mother) 1.   Determination of the facts - applicable principles Establishment and verification of the facts primarily a matter for the Commission - but the Court free to make its own appreciation - on the other hand, not normally within province of the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts - as a general rule, for the domestic courts to assess evidence before them. 2.   Determination of the facts - assessment in the present case Allegation of inhuman and degrading treatment - exact manner of infliction of injuries sustained in the course of an arrest by two police officers disputed - domestic courts, which had had benefit of seeing the witnesses, found first applicant's version of the events not very probable and held that she had failed to prove disproportionate use of force by the police officers - no cogent elements provided to lead the Court to depart from the findings of fact of the domestic courts. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). B.   Second applicant (daughter) Complaint directed against police officers' use of force against her mother in her presence - follows from above conclusion regarding first applicant that facts relied on were not established. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   First applicant (mother) Complaint of violation of right to respect for private and family life - essentially based on same disputed facts which were found not to have been established in connection with Article   3. Conclusion : complaint does not call for separate examination (six votes to three). B.   Second applicant (daughter) See under point I. B. above. Conclusion : no violation (six 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