The prohibition of torture - European Court of Human Rights

er of blows and other similar forms of torture”.
The Court considered that such treatment was
intentionally meted out to Mr Dikme by agents of
the State in the performance of their duties.
Purposive
The word torture is often used to describe inhuman
treatment which has a purpose, such as the
obtaining of information or confessions, or the infliction
of punishment. The Court has noted on a
number of occasions that the purposive element is
recognised in the definition of torture in the 1987
United Nations Convention, and that the definition
refers to torture in terms of the intentional infliction
of severe pain or suffering with the aim, inter
alia, of obtaining information, inflicting punishment
or intimidating. In Dikme the Court determined
that the infliction of ill-treatment was
carried out with the aim of extracting a confession
or information about the offences of which
Mr Dikme was suspected. 22 In other cases where
torture has been inflicted on detainees, the Court
has similarly found that the treatment was in the
context of interrogation with the aim of extracting
information or a confession. 23
Actus reus
In the first case where the Court held that there
was torture, Aksoy v. Turkey, the victim had been
subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, in other words,
he was stripped naked, with his arms tied together
behind his back, and suspended by his arms. This
led to a paralysis of both arms which lasted for some
time. The seriousness and cruelty of this treatment
led it to be described as torture by the Court.
In Aydin v. Turkey the applicant alleged, inter
alia, that she was raped in police custody. The
Court, in finding on the evidence that she had been
raped, stated that
rape of a detainee by an official of the State
must be considered to be an especially grave
and abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the
ease with which the offender can exploit the
vulnerability and weakened resistance of his
victim. Furthermore, rape leaves deep psychological
scars on the victim which do not respond to
the passage of time as quickly as other forms of
physical and mental violence. The applicant
also experienced the acute physical pain of
forced penetration, which must have left her
feeling debased and violated both physically
and emotionally.
The Court went on to hold that the rape
amounted to torture in breach of Article 3 of the
Convention.
In Selmouni v. France the applicant was a
Dutch and Moroccan national who was imprisoned
in France. The applicant was subjected to
22 Akkoç, op. cit., §64; Dikme,
op. cit., §95.
23 See Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment
of 18 December 1996,
ECHR 1996-VI; and Akkoç
and Salman, op. cit.
14