Gäfgen v Germany
Threatening a kidnap suspect with intolerable pain to make him reveal a child's whereabouts was inhuman treatment, whatever the motive, but the use of evidence derived from it did not make his trial unfair.
Facts
Mr Gäfgen kidnapped an 11 year old boy, Jakob von Metzler, and demanded a ransom. He was arrested after collecting the ransom, but refused to say where the boy was. Believing the boy's life to be in danger, the deputy police chief ordered that Mr Gäfgen be threatened with considerable pain if he did not reveal the boy's location. Mr Gäfgen then told the police where the body was, as he had already killed the boy. Real evidence was found as a result. He was convicted of murder, after confessing again at trial.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that the threat amounted to inhuman treatment, in breach of article 3, but not torture. The court said that the prohibition of ill treatment is absolute, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, and that it applies even in circumstances where the life of an individual is at risk, such as to save a child. However, the court held that the use of the real evidence obtained as a result of the threats did not make the trial unfair under article 6, because his conviction was based on his fresh confession at trial, and the evidence was only supporting evidence. The officers had been convicted, but given only suspended fines, which the court considered an inadequate response.
Related cases on prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment (article 3)
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- A v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 611
- AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, [2021] AC 633
- Chahal v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 413
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD [2018] UKSC 11, [2019] AC 196
- Ireland v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 25
- R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
- R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66, [2006] 1 AC 396
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
