Ireland v United Kingdom
The five techniques used in interrogating internees in Northern Ireland amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, though not torture, which requires suffering of particular intensity and cruelty.
Facts
In 1971, the authorities in Northern Ireland introduced internment without trial for people suspected of terrorism. Some internees were subjected to the five techniques during interrogation: wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink. Ireland brought an inter state application against the United Kingdom, alleging breaches of article 3 of the European Convention.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that the five techniques amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3, but not torture. The court said that ill treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to fall within article 3, depending on all the circumstances, and that the distinction between torture and inhuman treatment derives principally from a difference in the intensity of the suffering inflicted. Torture attaches a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering. The United Kingdom had given an undertaking that the techniques would not be used again. A later request by Ireland to revise the judgment was rejected in 2018.
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
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- 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.
