Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strip Searches Through the Lens of the Prohibition of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in European Human Rights Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Body Searches and Imprisonment

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology ((PSIPP))

Abstract

The prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has been relevant to a wide range of penal conditions and practices. Within its internationally leading body of case law, the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) has considered contextual factors that have rendered strip searches incompatible with respect for human dignity. The Court’s context-sensitive findings provide valuable insights into the threshold between practices that are acceptable and those that are absolutely prohibited on human rights grounds. Such insights are of immediate relevance in national legal and policy contexts across the Council of Europe. There are, however, limitations to what we can infer from a surface-level look at this case law since the Court’s judgments tend to examine strip searches as only one element of broader complaints concerning detention conditions, and in these judgments the Court is not always precise about how particular experiences are characterised. Further, as a judicial body, the Court’s perspective is ex post and focused on the application of its standards to a particular individual set of facts. In this chapter, we aim to provide an enhanced insight into the factors that can be seen, according to the Court, to push or pull strip search practices above or below the threshold of the absolute protection guaranteed by Article 3. We begin with the Court’s Article 3 jurisprudence and use it to guide a closer look at strip searches through the lens of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. We identify key aspects of the doctrine and unpack the elements of strip searches that are likely to render them constitutive of inhuman and/or degrading treatment or as compatible with human dignity. This illustrates the way that the Court has mediated between ideas of necessity and appropriateness of conduct in relation to strip searches in the carceral context, and provides a basis for reflecting on its current and future approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos 11 and 14 (1950) ETS 005.

  2. 2.

    Valašinas v. Lithuania, App. No. 44558/98, 24 July 2001.

  3. 3.

    Valašinas, ibid., para. 117.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171, Article 10; UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) 17 December 2015, A/RES/70/175; UN General Assembly, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

  5. 5.

    E.g. Kudła v. Poland [GC], App. No. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, para. 92.

  6. 6.

    United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (n 4) para. 60(1).

  7. 7.

    Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, European Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Resolution no. R(73)5, adopted 19 January 1973, para. 5(3) and para. 3 and 58; see also Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2006)2-rev of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules [1], 11 January 2006, revised and amended 1 July 2020.

  8. 8.

    Frérot v. France, App. No. 70204/01, 12 June 2007, para 38.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g. Garabayev v. Russia, App. No. 38411/02, 7 June 2007, para 75.

  10. 10.

    Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], App. No. 23380/09, 28 September 2015, para 89.

  11. 11.

    Bouyid, ibid., para 81.

  12. 12.

    See spate of cases against the Netherlands in 2006: Sylla v. Netherlands, App. No. 14683/03, 6 July 2006; Baybaşın v. Netherlands, App. No. 13600/02, 6 July 2006; Salah v. Netherlands, App. No. 8196/02, 6 July 2006; see, too, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture reports cited therein and in much of the rest of the case law we refer to in this chapter.

  13. 13.

    Wainwright v. UK, App. No. 12350/04, 26 September 2006.

  14. 14.

    The ECtHR has addressed body searches outside of prisons. Two recent examples are Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, App. No. 7224/11, 8 October 2020 (strip searches during a police raid of office premises of an LGBTQ organisation) and Safi and others v. Greece, App. No. 5418/15, 7 July 2022 (outdoor strip searches of a group of persons under the control of state authorities in a migration context).

  15. 15.

    Derman v. Turkey, App. No. 21789/02, 31 May 2011, para 27.

  16. 16.

    See, e.g. Articles 8(2), 9(2), 10(2), 11(2) ECHR.

  17. 17.

    Ireland v. UK [Plenary], App. No. 5310/71, 18 January 1978, para 163. Article 15(2) ECHR provides: ‘No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4(1) and 7 shall be made under this provision’.

  18. 18.

    Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], App. No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, para 87.

  19. 19.

    Ireland v. UK (n 17) para 162.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.; see also, e.g. Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], App. No. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 17 July 2014, para 114.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g. Garabayev (n 9) para 75.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g. Khlaifia and others v. Italy [GC], App. No. 16483/12, 15 December 2016, para 160.

  23. 23.

    See, for example, Garabayev (n 9) para 75.

  24. 24.

    See, e.g. Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], App. No. 36760/06, 17 January 2012, para 203; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], App. No. 54810/00, 11 July 2006, para 68.

  25. 25.

    Pretty v. UK, App. No. 2346/02, 29 April 2002, para 52. See also Ireland v. UK (n 17) para. 167.

  26. 26.

    Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia, App. No. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 17 July 2014, para 115.

  27. 27.

    Keenan v. UK, App. No. 27229/95, 3 April 2001, para 110.

  28. 28.

    Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, App. No. 35972/05, 24 July 2012, para 165.

  29. 29.

    A and others v. UK [GC], App. No. 3455/05, 19 February 2009, para 127.

  30. 30.

    A v. UK, ibid para 127.

  31. 31.

    Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], App. No. 21906/04, 12 February 2008, para 96.

  32. 32.

    Frérot (n 8) para 38.

  33. 33.

    Valašinas (n 2). The Court’s former sister body, the European Commission on Human Rights, had previously considered body searches. See McFeeley and Others v. UK (Commission Decision), App. No. 8317/78, 15 May 1980. This Decision concerned routine, intrusive body searches, which were found not to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.

  34. 34.

    E.g. Iwańczuk v. Poland, App. No. 25196/94, 15 November 2001.

  35. 35.

    E.g. Savičs v. Latvia, App. No. 17892/03, 27 November 2012.

  36. 36.

    E.g. Sylla v. The Netherlands, App. No. 14683/03, 6 July 2006; Frérot (n 8); Michał Korgul v. Poland, App. No. 36140/11, 21 March 2017; Roth v. Germany, App. No. 6780/18 and 30776/18, 22 October 2020.

  37. 37.

    E.g. Valasinas (n 2); Wainwright v. UK, App. No. 12350/04, 26 September 2006.

  38. 38.

    E.g. Michał Korgul (n 36), para 42.

  39. 39.

    Lorsé and others v Netherlands, App. No. 52750/99, 4 February 2000, para 72. See also Iwańczuk (n 34) para 59.

  40. 40.

    Frérot (n 8) para 38 (citations omitted).

  41. 41.

    Frérot (n 8) para 38 (citations omitted).

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Piechowicz v Poland, App. No. 20071/07, 17 April 2012, para 176.

  44. 44.

    Frérot (n 8) para 46.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., para 47.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Dejnek v. Poland, App. No. 9635/13, 1 June 2017, para 60.

  48. 48.

    Iwańczuk (n 34) para 57.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Frérot (n 8) para 47.

  51. 51.

    Iwańczuk (n 34) para 56.

  52. 52.

    Piechowicz (n 43) para 175–176 (citations omitted).

  53. 53.

    Güler and Öngel v. Turkey, App. No. 29612/05 and 30668/05, 4 October 2011, para 28. This is the approach in Rehbock v. Slovenia, App. No. 29462/95, 28 November 2000, para 72. See also Mavronicola (2013).

  54. 54.

    See, for example, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, App. No. 54825/00, 5 April 2005, para 94; Herczegfalvy v. Austria, App. No. 10533/83, 24 September 1992, para 82; Naumenko v. Ukraine, App. No. 42023/98, 10 February 2004, para 112.

  55. 55.

    Jalloh (n 24) para 67–74.

  56. 56.

    Bouyid (n 10) Dissenting Opinion of Judges De Gaetano, Lemmens and Mahoney, para 7.

  57. 57.

    Bouyid (n 10).

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 51.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 81.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., para 88, citations omitted.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 102.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    On torture’s totalitarianism, see Luban (2014: 48).

  64. 64.

    Muradova v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 22684/05, 2 April 2009, para 109. See also Bouyid (n 10) para 88.

  65. 65.

    See, in this regard, the Court’s reasoning in Güler (n 61) para 28–29; and in Bouyid (n 10) para 102.

  66. 66.

    Iwańczuk (n 34) para 57.

  67. 67.

    Raninen v. Finland, App. No. 20972/92, 16 December 1997, para 55; T v UK [GC], App. No. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, para 69.

  68. 68.

    T v. UK, ibid., para 69; see also Bouyid (n 10) para 86.

  69. 69.

    Farbtuhs v. Latvia, App. No. 4672/02, 2 December 2004.

  70. 70.

    Ireland v. UK (n 17) para 167.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, App. No. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, para 118.

  73. 73.

    Iwańczuk (n 34) para 57, 59.

  74. 74.

    Raninen (n 67) para 55.

  75. 75.

    E.g. Valasinas (n 2) para 117; Iwanczuk (n 34) para 59; Savičs (n 35) para 133.

  76. 76.

    Dejnek v. Poland, App. No. 9635/13, 1 June 2017, para 60.

  77. 77.

    Vorhaus discusses this point through the lens of experiences which have, and are often deliberately intended to have, public witnesses (Vorhaus 2021: 453) but, arguably, the point is equally relevant for thinking about strip search situations where the person conducting the search is the only other person present; see below.

  78. 78.

    Iwańczuk (n 34) para 57–59.

  79. 79.

    On this point, the explanatory notes to the Bangkok Rules, pertaining specifically to the treatment of women, view the conduct of searches by persons not of the same sex as problematic in and of themselves. This comes across in the view that “[s]pecial sensitivity should be demonstrated in the case of women […] because they are likely to feel the humiliation of undergoing intimate searches particularly” (Footnote omitted). UN General Assembly, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), A/RES/65/229, 16 March 2011, Rule 19). This refers to the conduct of the search itself and not a risk of further violence.

  80. 80.

    See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, 13 March 2008, No. 1/08, Principle XXI; UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), 8 January 2016, A/RES/70/175, Rule 50.

  81. 81.

    See, e.g. Piechowicz (n 43).

  82. 82.

    A v. UK (n 29) para 127.

  83. 83.

    Savičs (n 35) para 146.

  84. 84.

    See, e.g. Farbtuhs (n 69) para 61; Helhal v. France, App. No. 10401/12, 19 February 2015, para 63.

  85. 85.

    See, among many cases, for example, Karabet and others v. Ukraine, App. No. 38906/07 and 52025/07, 17 January 2013; Dedovskiy and others v. Russia, App. No. 7178/03, 15 May 2008.

  86. 86.

    Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], App. No. 46221/99, 12 May 2005, para 191; Onoufriou v. Cyprus, App. No. 24407/04, 10 December 2009, para 69.

  87. 87.

    Onoufriou, ibid para 69.

  88. 88.

    Piechowicz (n 43) para 173.

  89. 89.

    Karykowski v. Poland, App. No. 653/12, 12 January 2016, para 39; Prus v. Poland, App. No. 5136/11, 12 January 2016, para 38; Romaniuk v Poland, App. No. 59285/12, 12 January 2016 para 46. See also Filas v. Poland, para 36.

  90. 90.

    Vinter and others v. UK [GC], App. No. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013. On the centrality of rehabilitation in determining prison regimes’ compliance with Article 3, see, for example, Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 15018/11 and 61199/12, 8 July 2014, para 264–267.

  91. 91.

    See text in n 30 above.

  92. 92.

    Vinter (n 90).

References

  • Bernstein, J.M. 2015. Torture and dignity: An essay on moral injury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, M.J., and D. Scott, eds. 2021. The Routledge international handbook of penal abolition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • CPT. 2011. Report to the Polish Government on the visit to Poland carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 26 November to 8 December 2009. CPT/Inf (2011) 20. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daems, T. 2014. ‘Ceci N’est Pas Une Fouille À Corps’: The Denial of Strip Searches in Belgian Prisons’. In Punishment and Incarceration: A Global Perspective (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Vol. 19), ed. M. Deflem, 75–94. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. 2001. Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. 2015. Just how ill-treated were you? An investigation of cross-fertilization in the interpretive approaches to torture at the European Court of Human Rights and in International Criminal Law. Nordic Journal of International Law 84: 482–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D.J., M. O’Boyle, E.P. Bates, and C.M. Buckley. 2009. Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D.C. 1991. The humiliation dynamic: An overview. The Journal of Primary Prevention 12 (2): 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuch, H. 2011. The rituality of humiliation: Exploring symbolic vulnerability. In Humiliation, degradation, dehumanization: Human dignity violated, ed. P. Kaufmann, H. Kuch, C. Neuhäuser, and E. Webster, 37–56. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A. 2011. Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and prison pain. Punishment & Society 13 (5): 530–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban, D. 2014. Torture, power and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malpas, J. 2007. Human dignity and human being. In Perspectives on human dignity: A conversation, ed. J. Malpas and N. Lickiss, 19–25. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, A. 1996. The decent society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola, N. 2012. What is an “absolute right”? Deciphering absoluteness in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 12 (4): 723–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola, N. 2013. Güler and Öngel v Turkey: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Strasbourg’s discourse on the justified use of force. Modern Law Review 76 (2): 370–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola, N. 2015. Crime, punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and prospects of applying an absolute right in a penal context. Human Rights Law Review 15 (4): 721–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola, N. 2021. Torture, inhumanity and degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR: Absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skinns, L., A. Sorsby, and L. Rice. 2020. “Treat them as a human being”: Dignity in police detention and its implications for “good” police custody. British Journal of Criminology 60 (6): 1667–1688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, M., R. Conte, M. Miceli, and I. Poggi. 1986. Humiliation: Feeling, social control and construction of identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 16 (3): 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalding, A. 2021. Strip-searching for nationality documents. Modern Law Review 84 (3): 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhaus, J. 2021. Bringing people down: Degrading treatment and punishment. New Criminal Law Review 24 (3): 433–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 2005. Torture and positive law: Jurisprudence for the White House. Columbia Law Review 105 (6): 1681–1750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. 2010. Inhuman and degrading treatment: The words themselves. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23: 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, E. 2016. Interpretation of the Prohibition of Torture: Making sense of ‘dignity’ talk. Human Rights Review 17 (3): 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, E. 2018. Dignity, degrading treatment and torture in human rights law: The ends of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Natasa Mavronicola

  2. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Elaine Webster

Authors
  1. Natasa Mavronicola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elaine Webster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natasa Mavronicola .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Criminology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Tom Daems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mavronicola, N., Webster, E. (2023). Strip Searches Through the Lens of the Prohibition of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in European Human Rights Law. In: Daems, T. (eds) Body Searches and Imprisonment. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20451-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20451-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20450-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20451-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation