Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16

March 2000

Ebbinge v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 47240/99

Decision 14.3.2000 [Section I]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Use of psychologically disorientating interrogation methods in criminal investigation: inadmissible

[This summary also covers the decision of the case Jager v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39195/98, 14 March 2000.]

Preliminary criminal investigations were o pened against the two applicants. The first applicant was suspected of extortion and murder, while the second was suspected of the murder of a young girl. They were both placed in detention on remand and subjected to a specific interrogation technique ( Zaa nse verhoormethode ), aimed at obtaining a confession from a suspect by making him relive past experiences through the use of a very sophisticated method of questioning. The applicants were eventually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. They both lodge d appeals against their respective convictions, complaining, inter alia , about the interrogation method used by the police which, according to them, amounted to inhuman treatment. In both cases, the appellate courts found the method to be contrary to Artic le 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits the exertion of pressure on suspects, and incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial, but did not find that it amounted to inhuman treatment. The applicants' appeals on points of law were uns uccessful. Recourse to the interrogation method was eventually prohibited in November 1996 after strong criticism in legal circles and in the media.

Inadmissible under Article 3: The interrogation method in issue appeared to be quite sophisticated from a p sychological point of view and its use in the context of a criminal investigation appeared objectionable, considering that it was designed to gain the suspect’s trust by creating a deceptive atmosphere of intimacy through a series of destabilising question s designed to incite the suspect to confide in the interrogators. However, it was not established that the use of such a method resulted in mental pain and suffering to an extent amounting to inhuman treatment: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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