Information Note on the Court’s case-law 68

October 2004

Jalloh v. Germany (dec.) - 54810/00

Decision 26.10.2004 [Section III]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained from the accused by forced administration of emetics: admissible

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Forced administration of emetics to a suspected drug trafficker: admis sible

The applicant, who was suspected by plain-clothes policemen of selling drugs, was arrested. While under arrest he swallowed a small bag which led the prosecutor to order that emetics be administered to the applicant to provoke regurgitation of the bag. As the applicant refused, a salt solution and syrup were forcibly administered by way of a tube introduced into his nose and another substance was injected. Thereafter, the applicant was placed in detention on remand until he was convicted by a District Court for drug trafficking. Prior to his conviction his lawyer submitted that the relevant pieces of evidence had been obtained by illegal means and that the administration of emetics had been a disproportionate measure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it would have been possible to obtain the same result by waiting until the bag was excreted in a natural way.  These arguments, which the applicant repeated at three levels of jurisdiction, were dismissed by the courts, which held that the administration o f the products even against the will of the applicant had been legal and necessary to conserve the evidence of drug trafficking. The Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s complaint as he had not availed himself of all remedies at his di sposal. It also held that the measure in question did not raise any constitutional objections of principle with respect to human dignity or concerning the protection against self-incrimination.

Admissible under Articles 3, 6 (fair hearing) and 8: As to exh austion of domestic remedies, by finding that the impugned measure had not raised any constitutional objections of principle the Constitutional Court had examined, at least partially, the substance of the applicant’s complaint.

Inadmissible under Article 1 3: The applicant had several judicial remedies at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of the contested measure: manifestly ill-founded.

[The Chamber proposed to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.]

© Council of Europe/European Cou rt of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes