RANINEN v. FINLANDPARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: October 24, 1996
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
and I. CABRAL BARRETO
We regret that we are unable to agree with the Commission's
majority that Article 3 of the Convention has been violated. In our
view it is Article 8 of the Convention that has been violated. Our
reasons are the following.
The recourse to physical force by keeping the applicant manacled
for the above-mentioned period may not have been made strictly
necessary by his own conduct on 18 June 1992 or previously.
Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of this case we cannot
find that the treatment to which he was subjected for some two hours
substantially diminished his human dignity or in any other way reached
the threshold of "degrading treatment" within the meaning of Article
3 of the Convention. In particular, we cannot find sufficient evidence
that the handcuffing was aimed at breaking his resistance towards
performing any kind of military or substitute service. We therefore
conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3.
We consider, however, that the applicant's handcuffing on
18 June 1992 constituted an interference with his right to respect for
his private life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 of the
Convention. For the reasons set out below, we need not examine whether
this interference was "in accordance with the law" and pursued one or
more of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 8 para. 2.
It is conceded by the Government that the applicant's handcuffing
was "probably unnecessary". Indeed we cannot find that the reasons
therefor, as adduced by R and the military authorities in the course
of the Ombudsman's investigation, were relevant and sufficient for
concluding that the measure corresponded to a pressing social need and
was "necessary in a democratic society". We therefore consider, in
spite of the margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting State,
that the applicant's handcuffing was out of proportion and that,
therefore, Article 8 has been violated.
(Or. English)
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
