JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES LORENZEN, JUNGWIERT AND MARUSTE

We agree with the majority that the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention were violated, but are for the following reasons unable to share the majority ' s conclusion that there has been no substantive violation of that article.

In the present case the Government did not challenge the applicant ' s version of the events and did not advance any other explanation as to the origin of his injuries. Accordingly the Court has found it established that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten over the hands by the police officers who detained him using blunt instruments such as truncheons or other similar shaped objects. As a result he sustained a number of injuries to his hands and underwent medical treatment, cf. § 41 of the judgment.

The Court has constantly held in its case-law that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3, cf. among many authorities Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria ( judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII, p. 3288 , § 94 ) and most recently Barta v. Hungary ( no. 26137/04, § 62 , 10 April 2007 ) .

The injuries the applicant sustained are described in detail in the medical report issued the day after his arrest, and the doctor concluded, inter alia , that they caused him pain and suffering. Taking into account the degree of bruising established and considering also the manner in which the injuries were inflicted and the applicant ' s advanced age, it is our opinion that the injuries were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.

The question remains whether recourse to physical force in the form of repeated beating over the hands with truncheons or similar blunt instruments was strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case. It is true that the applicant was intoxicated at the time of the events and probably showed some form of resistance to the police officers who detained him. However, considering that there were at least two police officers at the scene and noting the age and behaviour of the applicant we find it unproven that it was absolutely necessary to use such physical force against him in order to effect the detention or subsequent to it. Moreover, the injuries to his hands do not suggest to have been sustained in the course of a possible struggle with the police officers in order to subdue him.

It follows that in our opinion there has been a violation of the substantive limb of the said Article in that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.