|EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04|
- EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 34334/04
- EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04
- EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02
TITARENKO v. UKRAINEIn recent years the Court has had an opportunity to examine the issue of holding a person in a metal "cage" during court hearings in a number of cases against Georgia, Armenia and Russia (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 96-102, 27 January 2009; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 123-129, 15 June 2010; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 123-126, 31 May 2011).
This approach was recently confirmed by the Court in the case of Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 34334/04, §§ 126 et seq., 15 June 2010) where the applicant had been kept in a metal cage during the entire proceedings before the Court of Appeal, and where the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11
KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLICApplication of measures of restraint to an applicant in a non-public setting may still give rise to a violation of Article 3 in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, § 125, 15 June 2010, referring to Hénaf v. France, cited above, §§ 51 and 56).
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07
RADKOV AND SABEV v. BULGARIABeing publicly visible may also be a relevant factor in assessing whether a form of treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, but the Court does not consider that the absence of this public aspect will necessarily prevent a particular form of treatment from falling into that category; the application of measures of restraint to an applicant in a non-public setting may still give rise to a violation of Article 3 in a situation where no serious risks to security could be shown to exist (see Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, § 125, 15 June 2010).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.