Quick answer
In Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (Application no. 54825/00, judgment of 5 April 2005), the European Court of Human Rights held that the force-feeding of a detainee on hunger strike, carried out without demonstrated medical necessity and in a manner involving restraint and force, amounted to torture under Article 3. The Court also found a separate Article 3 violation for the degrading conditions and inadequate medical care in detention, and violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3.
Background and facts
The applicant was held in pre-trial detention in connection with banking offences. During his detention he went on hunger strike and was subjected to force-feeding by the prison authorities. He was restrained — with handcuffs and a mouth-widener and a rubber tube inserted into the oesophagus — and force-fed on a number of occasions. He was also held in poor conditions and, he complained, without adequate medical treatment for the illnesses he developed.
The Court’s reasoning
Force-feeding as torture
The Court accepted that a measure which is a therapeutic necessity according to established medical principles cannot in principle be regarded as inhuman or degrading. However, the Government had not demonstrated that the force-feeding was medically necessary in the applicant’s case; the procedure appeared to pursue no genuine therapeutic aim. Given the restraints used and the manner in which it was carried out — which the Court found could be regarded as amounting to torture — the force-feeding violated Article 3.
Conditions and medical care
Separately, the Court found that the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention, combined with the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance, amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3.
Article 5
The Court found the applicant’s detention over certain periods to be unlawful under Article 5 § 1(c), and held that there had been a failure to bring him promptly before a judge and to justify the overall length of his pre-trial detention, in breach of Article 5 § 3. It also found that Ukraine had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 to cooperate with the Court.
The judgment
The Court held that there had been:
- a violation of Article 3 for degrading conditions and lack of adequate medical care;
- a violation of Article 3 because the force-feeding amounted to torture;
- a violation of Article 5 § 1(c) for certain periods of unlawful detention;
- a violation of Article 5 § 3 (lack of prompt review and excessive length); and
- a failure to comply with Article 38.
Why this case matters
Nevmerzhitsky is the Court’s key authority on the force-feeding of detainees. It establishes that force-feeding is compatible with Article 3 only where genuine medical necessity is convincingly shown and appropriate procedural safeguards are observed; absent that, force-feeding accompanied by restraint can amount to torture — the gravest category of ill-treatment. It is regularly cited in cases on hunger strikes, coercive medical measures and prison health care.
What this means for applicants
- Coercive medical measures require proven necessity. The State must show a genuine therapeutic purpose and proper safeguards, or the measure may breach Article 3.
- Torture is a distinct finding. The most severe ill-treatment, involving deliberate infliction of serious suffering, may be classified as torture rather than merely inhuman treatment.
- Health care in detention is protected. Failure to provide adequate medical treatment can itself amount to degrading treatment.
- Article 5 defects are cumulative. Unlawful periods, lack of prompt judicial control and excessive length are each capable of founding a violation.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine decide?
That force-feeding the applicant during a hunger strike, without proven medical necessity and using restraint, amounted to torture under Article 3, and that there were further Article 3 and Article 5 violations.
When is force-feeding compatible with the Convention?
Only where it is a genuine therapeutic necessity established by medical principles and is carried out with proper procedural safeguards. Otherwise it may breach Article 3.
What is the difference between torture and inhuman treatment?
Torture is the most serious category under Article 3, involving deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering. The Court classified the force-feeding here as torture.
Were there other violations?
Yes. The Court also found degrading detention conditions and inadequate medical care under Article 3, and violations of Article 5 §§ 1(c) and 3, plus a failure to comply with Article 38.
Why is the case important today?
It is the leading ECHR authority on force-feeding and coercive medical measures in detention.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Trabelsi v. Belgium
- Saadi v. Italy
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
- Paposhvili v. Belgium
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.