Quick answer
In Selmouni v. France (Grand Chamber, 28 July 1999, application no. 25803/94), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the violence inflicted on the applicant in police custody was so serious that it amounted to torture, in violation of Article 3, and that the length of the proceedings against the officers responsible breached Article 6 § 1. The judgment is famous for raising the threshold of Article 3: treatment once classified as “inhuman” may now be classified as torture.
Background and facts
Ahmed Selmouni was held in French police custody in connection with a drug-trafficking investigation. Over several days of questioning he was subjected to repeated and sustained violence — including beatings and acts of humiliation — by police officers. Medical examinations carried out shortly afterwards documented extensive injuries consistent with his account.
The complaint
- Article 3 — that the ill-treatment in custody amounted to torture; and
- Article 6 § 1 — that the criminal proceedings brought against the officers were excessively long.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court reiterated that Article 3 distinguishes torture from inhuman or degrading treatment, torture being reserved for deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering. It found that the physical and mental violence inflicted on Mr Selmouni, taken as a whole, caused severe pain and suffering and was particularly serious and cruel; it was therefore to be characterised as torture.
Crucially, the Court treated the Convention as a “living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions”. Given the increasingly high standard required in the protection of human rights, it considered that certain acts classified in the past as “inhuman and degrading treatment” rather than torture could be classified differently in future. On Article 6 § 1, the length of the proceedings against the officers exceeded a reasonable time.
The judgment
- a violation of Article 3 — the treatment amounted to torture; and
- a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings.
Why this case matters
- It raised the Article 3 threshold. Through the “living instrument” doctrine, the Court signalled that conduct once labelled inhuman treatment may now constitute torture.
- Police violence in custody attracts the gravest classification. Sustained, deliberate violence to obtain confessions is torture.
- Accountability must be timely. Excessively slow proceedings against the officers independently breached Article 6.
What this means for applicants
- Article 3 is absolute, and serious custodial violence will be classified as torture.
- Contemporary standards apply — the severity threshold is assessed in the light of present-day conditions.
- Medical evidence is decisive in proving ill-treatment in custody.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Selmouni v. France decide?
The Court held that the violence inflicted on the applicant in police custody amounted to torture in violation of Article 3, and that the length of the proceedings against the officers breached Article 6 § 1.
Why is Selmouni important?
It is the case in which the Court, treating the Convention as a “living instrument”, raised the Article 3 threshold — recognising that acts once classified as inhuman treatment may now amount to torture.
What is the difference between torture and inhuman treatment?
Both are prohibited by Article 3. Torture is reserved for deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering; the label reflects the special stigma attaching to the most serious ill-treatment.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
- Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey
- Salduz v. Turkey
- Kudła v. Poland
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Gäfgen v. Germany
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, or check the admissibility criteria.