## Facts

- A German suspect kidnapped an 11-year-old boy, killed him, hid the body, and demanded ransom from the family.
- Police arrested the suspect shortly after he collected the ransom; the child’s location was unknown and officers believed the child might still be alive and in immediate danger.
- During custodial interrogation, a senior officer ordered another officer to threaten the suspect with severe physical pain, and indicated the pain would be inflicted if the suspect did not reveal the child’s location.
- The threat was deliberate and preplanned; the suspect was restrained and in a vulnerable custodial setting; the threat lasted about ten minutes and caused significant fear and mental suffering.
- The suspect disclosed the body’s location; police recovered the body and related physical evidence.
- In the suspect’s later criminal trial, domestic courts excluded investigation-stage statements made after the threat as unlawfully obtained, but admitted (a) a later confession given in open court after the suspect was told the earlier statements were inadmissible and (b) certain physical evidence discovered because of the coerced disclosure.
- The suspect was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; higher courts upheld the conviction. A constitutional court confirmed the interrogation method was prohibited under domestic constitutional law and the human-rights prohibition on ill-treatment.
- The officers involved were convicted domestically and received suspended fines; the suspect pursued compensation proceedings, which were permitted to proceed after constitutional review.

## Issues

1. Whether deliberate threats of severe physical pain during custodial interrogation constituted torture or inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by the human-rights ban on ill-treatment.
2. Whether the State’s investigation, prosecution, punishment, and remedial measures were sufficient to remove the applicant’s “victim” status.
3. Whether admitting a later in-court confession and physical evidence derived from the coerced disclosure violated the right to a fair trial and the privilege against self-incrimination.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that the interrogation threats constituted inhuman treatment in violation of the prohibition on ill-treatment, but did not reach the level of torture.
- The court held the applicant remained a victim of the violation because the domestic response did not provide adequate redress, including proportionate punishment and effective compensation.
- The court found no violation of the fair-trial guarantee: the trial excluded the directly coerced statements, relied substantially on the applicant’s later informed in-court confession, and the admission of derivative physical evidence did not, in the case’s circumstances, make the proceedings unfair.

## Legal Principles

- The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute; it permits no exception based on the seriousness of the suspected crime or perceived urgency to protect life.
- Real and immediate threats of deliberate and imminent physical ill-treatment by state agents in custody can themselves satisfy the threshold of Article 3 ill-treatment, even without physical force being used.
- Whether conduct is classified as torture or inhuman treatment depends on severity, including the intensity of mental suffering and the method’s purpose and deliberateness.
- An applicant retains victim status unless domestic authorities both acknowledge the violation and provide sufficient redress, which may require effective compensation and penalties that reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.
- Evidence obtained by torture renders a trial unfair; where the underlying violation is inhuman or degrading treatment, overall fairness is assessed in context, including exclusion of coerced statements, voluntariness and informed nature of any later confession, and the role of derivative evidence in the conviction.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber ruled that deliberate custodial threats of severe pain violated the absolute ban on ill-treatment as inhuman treatment, that inadequate redress preserved the applicant’s victim status, and that the applicant’s conviction nonetheless resulted from a fair trial because directly coerced statements were excluded and the later informed confession and other evidence sustained the verdict despite the admission of some derivative physical evidence.


Gäfgen v. Ger., App. No. 22978/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 1, 2010) (GC)