ECHR: Person Subject to Ill-Treatment by State Can Loose Victim Status
Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [website] rendered its judgment in Gaefgen v. Germany (judgment and press release available on ECHR website, application no. 22978/05). The case had sparked an intensive debate on the permissibility of the threat of ill-treatment during police interrogation in order to save a human life. The facts of the case are as follows:
In 2002, German police arrested Gaefgen after he had been seen to pick up a ransom deposited for the release of a kidnapped child. After one day of interrogations aimed at finding the place the child was hidden, police resorted to threatening Gaefgen with ill-treatment if he did not cooperate. At that point, police still thought that the child was alive and that immediate action was required to avoid the child's death from thirst, hunger, and cold. Police did not know that Gaefgen had suffocated the child right after luring him into his apartment. As a result of being threatened with ill-treatment, Gaefgen showed the police the place where he had disposed of the child's body.
Gaefgen was then tried for murder. The trial court found that the police interrogation methods violated, inter alia, art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment). As a result, the trial court declared all statements obtained during interrogation invalid. The court, however, accepted evidence secured as a result of Gaefgen's statements during interrogation ("resulting evidence"). Gaefgen was then sentenced for murder on the basis of a confession made during the trial, corroborated by the "resulting evidence." Gaefgen's appeals in German courts alleging torture and lack of a fair trial were not successful. He therefore turned to the ECHR.
The ECHR confirmed that Gaefgen had been subject to ill-treatment contrary t0 art. 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but determined that Gaefgen had lost his victim status due to the subsequent exclusion of the interrogation statements from the trial and the punishments of the implicated police agents. Also, the ECHR found that the admissibility of the "resulting evidence" did not violate his right to a fair trial, because this evidence was only used to verify Gaefgen's confession during trial. The only dissenting opinion in the 6 to 1 decision argues that the inclusion of the "resulting evidence" prevented the trial from being fair as Gaefgen could not have been sentenced for murder solely on the basis of his confession during trial.
From a human rights perspective, it is remarkable that the ECHR sees the possibility for a torture victim to loose its victim status due to supposedly impeccable demeanor by the torturer at a later stage. Should it be possible to make good for previous acts involving torture or the threat of torture? Should a torture victim be susceptible of loosing its victim status? What are your thoughts on this case?
