Detention conditions and article 3 ECHR : evaluating the European court of human rights’ threshold for inhumane or degrading treatment

Abstract

"In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law." – Winston Churchill (The Hague, 7th May 1948) This dissertation critically examines the European Court of Human Rights’ application of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and Inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Although Article 3 is framed as absolute and non-derogable, even in times of national emergency as outlined in Article 15 ECHR, its interpretation has been shaped predominantly through the Court’s case law rather than explicit definitions within the Convention. Central to this analysis is the Court’s use of contextual threshold tests to determine whether the severity of treatment reaches the level required to constitute a violation. These thresholds, developed through key judgments, distinguish between torture, Inhumane, and degrading treatment based on factors such as intensity, duration, intent, and the cumulative impact of the conditions, particularly within detention settings. This dissertation argues that the Court’s reliance on such relative assessments introduces a degree of flexibility that challenges the absolute character of Article 3. The tension between the unequivocal wording of the Article and the Court’s pragmatic, case-by-case approach raises significant concerns regarding coherence, consistency, and legal certainty. The study also considers the influence of international soft law instruments, such as the Mandela and European Prison Rules, in shaping the Court’s interpretation of detention standards. Ultimately, it concludes that while contextual interpretation may reflect necessary practical realities, it risks undermining the fundamental and non-negotiable protections Article 3 is intended to guarantee.