The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) believed that the current law provided inadequate protection to children suffering from different types of degrading punishment.
Torture is the process of causing deliberate and serious physical or mental harm to another individual, usually exercised with the objective of gaining information or punishing.
[6] In the case of Ireland v United Kingdom [1978],[7] the ECtHR was of the view that torture incorporates inhuman and degrading treatment but differs in the intensity and suffering inflicted.
The humiliation of an individual that arouses fear or demonstrates a lack of respect for their human dignity could also be considered degrading for the purposes of Article 3.
In 2014, after new information was uncovered that showed the decision to use the five techniques in Northern Ireland in 1971–1972 had been taken by British ministers,[9] the Irish Government asked the European Court of Human Rights to review its judgement.
A state can breach Article 3 by extraditing or deporting an individual to a country where upon their return might be subject to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Mr Chahal had associations with the Sikh separatist movement and there was substantial evidence that upon his return to India, he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3.
On this basis, the ECtHR held that, as the assurances of Mr Chahal's safety from the Indian government were not convincing, his deportation would violate Article 3.
In Soering v United Kingdom [1989][21] the UK government attempted to extradite a German national, who was wanted by the state of Virginia for the murder of his partner's parents, to the USA.
The Grand Chamber voted overwhelmingly in favour of the decision by 16–1, meaning that the UK government was forced to review 49 instances of whole life sentences.
In this case, which ran jointly with Etxebarria Caballero v Spain in 2014, the court held unanimously that there had been "a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment".
Because Bulgarian national law required that a victim demonstrate physical resistance to sexual advances made onto them, it was deemed by the ECHR as being outdated and out of touch with international norms and standards.