The use of emetics to obtain internally concealed drugs as evidence - a means of torture?

Table of Contents

First Part : Introduction and aim and purpose of the thesis

I. Introduction

II. Aim and purpose of the thesis

Second Part: Procedures of obtaining evidence in cases of internal concealment in Germany and Australia

I. The German procedure

II. The Australian procedure

III. Legal comparison and summary

Third Part: Admissibility of the use of emetics under international law

I. International instruments aiming at the prohibition of torture

II. The use of emetics and the European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

1. Travaux préparatoires

2. Case law

(1) Greek Case

(2) Northern Ireland v. United Kingdom

(3) Aksoy v. Turkey

(4) Aydin v. Turkey

(5) Ahmet Çakıcı v. Turkey

(6) Selmouni v. France

(7) Salman v. Turkey

(8) Dikme v. Turkey

(9) Akkoç v. Turkey

(10) Elçi and Others v. Turkey

(11) Balogh v. Hungary

3. Summary with regard to the case law

4. The use of emetics as torture according to Art. 3 ECHR

(1) Severe physical or mental suffering because of the use of emetics

(a) Is the use of emetics generally admissible under Art. 3 ECHR?

(b) In what way does the emetic have to be administered in order to be lawful as per Art. 3 ECHR?

(aa) Administration of ipecac syrup through a tube

(bb) Injection of apomorphine

(2) Intention of the use of emetic

(3) Purpose of the use of emetics under German law

(4) Public official administering the emetic

5. Summary of the use of emetics and Art. 3 ECHR

III. The use of emetics and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1. Scope of the prohibition of torture contained in the UNCAT

2. Application to the use of emetics

IV. Summary

Fourth Part: Conclusion and outlook

Objectives and Topics

The thesis examines the admissibility of using emetics to extract internally concealed narcotics as evidence, investigating whether this practice constitutes torture under international and national law. By comparing the German approach with Australian practices, the work evaluates the legality of this law enforcement method against the backdrop of fundamental human rights and international conventions.

• The legality of forced emetic administration under German criminal procedure law.
• A comparative legal analysis between German and Australian approaches to internal concealment.
• Interpretation of the prohibition of torture under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Evaluation of whether the use of emetics meets the criteria for "torture" as defined in the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT).
• Analysis of the balance between effective criminal law enforcement and individual human dignity.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

First Part: Introduction and aim and purpose of the thesis: Provides an overview of the legal controversy surrounding emetics in Germany, using a concrete case study to outline the thesis objective.

Second Part: Procedures of obtaining evidence in cases of internal concealment in Germany and Australia: Compares the German method of forced emetic administration with the Australian legal framework for handling internal drug concealment.

Third Part: Admissibility of the use of emetics under international law: Analyzes the practice under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT), examining the legal requirements for "torture".

Fourth Part: Conclusion and outlook: Synthesizes the findings and discusses the implications for future law enforcement practices and potential legal amendments in Germany.

Keywords

Emetics, Internal Concealment, Narcotics, Torture, Human Rights, ECHR, UNCAT, German Basic Law, Criminal Procedure, Forensic Medicine, Bodily Integrity, Drug Enforcement, Proportionality, Mouth Dealing, Law of Evidence

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central focus of this thesis?

The thesis explores the legal and ethical legitimacy of using emetics as a forced measure to retrieve narcotics concealed by suspects in their bodies, primarily focusing on whether this practice constitutes torture.

What are the primary themes discussed in the work?

Key themes include the clash between effective law enforcement in drug crimes and the protection of fundamental human rights, specifically bodily integrity and human dignity.

What is the primary research question?

The core research question is whether the administration of emetics by state authorities to obtain criminal evidence violates the prohibition of torture under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention against Torture.

Which scientific methodology is applied?

The work employs a comparative legal analysis, evaluating national laws in Germany and Australia alongside international legal standards and relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights.

What is addressed in the main body of the work?

The main body details the "mouth dealing" phenomenon, analyzes relevant German procedural laws (like section 81a StPO), reviews international definitions of torture, and critically examines case law regarding severe ill-treatment.

Which keywords best characterize this research?

The research is best characterized by terms like emetics, internal concealment, torture, human rights, ECHR, bodily integrity, and proportionality.

How does the author evaluate the "intent" requirement for torture?

The author argues that in the German context, the medical personnel administering emetics do not intend to inflict "severe suffering" to break the suspect's will, but rather to secure evidence, thus potentially lacking the specific intent (mens rea) required for a finding of torture.

What conclusion does the author reach regarding the practice in Germany?

The author concludes that current practices in Germany, as administered, do not generally reach the severity threshold to constitute torture under international law, but emphasizes that the procedure must strictly respect proportionality and human dignity to remain lawful.