A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
CASE-OF-ALI-G_NES-v.-TURKEY
40. In its reports pertaining to its visits carried out ina number ofMember States of the Council of Europe the CPT has made the following recommendations:
“… [A] clear directive governing the use of pepper spray to be drawn up, which should include, as a minimum:
clear instructions as to when pepper spray may be used, which should state explicitly that pepper spray should not be used in a confined area;
the right of prisoners exposed to pepper spray to be granted immediate access to a doctor and to be offered measures of relief;
information regarding the qualifications, training and skills of staff members authorised to use pepper spray;
an adequate reporting and inspection mechanism with respect to the use of pepper spray…” (See, inter alia, CPT/Inf (2009) 8)
41. The Court shares the CPT’s concerns and concurs with the above- mentioned recommendations. It stresses, in particular, thatthere can be no justification for the use of such gases against an individual who has already been taken under the control of the law enforcement authorities, as was the case in the present application.
43. Having regard to the effects the gases cause and the potential health risks they entail (see paragraph 37 above), the Court considers that the unwarranted spraying of the applicant’s face in the circumstances described above must have subjected him to intense physical and mental suffering and was such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him (see, mutatis mutandis,Kudłav. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI). It thus concludes that by spraying the applicant in such circumstances the police officers subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
