Selmouni v. France
European Court of Human Rights
1999-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 149, 29 EHHR 403 (1999)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
In November 1991, Ahmed Selmouni (plaintiff), a national of Morocco and the Netherlands, was arrested on drug-trafficking charges in Paris, France, and held in police custody for three days. During interrogation, Selmouni was subjected to repeated beatings, threats, and sexual assaults by police officers. The violence Selmouni endured from the officers caused substantial injuries to his entire body. In February 1993, Selmouni filed a criminal complaint against the officers. In 1999 the French courts convicted the officers of assault due to the progression of injuries within the three days of interrogation, but the officers’ sentences were reduced. Selmouni filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights (the commission) against the French Republic (the state) (defendant), alleging that he was a victim of torture in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention). Selmouni argued that the severity and cruelty inflicted on him by the officers should be classified as acts of torture within the meaning of Article 3. France argued that the offenses did not rise to the level of torture. The commission determined that the cruel treatment was torture and referred the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.