In some German states vomit-inducing medication is undertaken as a means to search and seize evidence in drug street dealings. Whenever a drug dealer swallows drugs upon arrest, a medical practitioner administers a so-called emetic which makes the suspect vomit and which allows the Police to seize the evidence.
The thesis presents the legal basis and the constituent elements of this measure. It shows how the administration of the emetic takes place, where in Germany the method occurs and to what extent it is used. The thesis further compares the German measure to obtain evidence in cases of internal concealment with the Australian one. It shows that Australia, too, encounters problems of internal concealment and how Australian authorities react to such a challenge.
The thesis moves on in examining whether the administration of a vomit-inducing medicament in order to obtain evidence is compatible with International Law. It scrutinises if the use of emetics is a means of torture and thus infringes the suspect’s fundamental rights of human dignity and personal integrity. The thesis comes to the conclusion that the use of emetics does not amount to torture under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 (1) of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
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
I. The German procedure
‘Mouth dealing’ is a common modus operandus of drug street dealers in Germany. This term describes the method of transporting narcotics within the mouth in order to conceal them from the police. Generally, the dealers package small portions of narcotics mostly crack cocaine, cocaine and heroine and keep these bubbles in their mouths until they sell them to a user. Only then do they take the containers out of their mouths and hand them over to users who most of the time conceal them in the same way.
This method of concealment is particularly necessary in street dealing areas with a high amount of police presence. Since the openness of street deals in a city does not only reveal major drug problems but also threatens the public health, the feeling of safety and security of the population and the faith in the efficiency of the Police this is generally the case in Germany.
Hence, the German Police has been confronted with mouth dealings for several years now. As early as the mid-1980s drug dealers who traded in cocaine and heroin on Frankfurt’s streets increasingly used this method. They sealed small portions of the narcotics in plastic, mostly garbage bags, and hid them in their mouths until the deal was made. This modus operandus especially could be found with Black African drug dealers, later with North Africans as well. In May 1989, crack cocaine was detected for the first time in Frankfurt and as soon as 1993 became a major problem. Dealers who sold this new narcotic took over the method of concealment and regularly held the wrapped up narcotic in their mouths.
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.
- Citation du texte
- Dr. Stefanie M. Bausch (Auteur), 2005, The use of emetics to obtain internally concealed drugs as evidence - a means of torture?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/45463
