punishment.”3 Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The United Nations Human Rights Committee explains that [respect for human dignity] is “a norm of general international law not subject to derogation.”4 The international human rights law places a special emphasis on the protection of the rights of individuals deprived of their liberty at detention facilities. The Government must take all appropriate measures not to inflict more suffering upon a human being than it is inevitable element of legitimate punishment. Incompliance with this requirement would amount to intrusion in the area protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.5 The European Court has been consistently stressing in regard to Article 3 of the Convention that the value protected under Article 3 is one of the fundamental values in a democratic society. Hence, the Government must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and wellbeing are adequately secured.6 It should be noted that the human rights law protects the rights of detained individuals at a higher standard than the rights of those in community. According to a standard established by the European Court, although ill-treatment must attain a “minimum level of severity” to fall within the scope of Article 3, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty recourse to physical force which has not been strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right under Article 3.7 According to standards established by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the State has not only a negative obligation (not to violate a person’s right) but a positive obligation (to protect a person’s right) in order to secure the implementation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment and the of the right to life. It is of special importance to protect individuals in closed-type institutions from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to protect their right to life. Since prisoners are under an exclusive control of the State, the State authorities then have an obligation to take all steps that are reasonably expected of them to prevent real and immediate risks 3 4 5 6 7 Art. 7, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights General Comment No 29, States of emergency (Article 4), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para.13a. Kudla v. Poland, no. 30210/96; also Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII. Case of Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01. Case of Tekin v. Turkey, no. 22035/10. NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 15