TEIXEIRA DE CASTRO JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 11 evidence to support the Government’s argument that the applicant was predisposed to commit offences. The necessary inference from these circumstances is that the two police officers did not confine themselves to investigating Mr Teixeira de Castro’s criminal activity in an essentially passive manner, but exercised an influence such as to incite the commission of the offence. Lastly, the Court notes that in their decisions the domestic courts said that the applicant had been convicted mainly on the basis of the statements of the two police officers. 39. In the light of all these considerations, the Court concludes that the two police officers’ actions went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed. That intervention and its use in the impugned criminal proceedings meant that, right from the outset, the applicant was definitively deprived of a fair trial. Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 40. In his application to the Commission, the applicant also alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. 41. The Court notes that neither the applicant, the Government nor the Delegate of the Commission adduced any argument before it on that point. It sees no cause to consider the point of its own motion. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 42. Mr Teixeira de Castro maintained that the circumstances complained of infringed Article 8 of the Convention, which provides: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 43. Having regard to the conclusion reached in paragraph 39 above, the Court, like the Commission, does not consider it necessary to examine that complaint separately under Article 8. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 44. Article 50 of the Convention provides: