48 JALLOH v. GERMANY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WILDHABER AND CAFLISCH that the measures complained of were taken in the interest of public safety, the prevention of drug offences and the protection of the health and rights of others, in accordance with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. 10. The last and most important question to be answered is whether the interference with the applicant’s private life was “necessary in a democratic society”, as prescribed by Article 8 § 2. In other words, did that interference respond to a pressing social need and did the national authorities strike a proper balance between the public interest as set out above, the applicant’s interest in preserving his physical and mental integrity, and the possible existence of less intrusive but equally effective means for obtaining the evidence required? 11. Regarding the interests of the applicant, it may be assumed that the latter experienced considerable anxiety (see paragraph 5 above) and that the procedure used entailed health risks since the doctor in charge was not able to conduct a full anamnesis (see paragraph 3 above). The intervention itself required the use of force and the administration of two drugs; and its aim was to induce vomiting, which cannot be perceived as anything but distressing. 12. The issue which arises now is whether, in order to strike a proper balance between the interests of society and those of the applicant, a less intrusive but equally effective alternative method was available. Waiting for the natural elimination of the drugs was an option but carried the risk, for the applicant, of the drug bubble bursting inside his digestive tract; it would also have necessitated further detention and surveillance, especially of the elimination process. One may disagree on whether the first or the second option presented a greater health risk, although the practice of a large majority of the Contracting States suggests that the former does. 13. The Government argued that, by choosing the first option, the German authorities were in fact fulfilling their positive obligation, under Article 8, to protect the applicant’s life and health. But in the present case, the health risk was created by the applicant himself, by swallowing the drug bubble concealed in his mouth; the positive obligation of the State did not extend to the forcible removal of that risk against the will of the applicant. In this connection, attention may be drawn to the procedure currently used in the Land of Bremen (see paragraph 47 of the judgment), which calls for information to be given by a doctor to the suspect about the risks to his health if the drug remains in his body. It is then up to the suspect to decide whether to take emetics or a laxative if a medical examination shows that neither method entails a risk. Otherwise he will be detained in a special cell until the drug bubbles are eliminated naturally. 14. It is this solution which, in the circumstances of the present case, would likely have struck a proper balance between the public interest in securing evidence for the prosecution of drug offences and the applicant’s interest in the protection of his physical and mental integrity. This is why