The European Regional System 2 There is both an objective and a subjective element to the assessment of whether the treatment reaches a minimum level of severity. In Campbell and Cosans v UK, the Court stated that “the ‘treatment’ itself will not be ‘degrading’ unless the person has undergone – either in the eyes of others or in his own eyes – humiliation or debasement attaining a minimum level of severity.”288 The subjective element of this evaluation was reiterated in Yankov v Bulgaria.289 In that case, the applicant’s head had been forcibly shaved without legal basis or valid justification, and the Court considered that “Even if it was not intended to humiliate, the removal of the applicant’s hair without specific justification was in itself arbitrary and punitive and therefore likely to appear to him to be aimed at debasing and/ or subduing him.”290 Thus, the victim’s subjective experience of the treatment will be taken into account in the assessment of its severity. Furthermore, the Court has held that racial discrimination may in itself constitute degrading treatment.291 Traditionally, the Court’s approach has been to consider whether the object of the treatment was to humiliate and debase the person concerned.292 However, in more recent cases, such as V v UK, the Court has considered that “the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out the finding of a violation.”293 This case involved an allegation that the trial of a boy of ten for the murder of a younger child amounted to a breach of Article 3, as the accusatorial nature of the trial, the adult proceedings in a public court, the length of the trial, the physical lay-out of the courtroom and the overwhelming presence of the media and public, all had a cumulative effect which amounted to a breach of Article 3. The Court held that the absence of an intention on the part of the State authorities to humiliate or debase the applicant did not bar consideration of the alleged violation of Article 3, though in the particular instance the Court found no violation of Article 3.294 However, it applied similar reasoning Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982), op. cit., §28. In this instance, the Court considered that the two schoolboys had not suffered any adverse effects, and their feelings of apprehension were not sufficiently severe to come within the scope of Article 3. 289 Yankov v Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII, judgement of 11 December 2003. 290 Ibid, §117. 291 See, for example, Cyprus v Turkey, no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV, judgement of 10 May 2001, §310. 292 Raninen v Finland, no. 20972/92, Rep. 1997-VIII, judgement of 16 December 1997, §55. 293 V v UK, no. 24888/94, ECHR (Series A) No.9, judgement of 16 December 1999, §71. See also Farbtuhs v Latvia, no. 4672/02, judgement of 2 December 2004; Gorodnichev v Russia, no. 52058/99, judgement of 24 May 2007. 294 V v UK (1999), op. cit., §71. In this instance, the Court held that every effort had been made to modify the trial to take into account the defendant’s young age and there was accordingly no violation of Article 3. 288 62