the Court found that “the practice of weekly strip-searches that was applied to the applicant for a period of approximately three and a half years diminished his human dignity and must have given rise to feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.”376 The Court therefore held that the applicant had suffered at least degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The European Regional System The Court considers each case on its merits, so it is possible for positive aspects of the prison regime to compensate for conditions of detention to such an extent that these will not constitute a violation. For example, in Valašinas v Lithuania, the Court found that the small amount of individual space allocated to the applicant within a dormitory should be considered in light of the wide freedom of movement he enjoyed between 6:30am and 10:30pm.377 However, such a finding would be unlikely in a case where a number of aspects of the conditions of detention gave rise to a cumulative negative effect on detainees. Furthermore, it is not sufficient that conditions of detention be capable of giving rise to distress meeting the minimum level of severity to come within Article 3; the applicant must demonstrate that he or she actually suffered such distress.378 In the case of mentally ill persons, the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned is incompatible with the standards of Article 3 will take into consideration their particular vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain about how they are being affected by a particular treatment.379 2 State obligations under Article 3 of the Convention include a positive duty to protect the physical integrity of detainees, notably though the provision of necessary medical treatment,380 which may require transfer in some cases, for example to a specialist psychiatric hospital.381 However, the Article cannot “be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain a particular kind of medical treatment.”382 The Court will consider on the facts of an individual Van der Ven v the Netherlands (2003), op. cit., §62. See also Lorsé and Others v the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, judgement of 4 February 2003, §74; Frérot v France, no. 70204/01, judgement of 12 June 2007, §48, in which non-routine strip searches were considered degrading, but did not reach the threshold of inhuman treatment. 377 Valašinas v Lithuania, no. 44558/98, ECHR 2001-VIII, judgement of 24 July 2001, §103. 378 Van der Graaf v the Netherlands, no. 8704/03, decision of 1 June 2004; Aerts v Belgium (1998), op. cit., §34–37. 379 Herczegfalvy v Austria, op. cit., §82; Aerts v Belgium (1998), op. cit., §63. 380 See McGlinchey and Others v UK (2003), op. cit., §57; İlhan v Turkey (2000), op. cit., §87. 381 See Kucheruk v Ukraine, op. cit., §151. 382 KudBa v Poland (2000), op. cit., §93. 376 79