The European Regional System 2 emergency hospitalisation. The Government’s attempt to justify the police officer’s actions as a response to the applicant’s attempt to escape was rejected by the Court, which held that “the applicant’s alleged attempt to escape could not absolve the State of its responsibility in the present case.”349 The Court further found that the kick was unnecessary, as that the applicant had been unarmed and in a police station, so the police officer should have used other means to detain him. These judgements follow the reasoning in Chahal v UK,350 where the Court held that the conduct of the applicant or “victim” is irrelevant to the protection afforded by the Convention. The Court reiterated that “Article 3… makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15… even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.”351 One possible situation in which treatment normally contrary to Article 3 may fall outside the scope of the Article arose in X v Germany.352 The European Commission considered whether force-feeding a prisoner who was on hunger strike amounted to a violation of Article 3. The Commission, while noting that “forced feeding of a person does involve degrading elements which in certain circumstances may be regarded as prohibited by Article 3,” was nevertheless “satisfied that the authorities acted solely in the best interests of the applicant when choosing between either respect for the applicant’s will not to accept nourishment of any kind and thereby incur the risk that he might be subject to lasting injuries or even die, or to take action with a view to securing his survival although such action might infringe the applicant’s human dignity.”353 More recently, in Jalloh v Germany,354 the Court held that Article 3 did not, in principle, prohibit recourse to a forcible medical intervention that would assist in the investigation of an offence. However, any interference with a person’s physical integrity carried out with the aim of obtaining evidence had to be the subject of rigorous scrutiny. In this case, the Court found that use of a forcible emetic to make the applicant regurgitate a bag of drugs was unjustified, as the offence was not sufficiently serious, and the evidence could have been obtained by less invasive methods. Ibid. § 41. Chahal v UK, no. 22414/93, Rep. 1996-V, judgement of 15 November 1996. 351 Ibid. §78. 352 X v Germany, 7 EHRR 152, 1984. 353 Ibid. §153-154. 354 Jalloh v Germany (2006), op. cit. 349 350 74