A/72/178 41. The Court has also made numerous findings of inhuman or degrading treatment in cases involving the unnecessary or excessive use of force in the context of demonstrations. 51 In Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, the Court found the launch of a tear gas grenade along a direct flat trajectory aimed towards protestors to be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it was not “proportionate to the aim pursued, namely to disperse a non -peaceful gathering” and because the severity of the resulting injuries to the applicant’s head were not “commensurate with the strict use by the police officers of the force necessitated by his behaviour”. 52 42. Similarly, in the case of Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, involving the use of electrical discharge weapons in a police raid, the Court found that the use of such weapons had not been shown to be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances and therefore violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 53 The Court indicated that “Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force in certain well-defined circumstances. However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive”, labelling this a “strict proportionality” test. 54 43. In Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, the Court held that “when a person is confronted by the police or other agent of the State, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the person’s own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention”. 55 It is not entirely clear how this approach would apply to the use of force that, while being necessary and proportionate for a lawful purpose, might inflict incidental harm on innocent bystanders. In cases in which innocent bystanders had been harmed by force that was otherwise deemed necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, the Court does not appear to have contemplated a qualification as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 56 44. In Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, the Court found the unjustified destruction of private homes to be inhuman treatment because it was “premeditated and carried out contemptuously and without respect for the feelings of the applicants”, who “had to stand by and watch the burning of their homes” while inadequate precautions were taken to ensure their safety and no subsequent assistance was provided. 57 45. Finally, the Court repeatedly found States to have violated their duty to protect persons from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment by, for example, failing to provide an adequate legal framework against rape 58 or to protect __________________ 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 16/24 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Muradova v. Azerbaijan (application No. 22684/05), Judgment of 2 April 2009; Güler and Öngel v. Turkey (application Nos. 29612/05 and 30668/05), Judgment of 4 October 2011; Tahirova v. Azerbaijan (application No. 47137/07), Judgment of 3 October 2013; and Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan (application No. 31805/06), Judgment of 17 April 2012. European Court of Human Rights, Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey (application No. 44827/08), Judgment of 16 July 2013, paras. 48 and 50. European Court of Human Rights, Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria (application No. 51284/09), Judgment of 30 September 2014, para. 78. Ibid., para. 66. European Court of Human Rights, Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 17 April 2012, para. 49. See also Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 30 September 2014, paras. 66 and 78. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Finogenov and Others v. Russia (application Nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03), Judgment of 20 December 2011; and Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (application No. 25052/94), Judgment of 9 October 1997. European Court of Human Rights, Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (application Nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94), Judgment of 24 April 1998, paras. 77-78. European Court of Human Rights, M.C. v. Bulgaria (application No. 39272/98), Judgment of 4 December 2003. 17-12326