JALLOH v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 3 THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Cologne (Germany). 10. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A. Investigation proceedings 11. On 29 October 1993 four plain-clothes policemen observed the applicant on at least two different occasions take a tiny plastic bag (a so-called “bubble”) out of his mouth and hand it over to another person in exchange for money. Believing that these bags contained drugs, the police officers went to arrest the applicant, whereupon he swallowed another bubble he still had in his mouth. 12. The police officers did not find any drugs on the applicant. Since further delay might have frustrated the conduct of the investigation, the public prosecutor ordered that emetics (Brechmittel) be administered to the applicant by a doctor in order to provoke the regurgitation of the bag (Exkorporation). 13. The applicant was taken to a hospital in Wuppertal-Elberfeld. According to the Government, the doctor who was to administer the emetics questioned the applicant about his medical history (a procedure known as obtaining an anamnesis). This was disputed by the applicant, who claimed that he had not been questioned by a doctor. As the applicant refused to take the medication necessary to provoke vomiting, he was held down and immobilised by four police officers. The doctor then forcibly administered to him a salt solution and the emetic ipecacuanha syrup through a tube introduced into his stomach through the nose. In addition, the doctor injected him with apomorphine, another emetic that is a derivative of morphine. As a result, the applicant regurgitated one bubble containing 0.2182 grams of cocaine. Approximately an hour and a half after being arrested and taken to the hospital, the applicant was examined by a doctor and declared fit for detention. 14. When visited by the police in his cell two hours after being given the emetics, the applicant, who was found not to speak German, said in broken English that he was too tired to make a statement about the alleged offence. 15. Pursuant to an arrest warrant that had been issued by the Wuppertal District Court, the applicant was remanded in custody on 30 October 1993. 16. The applicant maintained that for three days following the treatment to which he was subjected he was only able to drink soup and that his nose repeatedly bled for two weeks because of wounds he had received when the

Select target paragraph3