Methadone versus torture: The perspective of the European Court of Human Rights

Junod, Valérie; Wolff, Hans; Scholten, Willem; Novet, Baptiste; Greifinger, Robert; Dickson, Cheryl; Simon, Olivier

Advanced search

Browse by...

Deposit

Highlights

More informations

Title		Methadone versus torture: The perspective of the European Court of Human Rights
Authors		Junod, Valérie Wolff, Hans Scholten, Willem Novet, Baptiste Greifinger, Robert Dickson, Cheryl Simon, Olivier
Published in		Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems. 2018, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 31-36
Abstract		For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has addressed the issue of whether persons with a heroin dependence syndrome in custodial settings are entitled to receive opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The court relied on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture as well as inhuman or degrading treatment. It concluded that member states of the Council of Europe that refuse access to OAT have the burden of proving that an alternative medical approach would, in the case of an individual patient, be as effective as OAT. Such proof needs to be based on an independent medical opinion. This paper discusses the scope and limitations of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment.
Keywords		Methadone — Opioid agonist treatment — Prisons — International laws
Full text		Article (Published version) (358 Kb) - Free access
Structures		Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine clinique / Département de santé et médecine communautaires Faculté de droit / Département de droit commercial
Citation (ISO format)		JUNOD, Valérie et al. Methadone versus torture: The perspective of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Heroin Addiction and Related Clinical Problems, 2018, vol. 20, n° 1, p. 31-36. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:134031