Page 22 of 30 (see paragraph 18 above) must have adversely affected the possibility of contacts between them. This situation was compounded by the restrictions imposed by the authorities on parental access; whilst those restrictions may to a certain extent have been warranted by the applicants’ attitude towards the foster families (see paragraph 26 above), it is not to be excluded that the failure to establish a harmonious relationship was partly due to the distances involved. It is true that regular contacts were maintained between Helena and Thomas, but the reasons given by the Government for not placing them together (see paragraph 79 above) are not convincing. It is also true that Stefan had special needs, but this is not sufficient to justify the distance that separated him from the other two children. The Administrative Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 16 February 1987 (see paragraph 31 above), itself commented as follows on the applicants’ access to Helena and Thomas: "Of course, the extremely bad relations between Mr. and Mrs. Olsson on the one hand and Helena and Thomas and their respective foster parents on the other hand are not due only to the Olssons. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal considers it strange that the parents’ negative attitude to the foster parents resulted in their not meeting the youngest children for over two years, nor even showing any particular interest in talking to the children on the telephone, for instance. Even if there has been some difficulty for the social council to assist in establishing better relations - due to the action of the parents’ representative, for instance, and the children’s own attitude - it would have been desirable for the social council to have been more active and not, for instance, to have limited the right of access to once every three months." 82. There is nothing to suggest that the Swedish authorities did not act in good faith in implementing the care decision. However, this does not suffice to render a measure "necessary" in Convention terms (see paragraph 68 above): an objective standard has to be applied in this connection. Examination of the Government’s arguments suggests that it was partly administrative difficulties that prompted the authorities’ decisions; yet, in so fundamental an area as respect for family life, such considerations cannot be allowed to play more than a secondary role. 83. In conclusion, in the respects indicated above and despite the applicants’ unco-operative attitude (see paragraph 26 above), the measures taken in implementation of the care decision were not supported by "sufficient" reasons justifying them as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They were therefore, notwithstanding the domestic authorities’ margin of appreciation, not "necessary in a democratic society". E. Overall conclusion 84. To sum up, the implementation of the care decision, but not that decision itself or its maintenance in force, gave rise to a breach of Article 8 (art. 8). III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 (art. 3) OF THE CONVENTION 85. The applicants alleged that they had been victims of a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, which provides: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In their view, there had been "inhuman treatment" as a result of: (a) the taking away of the children without sufficient reason; (b) the frequent moving of Stefan from one home to another, his ill-treatment at the hands of the Ek family and his placement in an institution run by the Board for the Retarded (see paragraph 17 above); (c) the manner in which, on one occasion, Stefan and Thomas had been removed, with police assistance, from the applicants’ home. The Government contested these claims. 86. The Commission considered that it had already dealt in its report, in the context of Article 8 (art. 8), with the essential issues raised by point (a) and that no separate issue arose under Article 3 (art. 3). The Court is of the same opinion. The Court has also already endorsed, in paragraph 80 above, the Commission’s finding that the http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010