Page 23 of 30 allegation of ill-treatment of Stefan was not substantiated. As regards the other matters relied on by Mr. and Mrs. Olsson in points (b) and (c), these did not, in the Court’s view, constitute "inhuman treatment". 87. There has therefore been no breach of Article 3 (art. 3). IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 (art. 6) OF THE CONVENTION 88. The applicants submitted that they had not received a "fair hearing" in the domestic judicial proceedings and had accordingly been victims of a breach of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention, which, so far as is relevant, provides: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ..." Apart from the complaints as to the practice of the Swedish courts (see paragraph 54 above), reliance was placed on their having heard Dr. Bosaeus as an expert although she had been the Council’s expert, the manner in which they took her evidence and, more generally, their alleged failure to make proper enquiries about the applicants’ mental health and ability to care for the children. These claims were contested by the Government and rejected by the Commission. 89. Dr. Bosaeus was heard by the County Administrative Court on two occasions: firstly, on 18 December 1980, as an expert (see paragraph 13 above); secondly, on 4 November 1982, as a witness called at the request of the applicants’ lawyer (see paragraph 28 above). This doctor was one of the co-signatories of the medical report on which the Council’s care decision of 16 September 1980 had been partly based (see paragraph 12 above). In a case of this kind, it was reasonable that, with her extensive knowledge of the background, she should have been heard as an expert in 1980. This could have rendered the proceedings unfair only if it were established - which is not the case - that the applicants had been prevented from cross-examining her or calling a counter-expert to rebut her testimony. The complaint concerning the manner in which Dr. Bosaeus’ evidence was taken relates to the 1982 hearing. However, the Court is not satisfied that the matters cited by the applicants - her presence in the court-room before she gave evidence and the County Administrative Court’s alleged failure both to remind her of her obligation to tell the truth and to insist that she answered certain questions - are sufficient to show that the proceedings were not fair. 90. As for the applicants’ more general allegation, they were at all times represented by a lawyer and were able to submit such material and arguments as they saw fit. The only exception was the Administrative Court of Appeal’s refusal to accept their request that Dr. Bosaeus be heard as a witness at its hearing in 1982 (see paragraph 29 above); however, she had already been heard in the County Administrative Court. Viewing the domestic judicial proceedings as a whole, the Court finds no material to support a conclusion that they were not fair or that the Swedish courts failed to make due and proper enquiries. 91. There was therefore no breach of Article 6 (art. 6). V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8 (art. 14+8) 92. The applicants asserted that the interferences with their rights had been based not on objective grounds but on their "social origin" and that they had therefore been victims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8 (art. 14+8). The former provision reads as follows: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010