38 BOUYID v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES DE GAETANO, LEMMENS AND MAHONEY (Translation) 1. We agree with the majority’s finding of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention. To our regret, however, we are unable to join the majority in finding that there has also been a violation of the substantive aspect of that Article. 2. We wish to make clear at the outset that we endorse the general principles recapitulated by the majority (in paragraphs 81-90 of the present judgment). We are likewise prepared to accept, as the majority did, that by applying the appropriate rules of evidence in the present case, it can be concluded that the applicants were each given a slap while under the control of the police (see paragraphs 91-98 of the judgment).1 The issue on which we are unable to concur with the majority is the characterisation under Article 3 of the treatment to which the applicants were subjected (see paragraphs 100-13). 3. We consider, like the Chamber (see paragraph 50 of its judgment) and the majority of the Grand Chamber (see paragraph 106 of the present judgment), that police officers who needlessly strike an individual under their control are committing a breach of professional ethics. Moreover, in a democratic society it is only to be expected that such an act should also constitute a tort and a criminal offence. We wish to emphasise that a slap by a police officer is unacceptable (see, to similar effect, paragraph 51 of the Chamber judgment). Our dissenting opinion is therefore on no account to be construed as acknowledging any kind of immunity for police officers, or even as tolerating what happened at the Saint-Josse-ten-Noode police station. However, it is not for the Court to issue opinions on the basis of professional ethics or domestic law. What concerns us here is the narrower issue of whether the unacceptable treatment meted out to the applicants constituted “degrading treatment”, and hence a violation not just of the applicants’ rights, but of their fundamental rights as safeguarded by the Convention. 4. We are prepared to accept, as the majority did, that where a person is under the control of the police any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the person’s conduct diminishes human dignity (see paragraphs 88 and 100 of the judgment). 1. In view of the conclusion we have reached, however, we might have left open the question of the establishment of the facts, as did the Chamber (Bouyid v. Belgium, no. 23380/09, § 49, 21 November 2013).