BOUYID v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 39 We are able to reach that conclusion without resorting to the detailed observations on human dignity set out both in the part of the judgment dealing with international texts, instruments and documents (paragraphs 45-47) and in the “Law” part (paragraphs 89-90). Indeed, we wonder what practical purpose is served by these observations, given that the majority provide no indication of how the notion of human dignity is to be understood. The observations are presented as though they intend to establish a doctrine, but in reality they do not offer the reader much by way of enlightenment. 5. That said, should it be accepted that any interference with human dignity constitutes degrading treatment and hence a violation of Article 3? Without going that far, the majority appear to be suggesting that any interference with human dignity resulting from the use of force by the police will necessarily breach Article 3. We consider that in so finding, the majority have departed from the wellestablished case-law to the effect that, where recourse to physical force diminishes human dignity, it will “in principle” constitute a violation of Article 3. The relevant case-law is in fact referred to twice in the judgment (in paragraph 88, with references to Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Mete and Others v. Turkey, no. 294/08, § 106, 4 October 2011; and El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 207, ECHR 2012; and in paragraph 100). In our view, the use of the term “in principle” implies that there are exceptions, that is to say, instances of interference with human dignity that nevertheless do not breach Article 3. On this point we would refer to the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, in which the Court found that there could be “violence which is to be condemned both on moral grounds and also in most cases under the domestic law of the Contracting States but which does not fall within Article 3 of the Convention” (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 167, Series A no. 25). This is because there are forms of treatment which, while interfering with human dignity, do not attain the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see, for example, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 162; and, among recent judgments, El-Masri, cited above, § 196; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 114, ECHR 2014; and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 94, ECHR 2014). 6. The main question arising in the present case is whether this minimum level was attained in respect of the applicants. The majority begin by pointing out that the assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case (see paragraph 86 of the present judgment). Subsequently, however, they show no further concern for the specific circumstances, instead simply adopting an eminently dogmatic position: any conduct by law-enforcement officers which