Thematic focus: Torture, trauma and its
possible impact on drug use
Many individuals who flee war and armed conflict,
and particularly those fleeing persecution, are likely
to have experienced trauma. This may include torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment. They may also
have family members or friends who experienced such
trauma. Such experiences can occur in people’s country of
origin. They can also take place while people are in
transit and trying to enter the EU, as well as upon arrival
in the EU. One way of coping with trauma can be the use
of drugs (both licit and illicit), which is explored in the
last section of this report.
From a fundamental rights perspective, the prohibition
of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment is an absolute, non-derogable right under
international human rights law, as stipulated by the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5), the
1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7),
more specifically in the 1984 Convention against Torture
(Articles 1 and 16); and, on a regional level, by the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 3).1
Torture is not allowed under any circumstance – including war, public emergencies or terrorist threats –
and irrespective of the victim’s conduct, however
undesirable or dangerous.2 Both international law and the
ECHR not only prohibit torture, but also other forms of
ill-treatment. The European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) has drawn distinctions between prohibited acts,
essentially using a “threshold of severity” test
Inhuman treatment is defined as at least such
treatment as deliberately causes severe suffering, mental or
physical, which in the particular situation is unjustifiable.
The severity of pain and suffering forms the basis for
distinguishing between inhuman and degrading
treatment in accordance with ECtHR case law,3 which
establishes that degrading treatment must include at least
some form of “gross humiliation”.
As for the perpetrators, not only state officials per
se qualify and trigger state responsibility, but so do
“other persons acting in an official capacity”. The ECtHR
added to this the positive duty of states to provide
protection against ill-treatment, even where such treatment
results from the conduct of non-state actors. (For example, a state was held responsible for acts committed by a
husband against his wife because state officials were
aware of these acts but did nothing to prevent them.)4
MAIN FINDINGS
• Limited data are available on victims of torture among applicants for international protection, with
Greece the only EU Member State to regularly collect this information. Similarly, data on traumatised
applicants are sketchy and information on suicide attempts incomplete.
• Findings point to limited formal screening procedures to identify asylum seekers who are victims of
torture or experienced severe trauma. Identification heavily relies on the expertise and knowledge of
individual staff. Tools are increasingly being developed to facilitate identification by non-experts.
• In most EU Member States, there is no evidence that would suggest recurrent violence or excessive
use of force by state officials or entities working on their behalf. Information collected by FRA mostly
focuses on individual and localised incidents. At the same time, serious incidents are more frequently
reported along the external borders of the Schengen area.
• Training, monitoring bodies and complaint mechanisms exist in all EU Member States, but their
effectiveness in preventing ill-treatment varies from one Member State to another.
• A recurrent issue restraining victims’ access to support services is the limited number of specialised
medical staff who can provide psychological or psychiatric support. The lack of staff often leads to long
waiting periods. Starting therapy when asylum applicants are homeless or the conditions in a reception
facility are not adequate to sustain the therapy poses another challenge.
• Limited information on the link between trauma and drug use has emerged. Drug use among asylum
applicants particularly affects adolescents and young men, and has so far been given little attention.
2