Use of pain compliance holds during peaceful protests unlawful
During a climate protest in Berlin, the police used so-called pain compliance holds to pull a protestor off the street. The activist had previously taken part in a sit-in blockade and behaved completely peacefully. Together with the activist, we successfully went to court against the targeted and unnecessary infliction of pain by the police.
"If I inflict pain on you, if you force me, then in the next few days - not just today - you will have pain when you chew and swallow." These words from a police officer at a protest in Berlin were followed by scenes that are hard to watch. The threat was directed at activist Lars Ritter, who was taking part in a peaceful street blockade of the "Last Generation". The activists are campaigning for a better climate policy.
Instead of carrying Lars Ritter away from the roadway - as is usual when breaking up sit-in blockades and which the activist even pointed out to the officer - the police officer used pain compliance holds: He pulled Lars Ritter to a standing position by his jaw, twisted his arm and then, with the support of a colleague, dragged him off the road by his folded wrists.
Pain compliance holds are techniques from martial arts that cause pain through physical impact on pain-sensitive parts of the body or a leverage effect. Techniques that may only be used in exceptional cases to overcome resistance. With our case we want to have the illegality of the use of pain compliance holds established by the courts and thus set clear limits to this police practice.
Police must protect peaceful protest
In recent months, there have been increasing reports of police officers using pain holds in the context of climate demonstrations. The video of Ritter's incident received special attention. The picture is frightening in a society based on the rule of law: the police are acting violently against the citizens they are supposed to protect. The action of the police against climate demonstrators has sparked a discussion: Is the deliberate infliction of pain a legitimate means of breaking up peaceful demonstrations? The clear answer: no.
I am deeply disturbed by the brutality of the police. Just the sight of a police officer makes me shake.
The use of physical force to inflict targeted pain is a massive encroachment on fundamental rights that can only be permissible in absolutely exceptional situations. This is not the case with the dispersal of peaceful demonstrations, because as a rule milder means are available. The threat and infliction of pain interfere with the right to physical integrity. As degrading and inhuman treatment, it can also violate the human rights prohibition of torture.
If the police use pain compliance holds in the context of peaceful demonstrations, this also endangers the freedom of assembly, which is protected by fundamental rights. It is the task of the government to protect the fundamental right to peaceful protest and to enable people to exercise this right without fear.
Right to freedom of assembly increasingly under pressure
The brutal police action in breaking up peaceful climate protests is further evidence that the right to freedom of assembly is coming under increasing pressure. Again and again, peaceful protest is treated like a threat - not least in the new NRW Assembly Act, against which the GFF has lodged a constitutional complaint.
The use of pain compliance holds can be a lasting deterrent to taking to the streets and exercising the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This silencing of voices from civil society is called "chilling effects". Plaintiff and activist Lars Ritter is also severely affected by the incident and does not know if he will be able to protest in the future: "I am deeply disturbed by the brutal actions of the police. Just the sight of a police officer makes me shake."
The use of pain compliance holds has increased recently, especially at climate demonstrations. For example, pain compliance holds were also used during an action by the group "Ende Gelände" in Hamburg.
Use of pain compliance holds potential violation of the prohibition of torture
The list of violations in this unjustified use of force against Lars Ritter is long: in addition to an interference with physical integrity and freedom of assembly, there is a potential violation of human dignity and of the prohibition of torture in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Article 3 ECHR prohibits subjecting people to "inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment". Since the police inflicted extreme pain on the plaintiff Lars Ritter in public and the plaintiff did not give cause for this disproportionate use of force by his behaviour, this is not only a clear violation of the principle of proportionality, but also of Article 3 ECHR.
Although the Berlin police chief defended the use of the pain compliance holds, the police officers were under investigation for assault in office in accordance with Section 340 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The investigation proceedings against the officers were discontinued by the Berlin public prosecutor's office. Together with the complainant, we lodged an appeal against the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings.
