Tbilisi, Gorgasali Street 24a
(+995 32) 2 405 087
Journal Iustitia
Treatment of people with the status of prisoners is one of the main challenges for the modern world. The artificial (forced) feeding of a prisoner during a hunger strike, an international practice, can be divided into four types of approaches. When force feeding, the European Court of Human Rights focuses on the factor of necessity, purpose and procedural guarantees. If artificial (forced) feeding fails to comply with procedural norms, it can result in severe and long-term mental and physical pain. This work presents the author’s vision of what changes should be made to the relevant normative act of Georgia in order to define exactly what medical aid means and at what stage of a prisoner’s hunger strike can medical aid be applied without the consent of a prisoner. From the analysis of international practice in several Western countries, important principles and standards can be seen by which the necessary measures of artificial (forced) feeding, forced treatment and forced medical examination are implemented. Also, in my view, the norms introduced by one of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights may be well suited to the case where a prisoner is unconscious and has not previously stated his/her position on artificial feeding. From the moment of beginning a hunger strike by a prisoner, a government faces two options: either a prisoner dies of starvation, or a relevant authority intervenes in the starvation in the form of the artificial (forced) feeding of a prisoner. A question is being asked: is there any third option? When a situation reaches a critical level, a state must find a way to de-escalate it.
References in the Georgian Language
- Human Rights Center, The Rights of a Convict and their Protection Mechanisms, Tbilisi, 2014.
- Murdoch J., Jiricka V., Combating Ill-Treatment in Prison. This work was translated andpublished within the joint project of the European Union and Council of Europe – Human Rightsand Healthcare in Prisons and Other Closed Institutions in Georgia II, Council of Europe, 2016,p. 31-32.
- Batiashvili I., Article 16 of the Constitution of Georgia in the Continuum of National Legislationand European Convention, Journal of Law, No 2, Tbilisi, 2021, p. 22.
- Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia, National Preventive Mechanism Report on the Visit toPrison N8 (27-28 November 2014).
References in a Foreign Language
- Gordon A., The Constitutional Choices Afforded to a Prisoner on Hunger Strike: Guantanamo,Santa Clara Journal of International Law 345, 2011.
- Powell S., Constitutional Law-Forced Feeding of a Prisoner on a Hunger Strike: A Violation ofan Inmate’s Right to Privacy, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 61, N4, Article 5,1983.
- United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights in theAdministration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers,International Legal Standards for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty, Chapter 8,New York and Geneva, 2003.
- Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, Guide on the case-law of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, Prisoner’s Rights, Updated on 31 December 2021.
- Lempel J., Force-Feeding Prisoners on a Hunger Strike: Israel as a Case Study in InternationalLaw, Harvard International Law Journal, 2019.
- Cousins S., Blencowe N., Blazeby J., What is an invasive procedure? A definition to inform studydesign, evidence synthesis and research tracking, BMJ Open, 2019, 2.
- Levush R., Israel: Law Authorizing Force-Feeding of Prisoners Held Constitutional, Law Libraryof Congress, 2016,
- Cloon S., Competent Hunger Strikers: Applying the Lessons from Northern Ireland to the ForceFeeding in Guantanamo, Notre Dame Journal of Law, 2017, 387-388.