|
m →References: Changed article categories to category links per WP:USERNOCAT
|
→Judical responses: grammar
|
||
Line 50:
<ref>{{cite web|title=Zu spät für die Toten|periodical=[[Die Tageszeitung|taz]]|publisher=|url=https://taz.de/!405220/|url-status=|format=|access-date=|archive-url=|archive-date=|last=Kai von Appen|date=2006-07-13|year=|language=|pages=|quote=}}</ref>
The Federal Constitutional Court issued a press release the day after Achidi John's death. It pointed out that up to this point in time there had been no decision on whether the administration of so-called emetics was compatible with the constitution.
The issue was only brought up once, in 1999, in a constitutional complaint which however was not accepted for decision because of the principle of subsidiarity. with regard to human dignity and freedom from self-incriminations the use of emetics did not meet any fundamental constitutional concerns. However, an assessment with regard to the protection of physical integrity and the proportionality of the intervenience was not made.
<ref>{{cite web|title="Zum Brechmittel-Einsatz", Pressemitteilung Nr. 116/2001|periodical=|publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht|url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2001/bvg01-116.html|url-status=|format=|access-date=|archive-url=|archive-date=|last=|date=2001-12-13|year=|language=|pages=|quote=}}</ref>
The compulsory use of emetics to secure evidence in case of ingested drugs was introduced in 2001 by the then [[SPD|red]]-[[Alliance 90/The Greens|green]] senate in Hamburg.
| |||