G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Article 35 “States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.” THE LAW I. THE APPLICANT’S CLASSIFICATION COMPLAINTS AND THEIR LEGAL 82. The applicant complained of the suffering and the other consequences, including in the educational and private sphere, of having been undocumented for many years in Spain. 83. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which established the right to respect for private life, on account of the delay and the difficulties in having his birth registered and later his ID card issued. He also relied on Article 3 of the Convention on account of the psychological and physical suffering he was still enduring as a consequence of having been undocumented for years. The Court notes that the substantive aspect of these two complaints is in fact rather similar; the applicant’s suffering was allegedly a consequence of his lack of documents. The Court has already established that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this minimum level of severity depends on all the circumstances of the case. Where a measure falls short of the treatment proscribed by Article 3 treatment, it may still, however, fall foul of Article 8 of the Convention, which, inter alia, provides protection of physical and psychological integrity under the “respect for private life” head (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 43, ECHR 2006-X). The Court considers that in the present case the applicant has not provided any evidence other than the severity of his current psychiatric and psychological diagnosis to substantiate that the treatment he received from the public authorities handling his request to have his birth registered attained the minimum level of severity to reach the threshold established under Article 3 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the complaint can be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private life. 84. The applicant also relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concerning the difficulties in enrolling in certain educational courses as well as in obtaining the corresponding diplomas and certificates because of his lack of an ID card. The Court has already recognised that the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 encompasses both a right to personal development and a right to a “private social life”, which consists 22