The absolute nature of Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits both torture and treatment which is inhuman or degrading, has long been the subject of legal, political and moral debate. In particular, it is unclear how ‘absolute’ rights such as Article 3 ought to operate in situations where two or more such rights conflict, and whether they can still be considered truly ‘absolute’ in these circumstances. This note analyses the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in the recent case of Jeanty v Belgium, suggesting that in taking an approach to Article 3 which is undeniably relativist in nature, it had proved that, whatever the merits of an absolute conception of Article 3 in theory, it cannot under all circumstances be considered absolute in practice. This argument is then defended in light of some of the more persuasive arguments put forward by proponents of the absoluteness case.