24 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 70. Furthermore, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration and its physical or mental effects (see Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, p. 36, § 107). Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30). 2. Application of the above principles to the present case 71. For an issue to be raised under Article 3, it must be established that at the time of their extradition there existed a real risk that the applicants would be subjected in Uzbekistan to treatment proscribed by Article 3. 72. The Court has noted the applicants' representatives' observations on the information in the reports of international human rights organisations denouncing an administrative practice of torture and other forms of illtreatment of political dissidents, and the Uzbek regime's repressive policy towards such dissidents. It notes that Amnesty International stated in its report for 2001: “Reports of ill-treatment and torture by law enforcement officials of alleged supporters of banned Islamist opposition parties and movements ... continued ...” (see paragraph 55 above). 73. However, although these findings describe the general situation in Uzbekistan, they do not support the specific allegations made by the applicants in the instant case and require corroboration by other evidence. 74. The applicants were extradited to Uzbekistan on 27 March 1999, despite the interim measure that had been indicated by the Court under Rule 39 (see paragraphs 24-27 above). It is, therefore, that date that must be taken into consideration when assessing whether there was a real risk of their being subjected in Uzbekistan to treatment proscribed by Article 3. 75. By applying Rule 39, the Court indicated that it was not able on the basis of the information then available to make a final decision on the existence of a real risk. Had Turkey complied with the measure indicated under Rule 39, the relevant date would have been the date of the Court's consideration of the case in the light of the evidence that had been adduced (see paragraph 69 above and Chahal, cited above, p. 1856, §§ 85-86). Turkey's failure to comply with the indication given by the Court has prevented the Court from following its normal procedure. Nevertheless, the Court cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the case would have been had the extradition been deferred as it had requested. For this reason, it will have to assess Turkey's responsibility under Article 3 by reference to the situation that obtained on 27 March 1999. 76. The Court notes that the Government have contended that the applicants were extradited after an assurance had been obtained from the