01185919 0021l9-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F261l2 domestic authorities, insofar as they did not disclose arbitrariness or partiality, 114 whereas in cases where the petitioners' allegations were not given serious consideration by domestic authorities or the State failed to convincingly refute them, the CAT Committee found, as a rule, a violation of Article 15 of the CAT. This was particularly the case when torture was alleged to have occurred in countries in relation to which periodic reports confirmed a widespread practice of torture by law enforcement officers or use of torture-derived confessions to secure convictions. 115 51. Similarly, the HR Committee held that where allegations of torture are made in the context of the proceedings before it, "the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially since the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and it is frequently the case that the State party alone has the relevant information".116 Accordingly, "where the allegations are corroborated by credible evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party", which failed to rebut the allegations, such allegations must be given due weight and may be considered substantiated. 117 52. At the ECtHR, the standard and the allocation of the burden of proof was found to depend on the specificities of the facts of the case, the nature of the allegation made and the human rights at stake. 118 According to that jurisprudence, "proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact".119 Regarding allegations of torture in particular, the ECtHR has also found that the "proceedings do not lend themselves to a strict application of the principle alfirmanti incumbit probation", notably where "the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody". 120 Allegations of torture were deemed more credible if supported by CAT/C/52/D/47712011, 19 May 2014 ("Aarrass v. Morocco"), paras. 10.5, 10.6, 10.8, (finding that the duty to investigate allegations of torture arises "wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed"). 114 p. E. v. France, paras 6.4, 6.5; G. K. v. Switzerland, paras 6.11, 6.12. 115 Aarrass v. Morocco, paras 10.8, 11; Yousri Ktiti v. Morocco, Communication No. 41912010, CAT/C/46/D/41912010, 5 July 2011, paras 8.6-8.8. 116 HR Committee, Maharjan v. Nepal, Communication No. 186312009, CCPR/CII 05/D1l86312009, 19 July 2012 ("Maharjan v. Nepal"), para. 8.3 and references cited therein; Womah Mukong v. Cameroon, Communication No. 45811991, CCPR/C/51/D/4581l991, 21 July 1994, para. 9.2. 117 Maharjan v. Nepal, para. 8.3; HR Committee, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 104412002, CCPR/C/86/D1l04412002, 17 March 2006, para. 8.2. IIX Al Nashiri v. Poland, para. 394 and references cited therein. 119 Al Nashiri v. Poland, para. 394. 120 Al Nashiri v. Poland, para. 396. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 24/40