C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention – conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof. In the proceedings before the Court, there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre-determined formula for its assessment. It adopts the conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake.597 In ECtHR proceedings, the necessary degree of proof depends on the specific facts at issue. For instance, when the State controls the evidence, it is almost impossible to establish a violation conclusively for the individual making the allegations against the State. Thus, the ECtHR shifts the allocation of the burden of proof to the government.598 THE RIGHT TO FAIR PROCEDURE IN THE ECtHR CASE-LAW In the Geerings599 case the Court has found that “if it is not found beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect has actually committed the crime and if it cannot be established as a fact that any advantage, illegal or otherwise, was actually obtained by the suspect in connection with the crime, a measure like confiscation of goods allegedly connected to the crime cannot be ordered, because it would be based on a presumption of guilt”600 and therefore incompatible with Article 6 (2). The case can be summarised as follows: the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of involvement – together with others – in various thefts of lorries containing merchandise. After the conclusion of the investigation, a first instance national court had established that the applicant had been involved in the theft of 120 laundry dryers from a lorry and in several thefts of lorries. The applicant lodged an appeal with the local Court of Appeal which quashed the first Nachova et al. v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, 2004, para. 147. For example, in Anguelova v. Bulgaria, App. 38361/97, 13.06.2002, the ECtHR stated that “Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation.” Anguelova v. Bulgaria, para. 111 (2002) (hereinafter “Anguelova”) (emphasis added). 599 Geerings v. Netherlands, no. 30810/03, ECHR, 01.03.2007. 600 Ibid. §47. 597 598 127