Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook 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 duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.529 Since the Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in the light of present day conditions, certain acts previously falling outside the scope of Article 3 might today (or in future) attain the required level of severity to be considered a violation of the Article.530 The Court explained in Selmouni that “the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies.”531 d) Concluding Remarks If the Court concludes that the applicant has failed to support his or her case with adequate evidence and has failed, therefore, to present a prima facie case, the application will be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Similarly, if the Court concludes that the treatment of which the applicant complains has not reached the minimum level of severity to constitute a breach of Article 3, the application will be considered manifestly ill-founded. In order to avoid having an application fail for lack of substantiation, the applicant should make out the strongest possible case from the beginning by submitting all relevant evidence that can support the allegations with the completed application form. If the evidence submitted by the applicant is rebutted or challenged by the respondent Government, the applicant will have the opportunity to counter the Government’s allegations by adducing further evidence and/or arguments. Such additional evidence may take the form of additional medical reports confirming the applicants’ earlier medical submissions or challenging the submissions of the Government. Similarly, persuading the Court that the treatment in question has reached the required minimum level of severity may in many cases also be achieved by resorting to medical reports. It is thus advantageous for the applicant to consider obtaining detailed medical reports describing the physical and mental effects of the ill-treatment to which they were subjected. If the applicant is suffering from psychological disturbances as a result of the ill-treatment, it is particularly important that these effects be documented since the finding of such effects requires 529 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, 18 January 1978, § 162. 530 Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, 27 November 2003, § 55. 531 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, 28 July 1999, § 100. 144