Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook persons implicated in ill-treatment, will not deter the Court from independently investigating the allegations if such a course of action appears justified under the circumstances. Furthermore, whatever the outcome of the domestic proceedings, the conviction or acquittal of those implicated in ill-treatment does not absolve the respondent State from its responsibility under the Convention to account for any injuries found on a person at the time of his or her release from detention. For example, in the case of Ribitsch v. Austria,139 the Court observed that the police officers allegedly responsible for the ill-treatment had been acquitted because of the high standard of proof required in the domestic legislation. In this connection the Court observed that significant weight had been given by the domestic court to the explanation that the injuries were caused by a fall against a car door. The Court, finding this explanation unconvincing, considered that even if Mr Ribitsch had fallen while he was being moved under escort, this could only have provided a very incomplete, and therefore insufficient, explanation of the injuries he sustained.140 The following sub-sections will deal with the evidential issues and the methods employed by the Court in establishing facts. b) Fact-finding Hearings or Missions The Court can hold fact-finding hearings or missions pursuant to Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides the following: If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall pursue the examination of the case, together with the representatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities. Furthermore, the Annex to the Rules of Court sets out the procedure to be followed in such hearings and regulates the conduct of those participating in them. According to Rule 1 § 3 of the Annex to the Rules of Court, [a]fter a case has been declared admissible or, exceptionally, before the decision on admissibility, the Chamber may appoint one or more of its members or of the other judges of the Court, as its delegate or delegates, to conduct an inquiry, carry out an on-site investigation or take evidence in some other manner. The Chamber may also appoint any person or institution of its choice to assist the delegation in such manner as it sees fit. The Court may independently decide to hold a fact-finding hearing, but applicants can also invite the Court to do so. Any such request must be reasoned, and the applicant should explain how a fact-finding hearing would help establish the facts. The applicant should also submit a list of the proposed witnesses together 139 Ribitsch v. Austria, no. 18896/91, 4 December 1995. 140 Ibid., § 34. 64