PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court with information about their relevance to the events in question. In the context of Article 3 complaints, such witnesses may include the perpetrators of the ill-treatment, doctors who carried out medical examinations of the applicant, investigating authorities to whose attention the allegations of ill-treatment were brought or eye-witnesses. If the Court decides to hold a fact-finding hearing, it is imperative for an applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is capable of asking pertinent questions and adequately cross-examining witnesses. It is not uncommon for previously undisclosed documents to be produced during a fact-finding hearing and the representative must be able to study such documents on very short notice and formulate new questions in light of them. The Court’s Registry will arrange simultaneous interpretation. The costs associated with fact-finding hearings will be borne by the Council of Europe. Following the hearing, the parties will receive the verbatim records of the hearing and will usually be able to submit further observations on the basis of the information obtained in the hearing. It is important to add that fact-finding hearings are relatively rare, not least because of the Court’s heavy case load. In addition, neither witnesses nor governmental officials can be obliged to attend fact-finding hearings, which can limit their success. Furthermore, fact-finding hearings are also cost intensive as they involve several judges, members of the registry and interpreters. Despite such concerns, the Court has held a number of fact-finding hearings and missions. For instance in the case of Davydov and Others v. Ukraine,142 a delegation of the Court undertook a fact-finding mission to Zamkova Prison, in which the 13 applicants were imprisoned. They alleged that on two occasions in 2001 and 2002 the prison was stormed by members of the special police on a training exercise conducted under the supervision of the prison authorities. At these events, detainees were subject to serious ill-treatment. Some of the prisoners suffered from serious injuries including broken bones, severed tendons, concussion and trauma to the spine. In addition, the applicants alleged that the general conditions in the penitentiary were bad due to overcrowding, lack of an adequate diet, medical treatment or heating and arbitrary use of disciplinary penalties and solitary confinement.143 141 Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, 1 July 2010. 142 Ibid., §§ 11–20. 143 Ibid., § 198. 65