PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the allegations of the victim, particularly if the victim’s account is supported by medical certificates. In this case, the explanations put forward by the Government were not sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the applicant’s allegations concerning ill-treatment.193 The Court adopted the Commission’s approach and found that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated.194 The Court also followed this approach in its judgment in the case of Selmouni v. France; the Court stated that: where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention.195 Three aspects of the Court’s finding in Selmouni require further exploration. They are: 1) the question of when police custody starts and, concurrently, when the obligation to account for a detainee’s fate starts, 2) the duration of the period during which the obligation is in force, and 3) the meaning of the term “plausible explanation”.196 As regards the first question, it must be stressed that the term “police custody” does not necessarily imply that the person has been placed in a detention facility.197 In its judgment in the case of Yasin Ateş v. Turkey,198 which concerned the killing of the applicant’s son during a military operation following his arrest, the Court held that a lack of evidence in support of the applicant’s allegation that his son had been killed by agents of the State did not: mean that the respondent Government are absolved from their responsibility to account for Kadri Ateş’s death, which occurred while he was under arrest. In this connection the Court reiterates that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them.199 Referring to its earlier case law, the Court went on to hold: States are under an obligation to account for the injuries or deaths which occurred, not only in custody, but also in areas within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State because, in both situations, the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities.200 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Ibid., § 31. Ibid., § 40. Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, 28 July 1999, § 87. Ibid. See mutatis mutandis H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, 5 October 2004, § 91. Yasin Ateş v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, 31 May 2005. Ibid., § 93. Ibid., § 94. 77