PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court Finally, regarding the third aspect – the nature of the “plausible explanation” for the injuries caused during custody – the Commission has held that in cases where injuries occurred in the course of police custody, it is “not sufficient for the Government to point at other possible causes of injuries, but it is incumbent on the Government to produce evidence showing facts which cast doubt on the account given by the victim and supported by medical evidence”.204 Similarly, in the above mentioned case of Ribitsch v. Austria,205 the respondent Government’s explanations “were not sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the applicant’s allegations concerning ill-treatment he had allegedly undergone while in police custody”.206 In establishing whether a respondent Government has produced “plausible explanations”, the Court inter alia refers to investigations – in particular forensic and medical examinations – carried out at the national level. For example, in the case of Salman v. Turkey, in which the detained person died in police custody, the Court observed that no plausible explanation had been provided by the respondent Government for the injuries to the left ankle, bruising and swelling of the left foot, the bruise to the chest and the broken sternum. The evidence does not support the Government’s contention that the injuries might have been caused during the arrest, or that the broken sternum was caused by cardiac massage.207 In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted a number of medical reports prepared by international forensic experts on the basis of the post-mortem reports prepared following the death of the detained person.208 In the case of Akkum and Others v. Turkey,209 the Court, examining whether the Government had explained the killings of the applicant’s two relatives, assessed the oral evidence taken by the Commission’s delegates and also took particular note of the investigation carried out at the domestic level. Having established that no meaningful investigation had been conducted at the domestic level that was capable, firstly, of establishing the true facts surrounding the killings and the mutilation of one of the bodies, and secondly, of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, the Court concluded that the Government had failed to account for the killings and for the mutilation in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.210 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 See Klaas v. Germany, no. 15473/89, 22 September 1993, § 103. Ribitsch v. Austria, no. 18896/91, 4 December 1995. Ibid., § 31. Salman v. Turkey, no. 21986/93, 27 June 2000, § 102. Ibid. Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005. Ibid., §§ 212–232. 79