PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court proper administration of justice.216 The Court has encountered difficulties in establishing the facts in a number of cases in which respondent Governments have failed to cooperate either by withholding documents or other evidence requested by the Court, or by failing to submit all the relevant documents in their possession. In this connection, the Court has stated that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition, instituted under Article 34 of the Convention, that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications.217 The Court acknowledged in its judgment in the case of Timurtaş v. Turkey218 that where an individual applicant accuses State agents of violating his or her rights under the Convention, it is in certain instances solely the respondent Government that has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. The failure of a respondent Government to submit such information in its possession – or to submit it timely – without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention.219 The case of Timurtaş concerned the disappearance of the applicant’s son after the latter had allegedly been taken into custody by soldiers. The respondent Government denied that the applicant’s son had been detained. The applicant submitted to the Commission a photocopy of a document that he argued was a post-operation military report. The report detailed the arrest and detention of his son by the soldiers who took part in the operation. When requested by the Commission to submit the original of the document, the respondent Government argued that a document with the same reference number did indeed exist but that they could not submit it to the Commission as it contained military secrets. In the Government’s opinion, the photocopy of the original document had been manipulated by the applicant to insert the name of his son. The Court stated in its judgment that the Government was in a pre-eminent position to assist the Commission by providing access to the document which it claimed was the genuine one; it was insufficient for the Government to rely on the allegedly secret nature of the document. In light of the respondent Government’s failure to submit the original document, the Court drew 216 Rule 44A of the Rules of Court even extends this duty to Contracting Parties with are not a party to the case at hand. 217 Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, § 70. 218 Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, 13 June 2000. 219 Ibid., § 66. 81