PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court in order for the parties to prepare their answers. Upon resuming the hearing, the applicant’s representative and the government are each given approximately 10 minutes to answer the questions of the judges and to address the statements of the other side. The parties are informed of the Court’s decision at a subsequent date and not on the day of the hearing. Although such hearings are open to the public, the (Grand) Chamber may, of its own motion or at the request of a party or any other person concerned, decide to exclude the public and the press from all or part of a hearing in the interests of, inter alia, morals, public order and protection of the private life.135 2.1.18 Establishment of Facts a) The Court’s Powers in the Establishment of Facts In most instances, national courts will already have established the facts of a case. The duty of the Strasbourg Court will then usually be limited to examining whether or not those factual findings are compatible with the requirements of the Convention.136 The Court has often made it clear that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case. Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court’s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and as a general rule it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them. Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts. The same principles apply mutatis mutandis where no domestic court proceedings have taken place because the prosecuting authorities have not found sufficient evidence to initiate such proceedings. Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.137 It follows that under certain circumstances, particularly in the context of Article 2 and 3 violations, the Court will not hesitate to establish any disputed facts itself. Such circumstances may include situations where domestic authorities have failed to carry out effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment or where they have failed to punish those responsible. The Adalı v. Turkey138 judgment cited above illustrates the point that a purported lack of evidence, which might have prevented domestic authorities from bringing criminal proceedings against 135 Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. 136 See Paul Mahoney, “Determination and Evaluation of Facts in Proceedings Before the Present and Future European Court of Human Rights”, in Salvino Busutil, (ed.), Mainly Human Rights: Studies in Honour of J. J. Cremona, Fondation Internationale Malte, 1999, pp. 119–134. 137 Adalı v. Turkey, no. 38187/97, 31 March 2005, § 213. 138 Ibid. 63