Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook The Court decided to hold a fact-finding hearing and inspect the following premises and documentation at Zamkova Prison: (1) detention and isolation units; (2) medical service units; (3) registers of prisoners; (4) registers of complaints submitted by prisoners to the local and General Prosecutor’s Offices; (5) registers of the medical complaints relevant to the material time; (6) solitary confinement unit registers; and (7) registers of disciplinary sanctions applied to the applicants.143 Another example provides the case of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia.144 Upon allegations of ill-treatment and prison conditions contrary to the Convention, four judges of the Court undertook a fact-finding visit to the Russian occupied area of Transnistria where they hold hearings on the premises of the OSCE Mission to Moldova, in a prison in Tiraspol, and at the headquarters of the “Operative Group of Russian Forces in the Transdniestrian [sic] Region of the Republic of Moldova”. The witnesses heard included the applicants, political figures, officials from Moldova, representatives of the prison service in Tiraspol and officers of the Russian army.145 c) Admissibility of Evidence The Court has a very liberal attitude towards the admissibility of evidence; it has adopted a system of free evaluation of evidence146 whereby no evidence is inadmissible and no witness is incompetent to testify. The Court made it clear in its judgment in the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom that it is: not bound, under the Convention or under the general principles applicable to international tribunals, by strict rules of evidence. In order to satisfy itself, the Court is entitled to rely on evidence of every kind, including, insofar as it deems them relevant, documents or statements emanating from governments, be they respondent or applicant, or from their institutions or officials.147 Furthermore, the Court stated that being master of its own procedure and of its own rules […] [it] has complete freedom in assessing not only the admissibility and the relevance but also the probative value of each item of evidence before it.148 This liberal approach of the Court to the admissibility of evidence is unavoidable because in many human rights cases there is an understandable lack of direct 144 Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004. 145 On-the-Spot Inquiry Ilascu and Others v. Moldova & Russia 10–15.03.03, Press Release of the European Court of Human Rights, published 18 February 2003. 146 See e.g. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, 6 July 2005, § 147. 147 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, 18 January 1978, § 209. 148 Ibid., § 210. 66