Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook an inference as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations and accepted that the photocopied document was indeed a photocopy of the authentic post-operation report. Consequently, the Court found it established that the applicant’s son had indeed been detained by the soldiers and had died in their custody.220 The approach adopted by the Court in the case of Timurtaş v. Turkey has become established practice, and the Court continues to draw inferences from the failures of respondent Governments to submit documents and other evidence as to the well-foundedness of applicants’ allegations. Furthermore, on 13 December 2004 a new Rule was added to the Rules of Court in light of the approach adopted by the Court in Timurtaş: Where a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant important information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate.221 Furthermore, the respondent Government’s failure to cooperate with the Court by withholding relevant documents led the Court to shift the burden of proof to the Government. The case of Akkum and Others v. Turkey222 concerned the killing of two of the applicants’ relatives in an area where a military operation had taken place, as well as the mutilation of the ears of one of those relatives. When the documents submitted by the parties proved insufficient to establish the facts of the case, the Commission held a fact-finding mission in Turkey and heard, inter alia, a number of military personnel who had taken part in the operation. Their testimonies made it clear that there existed another military report which was potentially capable of shedding light on the events in question but which the Government had not made available to the Commission. The Commission requested that the Government submit the report, but the Government failed to respond. The applicants, for their part, argued that in the circumstances of the case, the Government was required to provide a plausible explanation of how their relatives had been killed. In support of their arguments, they referred to the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The Court accepted the applicants’ arguments and held that it was inappropriate to conclude that they had failed to submit sufficient evidence in support of their allegations, given that such evidence was in the hands of the respondent Government. The Court considered it legitimate to draw a parallel between the situation of detainees, for whose well-being the State is responsible, and the situation of persons found injured or dead in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State. According to the Court, that parallel was based on 220 Ibid., § 86. 221 Rule 44C of the Rules of Court. 222 Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005. 82