PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court in part on material compiled by Amnesty International showing the existence of such a risk. iv) Other Evidence In cases concerning allegations of ill-treatment, the Court has examined a wide variety of evidence submitted to it by the parties or obtained by the Court itself. Such evidence has included, inter alia, photographs of the applicant’s body,182 video footage of the prison cell in which the applicant was allegedly detained,183 plans of the detention facility where the applicant was detained and raped and which she described in her application form,184 a piece of cloth used to blindfold the applicant in police custody while he was being ill-treated,185 autopsy reports showing that the person had been subjected to ill-treatment prior to his killing,186 and photographs showing that a body had been mutilated.187 It must be stressed that such objects, individually, do not constitute conclusive evidence and in most cases they will be regarded as circumstantial evidence. However, sufficient circumstantial evidence may persuade the Court, in the absence of any direct evidence – which can be very difficult to obtain in human rights cases – to find an applicant’s allegations established.188 c) Burden of Proof Convention proceedings do not always lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation). In this connection, reference may be made to the Court’s judgment in Ireland v. the United Kingdom: In order to satisfy itself as to the existence or not in Northern Ireland of practices contrary to Article 3, the Court will not rely on the concept that the burden of proof is borne by one or other of the two Governments concerned. In the cases referred to it, the Court examines all the material before it, whether originating from the Commission, the Parties or other sources, and, if necessary, obtains material proprio motu.189 Nevertheless, according to the Court’s established case law, an applicant bears the initial burden of producing evidence in support of his or her complaints at the time the application is introduced. Once the applicant satisfies this burden Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, 29 September 2005, §§ 158–165. Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, 13 May 2005, § 72. Aydın v. Turkey [GC], no. 23178/94, 25 September 1997, § 39. Tekin v. Turkey, no. 22496/93, Commission Report of 17 April 1997, § 190. Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, 24 May 2005, § 188. Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, 24 March 2005, §§ 51–52. Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, 9 November 2006, §§ 139–143; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006, §§ 108–112. 189 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, 18 January 1978, § 160. 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 75