Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook applicants were consistent in their allegations throughout the proceedings before the Convention institutions and did everything within their power to substantiate those allegations. This case can be contrasted with the case of Toğcu v. Turkey,225 which concerned the disappearance of the applicant’s son after the latter had allegedly been detained by police officers. In his application form and later observations the applicant presented seriously contradictory versions of events leading up to his son’s alleged detention by the police. The Government, for its part, failed to submit to the Court a number of important documents including custody records. The Court stated that it was faced with a situation in which it was unable to establish what had taken place and that this inability had emanated from, on the one hand, the contradictory information submitted by the applicant, and, on the other hand, the incomplete investigation file submitted by the Government. While noting the difficulties for an applicant to obtain the necessary evidence from the hands of the respondent Government, the Court concluded that to shift the burden of proof onto a respondent Government required that the applicant have already made out a prima facie case. In light of the contradictory versions of events put forward by the applicant, the Court concluded that he failed to make his case to the extent necessary for the burden to shift to the Government to explain that the documents withheld by them contained no relevant information concerning his son’s disappearance.226 e) Standard of Proof i) Beyond Reasonable Doubt The Court, in assessing the evidence before it, employs a very high standard of proof, i.e. the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.227 Nevertheless, it should be noted that this high standard is to a certain extent mitigated by the Court’s reliance on inferences and the fact that the Court will under certain circumstances shift the burden of proof to the respondent Government as explained above. The Commission explained the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard in the following terms: “A reasonable doubt means not a doubt based on a merely theoretical possibility or raised in order to avoid a disagreeable conclusion, but a doubt for which reasons can be drawn from the facts presented”.228 224 Ibid. 225 Toğcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, 9 April 2002, § 69. 226 Ibid., §§ 96–97. For a review of the issue of burden of proof in Convention proceedings see Uğur Erdal, “Burden and Standard of Proof in Proceedings under the European Convention”, in European Law Review, vol. 26, 2001, pp. 68–84. 227 Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013, § 100. 228 The Greek Case, nos. 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3344/67, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1969, p. 196, § 30. 84