Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook b) Applicant’s Observations The observations and any documents submitted to the Court by the respondent Government will be forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer, who must respond to them within a certain time limit (usually six weeks). It is possible to request an extension of the time limit, but any such request must be reasoned and made within the time limit. Failure to submit the observations – or to request an extension – within the given time limit, may result in the exclusion of those observations from the case file unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise.127 For purposes of observing the time limit, the material date is the certified date of dispatch of the document or, if there is none, the actual date of receipt by the Registry. Applicants must send three copies of the observations by mail and, if possible, a copy by facsimile. When drafting observations, it should be kept in mind that the Court’s proceedings are primarily written proceedings. Only in a minority of cases will the Court hold a hearing. This observation is usually the applicant’s final submission to the Court. Hence all issues need to be addressed in this observation. In principle, the applicant’s observations should be drafted in one of the official languages of the Court. However, the applicant may seek leave from the President of the relevant Chamber for the continued use of the official language of a Contracting Party.128 In preparing observations, applicants should refer to the Practice Direction on Written Pleadings.129 The form that should be followed in preparing the observations and the contents required are set out in Part II of the Practice Direction. It is imperative that the observations are legible and, as such, it is recommended that they be typed. It is also important that the arguments set out in observations are well structured; an unstructured, free flowing set of observations, no matter how strong the legal arguments contained therein, will frustrate the opportunity to support the case. In their observations, applicants should respond to any objections raised by the respondent Government to the admissibility of the application. For example, if the Government contends that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is the applicant who, at this stage of the proceedings, bears the burden of establishing that: 127 Rule 38 § 1 of the Rules of Court. 128 Rule 34 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court. 129 European Court of Human Rights, “Practice Direction on Written Pleadings”, available online: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/PD_written_pleadings_ENG.pdf. Also reprinted in Appendix 4. 60