“Where an individual has an arguable claim that his or her home and possessions have been purposely destroyed by agents of the State, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure (see Menteş and Others, cited above, pp. 2715-16, § 89).”88 By analogy to Article 2 case law, the obligation to investigate also arises in respect of alleged disproportionate uses of force in the course of law-enforcement activities or policing.89 In terms of the Court procedure, the burden of proof as to injuries of detained persons and those under their control has shifted to the authorities. This has had an effect upon domestic investigations, creating obligations upon the authorities to account for injuries caused to individuals whilst in their control.90 Accordingly, they are seen as indications of serious ill-treatment to be investigated. 3.1.3 Particular care must be taken in probing possible racial or other ­discriminatory motives that may lie behind ill-treatment. Racism and other forms of discrimination can significantly aggravate the suffering caused to victims of ill-treatment. This realisation has led to the development of a specific standard that requires investigation where there are sufficiently clear grounds of discrimination or where there are particular problems relating to a form of discrimination within a society or state. Where such problems exist, it must be presumed that the authorities are aware of them, and this may, in itself, create a prima facie obligation to investigate.91 The Court’s stance was summarised as follows in Cobzaru in relation to the Roma population in Romania: “Undoubtedly, such incidents, as well as the policies adopted by the highest Romanian authorities in order to fight discrimination against Roma, were known to the investigating authorities in the present case, or should have been known, and therefore special care should have been taken in investigating possible racist motives behind the violence.”92 88. Altun v. Turkey, Judgment of 1 June 2004, application no. 24561/94, para. 71. See also Ayder and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 January 2004, application no. 23656/94, paras. 122-129. 89. Zelilof v. Greece, Judgment of 24 May 2004, application no. 17060/03, para. 55; Muradova v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 2 April 2009, application no. 22684/05, paras. 100-136. 90. Mikheev v. Russia, Judgment of 26 January 2006, application no. 77617/01, para. 127. 91. On standards of proof in Court procedures in such cases, see also Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, Judgment of 13 December 2005, application no. 15250/02, paras. 59-62. 92. Cobzaru v. Romania, Judgment of 26 July 2007, application no. 48254/99, para. 97, italics added. Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 40