The European Regional System 2 health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent upon the State to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 whether or not other evidence of ill-treatment is presented by the complainant.308 One of the requirements for such an explanation is that the State conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill treatment. The finding of a violation due to the lack of an effective investigation appears to have arisen in order to address evidential difficulties regarding allegations of ill-treatment. In The Greek Case and Ireland v UK, the Commission and Court held that the standard of proof required for a finding of a violation of Article 3 was proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that ill-treatment occurred.309 In Ireland v UK, the Court tried to address the dichotomy between this standard of proof and the difficulty in obtaining evidence from the alleged violator itself, i.e. State authorities or agents. In this instance, the Court held that “proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the Parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account.”310 Over time, the Court has become increasingly mindful of the difficulties victims may face in obtaining supporting evidence. Consequently, it has imposed an obligation upon State authorities to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment. As the Court noted in Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v Azerbaijan, “Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation.”311 Thus, where the State has exclusive knowledge of, or ability to obtain, the facts, the burden of proof is, in effect, reversed. The importance of the duty to investigate was emphasised in Assenov and Others v Bulgaria.312 This case involved two applicants, Mr. Assenov, who was 14 years old at the time of the incident, and his father. They alleged that Mr. Assenov had been ill-treated by police officers whilst detained. The Court found Ibid. §108-111. See The Greek Case, (1969) op. cit., §30; Ireland v UK (1978), op. cit., §161. 310 Ireland v UK (1978), op. cit., §161. 311 Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, judgement of 11 January 2007, §62. 312 Assenov and Others v Bulgaria (1998), op. cit. See also Indelicato v Italy, no. 31143/96, judgement of 18 October 2001. 308 309 66