Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook b) The Substantiation of Allegations Before the Court can decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention, it must first establish the facts at issue. According to the Court, Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to rigorous application of the principle of affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation).519 In the cases referred to it, the Court will examine all the material before it, whether originating from the parties or other sources, and if necessary, will obtain material proprio motu.520 Nevertheless, according to the established case law of the Court, an applicant does bear the initial burden of producing evidence in support of his or her complaints at the time the application is lodged. Once this burden has been met, the Court will communicate the application to the respondent State – provided, of course, that the other requirements of admissibility are also met. The Court’s general standard of proof,521 which also applies to allegations of ill-treatment, is that they “must be supported by appropriate evidence.”522 In order to avoid any risk of an inadmissibility finding at the initial stages, it is imperative that allegations of ill-treatment be adequately supported by documents and argumentation at the time the application is lodged. In fact – and that topic is related to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies – it is crucial that applicants make use of suitable complaints- and reporting-mechanisms (for instance, in prison) precisely in order to obtain the documentary evidence based on investigations and (medical) examinations that is required by the Court.523 Where an applicant is not in a position to provide such documentation, for example because the documents are in the possession of the national authorities or because the applicant is unable to obtain the evidence without the assistance of the national authorities, the Court should be informed. Depending on the persuasiveness of the explanations and other material submitted by the applicant, the Court may seek to obtain the documents from the national authorities with the help of the respondent Government. It may do so either by communicating the application to the respondent Government or by requesting the Government, pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit the documents in question. 519 See, e.g. Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, 13 June 2000, § 66. 520 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, 18 January 1978, § 160. 521 See Uĝur Erdal, “Burden and Standard of Proof in Proceedings under the European Convention”, in European Law Review, vol. 26, 2001, pp. 68–85. See also Juliane Kokott, The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law, Kluwer, 1998. 522 Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, 10 February 2011, § 78. 523 See e.g. Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, 20 October 2011, where an applicant failed to bring his alleged mistreatment by fellow prisoners on grounds of his sexual orientation to the attention of the prison authorities or medical staff. The application was admitted but the Court found no violation of Article 3, including its procedural. 142