PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court authorities will have a higher evidential value. For example, in the case of Akdeniz v. Turkey,169 the Court accepted the applicant’s allegation that her son had been detained and ill-treated by soldiers solely on the basis of statements taken by the investigating prosecutor from a number of eye-witnesses to the events. In fact, the prosecutor himself had concluded, on the basis of the same eyewitness evidence, that the applicant’s allegations were true but had failed to prosecute those responsible.170 The Court also takes into account eyewitness statements taken by an applicant him- or herself or by his or her lawyer.171 However, such statements need to be corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, as both parties to a case will be given the opportunity to comment on any documents submitted in Convention proceedings, the Court may attach greater evidential value to an unauthenticated document if its accuracy and veracity are not contested by the parties. For instance, in the case of Koku v. Turkey172 the applicant submitted to the Court a chronology of events in which attacks against, and killings of, members of a pro-Kurdish political party were detailed. He argued that his brother, who had been a member of that party, was kidnapped and his disappearance was not investigated by the authorities. The body of his brother was found some months after the kidnapping. The Court, noting that the respondent Government had not contested the accuracy of the document submitted by the applicant, and noting further that the alleged kidnapping and disappearance happened at a time when dozens of other politicians of the same political party were being kidnapped, injured, and killed, accepted that the authorities had failed to protect the right to life of the applicant’s brother and found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.173 iii) Reports Compiled by International Organisations The Court regularly relies on reports compiled by governmental and non-governmental organisations. For example, in examining allegations relating to prison conditions, the Court frequently relies on the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) based on that organisation’s visits to prisons in the territory of the respondent Contracting Party.174 Furthermore, reports prepared by such organisations enable 169 Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, 31 May 2005. 170 Ibid., §§ 81–82. 171 See e.g. Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013, §§ 19–27, in which the Court included witness statements collected by the applicant’s lawyer who travelled to Tajikistan to collect information in respect of the ill-treatment of detainees and, specifically, of those who had been questioned in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant and his co-accused. 172 Koku v. Turkey, no. 27305/95, 31 May 2005. 173 Ibid., § 131. 174 See e.g. Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012, §§ 125–127. 73