Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook and the Court decides that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3,190 the burden may shift to the Government to disprove the applicant’s allegations. The Court’s case law provides for such a shift in two circumstances. They are examined below. i) Obligation to Account for Injuries Caused During Custody The difficulties associated with proving ill-treatment have perhaps best been described by Judge Bonello in his dissenting opinion in the case of Sevtap Veznedaroğlu v. Turkey, in which he stated the following: Expecting those who claim to be victims of torture to prove their allegations ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ places on them a burden that is as impossible to meet as it is unfair to request. Independent observers are not, to my knowledge, usually invited to witness the rack, nor is a transcript of proceedings in triplicate handed over at the end of each session of torture; its victims cower alone in oppressive and painful solitude, while the team of interrogators has almost unlimited means at its disposal to deny the happening of, or their participation in, the gruesome pageant. The solitary victim’s complaint is almost invariably confronted with the negation ‘corroborated’ by many.191 Indeed, in most cases of ill-treatment, the only evidence the victim will be able to produce is his or her own testimony. However, the Court is aware of this difficulty and has created its own unique set of rules to mitigate it. Thus, according to the Court’s established case law, if the victim of ill-treatment is able to make a prima facie case showing that he or she suffered injuries while in custody, the Court will shift the burden onto the Government to explain those injuries. Ribitsch v. Austria192 was the first case in which the burden was expressly shifted onto the respondent Government to explain injuries caused during police custody. Here, it was not disputed that the applicant had suffered injuries in custody. However, the respondent Government submitted that because of the required high standard of proof in the proceedings before the national courts, it had not been possible to establish that the policemen had been responsible for the applicant’s injuries. The Government also argued that in order for a violation of the Convention to be found, it was necessary for the ill-treatment to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Commission rejected the Government’s argument and found that where a person sustains injuries in police custody, it is for the Government to produce 190 See section 2.2 for the admissibility of applications. 191 Sevtap Veznedaroğlu v. Turkey, no. 32357/96, 11 April 2000, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello, § 14. 192 Ribitsch v. Austria, no. 18896/91, 4 December 1995. 76