Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook It also appears from the Court’s case law that when a respondent Government fails to conduct a medical examination before placing a person in detention, it will to some extent have forfeited the argument that the injuries present at the time of release pre-dated the period of detention. Thus, in its judgment in the case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey211 the Court observed that the applicant had not been medically examined at the beginning of his detention and had not had access to a doctor of his choice while in police custody. Following his transfer from police custody, he had undergone two medical examinations that resulted in a medical report and the inclusion of a medical note in the prison patients’ examination book. Both the report and the note referred to scabs, bruises, and lesions on various parts of the applicant’s body.212 Those injuries, in the absence of a plausible explanation from the respondent Government, were sufficient for the Court to conclude that they were the result of ill-treatment for which the Government bore responsibility in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.213 In conclusion, based on the case law examined above, the Court expects a respondent Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for injuries and deaths caused in custody. It is not sufficient for a respondent Government to point to other potential causes without providing adequate evidence in support of its submissions. Any medical evidence submitted by a respondent Government will be scrutinised by the Court before it can be accepted as proof of the cause of injury or death in custody. It is also open to applicants to submit to the Court medical reports to rebut those put forward by the respondent Government. Furthermore, the Court itself can ask a forensic expert to comment on any medical evidence submitted by the parties. The Commission did just this in the Salman v. Turkey214 case mentioned above when it requested an expert opinion on the medical issues in the case “from Professor Cordner, Professor of Forensic Medicine at Monash University, Victoria (Australia) and Director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine”.215 ii) Obligation to Assist the Court in Establishing Facts According to Rule 44A of the Rules of Court, the parties to a case before the Court have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the 211 212 213 214 215 80 Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004. Ibid., § 45. Ibid., §§ 46–48. See Salman v. Turkey, no. 21986/93, 27 June 2000. Ibid., § 6.