Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

Where an individual applicant accuses State agents of violating his rights under the Convention, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

The Court further accepts that possible flaws in the committal warrant do not necessarily render the detention unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 79, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

This is the case, in particular, in cases in which Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is at stake and the Court must then exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

Having regard to the particular vulnerability of persons who find themselves under the exclusive control of State agents, the Court reiterates that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation) (see, mutatis mutandis, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

In addition, where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible and precise, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II).