LABITA v. ITALY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 45 Article 3 (see paragraphs 130-35 of the judgment) are in themselves sufficiently clear and evident to justify finding a violation of the substantive point. We consider that where some or all of the events in issue can be known only by the authorities, as when the victim is in prison, serious presumptions arise that the injuries and ill-treatment were inflicted during detention. In such cases, it may even be considered that the burden of proof is on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation. In any event, the standard to which the applicant must prove his case is lower if, despite being asked, the authorities have failed to carry out effective investigations and to make the findings available to the Court. Lastly, it should be borne in mind that the standard of proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” is, in certain legal systems, used in criminal cases. However, this Court is not called upon to judge an individual's guilt or innocence or to punish those responsible for a violation; its task is to protect victims and provide redress for damage caused by the acts of the State responsible. The test, method and standard of proof in respect of responsibility under the Convention are different from those applicable in the various national systems as regards responsibility of individuals for criminal offences (see the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, Opinion of the Commission, p. 37, § 110). 2. Furthermore, not all of the types of treatment complained of by the applicant before the Court would have left physical or mental scars detectable on medical examination. There would not necessarily have been any signs left by insults, threats or acts of humiliation, by being kept handcuffed during medical examinations, or being required to run along a slippery corridor leading to the exercise yard while warders hurled insults. Such treatment is nonetheless liable to damage an individual's mental integrity and, accordingly, may come within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant's assertions concerning the psychological ill-treatment which he allegedly suffered are corroborated by other evidence as to the general situation obtaining in Pianosa Prison. Thus, the report of the Livorno judge responsible for the execution of sentences (see paragraph 42 of the judgment), drawn up when the applicant was in Pianosa, denounced the practice of “running to the exercise yard” and depicted a climate of violence. The ensuing investigations led to the prosecution of two warders, though there was insufficient evidence on file to secure a conviction (see paragraph 49 of the judgment). Furthermore, in his note of 12 October 1992, the Director-General of the Prison Administration Department (see paragraph 46 of the judgment) did not deny that prisoners had been victims of violent episodes at Pianosa Prison, but attributed the situation to “logistical” problems resulting from the simultaneous and unscheduled transfer of a large number of prisoners and the consequent need for