illed and two police officers were wounded. The question to decide in the present case is whether the State authorities were directly responsible for the death of the applicant's daughter, as the applicant alleged.
64. The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In its extensive jurisprudence the Court has developed a number of general principles relating to the scope of the obligations under this provision, as well as to the establishment of facts in dispute, when confronted with allegations under Article 2 (for a summary of these, see Bazorkina v. Russia, No. 69481/01, §§ 103 - 109, 27 July 2006, and {Akpinar} and Altun v. Turkey, No. 56760/00, §§ 47 - 52, ECHR 2007-III). The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25).
65. The Court reiterates that the evidentiary standard of proof required for the purposes of the Convention is proof "beyond reasonable doubt", and that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. The Court has also noted the difficulties for applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it. Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see {Togcu} v. Turkey, No. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, No. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
66. The Court notes that despite its requests for the entire investigation file concerning the death of the applicant's daughter, the Government produced only part of the documents. The Government referred to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In previous cases the Court has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by it (see Imakayeva v. Russia, No. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII).
67. The Court notes, however, that the investigation in the present case focused primarily on the actions of the two criminal suspects. From the outset of the proceedings the authorities considered that the girl's death had resulted from the explosions caused by the two men while they had resisted the police. It does not appear that any elements in the investigation conducted by the district prosecutor's office contained information which could have warranted different conclusions. Therefore, the main problem in the present case is not the Government's failure to disclose certain documents, but rather the quality of the investigation itself, which will be addressed below.
68. The Court notes that the applicant's allegation that the State servicemen were responsible for the death of Summaya Abdurashidova is based exclusively on her own statement. No other statements or evidence to support this assertion have been provided by the applicant to the Court or to the domestic investigation.
69. The description of the body drawn up on 14 March 2005 by a forensic expert and the statements collected on 26 April 2005 from two investigators, one attesting witness and the crimin
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18