ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 23 (b) Application of those principles to the present case 112. The Court observes that Mr Zabchekov died after being detained for several hours at the Razgrad police station, where he had been brought after being briefly chased by an off-duty police officer. It is incumbent on the Government, therefore, to provide a plausible explanation for Mr Zabchekov's death. 113. The Government's explanation is that Mr Zabchekov's death could not possibly have been the result of police ill-treatment as the second forensic report had concluded that the fatal injury, a skull fracture, had been inflicted at least ten hours prior to the time of death. It followed that the skull fracture had occurred before 7 p.m. on 28 January 1996, whereas Mr Zabchekov's encounter with the police occurred about five hours later. 114. The Court observes that the conclusion of the second report as to the time at which the injury occurred was based on a visual examination of photographs of the blood clot taken six hours after Mr Zabchekov's death. The experts did not even mention why they considered that no changes had occurred in the blood clot after the boy's death. According to the medical opinion submitted by the applicant – uncontested by the Government – such changes did occur and had to be taken into account. Furthermore, the second forensic report, which relied solely on documentary material, departed in significant respects from the conclusions of the first report without stating why that report's findings concerning the strength of the blow and the time of the skull fracture had been incorrect. The first forensic report, in contrast, had been based on a direct observation of the body (see paragraphs 53-59, 70 and 72-77 above). The Court finds that all of the above significantly reduces the reliability of the second report's conclusions. 115. It is true that certain facts in the present case cannot be unequivocally explained: Mr Zabchekov's reported staggering and mumbling at the time of his arrest may be seen as an indication that he had already been injured at that time, but it may also have been the result of his apparently high level of alcohol intoxication (see paragraphs 11, 22, 28, 59, 60, 74, 76 and 95 above). 116. However, if Mr Zabchekov was indeed injured before 7 p.m. on 28 January 1996, as was suggested by the conclusions of the second medical report, that would mean that he went out with friends, visited a bar and then decided to steal car parts while suffering from a skull fracture. That may appear unlikely even if the so-called “lucid interval” between the injury and the death is taken into account. In particular, it is not disputed that Mr Zabchekov was able to run when C attempted to apprehend him and was walking normally when brought to the police station (see paragraphs 12-14, 16 and 29 above). 117. The Court notes that the first forensic report considered that the skull injury had most likely been inflicted between four and six hours prior