claimed to have been kept, the Respondent also failed to lead evidence to rebut these claims. We submit that silence without more is deemed admission. The European Court of Human Rights in the case of TIREAN V. ROMANIA (2014) Application no. 47603/10 ECHR where the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention while serving a four-year prison sentence, the applicant further alleged he was beaten up by police officers during the criminal investigation against him and that the medical care during his pre-trial detention was inadequate. The Court concluded that the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention caused him suffering that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that attained the threshold of degrading treatment prescribed by Article 3 of the Convention. A serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3. Also, in the case of the European Court of Human Rights KARABET AND OTHERS V. UKRAINE (2013) Applications nos. 38906/07 and 52025/07 in an allegation of ill treatment amongst others, where the applicants were brutally beaten by masked security officers and by prison guards to the point of fainting in the case of some. They had been tightly handcuffed, ordered to strip naked and adopt humiliating poses; and were transported in an overcrowded van. Further, they were deprived of access to water or food and exposed to a low temperature without adequate clothing; and, no adequate medical assistance was provided to them. The Court found that the authorities’ brutal action had been grossly disproportionate given that, there had been no transgressions by the Applicants. The Court also found that the Applicants had been subjected to treatment which could only be described as torture. The Court accordingly found a violation of Article 3. In the instant case, the Respondent denied all the allegations made by the Applicants in their depositions. There was however no specific response to the alleged acts of torture and humiliating treatment while in custody of the agent of the Respondent. In custody situations it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation for injuries. The Respondents failed to annex any evidence to proof that the Applicants were not subjected to any 25