SELMOUNI v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 27 87. The Court considers that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34). It also points out that in his criminal complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party, Mr Selmouni directed his allegations against the police officers in question (see paragraph 28 above) and that the issue of their guilt is a matter for the jurisdiction of the French courts, in particular the criminal courts, alone. Whatever the outcome of the domestic proceedings, the police officers’ conviction or acquittal does not absolve the respondent State from its responsibility under the Convention (see the Ribitsch judgment cited above). It is accordingly under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation of how Mr Selmouni’s injuries were caused. 88. In the instant case the Court considers that it should accept, in the main, the facts as established by the Commission, having been satisfied on the basis of the evidence which it has examined that the Commission could properly reach the conclusion that the applicant’s allegations were proved beyond reasonable doubt, it being recalled that such proof may follow from the co-existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161, and the Aydın v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 1889, § 73). The existence of several medical certificates containing precise and concordant information and the lack of any plausible explanation of how the injuries had been caused justified the Commission’s conclusion. The Court’s analysis differs, however, from the Commission’s opinion for two reasons. Firstly, the Court considers, unlike the Commission, that it is required to rule on those of the allegations in Mr Selmouni��s statements that are not supported by the medical reports. In that connection, it notes that in their defence observations the Government, while wishing to concentrate on the issue of the admissibility of the application, submitted arguments in the alternative on the seriousness of the facts and the ways in which they might be classified under Article 3 of the Convention. In those observations the Government debated the seriousness of the alleged injuries in the light of Dr Garnier’s second report (see paragraph 31 above) and the report produced by the eye specialist, Dr Biard (see paragraph 46 above). Thus, notwithstanding these arguments submitted in the alternative, the Government did not at any time contest the other facts alleged by Mr Selmouni. The Court points out, as a subsidiary consideration, that those facts were taken as established both by the Criminal Court – excepting the allegations of rape and loss of visual acuity (see paragraphs 59-61 above) –