73.  The Government noted that the applicant had asked the prosecutor’s office to provide information about the operational measures, their lawfulness and the subsequent actions by the KNAB. In their submission, the prosecutor’s office was an institution exercising judicial functions (they referred to section 1(1) of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office and the Constitutional Court’s ruling in case no. 2004-06-01, referred to by the Constitutional Court in paragraph 19 of its judgment in the present case, see paragraph 24 above). The prosecutor’s office had examined every facet of the applicant’s complaint. As regards the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Government emphasised that pursuant to section 655(2)(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law its judgment would serve as a sufficient basis for the re-opening of terminated proceedings. However, given that the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case were still pending, they referred to section 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provided that the interpretation of a legal provision by the Constitutional Court was binding on domestic criminal courts in terms of its assessment of the lawfulness of the operative measures against the applicant and the co-accused, as well as the admissibility of evidence obtained in that connection. The Government concluded that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention.


193.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants or their close relatives had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have taken full advantage of such status in order to bring a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


115.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there was no violation of Article 13.


20.  The applicants further complained that the trial conducted by the Denizli Assize Court could not be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, they argued that the Denizli Assize Court was not an independent or impartial tribunal and that the proceedings against the village guards had not been concluded within a reasonable time.


73.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings concerning the sexual assaults against her had been at variance with the respondent State’s positive obligation to provide effective legal protection against sexual abuse, as they had been unreasonably delayed, lacked impartiality, and had exposed her to several traumatic experiences by violating her personal integrity. Moreover, the applicant claimed not to have had an effective remedy in respect of her complaints, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


30.  The applicant, in his observations on the merits, repeated his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was deprived of an effective remedy in respect of his claims under the Convention. As pointed out to the applicant, this part of the application was rejected in a partial decision on admissibility on 28 January 2003. It therefore falls outside the scope of the Court's examination on the merits and has not been considered further.


57.  The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. He noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates for judicial positions in Azerbaijan was made by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicant alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent reappointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning delays in registration of non-governmental organisations.


25.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation, since the District Court had reduced his sentence owing to the length of the proceedings. In addition, the statute of limitations had provided an effective remedy in that the District Court had dismissed some charges as time-barred. In any event, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies since the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts, which may mitigate a sentence or waive punishment, inter alia, on the ground that a considerably long time has passed since the commission of the offence (Chapter 6, Articles 7(3) and 12(4) of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen; as amended by Act no. 515/2003)). They also made reference to the Supreme Court judgment of 11 June 2004 (KKO 2004:58) in which it was held that although there were no legal provisions justifying the dismissal of a criminal charge due to an unreasonable delay in proceedings, such a dismissal or the declaring of a case inadmissible might in some exceptional circumstances be the only effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


22.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with proper medical treatment. They also argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant whereby he could have complained about the lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they cited the possibility of lodging complaints with the administration of the penal institutions, the regional branch of the FSIN, the regional prosecutor’s office, or the domestic courts. However, the applicant had failed to use these remedies.


26.  The applicant complained that the proceedings for a review of the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair. He alleged that he had not been informed of the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation and complained about the dismissal of his applications for the judgment delivered by that court on 15 February 2000 to be set aside. He relied on Article 5 § 3, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention.


103.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, as well as to claim damages in civil proceedings.


112.  The applicants, for their part, submitted that in cases concerning a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 the available remedies had to have automatic suspensive effect in order to be deemed effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that they had not at any point been subjected to an identification procedure of any kind, a fact not disputed by the Government, and complained of a lack of legal and linguistic assistance and of any procedure in respect of their de facto expulsion to Morocco. In their view, their assertions were borne out by the written submissions of the third-party interveners, summarised above, and especially those of the Human Rights Commissioner and the CEAR. The applicants also referred to the principles inherent in Article 13 of the Convention, as reiterated in the case of A.C. and Others v. Spain (no. 6528/11, 22 April 2014). They argued that, in the context of immediate returns, the requirements of Article 13 could not be satisfied since the aliens in question were deprived of any access to procedures and to legal safeguards, and the returns were carried out in the absence of any individual decision amenable to appeal.


33.  The applicant complained that his right to an effective remedy was violated by the prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the Bailiffs dealing with his case. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person and to have the person concerned convicted is not as such guaranteed by the Convention (see, Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999). It therefore finds that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


16.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He maintained that the failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform him of the charges against him amounted to a breach of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention and that the terms and conditions of his expulsion from the military academy violated his rights under Article 6 § 2. He lastly complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court failed to state explicitly what means of redress against its decision were available.


36.  The Government also argued, in general terms, that the applicant could have exercised his so-called “right to rehabilitation” (see paragraph 21 above). The Court need not decide whether the procedure referred to by the Government constituted on the facts a remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention or for purposes of exhaustion within the meaning of its Article 35 § 1, since it does not transpire from the case file that the applicant was given a copy of the decision of 20 January 2006. Neither is there any evidence showing that he was apprised of his right to apply for compensation in respect of damage caused by criminal prosecution (compare Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 39, 8 March 2007). Furthermore, the Government did not indicate how that would have remedied the complaint currently before the Court in respect of the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, §§ 59-60, 10 January 2008). The Government produced no copies of domestic court judgments where awards had been made in the proceedings under Articles 133 and 134 of the CCrP providing redress for excessive length of criminal proceedings. Having regard to this, the Court considers that the Government’s argument as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must be dismissed.


36.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


100.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Ramazan Umarov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages..


83.  The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy by which to examine the lawfulness of his detention following completion of the pre-trial investigation in his case. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, § 74, 24 November 2011), which reads:


86.  The applicant (1) invited the Court to hold that he was entitled to appropriate remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention, referring to Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000‑XI). He (2) further asked the Court to award him an appropriate amount of compensation for the non‑pecuniary damage inflicted on him by the wrongful treatment he had suffered in the proceedings before the High Court. The fact that the High Court would not take his appeal seriously and had deprived him of basic Article 6 guarantees had caused him considerable distress.


90.  The applicant further argued that the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect his rights under Article 8 because he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the disclosures. The Government maintained that there was no breach of any positive obligation and, more particularly, they argued that the applicant had available to him such remedies. The Court considers that the issue of the availability of a domestic remedy for the impugned disclosure by the Council is more appropriately considered under Article <mask> of the Convention.


26.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:


204.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


105.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


60.  The Government argued that the applicant had had at her disposal a remedy compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of that contention they relied on the finding of the Constitutional Court to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as it fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, both criminal as well as civil. They pointed out that the applicant had failed to make use of her standing as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings, with all the procedural rights attached to it. They further argued that the applicant could claim compensation in respect of any damage of a non-pecuniary nature by way of an action for protection of personal integrity. To that end they referred to their arguments in respect of their preliminary objection (see above).


63.  The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention because the payment of compensation by the Government following the unilateral declaration did not represent adequate redress for the violations acknowledged in that unilateral declaration. He had never been provided with an individual remedy for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article 3, in the form of an investigation into his complaints concerning his alleged ill-treatment by police officers. The respondent Government were required to put an end to the violation recognised by the unilateral declaration and to redress as far as possible the effects of the violation. This included the Article 13 requirement to provide an appropriate procedure in the national legal system enabling aggrieved individuals to ask for and obtain reparation of the consequences of the breach of their rights.


77.  The Government further stated that the complaint was premature as the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge a complaint before the domestic courts challenging the investigators’ acts or omissions. The applicants could have claimed civil damages or requested the courts to declare their relatives dead.


25.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:


30.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the application did not disclose a violation of Article 2. The Russian authorities had conducted a thorough investigation into Mr Antonov’s death and had established that he had committed suicide. There had also not been a violation of the applicants’ rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. Their complaints in connection with the investigation into Mr Antonov’s death had been thoroughly examined by the authorities.


48.  The applicant complained that there had not been an effective pre‑trial investigation into the circumstances of the traffic accident which had left him with severe injuries. He invoked Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


116.  The applicant churches further complained that they had not had access to a court or an effective remedy as they had not been able either to challenge the Government’s Instruction of 23 December 2004 before the Constitutional Court, or to challenge the refusal of the Religious Communities Commission to grant their request to conclude an appropriate agreement before the Administrative Court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:


34.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


105.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


19.  The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings infringed his right to an effective remedy for his original, substantive claim. However, the Court observes that thereby the applicant complained essentially about the outcome of the proceedings. However, Article <mask> of the Convention is concerned with the availability of effective procedures in relation to a Convention claim, not the result of litigation, whether favourable or not for the applicant. It follows that this part of the application, as formulated by the applicant, must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.


31.  The applicant complained that the Austrian Administrative Criminal Proceedings Act (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz) does not provide any legal remedy against a failure of the Administrative Court to decide within a reasonable time. Further, he complained that there was no legal remedy available to accelerate administrative criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 13 and 46. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


59.  The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that their removal to Iran or Iraq would expose them to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment. They further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby they could raise their allegations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.


135.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


62.  The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 3 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.


264.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:


13.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 November 2002 as upheld on 25 December 2002. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002‑III). The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:


24.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not have effective access to court to complain about the exequatur decision ordering the search and seizure of banking documents referring to them. They further complained under Article 8 that the measure had interfered with their private life and correspondence, it had not been in accordance with the law, nor proportionate, and it had failed to provide relevant procedural safeguards. Lastly, they complained that they had been denied an effective remedy for the purposes of their Article 8 complaint, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


57.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. He claimed that the domestic courts failed to examine his appeals of 20 May and 15 July 1999 and that his appeal of 15 April 1999 was not decided speedily as it had not been examined for more than nineteen days before he withdrew it on 3 May 1999. Lastly, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.


126.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government also stated that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to a case where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


221.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:


18.  The applicant also complained, relying on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, that the mother of his child had failed to comply with the final court judgment regulating his access rights. He was therefore unable to see his son regularly until the beginning of 2005. He further complained that his request to exercise jointly his parental right concerning the management of the child’s property had been dismissed. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to ensure the protection of his son’s property, when they had approved the exchange agreement concluded by the mother.


47.  The Government agreed that at the time of lodging her application with the Court the applicant had not had at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, they noted that on 4 December 2001 the Polish Constitutional Court gave judgment, in consequence of which a remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been created. In particular, the applicant could have lodged a civil action against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code, claiming damage caused by the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Lastly, they claimed that after 18 December 2001 the applicant had at her disposal an effective remedy and “encouraged” her to resort to that remedy. In conclusion, the Government invited the Court to find that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


21.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. They further invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and stated that, as the Court of Cassation had refused their unconstitutionality plea concerning the Decree in dispute, they had been denied an effective remedy. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stating that they had been deprived of their land. Finally, they invoked Article 14 of the Convention, arguing that the Decree relied on by the domestic courts had resulted in discrimination.


121.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could also have complained to courts or higher prosecutors or claimed civil damages, but had failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


94.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented him or his wife from using them. They submitted that Adam Ayubov’s relatives had been granted the status of victim and had received reasoned replies to all their requests made in the context of the investigation. Also, the applicant, and after his death his other son, were recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings which were instituted, inter alia, in connection with the destruction of the Ayubovs’ property, and therefore they could have made a civil claim for compensation for the damage inflicted. In the Government’s submission, Adam Ayubov’s relatives could also have lodged a court complaint against the actions of the investigating authorities, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, or if the applicant or Adam Ayubov’s other relatives had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused them damage, they could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004, by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor’s office, and a decision of the Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dated 28 February 2006 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful actions of police officers. The Government did not enclose copies of those decisions.


13.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the effective removal of her tobacco retail licence amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the loss of her retail. She further complained that she had been subject of political discrimination, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.


17.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention by the police had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He considered that the judicial review proceedings as to the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair because the national courts had reached the wrong conclusion. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention (although not explicitly on Article 5 § 4), he complained that he had not had any means at his disposal to challenge speedily the lawfulness of his detention and to obtain release. Lastly, without raising any separate complaints, he referred to Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention.


117.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They also pointed out that it was open to the applicants to lodge a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1069-70 of the Civil Code In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


25.  The applicant also complained that he had had no effective remedy in respect of the breach of Article 6 § 2, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that if the case had been heard in a magistrates' court, the High Court would have had jurisdiction to consider an application for judicial review. In this latter aspect he alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.


34.  The Government observed that the third applicant did not raise this specific complaint before the domestic courts, namely, by challenging the judge(s) before the Audiencia Nacional or through the cassation appeal and the amparo appeal lodged with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively.  The Government further argued that the amparo appeal was an effective remedy compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


13.  The Government submitted that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could be found separately from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants' favour, because the finding of a violation of the former provision was based on conclusions regarding the latter. As the applicant did not complain and the Court did not of its own motion qualify the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, no violation of this provision can be presumed to find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case. Consequently, the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention are inadmissible too.


183.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors, as well as to claim damages through civil proceedings.


27.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the courts’ refusal to present him with a copy of the materials in the case-file, which had been relied upon by the prosecutor in his application for remanding him in custody. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have any effective remedy in respect of the breaches of his Article 5 rights. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows:


137.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage occasioned by the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She submitted that the excessive length of the proceedings had placed her in a position of considerable uncertainty and had prevented her from using, enjoying and maintaining the properties in issue in the proceedings. That state of affairs, coupled with the lack of effective remedies, had caused her considerable frustration and feelings of helplessness.


79.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been able to obtain effective judicial review of his detention. As it has been the Court's constant approach to consider Article 5 § 4 as the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 69, ECHR 1999‑II), the Court will examine this complaint exclusively under Article 5 § 4, which reads as follows:


53.  The applicant company complained that the enforcement proceedings in its favour had been conducted incorrectly by the bailiffs and that the procedure for challenging the bailiffs' misconduct was ineffective. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant company further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the first set of proceedings had lasted too long.


94.  The applicants pointed out that the Government had not cited any examples showing the effectiveness of the remedies suggested by them. A claim under section 45 of the 1951 Act would not be available, because the 1988 Act was lex specialis in respect of claims against the authorities. As for a claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act, it would not have had any prospects of success, because the civil courts were bound by the conclusion of the criminal investigation that the actions of the police had been lawful. In previous cases the Court had held that the lack of an effective investigation engaged the State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention.


41.  The applicants complained under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 that there were no effective remedies in Moldova by which to complain of a lack of reasons for the first and second applicants’ detention and of the unlawfulness of the search of the applicants’ homes. The Court notes that it was open to the applicants under Moldovan law to lodge habeas corpus requests (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) and to challenge the lawfulness of the search in courts (see paragraph 7 above), which they did. The fact that the applicants were not successful in the proceedings does not automatically trigger the lack of effectiveness of the remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova, no. 4834/06, § 69, 7 April 2009). Accordingly, the Court concludes that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in respect of compensation for damage caused by his unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction were unreasonably long. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. These provisions read, in so far as relevant:


93.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor’s office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


31.  The applicant also alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in her case. In this connection she complained that the domestic court which examined her length complaint had not taken under into consideration the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.


28.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to examine his principal request (to order the TCA to approve the detailed area plan) and that by doing so they had failed to follow the Supreme Administrative Court’s binding judgment of 15 February 2008. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


53.  The Government holds that Article <mask> of the Convention has not been violated. Referring to its argument elaborated in the context of its objection to the admissibility of the application, it asserts that the applicants could have brought an action for annulment before the administrative courts under Articles 45 and 52 of Legislative Decree No. 18/1989, against the tacit refusal of the administration to register their children at the Aspropyrgos primary school.


58.  The applicant also lodged a number of substantively similar ancillary complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which were communicated to the Government. However, having regard to its above findings under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of these complaints.


48.  The applicant submitted that, in accordance with the domestic law, the reopening of the proceedings and referral of the case to the Plenum was within the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court’s President. Any additional cassation appeal was to be submitted to the Supreme Court’s President and not directly to the Plenum. The Plenum had no competence to examine the case of its own motion in the absence of a referral by the President of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the examination of the case by the Plenum after the Supreme Court’s President’s refusal to reopen the proceedings had been unlawful under the domestic law and in breach of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention.


37.  The applicant complained that her extradition to Belarus would expose her to a risk of torture and unfair trial, contrary to Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, and that she had no remedy with respect to these complaints as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


228.  The Government submitted that under Finnish law decisions concerning the treatment of a patient, such as the administering of medication, were considered administrative measures and could not be appealed against. An appeal was possible where the law required a separate decision to be made, for instance if a person was ordered to be confined for involuntary psychiatric care. The Government submitted, however, that the applicant had access to a number of other legal remedies. She could have lodged an objection regarding her treatment with the director in charge of the health care unit, or complained to the State Provincial Office, the National Forensic Medical Authority, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, or the Chancellor of Justice. She could also have claimed compensation under the Patient Compensation Act or the Tort Liability Act, or reported her concerns to the police with a view to bringing charges. The Government pointed out that the applicant had had recourse to at least some of those legal remedies, and her grievances had been examined by a number of authorities. Moreover, the applicant had the right to appeal against the decision concerning her involuntary confinement and she had availed herself of that opportunity. The administrative courts had assessed the matter carefully. The Government considered that the aggregate of all the remedies available to the applicant had been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


65.  The applicant also complained that, as the majority of the House of Lords found, he had been unlawfully excluded from school in circumstances which wholly denied the protection afforded to him by domestic law. He had therefore been denied an adequate remedy for a breach of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No.1. Consequently, he complained that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:


89.  The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


34.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:


56.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the impossibility to have his claim determined by a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He said that the absurd manner in which the domestic courts had approached his action had caused him frustration and humiliation, and had stirred in him feelings of hopelessness. He further claimed EUR 10,000 for the alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and EUR 5,000 for the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


46. The Government have, therefore, not shown that any form of effective relief was available for the substantial delays caused by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, their objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings fails. Furthermore, there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could effectively enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


43.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he had been detained. In particular, he alleged that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been debasing with regard to the size of the cell in which he had been detained, the number of persons in the cell, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, nutrition, outdoor daily walks, and access to natural light and air. He further alleged that he had not received the necessary medical treatment and assistance for his diseases, and that he had been forced to work for more than 12 hours a day, for which he had not been paid. The applicant finally alleged that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint about his conditions of detention, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. He invoked in substance Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which provide as follows:


95.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.


67.  The applicant complained that he had not been provided with legal-aid counsel during the appeal hearing of 13 September 2002. He further alleged that his hearing impairment had prevented him from participating in the appeal hearing and from defending himself adequately, especially with regard to the video link by which his appeal had been examined. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention.


287.  The applicants claimed the sum of GBP 40,000 per victim, in relation to all the violations suffered by the dead men, to be held for the benefit of their heirs. Zülfi Akkum also claimed GBP 10,000 in relation to the violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention and Hüseyin Akan and Rabia Karakoç each claimed GBP 2,500 in relation to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


146.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


15.  The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained about the refusal of the national courts to examine his claim for damages against the State on the merits. The Court observes that the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention are less strict than, and are in such situations absorbed by, those of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, § 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III, and Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 45, 16 April 2013). The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will therefore examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


44.  The Government contended that the State Language Centre was the only authority empowered to determine the level of a candidate's knowledge of the State language. They submitted that the applicant had been able to exercise without hindrance her right to a remedy by means of an appeal to the Riga Regional Court. At the hearing on 31 August 1998 that court had made a detailed assessment of the evidence before it before holding that the measure complained of had complied with the Parliamentary Elections Act. As the Regional Court had looked into the merits of the applicant's complaints, there was no reason to consider that the remedy afforded in Latvian law was not an effective one for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention.


67.  The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the manner in which the courts had dealt with their enforcement petitions, and the impossibility to have an adjudicated claim enforced and to obtain compensation for the unjustified use of their land, despite a final and binding judicial order to that effect. In their observations in reply to those by the Government on the admissibility and merits of the present application, the applicants also relied on Article 14 of the Convention, without providing any detail.


195.  The applicants submitted that their appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board against the order to leave the country was not an effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 for two reasons: firstly, the appeal did not suspend their possible refoulement to France. As they were a family, they could not be detained; thus they did not have access to the procedure for requesting a stay of execution of the removal measure on grounds of extreme urgency. Admittedly, they did request a stay of the measure, but they did so under the “ordinary” procedure that did not have the effect of suspending the order to leave the country. In accordance with Fedasil’s policy, in such a case material assistance was not maintained pending a decision of the Aliens Appeals Board. As they had had no practical possibility of waiting for the outcome of the Dublin procedure, the applicants had been compelled to leave Belgium, which had rendered their appeal devoid of any purpose. The applicants also complained about the limits of the review of lawfulness on an application to have a decision set aside, since the Aliens Appeals Board confined itself to examining points of law, and not the facts, on the basis of an assessment at the time the transfer decision was taken and not at the time of the court’s decision, contrary to the Court’s rulings in Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands (no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007), M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (cited above, § 389), and Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium (no. 10486/10, § 106, 20 December 2011). Lastly, the applicants submitted that they had also been deprived of an effective remedy against the decision refusing them leave to remain on medical grounds since they had not learnt of the decision until the proceedings before the Court.


128.  The Government averred that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. In particular, she had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and received replies to all her applications submitted within the framework of the proceedings. The investigation into her husband’s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicant had not applied to domestic courts with any complaints concerning either the unlawful detention of her husband or actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. They also pointed out that the applicant did not file a compensation claim in respect of damage allegedly caused by the State authorities.


59.  The Government submitted that an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been available to the applicant, namely, challenging the decision before the Central Electoral Office, a body meeting the requirements laid down in the Court’s case-law. They pointed out in that connection that, under Article 24 of Law no. 68/1992, the Central Electoral Office was composed of seven judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and sixteen representatives of the political parties, that the judges were selected randomly, by the drawing of lots, that the decisions of the office were reasoned, and that the members thereof were able to formulate dissenting opinions.


86.  The Government asserted that the applicant's allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities. The fact that the outcome of the criminal proceedings was not satisfactory for the applicant did not mean that he had been denied an effective remedy. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Čonka v. Belgium (no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002‑I), the Government claimed that the effectiveness of a “remedy” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome. Thus, they concluded that the authorities had complied with their procedural obligations under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention by conducting a detailed and through investigation in the circumstances of the present case.


67.  The applicant further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of “victim”, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


86.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


56.  The Government contended that the applicant could have applied to the domestic courts claiming redress for the length of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to Article 6.272 of the Civil Code, and indeed did have recourse to that measure. In particular, on 25 January 2006 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Vilnius Regional Court claiming that the judicial proceedings against him had been too lengthy and had been unlawful. In that lawsuit the applicant clearly expressed his intention to seek redress for “10 years of unlawful criminal prosecution”. If the applicant’s claim had not been thus formulated, it would have been for the judge of the domestic court to return the lawsuit to the applicant for rectification. Nonetheless, on 26 January 2006 the court accepted the applicant’s lawsuit for examination. It followed that the applicant had had access to an effective domestic remedy not only in theory but also in practice within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government maintained that, taking into account the fact that the applicant’s complaint regarding redress for the allegedly lengthy proceedings was still pending before the domestic courts, his complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention were to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.


20.  The applicant went on to say that the rally planned for 30 September 2006 had had nothing to do with Ilinden. It had been planned by the Macedonian Initiative Committee, which was a separate organisation. He therefore maintained his complaints under Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention in relation to that rally. He stated that he also maintained his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to both rallies.


112.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the unlawful detention and alleged ill-treatment of Tamerlan Suleymanov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints concerning any alleged acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities or to lodge a civil claim for compensation.


132.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


24.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention at the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre had been unlawful and arbitrary. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could obtain a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention.


44.  The applicant also complained under Article 4 § 2 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He further alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Supreme Court did not examine the merits of his appeal on points of law of 12 August 2006. Lastly, in submissions dated 23 August 2008, he complained that the courts’ decisions given in his case violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.


164.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


40.  The applicants alleged that the findings of the domestic courts in the two sets of proceedings had been contradictory and that as a result they had been deprived of effective access to court in respect of their alleged right to restitution of a plot of 329 or 391 square metres. They also complained that as a result they had been deprived of their possessions and that they lacked effective remedies in that respect. They relied on Article 6 § 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention.


39.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 July 2006 given in his favour against the State unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He relied on Article 6 § 1, cited in paragraph 31 above, as well as on Article <mask> of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:


85. The applicant maintained that this case-law made it impossible in practice for her to make use of the only procedural remedy in Belgian law capable of leading to the automatic suspension of the order to leave the country that had been served on her. It was the policy of the Belgian Government not to arrest or detain families with children with a view to their deportation. Accordingly, and paradoxically, the absence of coercive measures against her had deprived the applicant from the outset of the possibility of having her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 examined in a manner consistent with Article <mask> of the Convention.


157.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


304.  The Government restated the arguments set out above in their objection to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and concluded that the applicants had had available effective domestic remedies which they did not pursue. In particular, they stated that Article 55 of the Constitution, Articles 248-1 to 248-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine and Article 99-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, allowed for submission of the complaints with the prison and prosecution authorities and directly or subsequently challenging their decisions to the domestic judicial authorities. They thus concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect.


58.  The Government contended that the exception applied in French Guiana fell within the margin of appreciation afforded to States as to the manner in which they honoured their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The exception to the principle of a suspensive remedy was justified by the particular pressure of illegal immigration in French Guiana. Illegal immigration and the criminal networks that facilitated it were encouraged by the peculiar topography there, which made the borders permeable and impossible to guard effectively. Moreover, considering the large number of removal orders issued by the prefect of French Guiana, introducing an automatically suspensive remedy might overload the administrative courts and adversely affect the proper administration of justice. The exception was also justified by the need to maintain a certain equilibrium in French Guiana and by the close bilateral ties France had with the neighbouring countries.


57.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge an action in court complaining about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. In addition, they could have applied for civil damages.


236.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


125.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors, as well as to claim damages in the course of civil proceedings.


83.  The applicants complained that there had been a two-fold violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Firstly, in that the enforcement of the 23 May 2002 judgment had been unreasonably long. Secondly, in that the compensation had been paid in instalments, contrary to what had been adjudicated. The applicants also alleged that contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention they did not have effective remedies available at the domestic level in those respects.


56.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of her property rights had disregarded her arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. She lastly complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had been discriminated on the basis of her national origin – she submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish.


155.  The Government’s objection is based on their view that such remedies exist in Russian law and that the applicants failed to exhaust them with the exception of Ms Kosyleva. The Court notes that this objection is closely linked to the issue of effectiveness of domestic remedies and alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore joins the Government’s objection to the merits.


146.  The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that the wording of the national courts when extending his detention following his indictment amounted to prejudging his guilt. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his Convention complaints. Finally he complained under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he was discriminated against.


41.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could challenge the decision to deport him to Iran and that he had not been allowed to have access to the asylum procedure.


24.  The applicant complained that the proceedings were unfair, submitting that the authorities did not give her an opportunity to adduce evidence in her favour, and in particular that the witnesses she had requested had not been examined at the only hearing held by the appellate authority. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention.


114.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the first applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant in the criminal case opened in connection with the killing of her sons and she had received reasoned replies to all her complaints. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to complain of the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court.


37.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the first set of proceedings were unfair and about their outcome. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the amount fixed to be paid to him pursuant to the ruling of 7 February 2007 was unreasonably low. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 on account of the length of the second set of proceedings.


28.  The Government argued that the applicant did not raise the length issue until his appeal to the Supreme Court. The possibility to mitigate a sentence due to the lapse of a considerably lengthy period since the commission of the offence was available to him under Chapter 6, section 7 of the Penal Code already at the stage of the proceedings before the Court Appeal. According to the Government, this remedy fulfilled the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and by actually invoking the issue before the Supreme Court the applicant had accepted the availability of an effective remedy.


42.  The applicant complained that she had no effective domestic mechanism whereby issues of civil liability could be determined in respect of the alleged negligent care of her deceased son and through which she could have obtained compensation for the non-pecuniary loss sustained by her including grief, loss and distress. She invoked Article 2 alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The parties’ observations, summarised below, were filed prior to the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment in Rabone (paragraphs 40-41 above).


111.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


35.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


128.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13. They could also have claimed compensation for the alleged wrongdoing from the State authorities in civil proceedings.


139.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, which constitute a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, § 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997‑III, p. 927, § 73).


37.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in his case. He also alleged that the judges sitting in the domestic courts were biased and lacked independence. In his submissions lodged in 2007, the applicant also complained of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the basis of the same facts.


128.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


27.  The applicants alleged that the expulsion of the second applicant to Italy in 2012 violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They alleged that if the second applicant were to be expelled again there would be another violation of Articles 3 and 8. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy at national level as the FAC did not take into account their family relationship when upholding the administrative decision not to examine the second applicant’s asylum request on the merits.


21.  The applicant complained that neither he nor his lawyer had been duly summoned to the appellate court and the Supreme Court. Although he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows in the relevant part:


59.  The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings about his placement in the security cell violated his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the decision given by the Gießen Regional Court was inconsistent with its own case-law and thus violated his right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Convention.


60.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. According to the applicant, the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the partiality of the courts involved. He also claimed that the Constitutional Court, by rejecting his first and second constitutional appeals in which he had criticised the delays in the proceedings, deprived him of his last domestic remedy, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, by refusing his request to become a party to the liability proceedings brought against the public administration despite his having a direct interest in them, he had not been given the opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations of harassment in the workplace in violation of his right of access to a court. The applicant further alleged that the lack of effective remedies to challenge the interference on his right to reputation and honour complained of under Article 8 had given rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


192.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. They had also not claimed damages in civil proceedings.


115.  The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, in that (i) his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, arbitrary and not decided upon by an independent tribunal established by law; (ii) the decisions in respect of his pre-trial detention lacked adequate reasoning; and (iii) he effectively had no enforceable right to compensation. He also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9 and 16 March 2005 and a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in connection with the former decision by the Constitutional Court.


122.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before higher prosecutors or courts. They could also submit a claim for non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of investigating authorities.


104.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


88.  The applicant complained about the refusal of the Court of Cassation to examine his appeal on points of law of 9 February 2006. The applicant invoked Article 5 § 4, Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


164.  The applicant bank also complained that in the enforcement proceedings at issue it had not been given proper notice of the hearing held on 23 September 2003 (see paragraphs 42-43 above) and thus had not had an opportunity to comment on the Commercial Court’s qualification of the founding agreement as non-commercial (see paragraph 45 above). Lastly, it complained of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 July 2005 whereby that court had refused to examine the merits of its constitutional complaint of 2 June 2004 (see paragraphs 52 and 55 above). Even though the applicant bank in raising the latter complaint relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, the Court considers that it falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as an access-to-court complaint.


12.  The applicant complained that the failure of the authorities to implement the final judgment in his favour, by virtue of which a State body owed to him a sum of money, breached his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaint at issue falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read respectively as follows:


27.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


91.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant parts of those Articles read:


146.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative’s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicants had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government referred to the domestic courts’ decisions over claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region.


59.  The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that as a rule he had not been summoned to the meetings at the Bankruptcy Court but that nevertheless several times, in vain, he had complained orally against the excessive length of proceedings. He pointed out that at the relevant time the Bankruptcy Act did not contain a provision equivalent to section 127 (a), now to be found in the act currently in force, according to which a debtor may demand that the Bankruptcy Court make use of specific measures in order to comply with the reasonable-time requirement set out in Article 6 of the Convention. The Bankruptcy Act applicable during the applicant’s bankruptcy proceedings did not grant a debtor any rights of that kind or any powers to influence the administration of his estate. Nor could he bring such a complaint before the relevant appeal instance, namely, the High Court of Eastern Denmark.


72.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Appeal Court had not re-assessed the evidence in her case and under Article 6 § 3 (d) that her witnesses had not been given the possibility to testify and that, if they had, their testimonies had not been reflected in the Appeal Court's judgment. Moreover, she complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the presumption of innocence had been violated as the public prosecutor could not prove her calculations wrong or her to be guilty. Finally, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not had an effective remedy as the other parties to the proceedings had been civil servants.


99.  The applicants complained that the investigatory procedure in this case was not effective and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death of their relatives and that, for this reason, they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the same factual basis. The Court will consider these complaints under Article 13, which provides:


25.  The applicant complained that his removal to Iraq without an individual assessment of his claims, despite the real risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment there and the risk of his refoulement to Iran, where he was likely to be tortured and executed, had breached Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had an effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could challenge the decision to deport him to Iraq and that he had not been allowed to have access to the asylum procedure.


109.  The applicants complained that it had been made impossible for them to have their identity established, to explain their individual circumstances, to challenge their immediate return to Morocco before the Spanish authorities by means of a remedy with suspensive effect, and to have the risk of ill-treatment they ran in that State taken into consideration. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Article 13 reads as follows:


18.  The applicants complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to challenge the disciplinary sanctions that were imposed on them. They relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court notes that this part of the application should be examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


15.  The applicant association complained that the fact that the judgment of 27 March 2003 given in its favour had remained unenforced for a considerable period of time had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that it had no effective remedies in respect of the complaint about the length of the enforcement of this judgment as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Additionally, it complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgment at issue breached its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


110.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have brought a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage or could have lodged court complaints against the investigators. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


81.  The applicant complained, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance and treatment during his detention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3. The Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case. As such, it considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:


120.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or could have lodged a civil claim for compensation. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


44.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the second set of proceedings had been excessive. He further submitted that by not enforcing the judgment of 6 June 2003, as amended by the decision of 13 October 2004, the State authorities had infringed his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of the above judgment. The applicant also relied on Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the lengthy examination of his claim and the enforcement of the judgment in question. The above provisions provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:


78.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure during his arrest, and that the conditions of detention in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre, in the SIZO and during his transportation had been inhuman and degrading. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the absence of effective remedies in this connection.


112.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


131.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The first and second applicants had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have taken full advantage of such status in order “to influence the investigation of the criminal case” or bring a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


36.  The Government contested that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Constitutional Court examined complaints about the length of proceedings before the lower courts. According to the Constitutional Court's case-law, excessive length was also a mitigating circumstance which might lead to a reduction of sentence. As far as the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court itself were concerned, the Government contended that under the Convention there was no obligation for a State to provide for additional levels of appeal and a further legal remedy by which to challenge decisions of last-instance courts. Such a requirement would affect basic issues of the Austrian Federal Constitution and most likely also the legislation of most Contracting States and their freedom to organise their judicial system. Having regard to the average duration of proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court: eight and a half months and twenty-two months respectively, the Austrian legislator had found no need to also provide a remedy in respect of the length of proceedings before those courts.


30.  The applicant complained that neither the Istanbul State Security Court, nor the Istanbul Assize Court had met the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further argued that he had been denied an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention as he had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation which had examined his appeal had been politicised. He maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his statements had been extracted under duress in police custody, including by way of physical ill-treatment, and that the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court had been erroneous, had lacked reasoning and had been based on insufficient evidence. Lastly, the applicant maintained that his imprisonment following an unfair hearing had amounted to “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.


12.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Commission could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal and that, since no appeal lay against its decision, they had been refused access to a court. On the same grounds they argued that they had been denied the right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention.


44.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court had refused to scrutinise the validity of the assessment of his mental fitness for work. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that as a result of the classification of the proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court had not delivered its judgments publicly and had not allowed him to make copies of them. Lastly, he complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that when dealing with his case the Supreme Administrative Court had disregarded its own judgment of 8 February 2005.


82.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed. Articles 3, 5 and 13 read, in so far as relevant:


98.  The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the undertaking not to leave the town that had been imposed on her in the second set of criminal proceedings had been a disproportionate and lengthy restriction on her freedom of movement. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint.


88.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention of lack of access to a court with respect to his complaint about the actions of the prosecutor’s office; under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention of unfairness in the criminal proceedings against him; under Article 7 of the Convention of having been convicted for acts which could not be interpreted as criminal; and under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of having been deprived of means of subsistence for a considerable period of time on account of having been suspended from work without pay.


195.  The applicant submitted at the outset that she is a very vulnerable individual. She is legally incapacitated with a history of mental health problems and has been admitted to a psychiatric institution against her will for an indeterminate period. The applicant’s guardian, who has the power to take decisions on all her aspects of life, is the care institution itself. In the applicant’s view, on account of her vulnerability, Article <mask> of the Convention required that the State take supplementary measures to make sure that she could have benefited from effective remedies for the violations of her rights.


117.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their close relative, who they claimed had been unlawfully detained. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed under Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant:


37.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with the fairness and length of the proceedings, having challenged the domestic restitution legislation, in particular the Land Ownership Act. The Government considered therefore that the applicant’s complaint was partly incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and partly manifestly ill-founded.


84.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


94.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the abduction of the applicants' relative had been instituted subsequently and “the relatives of the missing person were declared victims and received reasoned replies to all their requests made in the context of the investigation”. They also argued that, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, it had been open to the applicants to lodge a court complaint in respect of the actions of the investigating authorities or, if the applicants had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused them damage, to seek compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of that argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor's office. The Government did not enclose a copy of that decision.


25.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not been duly notified of the proceedings against her and had not been able to participate in them. In addition, after becoming aware of the judgments against her she had been unable to seek the re‑opening of the proceedings because of the operation of the time-limit. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the obligation to pay a substantial sum of money as a result of proceedings in which she had been unable to participate.


72.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had been granted the status of victim and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings, and in particular, the right to give oral and other evidence, to file motions, to receive copies of procedural decisions, and to access the case file and make copies of the materials of the file on completion of the investigation.