CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s983700E8 { width:196.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE   (Application no. 73974/14)                   JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   16 November 2017   FINAL   16/02/2018   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tsalikidis and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kristina Pardalos, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Aleš Pejchal,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Tim Eicke,   Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 73974/14) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Greek nationals, whose names appear in the annexed list, on 19 November 2014. The applicants were represented by Mr   S.   Hoursolglou, a lawyer practising in Athens. 2.     The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mrs S. Charitaki and Mrs A. Dimitrakopoulou, Legal Counsellor and Senior Advisor respectively at the State Legal Council. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Costas Tsalikidis, brother of the first applicant and son of the second and third applicants. 4.     On 3 March 2016 the complaints concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the death of Mr Tsalikidis and the lack of an effective remedy in respect thereof were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 §   3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants are the brother and the parents of Mr   Costas   Tsalikidis, who was found dead on 9 March 2005. A.     The death of Costas Tsalikidis and the initial investigation conducted by the domestic authorities 6.     Mr Tsalikidis was Network Planning Manager for V., a mobile phone operator. On 9 March 2005 he was found dead in his apartment by his mother (the second applicant). He was found hanged by a rope tied to pipes above the bathroom door and a chair lay knocked over on the floor nearby. A little later his brother, the first applicant, arrived at the scene and used a knife to cut through the rope. He then placed his brother’s body on the bed in his bedroom and took photographs of it. 7.     The applicants called Kolonos Police Station and the police sergeant in charge, acting as an interrogation officer, arrived at the scene to conduct an on-site inspection. In his report he stated that there were no signs of forced entry at any of the entrances to the residence, and no footprints or other marks on the balcony. He also noted that there was no mess in the residence nor were there any suspicious packets of drugs or other substances in the apartment or in the refuse containers. He did not conduct a search for fingerprints. No photos were taken of the place of death and no DNA test was performed on the rope by which Mr Tsalikidis was hanged. There was no suicide note. 8.     The body was transferred to the morgue, where an autopsy was performed on the body the next day by G.D.L., a coroner with the Forensic Medical Service of Athens. On 20 April 2005 he wrote an autopsy report in which he stated that there were no injuries to the body and that there were signs of pulmonary oedema. The rope mark encircled the cervical spine with a knot at the right of the occiput ( κυκλικά φερόμενη με κόμπο στη δεξιά ινιακή χώρα) . The toxicology examination showed a small amount of alcohol at 0.12%. The hyoid bone and larynx appeared normal. It was concluded that the cause of death was hanging by a noose ( απαγχονισμός δια βρόγχου ). No inspection of the place of death was performed by the coroner and in his report neither the temperature nor the weight of the body was recorded. 9.     On 9 February 2006, following the public announcement concerning the wiretapping case (see §§ 14 – 17 below) and while the investigation into his brother’s death was still ongoing, the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office, asking for the scope of the investigation to be expanded. He requested in particular that the authorities examine the possible connection between his brother’s death and the wiretapping case and investigate crimes that might possibly have been committed against him, such as homicide or extortion. He also requested the exhumation of his brother’s body in order to search for specific poisons and other signs of homicide and declared his wish to join the proceedings as a civil party. 10.     Various witness testimonies were taken from colleagues, friends and family members of the deceased. In her testimonies dated 12 and 17 March 2005 and 7 February 2006, his fiancée stated that she had spoken twice with him on the phone the night preceding his death without noticing anything particular. She expressed the view that he could not possibly have committed suicide, citing the fact that two days before he had asked her to book rooms for an excursion they were planning to make two weeks later and that he had expressed concerns about his mother’s health. Lastly, she stated that about a month before his death he had confided to her that “it was a matter of life and death for him to leave his job with V.” and that “V. was facing a serious problem that threatened its very existence”. 11.     From the testimonies of his colleagues and his fiancée it was evident that Mr Tsalikidis was sociable and had been well-respected in his work environment. Even though he had been under a lot of pressure at work, his colleagues expressed doubts as to whether stress could have driven him to suicide. He had expressed a wish to quit his job about a month before his death but had later changed his mind after a few days’ leave. On the night of his death he had sent a work-related email to his colleagues at around 4.30   a.m. The content of the email was unremarkable. It was also alleged that on 7 March 2005 there had been a tense meeting at work in which he, amongst others, had been reprimanded by his superiors. His colleagues also testified that he had been responsible for holding monthly meetings with company E., one of V.’s providers, at which they discussed new versions of software and other technical issues. 12.     Testimony was also taken from coroner F.K., the head of the Forensic Science Service of Athens University. In his statement dated 9   March 2006, he attempted to explain the lack of typical signs of hanging – such as injuries caused by body spasms or cyanosis of the face – by attributing the death to cardiac arrest caused by simultaneous pressure to the two carotid arteries. He also mentioned that the rope mark on the deceased man’s neck had been typical in cases of hanging; it had been obliquely directed ( λοξά φερόμενη ) and the knot had been an “ordinary, everyday knot”. In his view, a possible exhumation and/or toxicology test would be of no added value. 13.     In the light of the foregoing testimonies and having taken all evidence into account, on 20 June 2006 the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance issued order no. 80/20-6-06 archiving the case, having concluded that there were no indications of any criminal acts committed against Mr Tsalikidis, even though his death was causally linked with the wiretapping case. On 25 September 2006 the decision was upheld by order no. 565/25-9-06 issued by the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal following an appeal against it by the first applicant. B.     The wiretapping affair 14.     On 2 February 2006 the Minister of Public Order made a statement informing the public that since June 2004 (two months before the Olympic Games) the telephones of many state officials had been tapped through spyware that had been implanted in the network of phone operator V. The wiretap, installed by persons unknown, had targeted more than 100 of Greece’s State officials, including the Prime Minister and many senior members of the Cabinet. The spyware diverted phone conversations made by V.’s subscribers to fourteen “shadow” pay-as-you-go mobile phones, allowing calls to be monitored. 15.     Following a parliamentary investigation, it was made known that the unauthorised spyware had been implanted in a software provided by company E. to phone operator V. Mr Tsalikidis had been responsible for accepting the software from E. on behalf of V. and met representatives from E. on a monthly basis in order to discuss new versions of the software and other technical issues. 16.     V. was informed by E. that their network had been used to wiretap State officials on 4 March 2005. On 8 March 2005 G.K., a senior manager with V., ordered that the newly discovered software be deactivated and removed from its systems. On 10 March 2005 he informed the Ministers of Justice and of Public Order and the director of the Prime Minister’s office about the existence of the software. A criminal investigation was ordered but its conclusions are not apparent from the material in the Court’s possession. 17.     The wiretapping affair assumed large dimensions both within and outside Greece, and the investigation was widely reported in the media. Mr   Tsalikidis’ death occurred the day after the spyware had been removed from V.’s network and the day before the relevant ministers were informed and this fact was mentioned in all the newspaper articles, suggesting an association between his death and the wiretapping affair without his involvement in the case being established. C.     Supplementary investigation 18 .     On 8 February 2012, citing new evidence, the applicants requested that the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance reopen the case file for the purposes either of initiating criminal proceedings in rem for intentional homicide and/or exposure to peril and/or felonious extortion, or for launching a supplementary preliminary investigation into the aforementioned offences or any other offence that might have been committed. The applicants also declared that they wished to join the proceedings as civil parties. 19.     The first evidence submitted by the applicants was a forensic report dated 12 November 2010 prepared at their request by a British expert, Dr   S.K. The expert wrote his report − in English − on the basis of his examination of a number of documents from the case file which had been translated into that language. The relevant parts of his report read as follows: “... 2. In forming my opinion I have had to rely on a relatively limited group of materials including the original autopsy report translated by Mr Peter Tsalikidis, a set of colour scene photographs (it is not clear to me who took these photographs), scans of white and black photos showing an unclothed body with a ligature mark on mid ‑ -neck (the detail is poor) and a website videos that were produced for an exposé produced by the Al-Jazeera network. ... 5. On April 8 I received two emails from Mr Tsalikidis. The first was an extract of comments taken from a report issued by the Forensic Institute in Athens. The report states that the ligature was “upwardly directed”, a statement that appears to be contradicted by the photographs I have seen. Mr Tsalikidis also claims he was told that “the death was instant because of simultaneous pressure to the carotid bags ( sic - this should be ‘arteries’)”. This statement, too, is inconsistent with the normal colouration of the face as shown in the photographs. 6. On March 29 I was sent a link to a website dedicated to this case... The video also contains several images and statements that are confusing. These include (1) photograph of the suspensory knot – it is a complex knot, and definitely not the sort of knots seen in routine suicides. I do not know if the deceased possessed the requisite skills needed to tie such a complex knot. The video narrator stated that the body was hanging 3 inches from the floor. In spite of the short distance, it is possible for someone to hang themselves at this low height. In fact, it is not uncommon. ... 8. ... The photographs do show that the deceased was unclothed; they also showed an obvious ligature mark that was located in mid-neck, parallel to the shoulders. ... Gross Autopsy Findings 10. Neither the height nor the weight of the deceased was supplied. Neither the core temperature of the cadaver nor the ambient room temperature was recorded. It appears that the autopsy was performed the next day, but whether the cadaver was refrigerated is not stated and, since core temperature was not obtained, it would have been irrelevant anyway. No attempt whatsoever was made to identify the time of death... No fibres were taken from the ligature for identification and no tissue taken from the ligature were taken for microscopic examination. Discussion 1. The position of the rope mark is more consistent with strangulation than hanging – in cases of strangulation the ligature mark, as it was here, tends to encircle the entire neck without deviation upward or downward, and almost invariable there is a gap where the rope suspends the body. Hanging marks are almost always higher on the neck than strangulation marks. The marks present here are more consistent with strangulation. 2. From the photographs I saw there was no evidence of hypostasis (accumulation of blood in the legs that is to be expected after a normal hanging). This argues strongly against hanging. ... 4. Perhaps more importantly, one expects to see some sort of soft tissue damage within the underlying neck. Injuries are present in at least 1/3 of hangings. No damage was seen within the neck, which is worrisome. The absence of soft tissue injury does not rule out hanging, but if it had been present, a much more convincing case for strangulation could have been made. 5. Damage to the lining of the great vessels in the neck is a frequent finding in strangulation, but that examination was never performed (in fact, no microscopic examination was performed). This means the autopsy was incomplete by U.S. and EU standards. 6. The colour of the face could only be described as normal; typically, victims of manual strangulation will have deeply congested haemorrhagic faces, but victims of hanging often have pale faces – in this particular instance the colour of the face is so normal that it almost appears that neither strangulation nor hanging occurred. 7. While adequate examination is not possible only from inspecting photographs, the knot used to anchor the rope appears quite complex. This might be expected if the deceased had nautical experience, but the family insists he did not. 8. Homicidal hanging is very rare, since it is very difficult for one person to hang another, unless of course they had been drugged first. The autopsy report says that blood and urine were tested for alcohol and that the results show the deceased had been drinking (post-mortem alcohol production of that magnitude does not occur that quickly). I think it would be very important to know if any other drugs were present. If testing was not done at the time of autopsy, exhumation and testing of the hair is still possible. The results, whether positive or negative, would be definitive. 9. The medical examiner commented on the presence of pulmonary oedema. Such may occur after hanging, but histological studies have shown that pulmonary oedema is much more common after strangulation. 10. There were no scratch marks on the neck, suggesting the deceased made no effort to claw the rope away from his neck. This is also consistent with his having been sedated. Discussion Obviously, there is no evidence of forceful strangulation and, in the absence of visible trauma, homicidal hanging would appear to be out of the question. The fact that there was minimal suspension does not rule out suicide. Having said that, the case has a number of disturbing features: (1) the autopsy was grossly inadequate, and even if signs of homicide had been present, they would have been missed; (2) the face was of normal colour – neither congested nor pale; this argues for death before hanging; (3) there was no accumulation of blood in the lower extremities – this absence argues against hanging altogether; (4) the furrow around the neck is in a position more often seen in strangulation than suicide; (5) none of the normal scratch marks normally seen outside of the neck when individuals hang themselves were evident. Nor, according to the autopsy pathologist, there none of the soft tissue injuries that are normally expected in hanging. Two other issues are of concern: (1) was the deceased able to tie the complex knot used to support him, and (2) it appears that complete toxicology testing (was not) performed and that is a very serious omission. There are many poisons that are not detected by routine tests – they are only identified if they are specifically sought. In the absence to these questions, the possibility of murder must be strongly considered. The most likely scenario, based on the evidence at hand, is that the deceased was sedated/poisoned and hung after death.” 20.     The second evidence adduced by the applicants was an undated report produced at the applicants’ request by Coroner Th.V. His report was prepared on the basis of the documents in the criminal case file. 21.     Coroner Th.V. emphasised that any assessment of a forensic report should be done with great caution; nevertheless, he stressed that in the initial autopsy there had been serious omissions. He identified in particular the lack of reference to the existence or not of haemorrhagic infiltration where the rope was positioned, as well as the precise position of the rope with reference to the neck (obliquely or vertically directed). He further criticised the failure to search for injuries to the inner part of carotid arteries which could have shown whether Mr Tsalikidis had been hanged or strangled. 22.     Coroner Th. V. included in his report a number of elements of evidence which precluded certain conclusions as to the cause of death. In particular, he stressed the absence of signs usually found in cases of hanging, that is to say cyanosis of the face, oedema of the face, and projection of the tongue, all of which were not present in this case. He furthermore described as strange, taking account of the place where the body was hanging, the complete absence of any injuries resulting from the usual body spasms, causing it to crash against nearby furniture and walls. 23.     In respect of the written statement given by F.K., who attempted to explain the lack of typical signs of hanging by attributing Mr   Tsalikidis’ death to cardiac arrest, coroner Th. V. stated that such manner of death was not very probable as it usually occurs in cases of pressure applied to the neck with the hands. In any event, this cause of death is still much debated in the medical community. 24.     Lastly, coroner Th.V. mentioned that a large number of poisons cannot be detected through routine examination. He opined that if exhumation of the body were to be ordered, then toxic substances could possibly be found as they can be detected even years later. A fresh examination of the place of death could also prove useful as long as the place was still intact. In any event, coroner Th. V. considered that the available evidence was not sufficient to allow it to be established whether Mr Tsalikidis’ death had been the result of suicide or homicide. 25.     As third evidence the applicants submitted a letter dated 15   June 2010 written by the President of the Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Greek Parliament and addressed to the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in which the former expressed the view that there had not been sufficient investigation of the relationship between the death of Costas Tsalikidis and the wiretapping affair. They also cited a public statement made on 5 September 2011 by the former President of the Parliamentary Committee of Institutions and Transparency, who was then already Minister of Justice, that “the question of whether Costas Tsalikidis committed suicide or was murdered will always remain open”. 26.     In view of the above evidence, the applicants requested the reopening of the case file. They requested in particular that the following investigative measures be implemented: phone operator V. to be ordered to provide the minutes of the meeting that took place the day before Mr   Tsalikidis was found dead, representatives of V. to confirm officially that Mr Tsalikidis was the person responsible for accepting on behalf of their company the legal software provided by company E. which was used to activate the program of wiretapping, a forensic examination of the place of death and a reconstruction of the circumstances of the death to be conducted, exhumation and new toxicology tests to be run, a cross ‑ examination of the applicants’ technical advisors together with coroners G.D.L. and F.K. to be organised, a new forensic report to be drawn up by another coroner, an expert report to be produced concerning the knot, technical advisors S.K. and Th. V. to be summoned to testify, and witness statements to be taken again in the light of the new evidence acquired. They stressed in particular that the scope of the investigation should include the deletion of the illegally installed software from the network of V. and why it was removed before the authorities had been informed. 27.     By document no. E 2006/1200/29-2-2012, issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance on 29 February 2012 and addressed to the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, approval was sought to reopen the case file pursuant to Article 43 § 3 (a) and Article   47 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 7 March 2012 the request was granted and a supplementary preliminary investigation was ordered. 28.     On 20 April 2012 the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance ordered the exhumation of Mr Tsalikidis’ body, the conduct of a new forensic autopsy and the execution of all laboratory tests to be carried out in a laboratory in the presence of the technical advisors appointed by the applicants. 29.     The exhumation took place on 3 May 2012 in the presence of coroners I.B., N.K. and Ch.S. and the applicants’ technical advisor Th.V., and biological material was sent to the Universities of Athens and Crete for the purpose of conducting toxicology tests. According to toxicology report no. 1313/7-12-2012, drawn up on 7 December 2012 by the Forensic Science Laboratory of the Toxicology Unit of the University of Crete, and forensic report no. 865/25-11-2013 on the exhumed body, drawn up on 25   November 2013 by the Forensic and Toxicology Laboratory of the School of Medicine of Athens University, the results were negative as regards the presence of poison or medication. However, in both reports it was stressed that the absence of a positive finding did not preclude the possibility of the administration of poison or medication to the deceased, since a number of factors, such as the lapse of time, could have affected the results. 30.     According to histology report no. 889/12/26-2-2013 drawn up on 26   February 2013 by the First Pathological Anatomy Laboratory of the School of Medicine of Athens University, the deceased’s hyoid bone was found to be broken. However, owing to the absence of surrounding soft tissue, it was not possible to say whether it had been broken ante-mortem or post-mortem . 31.     On the basis of the above-mentioned findings, the three coroners each prepared a new forensic report. Coroners I.B. and N.K., in their reports numbered 1408/2561/30-4-2012/10-7-2013 and 1287/18-6-2013 and drawn up on 10 July 2013 and on 18 June 2013 respectively, commented on the findings of the toxicology reports and histology report and concluded that the cause of Mr Tsalikidis’ death remained unclarified due to the passage of time. Coroner Ch.S. prepared a similar report dated 25 November 2013 commenting on the above ‑ mentioned findings without any reference to the cause of death. 32.     The applicants also requested that a psychiatric report be included in the case file, and one was duly prepared at their request. Dr A.D. studied the case file documents and conducted interviews with the first applicant and the deceased’s fiancée. His report dated 12 April 2012 stated that the deceased did not betray any of the personality characteristics associated with a suicide risk. In addition, no other factors such as health issues or financial problems were detected as being of concern, and in general, no plausible grounds for suicide were identified. In the doctor’s opinion, his support system of friends and family, his short-term (excursion) and long ‑ term (wedding) plans, together with the absence of any risk factors, were all indications that Mr Tsalikidis did not commit suicide. 33.     On 16 June 2014 the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance, with the approval of the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, closed the supplementary investigation, concluding that the above ‑ mentioned reports, considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered during the main investigation, were sufficient to allow the case file to be archived, thereby upholding the conclusions of order 80/06 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance (order no.   14/3859/16-6-2014). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Code of Criminal Procedure 34.     The relevant articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force at the material time read as follows: Article 36 Criminal proceedings initiated of the authorities’ own motion “When a criminal complaint or a petition is not necessary, criminal prosecution may be initiated of the authorities’ own motion following a report, a complaint or any other information indicating that an offence has been committed.” Article 43 Initiation of criminal proceedings “1. A public prosecutor, upon receiving a complaint or a report, shall initiate criminal proceedings by ordering a preliminary investigation or a main investigation or, wherever applicable, by referring the case to the court by directly summoning the accused person. However in cases of felonies or misdemeanors punishable with prison sentences of at least three months, except for: a) ..., b) ..., c) ..., d) ..., and e) ... , criminal proceedings shall be initiated only upon the completion of a preliminary investigation, or preliminary operations under article 243 § 2 resulting in sufficient indications for initiating criminal proceedings ... 2. If the criminal complaint or report has no legal basis, or is manifestly unfounded on its merits, or is not subject to judicial assessment, the public prosecutor at the Court of First Instance shall archive it and submit a copy to the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, citing his reasons for deciding not to initiate criminal proceedings. The same actions shall be taken if, following a preliminary examination or preliminary measures pursuant to Article 243 § 2 or a sworn administrative investigation, the public prosecutor considers that there is not sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings. The public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal has the right: a) in the case of the first subparagraph, to order a preliminary examination to be conducted by the public prosecutor at the Court of First Instance if the offence is a felony or a misdemeanour falling under the jurisdiction of the three-member Misdemeanour Court, or to order the initiation of criminal proceedings for the other offences; b) in the case of the second subparagraph, to order the initiation of criminal proceedings. 3. The competent public prosecutor shall take the case file out of the archive again only if new facts or evidence are referred to or emerge which, in his view, justify a re ‑ examination of the case ...” Article 46 Criminal complaint filed by the victim “1. If the victim of a punishable offence wishes to request initiation of criminal proceedings, he or she shall file a criminal complaint (έγκληση) in accordance with Article 42 §§ 2, 3 and 4 ...” Article 47 Rejection of the criminal complaint “1. The public prosecutor shall examine the criminal complaint and if he considers that it has no legal basis, or that it is not subject to judicial assessment, or that it is unfounded on its merits, he shall reject it by means of a duly reasoned order which shall be served on the complainant. 2. If a preliminary investigation or preliminary measures pursuant to Article 243 § 2 or a sworn administrative investigation had been conducted and the public prosecutor considers that there is not sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings, he shall act as described in the preceding paragraph. ...” Article 48 Complainant’s right to appeal “A person who lodges the criminal complaint may, within fifteen days of the service of the public prosecutor’s order under paras. 1 and 2 of the preceding article, lodge an appeal with the competent public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal against the order issued by the public prosecutor at the Court of First Instance .... If the public prosecutor grants the appeal, then the last subparagraph of Article 43 § 2 shall apply.” Article 180 When and how a forensic examination ( αυτοψία ) is performed “1. A forensic examination may be performed at any stage of the proceedings on places, objects or persons with a view to verifying the commission of offences and the circumstances under which they were committed. 2. If there are no traces of the offence or other material evidence or if such evidence has been eliminated or altered, the person performing the forensic examination shall describe the current situation, investigating at the same time if possible the previous situation ...” Article 183 When an expert evaluation is ordered “If specialised scientific or cultural knowledge is required in order to obtain an accurate diagnosis and judgment of a certain event, those conducting the investigation or the court may of their own motion or at the request of one of the parties or of the public prosecutor order an expert opinion.” B.     Introductory Law to Civil Code 35.     Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code provides as follows: “The State shall be duty-bound to make good any damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions attributable to its organs in the exercise of public authority, except where such unlawful act or omission was in breach of an existing provision but was intended to serve the public interest. The person responsible and the State shall be jointly and severally liable, without prejudice to the special provisions on ministerial responsibility.” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 36.     Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the State authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of Mr Tsalikidis. Article 2 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ...” 37.     The Government contested that argument. A.     Admissibility 1.     The parties’ submissions 38.     The Government argued that the part of the application relating to the alleged deficiencies in the initial preliminary investigation conducted in 2005-2006 (E2006/1200) should be rejected as having been lodged out of time. The initial investigation was terminated on 20 June 2006 by order no.   80/2006 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance. Following an appeal against it by the first applicant, on 25   September 2006 order no. 565/2006 was issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, rejecting the appeal. In the Government’s view, any deficiencies relating to the initial preliminary investigation should have been raised within six months of the date of last order completing the investigation. Any other interpretation would mean that applicants would be allowed to raise complaints about alleged deficiencies in the initial investigation even years later by submitting new evidence – whether real or fake – to the domestic authorities. 39.     The Government also raised an objection concerning admissibility under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention in respect of either the whole application or at least the part of the complaint relating to the initial preliminary criminal investigation. In particular, the Government pointed out that the first applicant had previously lodged application no. 13207/07 with the Court, which had been declared inadmissible. Even though they were not in position to scrutinise the similarity between that application and the application currently under examination – since the former had never been communicated to them – the Government submitted that the Court should consider whether the two applications were substantially similar and if that was the case, dismiss the current application or at least its relating to the initial criminal investigation under Article 35   §   2   (b) of the Convention. 40.     The Government also raised two objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Firstly, they argued that it was only the first applicant who had filed a criminal complaint on 9 February 2006 and had later challenged order no. 80/2006 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance by virtue of which the case had been archived. In the Government’s view, filing a criminal complaint and – in the event that it was later archived – lodging an appeal against the public prosecutor’s order were appropriate and effective remedies, as proven by the fact that the first applicant had used them. The second and third applicants should therefore also have availed themselves of these legal remedies, but as they had not done so, the application should accordingly be rejected in respect of the second and third applicants’ complaints relating to the initial criminal investigation. 41.     Secondly, the Government submitted that the application should be rejected in its entirety due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as none of the applicants had submitted an application for damages under Article   105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, which was directly applicable to the Greek legal order. Relying on a series of judgments issued by the Supreme Administrative Court, the Government claimed that an application for compensation in respect of damage caused by unlawful acts or omissions committed by the State could have resulted in an award of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and it was therefore an appropriate and effective legal remedy that the applicants should have used. In the Government’s view, the present case should be distinguished from the Court’s judgments in Papapetrou and Others v. Greece (no. 17380/09, 12   July 2011) and Zontul v. Greece (no. 12294/07, 17 January 2012) in which the Court dismissed the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion for failure to use the remedy under Article 105. In the former case the applicants had submitted an application for damages which was still pending at the time they applied to the Court and, in any event, no violation of Article 2 was found. In the latter, the Court had dismissed the Government’s objection on the basis that the applicants had joined the proceedings as civil parties; however, in that case criminal proceedings had already been initiated. It should be also distinguished from other cases where an application for damages had been considered ineffective remedy for complaints under other articles of the Convention. 42.     Lastly, the Government raised an objection alleging lack of victim status in respect of the second and third applicants. As the first applicant was the only one who had filed a criminal complaint – and later an appeal against the public prosecutor’s order archiving the case file – the Government argued that the second and third applicants lacked victim status. 43.     The applicants contested the Government’s submissions. They submitted that their application had already been declared admissible. Furthermore, they argued that pursuant to Articles 43 §§ 5 and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the archiving of a case file by the public prosecutor did not result in a res judicata ; in the event of new facts or evidence, as in the present case, the investigation could be reopened. Referring to the Court’s judgment in Yotova v. Bulgaria (no. 43606/04, 23   October 2012), the applicants argued that the criminal investigation should be seen as a whole and the time-limit for lodging an application with the Court should therefore have been counted from the end of the supplementary criminal investigation, that is to say 16 June 2014. 44.     In reply to the Government’s objection under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, the applicants submitted that the previous proceedings before the Court had only dealt with their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, alleging deficiencies in the initial criminal investigation, and not with the complaint concerning an overall lack of effectiveness of the investigation under Article 2 of the Convention. The instant case was thus clearly concerned with different subject matter and also contained new facts, since it referred to deficiencies not only in the initial but also the supplementary preliminary investigation. 45.     As regards the Government’s objection alleging non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicants referred to all the requests they had made in the context of both the initial and the supplementary preliminary investigation either all together or the first applicant separately. They also claimed that the domestic legislation had not provided for an effective remedy in respect of any deficiencies in the investigation. As regards an action for damages under Article 105 of the Introductory Law, the applicants argued that, on the one hand, such an action would have had very little prospect of success and, on the other hand, that it was not effective. In any event, they had already joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties and it would therefore have been pointless to submit an application for damages, since both legal remedies served the same goal and it would have been excessive to have to exhaust both penal and administrative remedies in relation to the same case. The applicants referred to several judgments of the Court to illustrate that it has on many occasions rejected the Government’s argument that an action for damages constitutes an effective remedy for complaints related to various Articles of the Convention ( Yotova , cited above, § 101; Zontul v. Greece , no 12294/07, § 73, 17   January 2012). They also pointed out that the domestic decisions relied on by the Government in their attempt to prove the effectiveness of an action for damages referred to cases where the deaths at issue had been caused by the actions of State agents and were therefore not comparable with the present case. 46.     Lastly, in respect of the Government’s objection alleging lack of victim status on the part of the second and third applicants, the applicants argued that classification as a victim is not dependent on the exercise of any legal remedies. Referring to a series of the Court’s judgments in which applications lodged by relatives of deceased persons were considered admissible, the applicants claimed that they were indirect victims and that the Government’s objection should be rejected. In any event, the second and third applicants had actively participated in the preliminary investigation by submitting the application for the reopening of the case and by joining the proceedings as civil parties. 2.     The Court’s assessment 47.     The Court notes at the outset that in the letter sent out by the Registry on 5 January 2015, the applicants’ legal representative was informed only that a file had been opened and that he would be informed of any decision taken by the Court. At that stage it could only be said that the application had not been rejected on administrative grounds for failing to comply with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which is not the same as confirming the admissibility of an application governed by Article 35 of the Convention which has not yet been examined by the Court (see Podeschi v. San Marino , no. 66357/14, § 88, 13   April 2017). 48.     As regards the parties’ submissions, the Court notes that the Government’s objections can be separated in two parts: on the one hand, they have raised a number of objections in respect of the complaints concerning the initial criminal investigation, namely that they were filed outside the time-limit and that the second and third applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies because they had not filed a criminal complaint. On the other hand, the Government raised some objections concerning the application as a whole, namely that the complaints were substantially the same as the ones raised in application no. 13207/07, that all the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies due to the fact that they had not submitted an application for damages under Article   105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code and also that the second and third applicants lacked victim status. (a)     Failure to comply with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 49.     The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that it may only deal with a complaint which has been introduced within six months of the date of the final decision delivered in the course of exhausting the domestic remedies. The purpose of the six-month rule under Article   35   §   1 of the Convention is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time (see Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, § 110, ECHR 2009). It prevents the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. Finally, it ensures that, in so far as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Jeronovičs v.   Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 74, ECHR 2016). Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period starts to run from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of cognisance of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no.   47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016). 50.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the preliminary investigation conducted by the domestic authorities took place in two distinct phases: one part was conducted between 2005 and 2006 and one was conducted between 2012 and 2014. The initial criminal investigation came to an end by virtue of order no. 565/25-9-2006 issued by the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal which upheld the conclusion of the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance that there were not sufficient indications of criminal wrongdoing to justify the initiation of a criminal prosecution in rem . The next procedural step was the applicants’ request dated 8 February 2012 for the reopening of the investigation. Following this, a supplementary preliminary investigation was conducted between February 2012 and June 2014. 51.     As is apparent from the foregoing, in the period between the two phases of the investigation the case file had been archived, owing to the fact that there had not been sufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to justify the initiation of criminal proceedings. According to the domestic legislation, that would have been the end of the investigation into the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant unless new facts or evidence arose which, in the public prosecutor’s view, would warrant a supplementary investigation. 52.     The Court notes the applicants’ argument that the preliminary criminal investigation should be regarded as a whole. However, in the Court’s view, the two phases of the investigation were distinct. The applicants should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the initial criminal investigation long before they petitioned the public prosecutor on 8   February 2012 and should have raised any objection regarding deficiencies in the initial investigation within six months of the date on which order no.   565/25-9-2006 was issued. The applicants could not rely on the possible reopening of the case file, which domestic legislation would only allow if new facts or evidence were presented, and even then would be left to the discretion of the public prosecutor. The period of more than five years which elapsed between the two phases of the preliminary criminal investigation – in respect of which the applicants provided no explanation detailing why it took so long to seek and introduce the new evidence – is sufficiently lengthy to have severed the link between the two distinct phases of the investigation. The applicants should have realised the ineffectiveness of the initial preliminary inv