ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 19 had been questioned and had stated, inter alia, that he had been treated by Dr Miceva, a psychiatrist, and that he had been taking medication. Mr Zabchekov's lawyer had requested a psychiatric examination, which had been scheduled for 30 January 1996. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A. National Police Act (Закон за полицията), as in force at the relevant time 99. Section 35(1) of the Act provided as follows: “The police authorities shall issue a written order for an arrested person to be taken to the [place of detention].” B. Code of Criminal Procedure (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) 100. By virtue of Article 388 of the Code, the military courts hear criminal cases in which the accused is, for example, a police officer. Where a case would fall within the competence of the military courts, the preliminary investigation is handled by military investigators and prosecutors. 101. Article 362 § 1 (4) taken in conjunction with Article 359 provides that, in the event of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights finding a violation of the Convention “of significant importance” to a criminal case that has ended by virtue of a judicial decision, the prosecuting authorities shall request the reopening of the case by the competent court. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 102. The applicant alleged that her son had been ill-treated and had died as a result of injuries inflicted by police officers, that he had not been provided with timely medical treatment while in custody and that the State authorities had failed to undertake a thorough and effective investigation. Article 2 of the Convention provides as follows: “1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.