10 RUDYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT accordingly been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention. 2. Adequacy of the investigation 60. The applicant reiterated that his complaints of ill-treatment had remained unanswered. He had not appealed against the decision of 27 June 2006 because he had not received a copy of it. 61. The Government reiterated their observations that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies (see paragraphs 35-36 above). 62. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by State authorities in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. As with an investigation subject to Article 2 of the Convention, such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Labita, cited above). 63. In the present case the applicant raised his complaints of illtreatment by police officers a month and a half after the events in question (see paragraph 15 above). In particular, on several occasions he submitted that on 12 May 2005 he had asked the investigation officer to record the severity of the injuries inflicted on him. The applicant further complained of ill-treatment in October 2005. These complaints do not appear to be unfounded; however, there is no evidence that they were properly answered. 64. The Court further notes that after the national court ordered an investigation into the applicant’s complaints on 19 April 2006, the investigation authorities erroneously indicated that the applicant had never complained of ill-treatment before. The investigation was limited to questioning of the police officers involved, who denied that they had subjected the applicant to any ill-treatment. 65. Thus, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim which he had brought before the national authorities. The national court had an opportunity to examine the applicant’s complaints in this respect and ordered an investigation, which, however, appeared to be superficial. 66. The Court further notes that the applicant was not informed of the decision of 27 June 2006 and learned about it no earlier than towards the end of 2006 or in the first half of 2007. 67. The Court considers, being mindful of its subsidiary role, that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment ought to have been examined by a domestic court on at least one occasion. In the present case the domestic court had the applicant’s complaints before it, found them to be arguable and ordered an investigation, which turned out to be futile. The Court considers that in such circumstances the applicant was not required to bring