appeal was only possible where a detained person had been released and then redetained. In all other cases a detained person could request his release from the prosecuting authorities if there had been a change of circumstances (decision no. 94 in case no. 754/92). 76. Periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention on remand becomes possible only when the criminal case is pending before a court, which can then decide whether or not to release the accused. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 77. The applicants applied to the Commission on 6 September 1993. They complained, relying on Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, about Mr Assenov’s alleged ill-treatment by the police in September 1992 and the lack of any effective domestic remedy in this respect; relying on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, about his detention on remand since July 1995; and, relying on Article 25, about the measures taken by the prosecuting authorities in connection with their application to the Commission. 78. The Commission declared the application (no. 24760/94) admissible on 27 June 1996. In its report of 10 July 1997 (Article 31), it expressed the opinions, in relation to the events of September 1992, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (sixteen votes to one), that there had been a violation of Article 13 (unanimously) and that there had been no violation of Article 6 (unanimously). In connection with the events since 1995, it expressed the unanimous opinions that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 and no violation of Article 3, but that there had been violations of Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4 and that Bulgaria had not complied with its obligations under Article 25. The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the partially dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment1. FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 79. In their memorial and at the oral hearing, the Government asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims. Mr Assenov asked the Court to find violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 13 and, together with his parents, 25 of the Convention, and all three applicants asked to be awarded just satisfaction under Article 50. AS TO THE LAW