i. THE applicants 80. At the hearing before the Court, the applicants’ representative explained that, although for the purposes of the proceedings before the Commission Mr Assenov’s parents had joined his various complaints, they had done so only because at that time he had been a minor and thus lacking in capacity under Bulgarian law. The current position was that Mr Assenov was the sole applicant in respect of all the complaints except that under Article 25 of the Convention, which he brought jointly with his parents. 81. The Court will, therefore, in respect of all the complaints save that under Article 25, only consider whether there have been violations of Mr Assenov’s rights. In respect of the Article 25 complaint it will also examine the position of Mr Ivanov and Mrs Ivanova. ii. events of and following 19 september 1992 A. Government’s preliminary objections 1. Alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 82. The Government contended that Mr Assenov’s complaint under Article 3 concerning the events of 19 September 1992 should have been declared inadmissible due to failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention, which states: “The Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law … .” In the Government’s submission, in addition to applying for a criminal prosecution to be brought against the police officers, the applicant could have brought civil proceedings under Article 45 of the Law on Obligations and Contracts or administrative proceedings under the Law on State Responsibility for Damage. 83. At the hearing before the Court, the applicant stated that it was difficult to imagine what additional steps he could have been expected to take in order to trigger the remedies formally available under Bulgarian law. 84. In its decision on admissibility, the Commission recalled that civil compensation could not be deemed fully to rectify a breach of Article 3. It found that, in complaining to the District Directorate of Internal Affairs (“DDIA”) and all levels of the prosecuting authorities, the applicants had done all they could to seek the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers, thus putting their complaint in the hands of the authorities most competent to pursue it.