85. The Court recalls that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 26 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before an international judicial or arbitral organ to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems. In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, pp. 22752276, §§ 51-52). 86. The Court recalls that under Bulgarian law it is not possible for a complainant to initiate a criminal prosecution in respect of offences allegedly committed by agents of the State in the performance of their duties (see paragraph 58 above). It notes that the applicants made numerous appeals to the prosecuting authorities at all levels, requesting that a full criminal investigation be carried out into Mr Assenov’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police and that the officers concerned be prosecuted (see paragraphs 12-31 above). It considers that, having exhausted all the possibilities available to him within the criminal justice system, the applicant was not required, in the absence of a criminal prosecution in connection with his complaints, to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing a civil action for damages. It follows, therefore, that the Government’s preliminary objection must be rejected. 2. Alleged abuse of process 87. In addition, the Government alleged that the applicant’s allegations had not been substantiated and had been designed to mislead the Commission, thus constituting an abuse of the right of petition. The application should, therefore, have been rejected under Article 27 § 2 of the Convention, which states: “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition … which it considers incompatible with the provisions of the present Convention, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of petition.” 88. Having examined the applicant’s complaints, the Commission expressed the view in its decision on admissibility that they raised serious questions of fact and law which required full examination on the merits. 89. The Court finds no grounds that the present case was brought before the Commission in abuse of the right of petition. It therefore rejects this preliminary objection of the Government. B. Merits 1. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention