TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 19 of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting State concerned but also of the general context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant. It must then examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust the domestic remedies (see Akdivar, cited above, § 69, and Aksoy, cited above, §§ 53-54). 62. The Court observes that the Government claimed that the applicants should have submitted an application for compensation in respect of damage caused by the acts or omissions of the investigative authorities and in particular by the lack of an effective investigation into Mr Tsalikidis’ death. In this respect, they relied on a number of domestic decisions in which compensation was awarded to relatives of deceased persons whose death was attributable to State officials. However, the Government did not refer to any examples where domestic courts had awarded compensation for damage caused by the procedural shortcomings of an investigation conducted by State authorities. 63. The Court considers that the Government’s objection is closely linked to the substance of the applicants’ complaints. It therefore joins the objection to the merits of the case. (d) The second and third applicants’ victim status 64. The Court reiterates that close family members, including siblings, of a person whose death is alleged to engage the responsibility of the State can themselves claim to be indirect victims of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, and the question of whether they were legal heirs of the deceased is not relevant (see Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, ECHR 1999-V (extracts), and Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 86, 13 November 2012). The Court considers that, as the parents of Mr Tsalikidis, the second and third applicants could legitimately claim to be victims of any deficiencies in the investigation of their son’s death (see, for example, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 134, Reports 1998-III, and Emars v. Latvia, no. 22412/08, § 51, 18 November 2014). In view of the foregoing, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 65. The Court notes that the rest of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.