18 BOUYID v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT enforcement officials and recommended “thorough”, “independent” and “impartial” investigations (CAT/C/BEL/CO/3, 28 October-22 November 2013, § 13). The applicants also submitted that four complaints of police violence were posted every week on the website of the Observatory of Police Violence (OBSPOL) set up by the French-language section of the Belgian Human Rights League. They also had the impression that police officers systematically filed a complaint as soon as a complaint was filed against them, and that even where cases did come before a court, judgment was deferred more frequently than for the average member of the public. This caused the general public to feel that there was a climate of impunity, and many victims were reluctant to file complaints. 60. As regards the procedural aspect of Article 3, the applicants submitted that the investigation conducted into their case did not meet the requirements of the Court’s case-law. 61. Firstly, the investigation had been principally based on screening of the family’s behaviour, drawing on records prepared by the police station at which the officers of whom the applicants had complained were based. The fact that the summary report set out in detail the complaints lodged by members of their family against police officers from this station and stated that no action had been taken on them, yet did not provide any information on the reports drawn up by police officers in respect of members of their family – in most of which cases no file existed or the proceedings had been discontinued – showed that the investigation had been conducted with a view to exonerating the police officers. The applicants further observed that the investigation had shed no light on the circumstances surrounding the police intervention. 62. Secondly, they argued that there had been serious shortcomings in the investigation: contrary to the investigating judge’s instructions, the applicants had at no stage been interviewed by the investigators; the file on the incident involving scratches to the car belonging to an officer from the police station in 1999 had not been included in its entirety in the case file; and the investigating judge had not been informed of the action taken on the various cases opened against members of the Bouyid family (some of the cases mentioned in the summary report did not actually exist or were in fact cases in which they had claimed to be the victims). The applicants pointed out that when they had noted these shortcomings they had applied to the investigating judge for twenty additional investigative measures, of which only two had been accepted: the inclusion of an email in the case file and the interview of a police officer whom the first applicant was alleged to have insulted on 8 December 2003 (moreover, the applicants had not been given access to these pieces of evidence). 63. Thirdly, the legal provisions on interviewing under-age victims of a criminal offence had not been complied with (they referred to Articles 91 bis and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entitled such persons