SELMOUNI v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 35 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Complexity of the case and conduct of the applicant 116. The Court agrees with the applicant on this point. Thus, neither the complexity of the case nor the applicant’s conduct justifies the length of the proceedings. (b) Conduct of the judicial authorities 117. The Court notes that the proceedings, which are still pending since an appeal on points of law may be brought, have already lasted more than six years and seven months. As it has already noted in respect of the preceding complaint, the Court reiterates that where an individual has an arguable claim that there has been a violation of Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see paragraph 79 above). Irrespective of the Government’s acknowledgment that, regard being had to the seriousness of the alleged facts, the overall length of the proceedings was excessive (see paragraph 114 above), the Court considers that its conclusions with regard to the admissibility of the complaint based on Article 3, in particular the finding that a number of delays were attributable to the judicial authorities (see paragraph 78 above), result in a finding that this complaint is well-founded. (c) Conclusion 118. Having regard to all the evidence, the Court considers that the “reasonable time” prescribed by Article 6 § 1 was exceeded. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 119. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”