26 ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT provision of medical assistance to Mr Zabchekov and that that contributed in a decisive manner to the fatal outcome. 126. The Government's position is that the police officers, not being medical professionals, could not be criticised for having failed to detect that there was a medical emergency. 127. That argument is, however, irrelevant, as it is not disputed that at a certain point after 3 a.m. the police officers realised that Mr Zabchekov's condition was deteriorating. Even then, instead of calling for an ambulance, they contacted their colleagues who had arrested the boy. Those officers, who were on patrol duty, saw fit to abandon their patrolling tasks and drive back to the police station to verify the situation. Having seen Mr Zabchekov's condition, they took the time to drive to the hospital and then return, followed by an ambulance, instead of calling for one (see paragraphs 32-40 above). 128. It is particularly significant, furthermore, that the case file does not contain any trace of criticism or disapproval of that manner of dealing with a detainee's medical problem. 129. The first medical report and the expert whose opinion was submitted by the applicant found that the delay in providing medical assistance had been fatal (see paragraphs 59 and 95 above). 130. The Court thus finds that the behaviour of the police officers between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 29 January 1996 and the lack of any reaction by the authorities constituted a violation of the State's obligation to protect the lives of persons in custody. 131. There has been therefore a violation of Article 2 § 1 of the Convention in that respect. C. The alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation 1. The parties' submissions 132. The applicant considered that the investigation into the death of her son had been inadequate as the authorities had failed to investigate, inter alia: the post hoc doctoring of the detention records; the non-fatal injuries; the police officers' strange behaviour between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.; the reason why the two doctors had quarrelled at about 5 a.m.; and the fact that the first information the applicant's family had received about Mr Zabchekov's death had failed to mention that the boy had been detained. 133. The applicant further submitted that because of the traditional ties between prosecutors, investigators and the police and the absence, at the material time, of judicial review in respect of decisions not to prosecute, the decision-making authorities responsible for investigating ill-treatment by the police were not sufficiently independent and impartial.