12 RUDYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 75. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. B. Costs and expenses 76. The applicant did not claim any costs and expenses. The Court, therefore, makes no award under this head. C. Default interest 77. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Joins, unanimously, to the merits the Government’s objection as to the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and dismisses this objection after an examination on the merits; 2. Declares, (a) unanimously, the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police in April 2005 and the subsequent investigation admissible; (b) by five votes to two, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning alleged lack of adequate medical assistance to the applicant in detention inadmissible; (c) unanimously, the remainder of the application inadmissible; 3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb; 4. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb; 5. Holds, unanimously, (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros),