had already been an inquiry on the matter, on 15 February 1993 the DDIA sent to the investigator all the material already collected. 21. It is disputed whether investigator G. heard the applicants personally. The Government allege that he did, but there is no record of this on file. 22. On 20 March 1993 investigator G. drew up a one page internal note summarising the facts and advising that criminal proceedings should not be brought against the officers, on the grounds that the allegations had not been proved and the evidence in the case was “contradictory”. 23. On 24 March 1993, the RMPO decided, on the basis of the investigator’s advice, not to instigate criminal proceedings. The decision stated, inter alia, that Mr Ivanov had been hitting his son, shouting and pulling him, in disobedience of police orders, which had led to the applicants’ arrest (see paragraph 55 below), and that the evidence taken from witnesses did not confirm the use of physical violence by the police against the boy. 5. Appeal to General Military Prosecution Office 24. On 15 April 1993 the applicants appealed to the General Military Prosecution Office (“GMPO”). They stated that it was clear from the decision of non-prosecution that the only witnesses examined had been the police officers who were the suspects; that the medical certificates had not been taken into consideration; and that it was untrue that Mr Assenov and his father had disobeyed police orders. 25. The appeal was submitted through the RMPO, which forwarded it to the GMPO on 30 April 1993, enclosing a letter advising that the complaint should be dismissed. A copy of this letter was sent to the applicants. 26. On 21 May 1993 the GMPO, apparently after an examination of the file, refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers on the same grounds as the lower prosecuting authority. The decision stated, inter alia: “A medical certificate is enclosed in the file, from which it appears that there were haematomae on the juvenile’s body, indicating superficial bodily harm, and corresponding, in terms of mechanism of infliction, to blows with a band-like solid object. The Deputy Regional Prosecutor correctly considered that even if blows were administered on the body of the juvenile, they occurred as a result of disobedience to police orders. The physical force and auxiliary means employed were in accordance with Article 24(1) points 1 and 2 of the Law on National Police now in force” [see paragraph 56 below]. 6. Further investigation by Regional Military Prosecution Office 27. Apparently as a result of continued complaints from the applicants and pressure from the Ministry of Justice to re-examine the matter, on 13 July 1993 the GMPO wrote to the RMPO, stating that preliminary inquiries regarding alleged police misconduct should include the