TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 29 the initial stage of the investigation. Most importantly, following the exhumation, the hyoid bone was found to be broken. According to the material brought to the attention of the Court by the applicants – which was not refuted by the Government – a broken hyoid bone is a finding consistent with strangulation. Besides this, the new forensic reports drawn up by the coroners following the exhumation of the body concluded that the cause of death remained unclarified, which is a striking difference compared to the initial forensic report. 101. In view of the above, one could reasonably have expected the domestic authorities to address the inconsistencies identified above. However, the public prosecutor decided to close the investigation, upholding the conclusions of order 80/06, and simply citing the relevant steps that had been taken during the supplementary investigation without addressing any of the above-mentioned findings and inconsistencies. The Court notes that it is not clear on what grounds the Athens public prosecutor based his decision not to prosecute or to order further investigative measures because the order contains no reasoning, merely a reference to the new reports. 102. The Court additionally notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal any remedy against the public prosecutor’s decision to close the supplementary investigation. While the applicants could challenge order 80/06 by which the initial investigation was closed, a remedy used by the first applicant albeit unsuccessfully, it appears that the public prosecutor’s order to put the case back to the archive was final and the applicants could not appeal against it or advance their arguments for further investigative measures. 103. The Court reiterates that Article 2 does not impose a duty on the investigating authorities to satisfy every request for a particular investigative measure made by a relative in the course of the investigation (see Ramsahai and Others, cited above, § 348). In the Court’s view however, some of the investigative measures suggested by the applicants could have elucidated the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s death. In particular, the Court notes that, although the cause of death had not been sufficiently elucidated, no reconstruction of the incident and no forensic examination of the place of death were ever ordered, despite the applicants’ request and their technical advisors’ suggestion to this effect. While the Government alleged that such a reconstruction would not have been appropriate as the applicants had tampered with the evidence at the place of death, the Court opines that a reconstruction and/or a forensic examination, even at a later stage, would have shed light on the possible proximity of the body to nearby furniture and would have provided answers as to whether his body should have suffered injury, given the position in which it was hanging.