30 ĐORĐEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT level of constant stress and suffering, in particular in view of the first applicant’s medical condition. They argued that the ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse met the requisite intensity standard under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and that Article 2 of the Convention was also applicable given the escalation of violence against the first applicant in view of his extreme vulnerability and also in view of the likelihood, as demonstrated by research on disability hate crime, of low-level harassment turning into full-scale violence if left unchecked, possibly resulting in extreme circumstances in death or severe ill-treatment. 85. As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, they argued that the domestic legal system did not provide any remedies affording redress in respect of disability hate crime; this was supported by the fact that the Government had not submitted any relevant case-law to support their assertions as to the availability and efficiency of the remedies they relied on. 86. As regards the possibility of bringing an action against the authorities on account of an unlawful act under section 67 of the Administrative Disputes Act, the applicants maintained that the admissibility requirements for that remedy – for example, that the unlawful act had to amount to a violation of the Constitution, that the remedy should be the last resort, and that the unlawful activity was ongoing at the time when the action was brought – made it ineffective in the case in issue. 87. As regards a possible civil action for damages against the parents of the children involved, the applicants argued that the Court had already held in cases against Croatia that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person required efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would have ensured adequate protection in that respect (they cited Sandra Janković v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009). 88. As regards minor-offences proceedings, the applicants submitted that they applied only to minor offences against public peace and order and that therefore such a remedy was clearly inadequate in respect of the harm done to the applicants’ physical and psychological integrity. 89. As regards the Government’s contention that the application was premature in respect of the events of 10 April and 13 May 2010 since the investigation into those events was still ongoing, the applicants replied that they had never received any official information that any investigation into the matter had been instituted and that in any event there had been unjustified delays in the conduct of the authorities. Furthermore, the investigation concerned isolated incidents and not the applicants’ situation as a whole.