34 ĐORĐEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT incidents concerned took place in April and May 2010 and the Government have failed to show that any further steps were taken in addition to the police interviews conducted in July, August and September 2010 with the children in question. 105. However, some further remedies referred to by the Government call for an assessment of their effectiveness in the particular circumstances of the present case. The Court notes that sections 67 to 76 of the Administrative Disputes Act provide for an “action against an unlawful act” (see paragraphs 66 and 67 above), a judicial remedy open to anyone who considers that his or her rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have been violated by a public authority and that no other judicial remedy is available. This remedy and the remedy available under section 66 of the same Act against a “final individual act” (see paragraph 65 above) represent remedies of last resort, to be used in the absence of any other judicial protection, against decisions or other (factual) acts or omissions by public authorities that are capable of violating constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms. The rationale behind those remedies is that constitutional rights and freedoms are so precious that they cannot be left unprotected by the courts. 106. The Court also notes that the right not to be ill-treated and the right to respect for one’s private and family life are both guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution. Furthermore, the relevant case-law of the national courts shows that an action of this nature may also be brought in a situation of an omission to act, such as in the present case, where the applicants alleged that the national authorities had failed to take appropriate steps. However, certain issues arise as regards the effectiveness of such an action in the circumstances of the present case. 107. Firstly, the Government did not indicate which authority could be held responsible for a failure to take adequate measures. Since the remedy in issue is an “action against an unlawful act” (or omission), it is necessary to establish which body had a duty to act and on the basis of which law. Furthermore, an action in respect of an omission to act may only be brought against an individual public official who had a duty to act with a basis in law. It would be difficult in the present case to name an individual official who had such a duty. The Government, moreover, made no submissions in that respect. The Court notes in this connection that one aspect of the applicants’ complaint was that no State authority was obliged by law to take any measures in the situation complained of. 108. An action of this nature under the Administrative Disputes Act would entail the institution of proceedings in the ordinary civil courts. The Government have not indicated that the application of any kind of interim measures would be possible in such proceedings. However, the situation complained of by the applicants shows that they were continually harassed, at times almost on a daily basis, and the essence of their complaints lies in