ĐORĐEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 37 sense of inclusion in the community. Because of the constant harassment by children from his neighbourhood, the first applicant had had to stop all these activities. 119. Relying extensively on the Court’s case-law as regards the State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants argued that the relevant State authorities had been under a duty to take positive measures to protect them from harm perpetrated by third parties. The second applicant had repeatedly informed the authorities of the abuse to which the applicants had been exposed but the authorities had largely failed to take any action to prevent ill-treatment from recurring. The authorities had thus been aware that the harassment against the first applicant had followed the same pattern. 120. However, despite their knowledge of the applicants’ situation, the relevant authorities had failed in their duty to put an end to the harassment and abuse. The applicants argued that there had been no clarity as to which authority was competent to address their situation. As to the Government’s contention that the police had reacted adequately to all complaints by the second applicant, they argued that the police had failed to grasp the full extent of the ongoing abuse and to prevent further abuse. The police had failed to identify the perpetrators; they would simply arrive at the scene and warn the children to go away. Such a relaxed approach by the police had failed in its deterrent effect. Furthermore, the police had addressed each instance of abuse as an isolated event, without comprehending the continuing nature of the situation. They had also failed to take any appropriate action, such as instituting minor-offences proceedings against the parents of the children involved. 121. The competent social welfare centre should have: investigated the case and established the relevant facts; invited the parents of the perpetrators to a meeting in order to establish their personal circumstances; issued protective measures to prevent the violence from recurring; advised or obliged the perpetrators and their parents to attend counselling; monitored the situation; and drawn up reports on the measures taken. However, the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre had done none of the above. In 2009 it had taken measures against one of the minors involved in the cigarette-burn incident and placed him under the supervision of a social worker and then initiated court proceedings to place him in an institution for children with behavioural problems for a period of one year. However, all that had been done not because of the attack on the first applicant, but owing to the overall behavioural problems of the individual concerned. 122. As to the authorities of the school the children in question attended, the applicants maintained that although they had been entitled to take a range of disciplinary measures in cases of violent behaviour by pupils, including warnings, reprimands, severe reprimands and expulsion from school, they had failed to take any such measures. It was true, however, that