to his attention. This investigation must meet the standards of natural justice principles as was held by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of GUILIANI GAGGIO V ITALY [GC] (2011) no. 23458/02, &303, ECHR; where the Court found that the investigation must be accessible to the victim’s family to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests. There must also be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation, the degree of which may vary from case to case. This Court, in the instant case, notes that whilst the Respondent admitted to mounting an investigation to into the allegation of death, the said investigation was inadequate. The Applicant specifically pleaded that several complaints were made to relevant agencies of the Respondent about the shooting incidence that resulted in the death of their father but that the complaints were not addressed. They further alleged that the police also refused to prosecute the unlawful killing of their father. The Court notes that up to the time of the Application no such evidence to prove that the Respondent actually investigated and prosecuted those responsible for the shooting that resulted in the unlawful killing of the deceased was established. The Respondent maintained however, that they mounted an investigation and that their investigation showed that there were no army officers known as Corporal Aminu and Lt. Col A.Y. Abdul who served on any task force. Agwan Rokuba had no existing records of any shooting on the 26th December 2010 as claimed by the Applicants. The Court therefore holds that the duty of the Respondent to investigate into the murder of the deceased, father of the Applicants, was compromised. This compromise led to a breach of its obligation and a violation of the right to life. The Court therefore holds that the Respondent violated the right to life of the deceased. ISSUE 5: Whether the Applicants can bring a claim for compensation in the circumstances That Applicants alleged that the deceased was the breadwinner in the family, indicating that they were all dependents of the deceased. They further alleged that the death of the deceased has caused them financial hardship and has subjected them to severe mental torture and as such they qualify as victims by reason of the fact of them being dependents 14