10 CENBAUER v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 29. The Court first has to ascertain whether the Government are estopped from submitting the non-exhaustion argument at this stage of the proceedings. 30. At the outset, the Court notes that the Government have already raised this objection at the admissibility stage. However, in its admissibility decision of 5 February 2004, the Court dismissed that argument, concluding that the wording of the Act was unclear and that the Government had failed to produce any convincing evidence to prove the effectiveness of a complaint to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences under section 17 of the Act. 31. Following the decision on admissibility, the Government submitted the above decision, given by the competent court on 17 December 2003, that is to say one and a half months before the Court's admissibility decision. The Court does not attach particular importance to this lapse of time or to the fact that the Government failed to submit the decision prior to the decision on admissibility. In the Court's view, one and a half months is a relatively short period of time, during which it is reasonable to assume that, the decision having been given by one of the lower courts in the country, the Government may not have taken cognisance thereof. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the Government are not estopped from submitting the new decision in support of their previously argued objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 32. The Court has further to examine whether the submitted decision can influence the Court's finding as to the effectiveness of the suggested remedy in the circumstances of the present case. 33. The Court reiterates that in the area of the exhaustion of domestic remedies there is a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). 34. In the light of the decision in the case of V.Š., the Court will not exclude that such a complaint could be an effective remedy in respect of acts or decisions which allegedly violate an inmate's rights guaranteed under the domestic law. In any event, the Government have not proved that the remedy in issue was available before 1 January 2002, when the provisions