34 BOUYID v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT applicant’s complaint and the Court of Cassation judgment marking the close of the proceedings, and a period of over four years and eight months elapsed in the second applicant’s case. 133. As the Court has emphasised on previous occasions, although there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 114, ECHR 2001-III, and Mocanu and Others, cited above, § 323). 134. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants did not have the benefit of an effective investigation. It consequently finds a violation of the procedural head of Article 3 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 135. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 136. As before the Chamber, the applicants jointly claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of the substantive head of Article 3 of the Convention, and EUR 43,110 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of the procedural head of the same Article. They justified this latter amount by arguing that the frustration they had experienced as a result of the shortcomings in the investigation had begun on 7 March 2006 with the order refusing additional investigative measures and had lasted until 14 November 2012; they considered it appropriate to award each of them a daily amount of EUR 15 covering the period up to 29 October 2008, when the Court of Cassation delivered its judgment (a total of 952 days), and a daily amount of EUR 5 for the subsequent period (a total of 1,455 days). 137. The Government, who did not comment on these claims before the Grand Chamber, had indicated in their observations before the Chamber that they would leave the above-mentioned amount of EUR 5,000 to the Court’s discretion. They had also invited it to disregard the applicants’ pecuniary assessment of the damage caused by the violation of the procedural head of Article 3, arguing that it was unreasonable and unrealistic. They had added