PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court or rather not ‘incompatible’, with the Convention ratione temporis, ratione loci, ratione materie, and ratione persone; 3) that he or she has exhausted domestic remedies; 4) that the complaint complies with the rule that it must be submitted within six month (or four months, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 to the Convention) after the final domestic decision; 5) that the complaints are sufficiently “substantiated” on their face to disclose a violation of the Convention; 6) that the damage suffered is substantial; (7) that the applicant suffered a substantial disadvantage and finally that the application is not 8) ‘abusive’; 9) ‘anonymous’; or 10) ‘substantially the same’ as one which has been or is being considered by another international procedure of investigation or settlement. Virtually all of these criteria have been interpreted extensively by the Court and some of them have important exceptions. Some of these exceptions apply specifically in the context of violations of Articles 2 and 3. The admissibility requirements are discussed below in sections 2.2.2–2.2.8 The Court, through its rules of admissibility, imposes a very high standard of diligence on applicants wishing to have their “day in court” in Strasbourg. However, it is important to note that the obligation of due diligence starts well before proceedings commence in Strasbourg. In fact, as will be seen in this section, due diligence needs to be exercised from the very beginning of the case in the national system if it is to have a chance of succeeding before the Court: an applicant who has not presented properly documented complaints to the appropriate domestic authorities on a timely basis and in compliance with domestic rules of procedure will have a difficult time convincing the Court that his or her application merits consideration. To be sure, the principle of subsidiarity,321 which stipulates “that the High Contracting Parties […] have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention,”322 requires that Contracting Parties be given a proper opportunity to redress complaints through their own domestic system before being held to account internationally. 321 See Dinah Shelton, “Subsidiarity and Human Rights Law”, in Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 27, 2006, p. 5; Mark Villiger, “The Principle of Subsidiarity in the European Convention on Human Rights”, in Marcelo G. Kohen (ed.), Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law; Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflisch, Brill, 2007, p. 623; Herbert Petzold, “The Convention and the Principle of Subsidiarity”, in Ronald St. J. MacDonald, Franz Matscher and Herbert Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Kluwer, 1993, pp. 41–62. 322 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 213, 24 June 2013, Article 1 amending the Preamble to the Convention. See also Scordino v. Italy, (No. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, 26 March 2006, § 140. 105