Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook iii. Where Domestic Remedies Turn Out to be Ineffective Difficulties arise in the determination of the starting point of the six (four)-month period in cases where domestic authorities remain inactive in the face of complaints of ill-treatment or where domestic criminal investigations continue for long periods of time without yielding any tangible results. According to the Court, if the domestic remedy invoked by the applicant is adequate in theory, but in the course of time proved to be ineffective, the applicant is no longer obliged to exhaust it.494 In this case, the six (four)-month period is calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware that the remedy he sought was ineffective.495 The challenge for the applicant is to determine the point in time when it becomes apparent, or should have become apparent, that the remedy was ineffective for purposes of the Convention. The Court will declare a case inadmissible for non-respect of the six (four)-month rule if it finds that the applicant continued to pursue a domestic remedy for more than six (four) months when it should have been clear to him or her that the remedy was ineffective. It appears from a number of cases introduced against Turkey, for example, that the applicants should not have awaited the outcome of criminal investigations that were marked by long periods of inactivity on the part of the investigating authorities. Thus, in the case of Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, concerning the killing on 29 July 1994 of the applicants’ husband and father allegedly by persons acting with the connivance of the State, the applicants claimed in their application form – submitted to the Court on 1 March 2001 – that they had applied to the office of the public prosecutor in order to obtain information on numerous occasions. On each occasion they had been told that no one had yet been prosecuted for the killing. The final time they checked with the investigating authorities was on 26 October 2000, when they were once again informed that no one had yet been prosecuted for the killing. The applicants argued that the domestic authorities were, nominally at least, still investigating the killing and this investigation would, pursuant to Article 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code, continue until 20 years had elapsed from the date of the killing. They submitted that the six-month time limit did not apply in their case given that there had as yet not been a domestic decision to discontinue the investigation. The Court rejected these arguments holding that the applicants should have displayed a greater diligence and initiative in staying the ineffectiveness of the investigation until October 2000, that was due to their own negligence.496 494 Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, 22 January 2006, § 86. 495 Yuriy Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 45872/06, 19 December 2013, § 77. 496 Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002. 136