30 GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT (b) The parties’ submissions (i) The applicant 110. The applicant argued that he had not lost his status as the victim of a breach of Article 3. The domestic courts had failed to acknowledge clearly a breach of his Convention right in a legally binding manner. They had merely mentioned Article 3 in their decisions dismissing the applicant’s applications and complaints. 111. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that he had not received adequate redress for the breach of the prohibition of torture. He had not derived any personal benefit from the convictions of D. and E., who, in any event, had been sentenced to very modest, suspended fines and who had otherwise suffered no disciplinary consequences for their conduct. D. had even been promoted following his conviction. The official liability proceedings, in which the applicant had claimed compensation for the damage resulting from his treatment in breach of Article 3, were still pending before the civil courts and, to date, he had not received any compensation. Furthermore, he argued that the status quo ante could only have been restored by the exclusion, at trial, of all items of evidence which had been obtained as a direct result of the violation of Article 3. This evidence, the admissibility of which had been determined at the outset of his trial, had secured his conviction and, by implication, the imposition of the maximum applicable penalty. The exclusion only of the pre-trial statements he had made as a result of coercion was not sufficient redress as such statements were not necessary for the prosecution’s case against him once the real evidence had been admitted. (ii) The Government 112. The Government asked the Grand Chamber to confirm the Chamber’s finding that the applicant had lost his status as the victim of a violation of Article 3. Three German courts – namely the Regional Court and the Federal Constitutional Court in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the Regional Court in the criminal proceedings against the police officers – had expressly acknowledged the breach of Article 3. These courts had underlined that human dignity was inviolable and that torture was prohibited even if the life of a person were at stake. 113. In the Government’s submission, the applicant had also been afforded sufficient redress. The two police officers involved had been convicted in criminal proceedings and sentenced. The Government stressed that for a police officer to be tried and convicted of coercion was a very serious matter. Moreover, both police officers had been removed from their posts. The Government admitted that the applicant had not yet received compensation, but argued that since he had brought official liability