GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS 67 (i) in the criminal proceedings they were sentenced “only to very modest and suspended fines” (see paragraph 123), which were “almost token” and “manifestly disproportionate” (see paragraph 124); and (ii) the disciplinary sanctions, consisting in their transfer to posts which no longer involved direct association with the investigation of criminal offences, were too lenient as the officers were not “suspended from duty while being investigated or tried” or dismissed after being convicted (see paragraph 125). 6. In the very particular circumstances of this case, regard being had to the fact that after the interrogation D., the deputy chief of police, drew up a note for the police file in which he described – and admitted – the manner in which the events had occurred and provided reasons, or indeed justification, for them; that the domestic courts (the Regional Court and the Federal Constitutional Court) expressly declared that there had been a breach of the Basic Law and the Convention; and that the two police officers were found guilty and received criminal and disciplinary sanctions, the question of the quantum of the penalties should no longer be relevant. The Court points out that, except in manifestly arbitrary cases, “it is not its task to rule on the degree of individual guilt ... or to determine the appropriate sentence of an offender, those being matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national criminal courts” (see paragraph 123 of the judgment). There are good reasons for such judicial restraint, namely the lack of familiarity with the criminal case that resulted in the conviction and the fact that the convicted persons do not take part in the proceedings before the Court. 7. Applying the criterion of the severity of the penalty imposed, one may wonder what degree of punishment the majority might have accepted in order to find that the applicant was no longer a victim. In other words, should the applicant’s victim status depend on the severity of the penalty imposed on the police officers? In my opinion the answer is “no”. 8. This leaves the question of the additional requirement of compensation and the doubts as to the effectiveness of the official liability proceedings instituted by the applicant (see paragraphs 126 and 127 of the judgment). I have two observations on this point: (a) the applicant did not bring his compensation claim at national level until after his application to the Court had been communicated and his request for legal aid granted, that is, three years after the alleged damage; and (b) the case is pending before the domestic courts and there is no cause to prejudge either the effectiveness or the eventual outcome of this remedy. In addition, the fact that the applicant did not seek any award for non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph 190 of the judgment) is fairly significant. 9. The question also arises as to what useful purpose is served by the operative provisions of the judgment. In the final analysis, the majority of the Grand Chamber simply confirm what the German judicial authorities – the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court and the Federal Constitutional Court