12 HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT Labita, cited above, § 121; Jalloh, cited above, § 67; and Bouyid, cited above, § 82). (b) Application of the above principles in the present case 54. In the present case the applicant claimed that the behaviour of her superiors at the workplace resulted in her having sustained bodily injuries, that is, numerous bruises on her hands, and that she was seriously humiliated. In the Court’s case-law, humiliating or debasing treatment of an individual – either in the victim’s own eyes and/or in other people’s eyes – constitutes degrading treatment (see paragraph 49 above). The applicant has thus made an arguable claim about ill-treatment which attains the minimum level of severity under Article 3. 55. The Court notes that the applicant complains of ill-treatment by her superiors, who were civil servants at the Ministry. Irrespective of whether treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents or by private individuals, the requirements as to an official investigation are similar (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 185, 7 March 2017). The Court will therefore examine whether the respondent State, in dealing with the applicant’s case, was in breach of its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. (i) Procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention 56. The Court notes that on 14 January 2012 the applicant reported the incident to the police. On the same day the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination, which was concluded on 18 January 2012. Several explanations were given by the applicant, the alleged perpetrators H.A. and A.K., and some of the applicant’s colleagues from the Ministry. However, no investigation (նախաքննություն) was ever initiated in the matter, nor was any internal investigation conducted within the Ministry (see paragraph 38 above). 57. In the present case the forensic medical examination confirmed that the applicant had sustained bruises on different parts of her arm. However, all her colleagues, who gave explanations and who were subordinates of the alleged perpetrators, denied the account of events given by the applicant. On the basis of these explanations, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant contested the investigator’s decision by lodging a complaint with the prosecutor. She also lodged a complaint with the District Court, requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted. Neither of these attempts at proceedings was successful. Although the medical examination showed that the applicant had sustained injuries, no explanation was ever provided by the investigator – or the domestic courts – for these injuries. 58. Since the applicant raised before the competent domestic authorities an arguable claim that she was ill-treated, there should have been an