Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook In the context of Article 3, it is of particular relevance whether the domestic authorities conducted a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible361 and whether an award of compensation was made or is at the very least concretely possible.362 In Ciorap v. Moldova (No. 2), for instance, the Court found that an award of compensation by a domestic court was “considerably below the minimum generally awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Article 3”363 and continued the examination of the application. There may also be situations in which the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators were insufficient in the eyes of the Court to establish that the applicant has lost victim status. This point is well illustrated by the Court’s judgment in the case of Mikheyev v. Russia, where the respondent Government notified the Court – after the case had been pending before the Court for a number of years – that the police officers who ill-treated the applicant had been convicted by a domestic court of abuse of official power and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The Court noted, however, that the domestic decision did not, in the circumstances of the case, affect the applicant’s victim status for the following reasons: In the present case, the Court notes firstly that the judgment of 20 November 2005 is not yet final, and may be reversed on appeal. Secondly, although the fact of ill-treatment was recognised by the first-instance court, the applicant has not been afforded any redress in this respect. Thirdly, the judgment of 30 November 2005 dealt only with the ill-treatment itself and did not examine the alleged flaws in the investigation, which is one of the main concerns of the applicant in the present case.364 In the context of the removal of aliens through deportation or extradition, the Court has held that the regularisation of an applicant’s stay or the fact that the applicant was no longer under the threat of being deported or extradited – even if the case was still pending before the Court – was “sufficient” in principle to remedy a complaint under Articles 3 (non-refoulement) or 8 (family life).365 2.2.3 Incompatibility of the Application (Article 35 § 3) Under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court will declare a complaint inadmissible if it is not compatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols. A complaint may be incompatible for one or more of the following four reasons: ratione temporis (time), ratione loci (place), ratione personae (person) or ratione materiae (subject matter). In essence, these requirements mean that a complaint 361 362 363 364 365 112 Çamdereli v. Turkey, no. 28433/02, 17 July 2008, §§ 28–29. See e.g. Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, § 56. Ciorap v. Moldova (No. 2), no. 7481/06, 20 July 2010, §§ 23–25. Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, 22 January 2006, §§ 61 and 89–90. Yang Chun Jin alias Yang Xiaolin v. Hungary (striking out), no. 58073/00, 8 March 2001, §§ 20–23; Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006.