PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court a domestic remedy capable of putting an end to the ongoing violation of his or her right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is of the greatest value. However, once the applicant has left the facility in which he or she has endured the inadequate conditions, he or she should have an enforceable right to compensation for the violation that has already occurred.455 Petitions to State agencies competent to supervise the general lawfulness of the enforcement of domestic criminal judgments, such as prosecutors (general), can only be considered an effective remedy if that prosecutor’s status under domestic law offers “adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant’s complaints.”456 In the context of custody, the Court further found that domestic remedies have been exhausted when detainees approach the proper authority within the detention facility. In Melnik v. Ukraine,457 for instance, the applicant complained to the doctor of the detention facility that he had contracted tuberculosis. The authorities were thereby made sufficiently aware of the applicant’s health situation and had had the opportunity to examine the conditions of his detention. The Court further noted that the problems arising from the conditions of detention and an alleged lack of proper medical treatment did not only concern the situation of the applicant, but were of a systemic nature.458 This case also underlines the focus of the Court in recent years on structural problems, be it substantive or procedural, that require more general and proactive remedies exceeding the scope of individual cases.459 Prison overcrowding caused by structural deficiencies in a national criminal justice system, especially if already identified by domestic courts or the Court in pilot judgments itself, render existing administrative procedures “theoretical and illusory and incapable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaint.”460 c) Extraordinary Remedies Do Not Need to Be Exhausted If the remedy is not directly accessible to individuals, it will normally be regarded as an ‘extraordinary remedy’. According to the Court, extraordinary remedies do not satisfy the requirements of ‘accessibility’ and ‘effectiveness’ and therefore do not require exhaustion for purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.461 455 Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352, 23 July 2013, § 57. 456 Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004, § 63; and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, 6 September 2005, § 58. 457 Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006. 458 Ibid., § 70, with reference to Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001. 459 See Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, 10 December 2009, § 86. 460 Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, 22 October 2009; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, pilot judgments, 22 October 2009, §§ 111 and 121, respectively. 461 Moyá Alvarez v. Spain (dec.), no. 44677/98, 23 November 1999. 129