GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 37 and compensation both necessary and sufficient in order for a respondent State to provide adequate redress at national level in cases of ill-treatment by its agents breaching Article 3 (see paragraphs 116-19 above). However, it has also found that the question as to what measures of redress are appropriate and sufficient in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right depends on all the circumstances of the case (see paragraph 116 above). It would not, therefore, exclude the possibility that in cases in which the deployment of a method of investigation prohibited by Article 3 led to disadvantages for an applicant in criminal proceedings against him, appropriate and sufficient redress for that breach may have to entail, in addition to the above-mentioned requirements, measures of restitution addressing the issue of the continuing impact of that prohibited method of investigation on the trial, in particular the exclusion of evidence obtained by breaching Article 3. 129. In the present case, the Court does not, however, have to determine that issue and does not, therefore, have to examine at this stage whether the prohibited method of interrogation in the investigation proceedings can be said to have had a continuing impact on the applicant’s trial and to have entailed disadvantages for him. Having regard to its above findings, it considers that, in any event, the different measures taken by the domestic authorities failed to comply fully with the requirement of redress as established in its case-law. The respondent State therefore did not afford the applicant sufficient redress for his treatment in breach of Article 3. 130. It follows that the applicant may still claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. B. Compliance with Article 3 131. The Court refers to its above finding (see paragraphs 94-108) that while being interrogated by the police on 1 October 2002 the applicant was threatened with torture in order to make him disclose J.’s whereabouts and that this method of interrogation constituted inhuman treatment as prohibited by Article 3. 132. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 133. The applicant further submitted that his right to a fair trial had been violated, in particular, by the admission and use of evidence that had been obtained only as a result of the confession extracted from him in breach of Article 3. Article 6 provides in its relevant parts as follows: “1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...