Sexual abuse
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEThe Criminal Code The Criminal Code The Criminal Code 115. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code as in force at the material time read as follows: Article 31 “(1) Any person over the age of eighteen who commits an offence while he or she is capable of discernment shall be criminally liable. (2) Persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen shall be criminally liable if, at the time of the offence, they were capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions and of controlling them.” Article 149 “(1) Any person who engages with a minor under the age of fourteen in acts aimed at arousing or satisfying a sexual impulse without intercourse shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to six years for sexual abuse ( блудство ). (2) Any person who commits sexual abuse using force or threats, taking advantage of the victim’s vulnerability or placing the victim in a vulnerable situation, or abusing a position of dependence or authority, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to eight years. ... (4) The sentence shall be three to fifteen years’ imprisonment: 1. if the acts are committed by two or more persons; ... (5) The sentence shall be five to twenty years’ imprisonment : 1. if the acts are committed against two or more minors. ...” Article 151 “(1) Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of fourteen, in so far as the act does not constitute the offence referred to in Article 152, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to six years. ...” Article 152 “(1) Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the female sex : 1. who is unable to defend herself, where she has not consented; 2. who was compelled by the use of force or threats; 3. who was reduced to a state of helplessness by the perpetrator; shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to eight years for rape. ... (4) The sentence for rape shall be ten to twenty years’ imprisonment: 1. if the victim is under fourteen years of age; ...” Article 155b “Any person who incites a minor under fourteen years of age to take part in sexual acts, whether real, virtual or simulated, between persons of the same or the opposite sex, or in lascivious displays of sexual organs, sodomy, masturbation, sadism or masochism, or to observe such acts, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to three years or to a probationary period.” Article 157 “(1) Any person who engages in an act of sexual penetration or sexual gratification with a person of the same sex using force or threats, abusing a position of dominance or authority or taking advantage of the person’s helplessness, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to eight years. (2) Where the victim is under fourteen years of age the sentence shall be three to twenty years’ imprisonment. (3) Any person who engages in an act of sexual penetration or sexual gratification with a person of the same sex under the age of fourteen shall be sentenced to between two and six years’ imprisonment. ...” Article 159 “(1) Any person who creates, exhibits, distributes, offers, sells, rents out or otherwise propagates pornographic material shall be sentenced to up to one year’s imprisonment and to a fine ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 levs [approximately 500 to 1,500 euros]. ... (4) The offences referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall be punishable by a sentence of up to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to 8,000 levs [approximately 4,000 euros] where a person who is or appears to be under the age of eighteen is employed in the production of pornographic material. ...” The Code of Criminal Procedure 116. Under Articles 207 to 211 of the 2006 Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal proceedings are instituted by the authorities where there are legal grounds ( законен повод ) and sufficient evidence ( достатъчно данни ) pointing to the commission of a criminal offence. The legal grounds may be a report ( съобщение ) addressed to the public prosecutor or another competent body alleging that an offence has been committed, a press article, statements made by the perpetrator of the offence, or direct observation by the prosecuting authorities of the commission of an offence. 117. In order to decide whether it is necessary to institute criminal proceedings the public prosecutor opens a case file ( преписка ) and carries out a preliminary investigation ( проверка ). In that connection he or she may – either in person or by delegating powers to the competent public authorities, and in particular the police – gather all the documents, information, testimony, expert opinions and other relevant evidence (section 145 of the Judiciary Act). 118. Where the prosecutor decides not to institute criminal proceedings and discontinues the case ( отказ да се образува досъдебно производство ), he or she must inform the victim of the alleged offence or his or her heirs, any legal entity affected, and the person who made the report (Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The higher-ranking prosecutor may, on an application from the above-mentioned persons or of his or her own motion, set aside the discontinuance order and order the opening of criminal proceedings (Article 46 § 3 and Article 213 § 2 of the Code). 119. Under Article 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a search may be ordered in the context of criminal proceedings where there are reasonable grounds to consider that objects, documents or IT systems containing information that may be of relevance to the case are likely to be found at a particular location. Searches may only be conducted with judicial authorisation, except in urgent situations where an immediate search is the only means of gathering and preserving the evidence (Article 161 of the Code). 120. Under Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecuting authorities may make use of special information-gathering techniques such as telephone tapping, only in investigating serious offences including those referred to in Articles 149 to 159 of the Criminal Code, and where the relevant circumstances cannot be established using other means or it would be particularly difficult for the authorities to establish them without using these techniques. The use of special information-gathering methods and techniques must be approved by a judge on a reasoned application by the prosecutor in charge of the investigation (Article 173). The Child Protection Act 121. The Child Protection Act passed in 2000 is aimed at ensuring the protection of children and respect for their rights. Section 3 establishes the defence of the child’s best interests as one of the guiding principles of child protection. Under section 11, each child is entitled to protection, in particular, against child-rearing methods that are contrary to his or her dignity and against all forms of physical, psychological and other violence. 122. The SACP is the main authority tasked with ensuring child protection, in cooperation with social services, the various ministries, mayors and the municipal social services. Under section 17a(1) of the Child Protection Act, the President of the SACP is empowered, among other things, to monitor respect for children’s rights by schools, healthcare establishments and specialised institutions such as orphanages. In the event of an infringement of these rights or of the applicable rules, he or she issues binding instructions with a view to remedying the shortcomings identified. The President of the SACP, like the municipal social welfare services, has powers to report a case to the police, the prosecuting authorities or the courts where a child is at risk. INTERNATIONAL LAWUnited Nations United Nations United Nations 123. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted on 20 November 1989 and ratified by almost all the member States of the United Nations, is designed to recognise and protect specific rights for children, extending to the latter the concept of human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 124. The relevant provisions of that Convention read as follows: Article 3 “1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. ...” Article 19 “1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. 2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.” 125. The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its General Comment No. 13 of 18 April 2011, entitled “The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence” and prompted by the “[alarming] extent and intensity of violence exerted on children”, it made the following observations concerning Article 19 of that Convention : (a) Article 19 § 1 prohibits all forms of violence, including physical bullying and hazing by adults and by other children; (b) sexual abuse comprises any sexual activities imposed by an adult on a child, or “committed against a child by another child, if the child offender is significantly older than the child victim or uses power, threat or other means of pressure”; (c) Article 19 § 1 prohibits “[t]he process of taking, making, permitting to take, distributing, showing, possessing or advertising indecent photographs ... and videos of children ...”; (d) Article 19 § 2 imposes an obligation to take measures to identify and report violence, to investigate and to ensure judicial involvement. 126. As regards investigations, General Comment No. 13 states as follows: “Investigation of instances of violence, whether reported by the child, a representative or an external party, must be undertaken by qualified professionals who have received role-specific and comprehensive training, and require a child rights ‑ based and child-sensitive approach. Rigorous but child-sensitive investigation procedures will help to ensure that violence is correctly identified and help provide evidence for administrative, civil, child-protection and criminal proceedings. Extreme care must be taken to avoid subjecting the child to further harm through the process of the investigation. Towards this end, all parties are obliged to invite and give due weight to the child’s views.” The General Comment specifies that judicial involvement may include criminal-law procedures “which must be strictly applied in order to abolish the widespread practice of de jure or de facto impunity, in particular of State actors.” Council of EuropeThe Lanzarote Convention The Lanzarote Convention The Lanzarote Convention 127. The Council of Europe Convention on Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (“the Lanzarote Convention”), which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 July 2007 and entered into force on 1 July 2010, is designed to prevent and combat sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, protect the rights of child victims of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and promote national and international cooperation against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. It entered into force on 1 April 2012 in respect of Bulgaria and on 1 May 2013 in respect of Italy. It requires the States Parties, in particular, to criminalise all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children (Articles 18 to 24) and to adopt measures to assist victims. The Convention also lays down certain requirements to be met as regards the investigation and prosecution of such offences. The relevant parts of this Convention provide as follows: Chapter IV – Protective measures and assistance to victims Article 11 – Principles “1. Each Party shall establish effective social programmes and set up multidisciplinary structures to provide the necessary support for victims, their close relatives and for any person who is responsible for their care. ...” Article 12 – Reporting suspicion of sexual exploitation or sexual abuse “... 2. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects, in good faith, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children to report these facts to the competent services. ...” Article 13 – Helplines “Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to encourage and support the setting up of information services, such as telephone or Internet helplines, to provide advice to callers, even confidentially or with due regard for their anonymity. ” Article 14 – Assistance to victims “... 3. When the parents or persons who have care of the child are involved in his or her sexual exploitation or sexual abuse, the intervention procedures taken in application of Article 11, paragraph 1, shall include: – the possibility of removing the alleged perpetrator; ...” Chapter VI - Substantive criminal law Article 18 – Sexual abuse “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct is criminalised: (a) engaging in sexual activities with a child who, according to the relevant provisions of national law, has not reached the legal age for sexual activities; (b) engaging in sexual activities with a child where: – use is made of coercion, force or threats; or – abuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child, including within the family; or – abuse is made of a particularly vulnerable situation of the child, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence. ...” Article 25 – Jurisdiction “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention, when the offence is committed: (a) in its territory; or ... (d) by one of its nationals; or (e) by a person who has his or her habitual residence in its territory.” Article 27 – Sanctions and measures “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the offences established in accordance with this Convention are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, taking into account their seriousness. These sanctions shall include penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition. ... 3. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to: (a) provide for the seizure and confiscation of: – goods, documents and other instrumentalities used to commit the offences, established in accordance with this Convention or to facilitate their commission; – proceeds derived from such offences or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds; (b) enable the temporary or permanent closure of any establishment used to carry out any of the offences established in accordance with this Convention, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties, or to deny the perpetrator, temporarily or permanently, the exercise of the professional or voluntary activity involving contact with children in the course of which the offence was committed. ...” Chapter VII – Investigation, prosecution and procedural law Article 30 – Principles “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that investigations and criminal proceedings are carried out in the best interests and respecting the rights of the child. 2. Each Party shall adopt a protective approach towards victims, ensuring that the investigations and criminal proceedings do not aggravate the trauma experienced by the child and that the criminal justice response is followed by assistance, where appropriate. 3. Each Party shall ensure that the investigations and criminal proceedings are treated as priority and carried out without any unjustified delay. 4. Each Party shall ensure that the measures applicable under the current chapter are not prejudicial to the rights of the defence and the requirements of a fair and impartial trial, in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 5. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures, in conformity with the fundamental principles of its internal law: – to ensure an effective investigation and prosecution of offences established in accordance with this Convention, allowing, where appropriate, for the possibility of covert operations; – to enable units or investigative services to identify the victims of the offences established in accordance with Article 20, in particular by analysing child pornography material, such as photographs and audiovisual recordings transmitted or made available through the use of information and communication technologies.” Article 31 – General measures of protection “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to protect the rights and interests of victims, including their special needs as witnesses, at all stages of investigations and criminal proceedings, in particular by: (a) informing them of their rights and the services at their disposal and, unless they do not wish to receive such information, the follow-up given to their complaint, the charges, the general progress of the investigation or proceedings, and their role therein as well as the outcome of their cases; ... (c) enabling them, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of internal law, to be heard, to supply evidence and to choose the means of having their views, needs and concerns presented, directly or through an intermediary, and considered; (d) providing them with appropriate support services so that their rights and interests are duly presented and taken into account; (e) protecting their privacy, their identity and their image and by taking measures in accordance with internal law to prevent the public dissemination of any information that could lead to their identification; ... 2. Each Party shall ensure that victims have access, as from their first contact with the competent authorities, to information on relevant judicial and administrative proceedings. ...” Article 32 – Initiation of proceedings “Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that investigations or prosecution of offences established in accordance with this Convention shall not be dependent upon the report or accusation made by a victim, and that the proceedings may continue even if the victim has withdrawn his or her statements.” Article 34 – Investigations “1. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that persons, units or services in charge of investigations are specialised in the field of combating sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children or that persons are trained for this purpose. ...” Article 35 – Interviews with the child “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that: (a) interviews with the child take place without unjustified delay after the facts have been reported to the competent authorities; (b) interviews with the child take place, where necessary, in premises designed or adapted for this purpose; (c) interviews with the child are carried out by professionals trained for this purpose; (d) the same persons, if possible and where appropriate, conduct all interviews with the child; (e) the number of interviews is as limited as possible and in so far as strictly necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings; (f) the child may be accompanied by his or her legal representative or, where appropriate, an adult of his or her choice, unless a reasoned decision has been made to the contrary in respect of that person. 2. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that all interviews with the victim or, where appropriate, those with a child witness, may be videotaped and that these videotaped interviews may be accepted as evidence during the court proceedings, according to the rules provided by its internal law. ...” Article 36 – Criminal court proceedings “1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures, with due respect for the rules governing the autonomy of legal professions, to ensure that training on children’s rights and sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children is available for the benefit of all persons involved in the proceedings, in particular judges, prosecutors and lawyers. ...” Chapter IX – International co-operation Article 38 – General principles and measures for international co-operation “1. The Parties shall co-operate with each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and through the application of relevant applicable international and regional instruments, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation and internal laws, to the widest extent possible, for the purpose of: (a) preventing and combating sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children; (b) protecting and providing assistance to victims; (c) investigations or proceedings concerning the offences established in accordance with this Convention. 2. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that victims of an offence established in accordance with this Convention in the territory of a Party other than the one where they reside may make a complaint before the competent authorities of their State of residence. ...” The Explanatory Report on the Lanzarote Convention 128. The Explanatory Report on the Lanzarote Convention stresses that Article 18, which defines the offence of sexual abuse of a child, requires that children, irrespective of their age, be protected in “situations where the persons involved abuse a relationship of trust with the child resulting from a natural, social or religious authority which enables them to control, punish or reward the child emotionally, economically, or even physically.” 129. With regard to Article 30 of the Lanzarote Convention concerning the principles governing investigations, the Explanatory Report specifies as follows. (a) According to paragraph 3 of that Article, investigations and proceedings “should be treated as priority and without unjustified delays, as the excessive length of proceedings may be understood by the child victim as a denial of his testimony or a refusal to be heard and could exacerbate the trauma which he or she has already suffered”. (b) Paragraph 5, first indent, states that “the Parties must take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure an effective investigation and prosecution of the offences established ... It is for the Parties to decide on the methods of investigation to be used. However, States should allow, where appropriate and in conformity with the fundamental principles of their internal law, the use of covert operations. ” (c) The second indent urges the Parties “to develop techniques for examining material containing pornographic images in order to make it easier to identify victims.” Regarding the recommendation to conduct covert operations where appropriate, the report specifies that “it is left to the Parties to decide on when and under which circumstances such investigative methods should be allowed, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of proportionality in relation to the rules of evidence and regarding the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation.” Declaration of the Lanzarote Committee on protecting children in out-of-home care from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse 130. The Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse (“the Lanzarote Committee”) is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the Lanzarote Convention. To that end it is mandated, in particular, to facilitate the effective use and implementation of the Convention, including the identification of any problems, and to express an opinion on any question concerning its application (Article 41 §§ 1 and 3 of the Lanzarote Convention). 131. At its 25 th meeting (15-18 October 2019) the Lanzarote Committee adopted a declaration on protecting children in out-of-home care from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. The relevant parts of the declaration read as follows: “The Lanzarote Committee calls upon the States Parties to the Lanzarote Convention to: ... 2. ensure that in all types of out of home care settings there are: (i) comprehensive screening procedures for all persons taking care of children; (ii) specific measures to prevent abuse of children’s increased vulnerability and dependence; (iii) adequate mechanisms for supporting children to disclose any sexual violence; (iv) protocols to ensure that, in the event of disclosure, effective follow-up is given in terms of assistance to the alleged victims and investigation of the alleged offences by the appropriate authorities; (v) clear procedures to allow for the possibility of removing the alleged perpetrator from the out of home care setting from the onset of the investigation; ... 4. provide victims of sexual abuse in out-of-home care settings with long-term assistance in terms of medical, psychological and social support, and also provide them with legal aid and compensation; ... 8. encourage research and action at national and international levels to: (i) analyse and review the phenomenon of child sexual abuse in all types of out ‑ of ‑ home care, including the issue of liability of legal persons; (ii) allow the voices of the survivors of child sexual abuse in out-of-home care to be heard and acknowledged; (iii) identify best practices for supporting survivors of child sexual abuse that occurred in out-of-home care; (iv) develop comprehensive planning for addressing child sexual abuse in out-of-home care by effective measures for prevention, service provision and the prosecution of offenders.” The European Social Charter 132. Article 7 of the European Social Charter (adopted in 1961 and revised in 1996) provides that children and young persons have the right to special protection against physical and moral danger to which they are exposed. Article 17 of the Revised Social Charter provides for the right of children and young persons to appropriate social, legal and economic protection. Sub-paragraph 1 (b) of Article 17 requires, in particular, that all appropriate and necessary measures be taken to protect children and young persons against negligence, violence or exploitation. Guidelines on child-friendly justice 133. The Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice were adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010. The relevant passages read as follows: III. Fundamental principles A. Participation “1. The right of all children to be informed about their rights, to be given appropriate ways to access justice and to be consulted and heard in proceedings involving or affecting them should be respected. This includes giving due weight to the children’s views bearing in mind their maturity and any communication difficulties they may have in order to make this participation meaningful. ...” B. Best interests of the child “1. Member states should guarantee the effective implementation of the right of children to have their best interests be a primary consideration in all matters involving or affecting them. ...” D. Protection from discrimination “... 2. Specific protection and assistance may need to be granted to more vulnerable children, such as migrant children, refugee and asylum-seeking children, unaccompanied children, children with disabilities, homeless and street children, Roma children, and children in residential institutions.” IV. Child-friendly justice before, during and after judicial proceedings A. General elements of child-friendly justice “1. Information and advice 1. From their first involvement with the justice system or other competent authorities (such as the police, immigration, educational, social or health care services) and throughout that process, children and their parents should be promptly and adequately informed of, inter alia : a. their rights, in particular the specific rights children have with regard to judicial or non-judicial proceedings in which they are or might be involved, and the instruments available to remedy possible violations of their rights including the opportunity to have recourse to either a judicial or non-judicial proceeding or other interventions. This may include information on the likely duration of proceedings, possible access to appeals and independent complaints mechanisms; b. the system and procedures involved, taking into consideration the particular place the child will have and the role he or she may play in it and the different procedural steps; c. the existing support mechanisms for the child when participating in the judicial or non-judicial procedures; d. the appropriateness and possible consequences of given in-court or out-of-court proceedings; e. where applicable, the charges or the follow-up given to their complaint; f. the time and place of court proceedings and other relevant events, such as hearings, if the child is personally affected; g. the general progress and outcome of the proceedings or intervention; ... k. the availability of the services (health, psychological, social, interpretation and translation, and other) or organisations which can provide support and the means of accessing such services along with emergency financial support, where applicable; l. any special arrangements available in order to protect as far as possible their best interests if they are resident in another state. 2. The information and advice should be provided to children in a manner adapted to their age and maturity, in a language which they can understand and which is gender and culture sensitive. 3. As a rule, both the child and parents or legal representatives should directly receive the information. Provision of the information to the parents should not be an alternative to communicating the information to the child. ...” D. Child-friendly justice during judicial proceedings “... 3. Right to be heard and to express views 44. Judges should respect the right of children to be heard in all matters that affect them or at least to be heard when they are deemed to have a sufficient understanding of the matters in question. Means used for this purpose should be adapted to the child’s level of understanding and ability to communicate and take into account the circumstances of the case. Children should be consulted on the manner in which they wish to be heard. ... 48. Children should be provided with all necessary information on how effectively to use the right to be heard. However, it should be explained to them that their right to be heard and to have their views taken into consideration may not necessarily determine the final decision. 49. Judgments and court rulings affecting children should be duly reasoned and explained to them in language that children can understand, particularly those decisions in which the child’s views and opinions have not been followed. ... 5. Organisation of the proceedings, child-friendly environment and child-friendly language 54. In all proceedings, children should be treated with respect for their age, their special needs, their maturity and level of understanding, and bearing in mind any communication difficulties they may have. Cases involving children should be dealt with in non-intimidating and child-sensitive settings. ... 58. Children should be allowed to be accompanied by their parents or, where appropriate, an adult of their choice, unless a reasoned decision has been made to the contrary in respect of that person. 59. Interview methods, such as video or audio-recording or pre-trial hearings in camera, should be used and considered as admissible evidence. ... 6. Evidence/statements by children 64. Interviews of and the gathering of statements from children should, as far as possible, be carried out by trained professionals. Every effort should be made for children to give evidence in the most favourable settings and under the most suitable conditions, having regard to their age, maturity and level of understanding and any communication difficulties they may have. 65. Audiovisual statements from children who are victims or witnesses should be encouraged, while respecting the right of other parties to contest the content of such statements. 66. When more than one interview is necessary, they should preferably be carried out by the same person, in order to ensure coherence of approach in the best interests of the child. 67. The number of interviews should be as limited as possible and their length should be adapted to the child’s age and attention span. 68. Direct contact, confrontation or interaction between a child victim or witness with alleged perpetrators should, as far as possible, be avoided unless at the request of the child victim. ... 70. The existence of less strict rules on giving evidence such as absence of the requirement for oath or other similar declarations, or other child-friendly procedural measures, should not in itself diminish the value given to a child’s testimony or evidence. ... 73. A child’s statements and evidence should never be presumed invalid or untrustworthy by reason only of the child’s age.” V. Promoting other child-friendly actions “Member states are encouraged to: ... e. facilitate children’s access to courts and complaint mechanisms and further recognise and facilitate the role of NGOs and other independent bodies or institutions such as children’s ombudsmen in supporting children’s effective access to courts and independent complaint mechanisms, both on a national and international level; ... g. develop and facilitate the use by children and others acting on their behalf of universal and European human and children’s rights protection mechanisms for the pursuit of justice and protection of rights when domestic remedies do not exist or have been exhausted; ... j. set up child-friendly, multi-agency and interdisciplinary centres for child victims and witnesses where children could be interviewed and medically examined for forensic purposes, comprehensively assessed and receive all relevant therapeutic services from appropriate professionals; k. set up specialised and accessible support and information services, such as online consultation, help lines and local community services free of charge; ...” Recommendation Rec(2005)5 of the Committee of Ministers on the rights of children living in residential institutions 134. In this recommendation, adopted on 16 March 2005, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe called on the governments of the member States to adopt the necessary legislative and other measures to guarantee that the principles and quality standards set out in the recommendation were observed, in particular by putting in place an efficient system of monitoring and external control of residential institutions. Under the heading of basic principles, the recommendation stated as follows: “– any measures of control and discipline which may be used in residential institutions, including those with the aim of preventing self-inflicted harm or injury to others, should be based on public regulations and approved standards; ...” The recommendation also set forth certain specific rights for children living in residential institutions, including: “– the right to respect for the child’s human dignity and physical integrity; in particular, the right to conditions of human and non-degrading treatment and a non-violent upbringing, including the protection against corporal punishment and all forms of abuse; ... – the right to make complaints to an identifiable, impartial and independent body in order to assert children’s fundamental rights.” European Union 135. Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also sets out provisions designed to strengthen the prevention of this type of crime and the protection of the victims thereof. It contains provisions similar to those of the Lanzarote Convention. The time-limit for transposal of the directive was 18 December 2013, after the events of relevance to the present case. 136. Prior to Directive 2011/93/EU, Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography provided that member States should criminalise the most serious forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children by means of a comprehensive approach including effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions accompanied by the widest possible judicial cooperation, and provide a minimum level of assistance to victims. For its part, Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings established a set of victims’ rights in criminal proceedings, including the right to protection and compensation. 137. The Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, which entered into force in 2005 and was applicable at the time of the events in the present case, is designed to supplement and facilitate implementation of the provisions concerning mutual legal assistance among the European Union member States. THE LAW SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE GRAND CHAMBER 138. The Court notes that the adoptive parents of the three applicants lodged the original application on the applicants’ behalf and also on their own behalf. On 5 September 2016 the President of the Section decided to give notice of the complaints to the respondent Government in so far as they related to the three minor applicants, and to declare inadmissible the complaints raised by the parents on their own behalf (see paragraph 4 above). Under Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court, the decision to declare those complaints inadmissible is final. 139. The Chamber, in its judgment, reiterated these circumstances and specified that the judgment did not concern the complaints that had been declared inadmissible (see X and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/16, § 58, 17 January 2019 – “the Chamber judgment”). 140. In the Grand Chamber proceedings, the applicants maintained that the Court should examine the complaints submitted by the parents on their own behalf. The Government disagreed, arguing that the decision to declare part of the application inadmissible was final. 141. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the content and scope of the “case” referred to the Grand Chamber are delimited by the Chamber’s decision on admissibility and do not include the complaints that have been declared inadmissible (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 100, 4 December 2018, and Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 84, 24 January 2017). Accordingly, the Grand Chamber will confine its examination in the present case to the complaints raised on behalf of the three minor applicants and declared admissible by the Chamber. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 142. Before the Grand Chamber, the Government reiterated the objection of inadmissibility for abuse of the right of individual application which the Chamber had dismissed in its judgment (see paragraphs 62-64 of the Chamber judgment). 143. Firstly, they argued that the applicants’ legal representatives, in an attempt to mislead the Court, had knowingly presented untrue facts, and that their allegations generally were based on fantasy and not corroborated by any hard evidence such as medical certificates. Secondly, the Government complained of what they regarded as the disrespectful and insulting language used in the applicants’ observations with regard to the Bulgarian authorities and individuals whom the applicants had described as paedophiles and accomplices to criminal acts. 144. The applicants did not comment on this issue. 145. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, an application is an abuse of the right of application if it is knowingly based on untrue facts with a view to deceiving the Court (see, among other authorities, Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). In the present case, irrespective of whether the accusations of sexual abuse committed against the applicants are well founded, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that their representatives deliberately presented facts which they knew to be untrue. 146. An application may also be regarded as an abuse of the right of application where the applicant, in his or her correspondence, uses particularly vexatious, insulting, threatening or provocative language – whether this be against the respondent Government, its Agent, the authorities of the respondent State, the Court itself, its judges, its Registry or members thereof. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient for the applicant’s language to be merely cutting, polemical or sarcastic; it must exceed “the bounds of normal, civil and legitimate criticism” in order to be regarded as abusive ( see Zafranas v. Greece, no. 4056/08, § 26, 4 October 2011, and the case-law cited therein). In that connection, the legal professionals representing applicants before the Court must also ensure compliance with the procedural and ethical rules, including the use of appropriate language. In the present case the Court notes that, in their observations, the applicants made accusations against identified individuals, referring to them as “paedophiles”, and accused the Bulgarian authorities, including the Government Agents, of covering up criminal acts. Although the language used in the applicants’ observations was indeed disrespectful, the Court notes that the subject matter and the context of the present case imposed a heavy emotional burden on the parents and that two of the applicants were still minors at the time their representatives made these remarks. It therefore considers that the applicants themselves cannot be held responsible for the remarks made, and concludes that those remarks did not overstep acceptable limits to an extent that would justify rejecting the application on that ground. 147. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection should be dismissed. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 148. Relying on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that they had been the victims of sexual abuse while living in the orphanage in Bulgaria and that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect them against that treatment and in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into those allegations. 149. The Court reiterates that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and that it is not bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a Government (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018, and S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, §§ 241-43, 25 June 2020). Having regard to the circumstances complained of by the applicants and the manner in which their complaints were formulated, it considers it more appropriate to examine the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention alone (for a similar approach, see S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 30, 3 March 2015). Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Chamber judgment 150. The Chamber examined the applicants’ complaints from the standpoint of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, which it found to be applicable in the present case. With regard to the procedural aspect of those provisions, it found that the Bulgarian authorities had conducted the investigation in a sufficiently prompt, diligent and thorough manner in the circumstances of the case, that they had responded properly to the appeal lodged by the applicants’ parents and that their findings could not be considered arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, it held that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 8 in this regard (see paragraphs 98 ‑ 106 of the Chamber judgment). 151. With regard to the substantive aspect of those provisions, while noting that the applicants had not called into question the legal framework of victim protection established by domestic law, the Chamber observed at the outset that a number of general measures had been taken designed to ensure the safety of the children living in the orphanage. It went on to examine whether the Bulgarian authorities had failed in a possible obligation to take concrete preventive action to protect the applicants against a risk of ill-treatment. After observing that it had not been established that the competent authorities had known or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the applicants, it held that the situation had not given rise to any such obligation on the part of the authorities in question. The Chamber therefore found that there had been no violation of the substantive aspect of these provisions (see paragraphs 107 ‑ 10 of the Chamber judgment). The parties’ submissions before the Grand ChamberThe applicants The applicants The applicants 152. The applicants alleged that they had been the victims of sexual abuse and violence while they had been living in the orphanage in Bulgaria, in the charge of the public authorities. They submitted that their accounts had been deemed credible, on the basis of scientific methods, by their psychologists and by the Italian judicial authorities, which had requested the Bulgarian authorities to institute proceedings. They also referred to the investigative journalism giving rise to the article in L’Espresso and to a report broadcast on Italian television in 2016, which, they maintained, confirmed their allegations. 153. The applicants contended that Bulgaria was a corrupt country and a destination for paedophile sex tourism. In their view, the location of the orphanage, in a small remote village, was conducive to incidents of this type. 154. According to the applicants, the orphanage was very far from being the model institution portrayed in the reports and the Government’s observations. Referring in particular to the statements by another Italian adoptive family which they had found on an Internet forum, they maintained that the children had not been supervised continuously and had not slept in separate dormitories, that male workers had had contact with the children and that the orphanage had housed children who were older than the maximum age permitted for this type of institution. They also pointed out that the orphanage had been closed down a few years after the events in question. 155. The applicants asserted that other children had made complaints of sexual abuse prior to the events in the present case and that nothing had been done. They were not convinced by the explanation offered by the director, who, they said, had claimed that “group emotional transference” had occurred following the stories told by the young girl M. (see paragraph 113 in fine above). 156. The applicants maintained that the absence of medical certificates – the issuing of which, moreover, would have entailed invasive examinations – did not cast doubt on their statements, as sexual abuse did not always leave physical traces, and in any event such traces tended to disappear over time. Likewise, in their submission, the fact that the general practitioner had not observed signs of violence or sexual abuse did not mean that their existence should be ruled out. They asserted that it was entirely possible that children bearing signs of violence had not been sent to the doctor for examination, or that the doctor had been complicit in the abuse. 157. The applicants further contended that the Bulgarian authorities had not conducted an effective investigation capable of shedding light on the facts and identifying the persons responsible, but rather had been at pains to demonstrate that Bulgaria could not be held responsible and to call into question their parents’ ability to raise them. They pointed to several purported shortcomings in the investigations carried out, and referred in particular to the analysis contained in the blog of a certain S.S., who they said was a Bulgarian expert on children’s rights working in the non ‑ governmental sector. 158. The applicants alleged, firstly, that the Bulgarian authorities had not acted promptly and had waited several weeks, until the publication of the article in L’Espresso, before ordering an investigation. In this connection they stated that the complaint submitted to the SACP on 16 November 2012 had not been anonymous since their father’s name had featured in the message; furthermore, no action had been taken in response to the request for the reply, written in Bulgarian, to be translated. They further maintained that the journalist from L’Espresso had sent concrete evidence to the police officer, K., as early as 19 December 2012, and that the Milan public prosecutor’s office had also sent specific information, including the names of the persons responsible, to the Bulgarian embassy on 15 January 2013. 159. The applicants criticised the Bulgarian authorities for disclosing their identity and the name of the orphanage to the press, thereby publicising the events of the case. In their view, this had breached their right to confidentiality and had also alerted the perpetrators. 160. They criticised the manner in which the Bulgarian authorities had carried out the investigation, and in particular the fact of conducting the interviews with the children on the premises of the orphanage and in the presence of staff members who could have been the abusers, and not applying scientific methods. In the applicants’ view, in order to be effective the investigations should have included measures such as telephone tapping, surveillance by undercover agents, searches of the institution and of the employees’ homes, the taking of DNA samples from the children and the employees, and the temporary suspension of the director in order to prevent pressure being put on the children. In their submission, the authorities should also have lodged a request to interview the applicants, their parents and other potential witnesses. 161. The applicants asserted that in acting as they had, the Bulgarian authorities had also breached their obligations under the international conventions on the protection of children’s rights such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Lanzarote Convention. They argued in particular that Bulgaria had not enacted the general measures of protection required by the Lanzarote Convention, such as the establishment of a national register of persons convicted of paedophile offences, or orders barring such individuals from carrying out occupations involving contact with children. In the investigation in the present case the authorities had breached the victims’ right under that Convention to be informed of the follow-up to their complaint, to give evidence, to receive appropriate assistance and not to have their identity disclosed. The Government 162. In the Government’s view, the facts of the present case did not disclose a violation of the Convention. They requested the Grand Chamber to uphold the Chamber’s findings in that regard. 163. In their submission, it was beyond doubt that a legal framework existed in Bulgaria, particularly in the criminal sphere, enabling acts such as those complained of in the present case to be punished and conforming to the requirements of the relevant international instruments. Prior to 2012 the country had already enacted a number of domestic-law provisions in order to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As to the Lanzarote Convention, it had come into force in respect of Bulgaria on 1 April 2012 and had therefore not been applicable for most of the period during which the applicants claimed to have been subjected to abuse. Nevertheless, the majority of the substantive and procedural standards advocated by that Convention had been adopted between 2009 and 2011. 164. As to the applicants’ claims that they had been subjected to physical violence and sexual abuse in the orphanage, the Government submitted that the investigations carried out by the Bulgarian authorities had not brought to light any evidence to suggest that the acts in question had in fact occurred, whether with regard to the applicants or to other children in the orphanage, still less that a systematically run criminal organisation had existed. In their view, those accusations had been based solely on the applicants’ statements, which gave very little detail and contained contradictions that had been highlighted by the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities. They added that the applicants’ allegations had varied even in the proceedings before the Court; the original application had mainly complained of abuse by other children, whereas the request for referral to the Grand Chamber had contained much more serious allegations concerning the existence of an organised criminal network. 165. The Government stressed the fact that the applicants had not produced any medical certificates to corroborate their allegations of rape, in particular. Basing their view on an expert opinion, they maintained that the relevant examinations were not invasive or traumatic. 166. They further submitted that had the applicants’ allegations of very serious violence been true the general practitioner, who was based outside the orphanage and visited twice a week, would have been bound to notice traces of the said violence when conducting his check-ups. No complaint to that effect had been reported to the psychologist or to any other member of staff. The stories told by the young girl, M., had concerned a rape allegedly committed within her family, and a medical examination had been carried out straight away in response to her allegations. 167. The Government also submitted that, contrary to the applicants’ assertions, the decisions of the Italian judicial authorities, and in particular the Youth Court’s decision of 13 May 2014 (see paragraphs 94-96 above), did not contain any finding to the effect that the applicants had been the victims of criminal offences. The decision in question had merely reiterated the applicants’ statements and ordered the termination of the proceedings. In any event, that decision had not been sent to the Bulgarian authorities in charge of the investigation. 168. The Government maintained that the orphanage had taken the necessary measures to ensure the children’s safety. The orphanage had been equipped with security cameras and access by persons from outside had been subject to checks. In addition, the children had been able to report possible abuse, as they had had access to a telephone and to the number of the national helpline for children in danger, and to the orphanage’s psychologist. The children had also attended school and, in some cases, returned home to their families periodically, with the result that they had had contact with the outside world. 169. In view of the seriousness of the applicants’ allegations, a team of psychologists had been sent to the orphanage for a week following the first inspection in January 2013, in order to provide the children with the necessary support. 170. As to the possible procedural obligations arising out of the relevant provisions of the Convention, the Government maintained that the competent authorities in Bulgaria had acted swiftly after learning of the applicants’ allegations through the articles in the press. It was only at that stage, when the name of the intermediary organisation, AiBi, had been made public, that the authorities had obtained the applicants’ identity from that organisation. Prior to that date, the information provided by the applicants’ father in his email and by the Nadja Centre had not been sufficiently precise to enable an investigation to be started. 171. The Government contended that the investigation carried out had been independent, thorough and full. In particular, the SACP and all the individuals involved in the investigations had had no hierarchical links with the potential abusers. The SACP had issued detailed methodological instructions for the conduct of inspections concerning respect for children’s rights in schools, specialised institutions and all institutions that received children. According to those instructions, the experts conducting the inspections were required, among other things, to be objective and independent, to comply with professional ethical standards, and to ensure respect for the children’s personality and dignity and the confidentiality of the personal data collected. The recommended methods for the conduct of inspections included a review of the files, interviews, a written inquiry, observation, study of best practice, group discussions and role play. 172. As to the thoroughness of the investigations, the Government argued that the obligation on the State was one of means and not one of result. In the present case the various relevant services had carried out several inspections at the orphanage and had sought explanations from the individuals who were the subject of the applicants’ allegations. In order to arrive at the truth, they had compared the results of those investigations and the applicants’ allegations. 173. In that regard the Government raised an objection in principle to any consideration of the comments made by S.S. and reiterated by the applicants (see paragraph 157 above). In their view, S.S. had no connection with the investigation and was not qualified to express an opinion. 174. On the subject of searches, the Government explained that such measures could be taken only where criminal proceedings had been initiated and where there were reasonable grounds to consider that items of evidence were likely be found at a particular location. The carrying-out of such searches was subject to judicial authorisation except in urgent cases. In the present case the applicants’ allegations and the investigations carried out had not disclosed any evidence to justify conducting searches. As to the use of covert operations, the Government stressed that the applicants had made the case public with the publication of the article in L’Espresso. Furthermore, the applicants had not requested at any stage that additional investigative steps be taken, including in their appeal against the order discontinuing the case. 175. Regarding the information provided to the applicants, the Government submitted that the proceedings in Bulgaria had not been instituted at the request of the adoptive parents, but of the authorities’ own motion, and that the decisions taken had been notified to the Italian authorities in January 2015 at the latter’s request. In the Government’s submission, there had been nothing to prevent the applicants’ parents from seeking more detailed information from the public prosecutor’s office or requesting further investigative measures. Furthermore, the observations made by the applicants had been examined by the higher-ranking prosecutor’s office. The Court’s assessmentGeneral principles General principles General principles 176. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Ill ‑ treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of that level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, principally the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 116, 25 June 2019). 177. The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, among other authorities, O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 144, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII). Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, are entitled to effective protection (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VI; M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 150; and A and B v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, § 106, 20 June 2019). 178. It emerges from the Court’s case-law as set forth in the ensuing paragraphs that the authorities’ positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention comprise, firstly, an obligation to put in place a legislative and regulatory framework of protection; secondly, in certain well-defined circumstances, an obligation to take operational measures to protect specific individuals against a risk of treatment contrary to that provision; and, thirdly, an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into arguable claims of infliction of such treatment. Generally speaking, the first two aspects of these positive obligations are classified as “substantive”, while the third aspect corresponds to the State’s positive “procedural” obligation. (a) Positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework 179. The positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention necessitates in particular establishing a legislative and regulatory framework to shield individuals adequately from breaches of their physical and psychological integrity, particularly, in the most serious cases, through the enactment of criminal-law provisions and their effective application in practice (see S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 43, and A and B v. Croatia, cited above, § 110). Regarding, more specifically, serious acts such as rape and the sexual abuse of children, it falls upon the member States to ensure that efficient criminal-law provisions are in place (see Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 82, ECHR 2013, and M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 150). This obligation also stems from the provisions of other international instruments, such as, in particular, Articles 18 to 24 of the Lanzarote Convention (see paragraph 127 above). In that connection the Court reiterates that the Convention must be applied in accordance with the principles of international law, in particular with those relating to the international protection of human rights (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 90, ECHR 2001 ‑ II, and Al ‑ Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001 ‑ XI). 180. The positive obligation of protection assumes particular importance in the context of a public service with a duty to protect the health and well ‑ being of children, especially where those children are particularly vulnerable and are under the exclusive control of the authorities (see, in the context of primary education, O’Keeffe, cited above, § 145, and, in the context of a facility for disabled children and under Article 2 of the Convention, Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48609/06, §§ 106 ‑ 16 and 119-20, 18 June 2013). It may, in some circumstances, require the adoption of special measures and safeguards. Hence, the Court has specified in relation to cases of child sexual abuse, particularly where the abuser is in a position of authority over the child, that the existence of useful detection and reporting mechanisms is fundamental to the effective implementation of the relevant criminal laws (see O’Keeffe, cited above, § 148). (b) Positive obligation to take operational protective measures 181. As with Article 2 of the Convention, Article 3 may, in certain circumstances, require a State to take operational measures to protect victims, or potential victims, of ill-treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII). 182. However, this positive obligation is to be interpreted in such a way as not to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources. Accordingly, not every risk of ill-treatment can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take measures to prevent that risk from materialising. However, the required measures should, at least, provide effective protection in particular of children and other vulnerable persons and should include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see O’Keeffe, cited above, § 144). 183. Therefore, for a positive obligation to arise it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Đorđević v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, § 139, ECHR 2012, and Buturugă v. Romania, no. 56867/15, § 61, 11 February 2020). (c) Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation 184. Furthermore, where an individual claims on arguable grounds to have suffered acts contrary to Article 3, that Article requires the national authorities to conduct an effective official investigation to establish the facts of the case and identify and, if appropriate, punish those responsible. Such an obligation cannot be considered to be limited solely to cases of ill ‑ treatment by State agents (see S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 44, and B.V. v. Belgium, no. 61030/08, § 56, 2 May 2017). 185. In order to be effective, the investigation must be sufficiently thorough. The authorities must take reasonable measures available to them to obtain evidence relating to the offence in question (see S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 45). They must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 123, ECHR 2015, and B.V. v. Belgium, cited above, § 60). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the facts or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Bouyid, cited above, § 120, and Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004 ‑ IV (extracts)). 186. However, the obligation to conduct an effective investigation is an obligation not of result but of means. There is no absolute right to obtain the prosecution or conviction of any particular person where there were no culpable failures in seeking to hold perpetrators of criminal offences accountable (see A, B and C v. Latvia, no. 30808/11, § 149, 31 March 2016, and M.G.C. v. Romania, no. 61495/11, § 58, 15 March 2016). Furthermore, the Court is not concerned with allegations of errors or isolated omissions in the investigation: it cannot replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts of the case, nor can it decide on the alleged perpetrators’ criminal responsibility (see B.V. v. Belgium, cited above, § 61, and M. and C. v. Romania, no. 29032/04, § 113, 27 September 2011). Likewise, it is not the Court’s task to call into question the lines of inquiry pursued by the investigators or the findings of fact made by them, unless they manifestly fail to take into account relevant elements or are arbitrary (see S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 50, and Y v. Bulgaria, no. 41990/18, § 82, 20 February 2020). Nevertheless, a failure to pursue an obvious line of inquiry can decisively undermine the investigation’s ability to establish the circumstances of the case and the identity of those responsible (see M.N. v. Bulgaria, no. 3832/06, § 48, 27 November 2012, and Y v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 82). 187. Moreover, for an investigation to be effective, the institutions and persons responsible for carrying it out must be independent from those targeted by it. This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence (see, among other authorities, Bouyid, cited above, § 118). 188. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is also implicit in the obligation to carry out an investigation. In this connection the Court has considered it an essential requirement that investigations be promptly instituted and carried out. Regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings, the protection machinery provided for in domestic law must operate in practice within a reasonable time such as to conclude the examination on the merits of specific cases submitted to the authorities (see W. v. Slovenia, no. 24125/06, § 64, 23 January 2014; S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 47; and V.C. v. Italy, no. 54227/14, § 95, 1 February 2018). 189. Moreover, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation (see Bouyid, cited above, § 122, and B.V. v. Belgium, cited above, § 59). In addition, the investigation must be accessible to the victim to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, in an Article 2 context, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 303, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). 190. The investigation’s conclusions, meanwhile, must be based on thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements (see A and B v. Croatia, cited above, § 108). Nevertheless, the nature and degree of scrutiny which satisfy the minimum threshold of the investigation’s effectiveness depend on the circumstances of the particular case. They must be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of investigation work (see, mutatis mutandis, Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 234, 30 March 2016). 191. The requirement of effectiveness of the criminal investigation may in some circumstances include an obligation for the investigating authorities to cooperate with the authorities of another State, implying an obligation to seek or to afford assistance. The nature and scope of these obligations will inevitably depend on the circumstances of each particular case, for instance whether the main items of evidence are located on the territory of the Contracting State concerned or whether the suspects have fled there (see, from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no. 36925/07, § 233, 29 January 2019). This means that the States concerned must take whatever reasonable steps they can to cooperate with each other, exhausting in good faith the possibilities available to them under the applicable international instruments on mutual legal assistance and cooperation in criminal matters. Although the Court is not competent to supervise respect for international treaties or obligations other than the Convention, it normally verifies in this context whether the respondent State has used the possibilities available under these instruments (ibid., § 235, and the references cited therein). 192. Lastly, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that, in cases where children may have been victims of sexual abuse, compliance with the positive obligations arising out of Article 3 requires, in the context of the domestic proceedings, the effective implementation of children’s right to have their best interests as a primary consideration and to have the child’s particular vulnerability and corresponding needs adequately addressed (see A and B v. Croatia, cited above, § 111, and M.M.B. v. Slovakia, no. 6318/17, § 61, 26 November 2019; see also M.G.C. v. Romania, cited above, §§ 70 and 73). These requirements are also set out in other international instruments of relevance to the present case such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Lanzarote Convention and the instruments adopted by the European Union (see paragraphs 124-27 and 135-37 above). More generally, the Court considers that in cases potentially involving child sexual abuse the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation must be interpreted in the light of the obligations arising out of the other applicable international instruments, and more specifically the Lanzarote Convention. Application to the present case 193. The Court observes that the applicants, owing to their young age and their status as children left without parental care and placed in an institution, were in a particularly vulnerable situation. Against this background, the sexual abuse and violence to which they were allegedly subjected, if established, are sufficiently serious to come within the scope of application of Article 3 of the Convention (see also paragraph 82 of the Chamber judgment). The Court will therefore examine whether the respondent State complied in the present case with its obligations under that provision. (a) Positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework 194. The Court notes at the outset that the applicants did not call into question the existence in the domestic law of the respondent State of criminal legislation aimed at preventing and punishing child sexual abuse. It observes in that regard that the Bulgarian Criminal Code punishes sexual abuse of minors under the age of 14 by persons over 14, even in the absence of force; that it lays down heavier penalties where sexual assault is committed against a minor; and that it prescribes penalties for specific offences such as the exposure of minors to sexual acts or the distribution of pornography (see paragraph 115 above). The provisions in question appear apt to cover the acts complained of by the applicants in the present case. 195. The Court further reiterates, in the light of the principles established in the judgments in O’Keeffe and Nencheva and Others (see paragraph 180 above), that States have a heightened duty of protection towards children who, like the applicants in the present case, are deprived of parental care and have been placed in the care of a public institution which is responsible for ensuring their safety and well-being, and who are therefore in a particularly vulnerable situation. The Court observes in that regard that the respondent State maintained that a number of mechanisms to prevent and detect ill-treatment in children’s facilities had been put in place. In their respective reports, the competent services which carried out checks at the orphanage in question stated that, pursuant to the rules in force, a number of measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the children living there. According to those reports, access to the institution by persons from outside was monitored by a caretaker and by security cameras and the children were in principle not left unsupervised by staff, in particular during the night and on trips outside the orphanage. The reports also stated that the children were seen regularly by an outside doctor and by the orphanage’s psychologist and that they had access to a telephone and to the number of the helpline for children in danger. Lastly, the Court notes that the respondent State had created a specialised institution, the State Agency for Child Protection (“the SACP”). This body was tasked, among other things, with carrying out inspections of children’s residential facilities on a periodic basis and in response to reports, and was empowered to take the appropriate steps to protect the children, or to apply to the competent authorities for the purpose of engaging the disciplinary or criminal responsibility of the persons involved (see paragraph 122 above). 196. The Court notes that the applicants contest the actual existence and the effectiveness of some of these measures and mechanisms. However, it observes that the information in the case file does not enable it to confirm or refute the factual findings contained in the reports of the relevant services which inspected the orphanage as regards the implementation of these measures. Moreover, the Court does not have in its possession any evidence to indicate that at the time of the events in Bulgaria there existed, as the applicants have suggested, a systemic issue related to paedophile sex tourism or sexual abuse of young children in residential facilities or in schools, such as to require more stringent measures on the part of the authorities (compare O’Keeffe, cited above, §§ 157-69, in which the Court found that the respondent State had had knowledge of a large number of cases of sexual abuse in primary schools and had not taken measures to prevent the risk of such abuse occurring). In view of the foregoing, the Court does not have sufficient information to find that the legislative and regulatory framework put in place by the respondent State in order to protect children living in institutions against serious breaches of their integrity was defective and thus in breach of the obligations arising out of Article 3 of the Convention in that regard. (b) Positive obligation to take preventive operational measures 197. As the Court observed above, the applicants in the present case were in a particularly vulnerable situation and had been placed in the sole charge of the public authorities. The management of the orphanage had an ongoing duty to ensure the safety, health and well-being of the children in their care, including the applicants. In these circumstances the Court considers that the obligation imposed on the authorities by Article 3 of the Convention to take preventive operational measures where they have, or ought to have, knowledge of a risk that a child may be subjected to ill ‑ treatment, was heightened in the present case and required the authorities in question to exercise particular vigilance. It must therefore ascertain whether, in the particular case, the authorities of the respondent State knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the applicants of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 and, if so, whether they took all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid that risk (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman, cited above, § 116). 198. The Court notes, on the basis of the documents produced by the Government, that the domestic investigations did not find it established that the director of the orphanage, another member of staff or any other authority had been aware of the abuse alleged by the applicants. According to the investigators’ reports, the psychologist and the general practitioner, who monitored the children in the orphanage on a regular basis, told the investigators that they had not detected any signs leading them to suspect that the applicants or other children had been subjected to violence or sexual abuse. As to the case of the young girl M., referred to by the applicants, the evidence in the file shows that it did not concern abuse committed in the orphanage (see paragraphs 56 and 113 in fine above). In these circumstances, and in the absence of evidence corroborating the assertion that the first applicant had reported abuse to the director, the Court does not have sufficient information to find that the Bulgarian authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the applicants of being subjected to ill-treatment, such as to give rise to an obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect them against such a risk (see, conversely, Đorđević, cited above, §§ 144-46; V.C. v. Italy, cited above, §§ 99-102; and Talpis v. Italy, no. 41237/14, § 111, 2 March 2017). 199. In view of the foregoing considerations (see paragraphs 194-98 above), the Court finds that there has been no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention. (c) Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation 200. The Court observes that, leaving aside the question whether the first reports made to the Bulgarian authorities were sufficiently detailed, the fact is that, as early as February 2013, those authorities had received more detailed information from the Milan public prosecutor’s office concerning the applicants’ allegations that they had been subjected to sexual abuse in the orphanage in which they had been placed, perpetrated by other children but also by several adults, both members of staff and persons from outside (see paragraph 65 above). This information showed, firstly, that the applicants’ psychologists had deemed their allegations to be credible and, secondly, that the specialised association Telefono Azzurro, the Italian CAI and the Milan public prosecutor’s office had considered them sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation (see paragraphs 22, 62 and 65 above). 201. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Bulgarian authorities were faced with “arguable” claims, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, of serious abuse of children in their charge, and that they had a duty under Article 3 of the Convention to take the necessary measures without delay to assess the credibility of the claims, clarify the circumstances of the case and identify those responsible (see M.M.B. v. Slovakia, cited above, § 66, and B.V. v. Belgium, cited above, § 66). 202. The Court observes that following the press coverage and after the Milan public prosecutor’s office had sent them the evidence gathered and the request made to the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice by the Italian CAI, the Bulgarian authorities took a number of investigative steps. Thus, the SACP and other social services carried out checks and the public prosecutor ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation. Without prejudging their effectiveness and their thoroughness (see paragraphs 210-23 below), it should be observed that these measures appear appropriate and apt, in principle, to establish the facts and identify and punish those responsible. Depending on their findings, these investigations were capable of leading to the opening of criminal proceedings against individuals suspected of committing acts of violence or sexual abuse against the applicants, but also to the adoption of other measures such as disciplinary action against any employees who may have failed in their duty to ensure the safety of the children in the orphanage, or appropriate measures in relation to children who may have committed punishable acts but were not criminally liable. The Court will therefore examine whether the investigations carried out were sufficiently effective from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention. 203. With regard, firstly, to the promptness and speediness expected of the authorities, the Court notes that an initial inspection ordered by the SACP was carried out at the orphanage as early as Monday 14 January 2013, that is, on the first working day following the Bulgarian press coverage of the article in L’Espresso. It observes in that connection that the informal contacts between the journalist from the Italian weekly magazine and an unidentified police officer (see paragraph 77 above) do not provide sufficient evidence that the applicants’ allegations had been brought to the authorities’ attention for the purposes of the Court’s case-law. Admittedly, the applicants’ father had written to the SACP as early as 16 November 2012 and the Nadja Centre had informed the SACP on 20 November 2012 of the father’s phone call. However, the Court notes that those messages did not mention the children’s names or the name of the orphanage in question and that the father’s message did not contain any specific allegations (see paragraphs 42-44 above). It is true that the SACP was empowered to carry out checks and in fact it took some steps to that end; however, these had not yet produced results by the time the article appeared in L’Espresso. In these circumstances, it seems difficult to criticise the authorities for the fact that a few weeks elapsed before an inspection was carried out. 204. The Court also notes that the SACP informed the prosecuting authorities swiftly of the disclosures made by the Italian weekly magazine and the findings of its first inspection. After receiving new and more specific evidence from the Milan public prosecutor’s office in January 2013, this time disclosing the names of individuals possibly implicated in the alleged abuse, the Veliko Tarnovo prosecutor’s office quickly ordered the opening of a police investigation and further checks by the child protection services. The Court considers that all these investigative measures were taken within a reasonable time given the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind, in particular, the longer time needed in an international cooperation context for information to be sent between the various services involved and for documents to be translated. The two cases opened by the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities were completed within a matter of months, in June and November 2013 respectively, and led the authorities to conclude that the evidence obtained did not constitute grounds for instituting criminal proceedings. 205. It is true that longer periods of time elapsed subsequently before the findings of the investigation were sent to the Italian authorities and the applicants’ parents. Nevertheless, the Court considers that these periods did not compromise the effectiveness of the investigation, which was completed in 2013 (see paragraphs 100-02 above). 206. In view of the above, the Court considers that there is no reason to call into question the promptness and expedition with which the Bulgarian authorities acted. 207. As to the applicants’ claim that the SACP lacked independence and objectivity, the Court observes that the SACP is an administrative authority specialised in child protection, empowered to monitor compliance with the regulations applicable in children’s residential facilities, to identify possible shortcomings in the arrangements to ensure the safety and care of those children, and to take steps to remedy such shortcomings. The Court notes that neither the SACP nor its employees were implicated in the case and, moreover, that there is no evidence in the case file capable of casting doubt on their independence. As to the SACP’s alleged lack of objectivity, the Court will address this issue below (see paragraph 224). 208. The applicants also claimed that the Bulgarian authorities had not kept their legal representatives adequately informed of the progress of the investigation. The Court observes in that connection that Article 31 § 1 (a), (c) and (d) of the Lanzarote Convention lays down a requirement to inform victims of their rights and the services at their disposal and, unless they do not wish to receive such information, of the progress of the proceedings and their right to be heard, while providing them, where necessary, with appropriate support services (see paragraph 127 above). It notes that in the present case the applicants’ parents did not lodge a formal complaint in Bulgaria and did not contact the prosecuting authorities in charge of the criminal investigation, which was instituted in response to the SACP’s reports despite the absence of a formal complaint, in line with the recommendations of the Lanzarote Convention. However, even though the applicants’ parents did not seek to be involved in the investigation, the Court finds it regrettable that the Bulgarian authorities did not attempt to contact them in order to provide them with the necessary information and support. Although the parents were indeed informed through the Italian authorities of the outcome of the criminal investigation (see paragraphs 100 ‑ 02 above), the fact that they were not provided with information and support in good time prevented them from taking an active part in the various proceedings, with the result that they were unable to lodge an appeal until long after the investigations had been concluded (see paragraphs 104 ‑ 09 above). 209. In so far as the applicants complained that the authorities had disclosed their names to the press, the Court notes that they did not submit a separate complaint in this regard, notably under Article 8 of the Convention, but instead maintained that this circumstance constituted an aspect of the ineffectiveness, as they saw it, of the investigation. In that regard, the Court does not have any information in its possession to indicate that the investigating authorities were responsible for such a disclosure or that it undermined the effectiveness of the investigation. Moreover, it observes that the SACP claimed to have taken certain measures in response to the complaint made by the applicants’ parents (see paragraph 64 above). 210. As to the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court reiterates at the outset that the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation is an obligation not of result but of means. Accordingly, the sole fact that the investigations in the present case did not result in specific persons being held criminally or otherwise liable is not sufficient to cast doubt on their effectiveness (see A and B v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 110 and 129, and M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/08, § 111, 15 November 2011). 211. It observes in this connection that the competent domestic authorities took a number of investigative measures. In the course of the first inspection, carried out in January 2013 following the press disclosures concerning the case and the identification of the applicants, the child protection services carried out on ‑ site checks to verify the proper running of the orphanage and, according to the reports drawn up by the investigators in that regard, consulted the files, including the medical records, of the applicants and the other children who had lived there during the period in question. They interviewed the director of the orphanage, the other members of staff, the general practitioner and the mayor of the municipality, who was responsible for the running of the orphanage. They also interviewed the children living in the orphanage, conducting interviews – albeit in a format that was not adapted to the children’s age and level of maturity and without video-recording them – and asking the older children to complete an anonymous questionnaire (see, as regards in particular the need to conduct interviews with children in premises suitable for this purpose and to videotape their statements, Article 35 §§ 1 and 2 of the Lanzarote Convention, cited at paragraph 127 above). During the second set of inquiries, conducted in February 2013 by a team of experts from the different administrative authorities concerned and the police following receipt of the more detailed information sent by the Milan public prosecutor’s office, further documentary checks were carried out and several of the persons concerned were interviewed. In particular, the police questioned various men who might have been the alleged perpetrators named by the applicants and some of whom, like the driver Da., the caretaker K. and the heating technician I., were employees of the orphanage, while others, like the photographer D. and the electrician N., worked there occasionally. Interviews were also conducted with four children mentioned by the applicants who still lived in the orphanage, although, again, their statements were not video-recorded and the child B. had to be interviewed a second time by the police (see paragraphs 68 and 72 above, and Article 35 §§ 1 and 2 of the Lanzarote Convention). 212. The Court further notes that the authorities apparently neglected to pursue some lines of inquiry which might have proved relevant in the circumstances of the case, and to take certain investigative measures. 213. It reiterates in that connection that the authorities’ obligation to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation is triggered as soon as they receive arguable allegations of sexual abuse. This obligation cannot be limited to responding to any requests made by the victim or leaving it to the initiative of the victim to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigatory procedures (see S.M. v. Croatia, cited above, § 314, and Y v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 93; see also S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 50, in which the Court criticised the authorities for not following certain lines of inquiry, even though the applicant had not challenged an order discontinuing the proceedings in part, and M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria, no. 40020/03, § 104, 31 July 2012, in which the Court identified some witnesses whom the authorities should have questioned, although the issue had not been raised in the domestic proceedings). 214. Similarly, it should be emphasised that other international instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Lanzarote Convention have incorporated the standards of the Court’s case ‑ law in relation to violence against children, particularly as regards the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation (see Article 19 § 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as interpreted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, paragraphs 124-26 above, and also Articles 12-14 and 30-38 of the Lanzarote Convention read in conjunction with the Explanatory Report on that Convention, paragraphs 127-28 above). Under the terms of those instruments, whose applicability ratione temporis to the investigations in the present case has not been disputed (see paragraph 163 above), States are required to take the appropriate legislative and other measures to provide the necessary support for the child and those who have the care of the child, for the purposes of reporting, identification and investigation (Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child), with a view to assisting and advising them (Articles 11-14 of the Lanzarote Convention) while protecting their anonymity (Article 13 of the Lanzarote Convention, which also refers to reporting by means of confidential telephone and Internet helplines). The aim of these provisions is to ensure that investigations, while securing the defence rights of the accused, are conducted in the child’s best interests (Article 30 §§ 1, 4 and 5 of the Lanzarote Convention). The Lanzarote Convention also stipulates the need to enable the children concerned “to be heard, to supply evidence and to choose the means of having their views, needs and concerns presented, directly or through an intermediary, and considered” (Article 31 § 1 (c) of the Lanzarote Convention), including by allowing them to be accompanied by their legal representative. In order to keep the number of interviews to a minimum and thus avoid further trauma, the Lanzarote Convention also provides for the use of video-recording and recommends that such recordings should be accepted as evidence (Article 35). 215. In the present case the Court notes that the applicants’ accounts, as obtained and recorded by the psychologists from the RTC with the help of the applicants’ father, and the accounts they subsequently gave to the Italian public prosecutor for minors, which were also recorded on DVD, were deemed credible by the Italian authorities on the basis of the findings made by specialists, contained some precise details, and named individuals as the perpetrators of the alleged abuse. Most of the available documents were transmitted progressively to the Bulgarian authorities in the context of several requests for the opening of criminal proceedings made by the Milan public prosecutor via diplomatic channels and later by the Italian Ministry of Justice and the CAI (see paragraphs 62, 65 and 97 above). If the Bulgarian authorities had doubts as to the credibility of those allegations, in particular on account of certain contradictions observed in the applicants’ successive accounts or the possibility that their parents had influenced them, they could have attempted to clarify the facts by lodging a request to interview the applicants and their parents (for a similar situation, see G.U. v. Turkey, no. 16143/10, § 71, 18 October 2016). This would have made it possible to assess the credibility of the applicants’ allegations and if necessary to obtain further details concerning some of them. As professionals who had heard the children’s statements, the various psychologists who had spoken with the applicants in Italy would also have been in a position to provide relevant information. 216. It is true that it might not have been advisable for the Bulgarian authorities to interview the applicants – an option left open by the Italian prosecutor, who had advised against questioning the applicants further in view of the fact that the Bulgarian authorities might wish to interview them (see paragraph 92 above) – given the risk of exacerbating whatever trauma the applicants may have suffered, the risk that the measure would prove unsuccessful in view of the time that had passed since their initial disclosures, and the possibility that their accounts would be tainted by overlapping memories or outside influences. Nevertheless, the Court considers that in these circumstances the Bulgarian authorities should have assessed the need to request such interviews. The decisions given by the prosecuting authorities do not, however, contain any reasoning in this regard and the possibility of questioning the applicants appears not to have been considered, presumably for the sole reason that they were not living in Bulgaria. The Court observes in that regard that Article 38 § 2 of the Lanzarote Convention provides that victims of alleged abuse may make a complaint before the competent authorities of their State of residence and cannot be required to travel abroad. Article 35 of that Convention, for its part, provides that all interviews with the child should as far as possible be conducted by the same person and that, where possible, audiovisual recordings should be used in evidence. Hence, in the instant case the Bulgarian authorities, guided by the principles set out in the international instruments, could have put measures in place to assist and support the applicants in their dual capacity as victims and witnesses, and could have travelled to Italy in the context of mutual legal assistance or requested the Italian authorities to interview the applicants again. 217. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, in transnational cases the procedural obligation to investigate may entail an obligation to seek the cooperation of other States for the purposes of investigation and prosecution (see paragraph 191 above). The possibility of recourse to international cooperation for the purposes of investigating child sexual abuse is also expressly provided for by Article 38 of the Lanzarote Convention (see paragraph 127 above). In the present case, although the Milan public prosecutor declined jurisdiction on the grounds that there was an insufficient jurisdictional link with Italy in respect of the facts, it would have been possible for the applicants to be interviewed under the judicial cooperation mechanisms existing within the European Union in particular (see paragraph 137 above). 218. Even if they had not sought to interview the applicants directly, the Bulgarian authorities could at least have requested from their Italian counterparts the video-recordings made during the applicants’ conversations with the psychologists from the RTC and their interviews with the public prosecutor for minors (see paragraphs 16 and 82 above). Because of this omission in the investigation, which could very easily have been avoided, the Bulgarian authorities were not in a position to request professionals “trained for this purpose” to view the audiovisual material and assess the credibility of the accounts given (see Article 34 § 1 and Article 35 § 1 (c) of the Lanzarote Convention). 219. Similarly, as the applicants did not produce medical certificates, the Bulgarian authorities could, again in the context of international judicial cooperation, have requested that they undergo a medical examination which would have enabled certain possibilities to be confirmed or ruled out, in particular the first applicant’s allegations of rape. 220. The Court further notes that the applicants’ accounts and the evidence furnished by their parents also contained information concerning other children who had allegedly been victims of abuse and children alleged to have committed abuse. In that connection it observes that even if it was not possible to institute criminal proceedings against children under the age of criminal responsibility, some of the acts described by the applicants as having been perpetrated by other children amounted to ill ‑ treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention and violence within the meaning of Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (see paragraph 124 above); hence, the authorities were bound by their procedural obligation to shed light on the facts alleged by the applicants. However, despite these reports, the investigations were limited to interviewing and issuing questionnaires to a few children still living in the orphanage, in an environment that was liable to influence their answers (as regards the conditions in which those interviews took place, see paragraph 211 above). Indeed, the Court notes that the Bulgarian authorities did not attempt to interview all of the children named by the applicants who had left the orphanage in the meantime (see, for instance, paragraphs 25 and 28 in fine above), whether directly or, if necessary, through recourse to international judicial cooperation mechanisms. 221. Furthermore, in view of the nature and seriousness of the alleged abuse, and as suggested by the applicants, investigative measures of a more covert nature such as surveillance of the perimeter of the orphanage, telephone tapping or the interception of telephone and electronic messages, as well as the use of undercover agents, should have been considered. Covert operations of this kind are expressly provided for in Article 30 § 5 of the Lanzarote Convention and are widely used across Europe in investigations concerning child abuse. In that regard the Court takes note of the Government’s argument that such measures were liable to infringe the right to privacy of the persons concerned and required judicial authorisation, based on the existence of credible evidence that an offence had been committed. It reiterates that considerations relating to compliance with the guarantees contained in Article 8 of the Convention may legitimately place restraints on the scope of investigative action (see Đorđević, cited above, § 139). Nevertheless, in the present case, such measures appear appropriate and proportionate, given the applicants’ allegations that an organised ring was involved and the fact that identifiable individuals had been named. Measures of this kind could have been implemented progressively, beginning with those having the least impact on individuals’ private lives, such as external surveillance of the entrances to and exits from the orphanage, and moving on, if necessary and on the basis of the relevant judicial authorisation, to more invasive measures such as telephone tapping, so as to ensure respect for the Article 8 rights of the individuals concerned, which must also be taken into account. 222. Although the Court cannot speculate as to the progress and outcome of the investigation had it been conducted differently, it nevertheless regrets the fact that, following the email sent by the applicants’ father to the SACP and the report made by the Nadja Centre in November 2012, the SACP merely sent the father a letter, written in Bulgarian, requesting further information (see paragraphs 42-44 above). It observes that the Lanzarote Convention encourages the use of dedicated Internet or telephone helplines as a means of reporting abuse, and does not make the opening of an investigation conditional on the victims’ statements. In the circumstances of the present case it was open to the SACP, within a framework guaranteeing anonymity to the potential victims, to request all the necessary details from the Nadja Centre, which was in contact with Telefono Azzurro; this would have made it possible to identify the orphanage in question and carry out covert investigative measures even before publication of the L’Espresso article in January 2013. While it is true, as pointed out by the Government, that the article in L’Espresso reported on in the Bulgarian press may have alerted the possible perpetrators of the abuse, the Court considers that the very fact of its publication may conceivably have prompted them to contact each other by telephone or via messaging, a possibility which serves to demonstrate the usefulness of such investigative measures. 223. It should also be observed that, despite the applicants’ allegations that the photographer D. had taken photographs and made videos, the investigators did not consider searching his studio, if necessary with the relevant court order, and seizing the media on which such images might have been stored. More generally, the seizure of telephones, computers, cameras, video-cameras or other media used by the persons specifically mentioned in the lists drawn up by the applicants’ father and sent to the Bulgarian authorities (see paragraphs 65 and 97 above) might have made it possible, if not to obtain proof of the abuse to which the applicants had allegedly been subjected several months previously, then at least to obtain evidence concerning similar abuse of other children. 224. The Court also notes that, despite the fact that three investigations were opened following the publication of the press articles and the requests from the Italian authorities, the Bulgarian authorities confined their efforts to questioning the people present in the orphanage or in the vicinity, and closed the case on the sole basis of that investigative method, which was reiterated in different forms in each of the three investigations. In that connection the Court considers it unacceptable that even before the findings of the SACP’s first inspection of the orphanage on 14 and 15 January 2013 – which was very limited in terms of the investigative acts carried out – had been recorded in a written report and notified to the judicial authority, the President of the SACP, speaking on television, accused the applicants’ parents of slander, manipulation and inadequate parenting (see paragraph 58 above). A few days later, when the outcome of the criminal investigation was still not known, a group of MPs who visited the orphanage adopted a similar attitude (see paragraph 59 above). Such statements inevitably undermine the objectivity – and hence the credibility – of the inquiries conducted by the SACP and of the institution itself (see paragraph 207 above). 225. It is of course undeniable that the Bulgarian authorities, by conducting the three investigations in question, formally responded to the requests of the Italian authorities and, indirectly, to those of the applicants’ parents. However, the Court would stress that, from the first statements made by the President of the SACP on 16 January 2013 until the final order issued by the public prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Cassation on 27 January 2016 following communication of the present application by the Court (see paragraph 111 above), the reasons given for the authorities’ decisions are indicative of the limited nature of the investigations carried out. 226. Thus, the first investigation was closed on the sole basis of the SACP’s report (see paragraphs 54 and 60 above). In the second and third investigations, the authorities, without having heard evidence from the applicants directly or even having viewed the video-recordings, attached decisive weight to the explanations offered by the persons who had been questioned and to the contradictions in the applicants’ remarks, particularly on the subject of the names and roles of the individuals they had named, although some of these inconsistencies, notably with regard to the name E., were easily explained (see paragraphs 32, 74 and 105-09 above). The final order issued on 27 January 2016 by the highest-ranking prosecutor’s office posited that the applicants had made allegations of abuse because they “[had been] fearful of being rejected by their adoptive parents, who disapproved strongly of their immoral behaviour ... [and had] sought to inspire pity ... by relating incidents that had not actually occurred in which they were the victims of crimes”. However, that order – which appears to have been based on the statement made by the President of the SACP a few hours after the commencement of the investigations three years previously (see paragraphs 207 and 224 above) – gave no details as to the factual circumstances on which these conclusions were based. 227. In the Court’s view, an analysis of the information gathered and of the reasons given for the decisions reveals shortcomings which were liable to impair the effectiveness of the investigation in the present case. The reasons given do not appear to have resulted from a careful study of the evidence obtained and appear to show that, rather than clarifying all the relevant facts, the investigating authorities sought to establish that the applicants’ allegations were false by highlighting the inaccuracies which they contained, in particular regarding the name of the director and the fact that an individual named N. had not been employed in the orphanage but had worked as an outside contractor. 228. In the Court’s view, all these considerations suggest that the investigating authorities, who did not make use, in particular, of the available investigation and international cooperation mechanisms, did not take all reasonable measures to shed light on the facts of the present case and did not undertake a full and careful analysis of the evidence before them. The omissions observed appear sufficiently serious for it to be considered that the investigation carried out was not effective for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the other applicable international instruments and in particular the Lanzarote Convention. It follows that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 229. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” Damage 230. The applicants claimed 1,600,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government considered the applicants’ claims excessive and asked the Court to reject them. 231. The Court considers that the applicants have suffered non ‑ pecuniary damage as a result of the procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention found in the present case. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it awards each of the applicants EUR 12,000 under this head. Costs and expenses 232. As the applicants did not submit a claim for reimbursement of their costs and expenses, no award is to be made under that head. Default interest 233. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court found that the applicants, owing to their young age and their status as children left without parental care and placed in an institution, had been in a particularly vulnerable situation, and that the sexual abuse and violence to which they had allegedly been subjected, if established, had been sufficiently serious to come within the scope of application of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. In the present case, the Court held that there had been no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3, finding, in particular, that it did not have sufficient information to conclude that the Bulgarian authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the applicants of being subjected to ill-treatment, such as to give rise to an obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect them against such a risk. The Court held, however, that there had been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3. In this respect, it considered in particular that the investigating authorities, who had not made use of the available investigation and international cooperation mechanisms, had not taken all reasonable measures to shed light on the facts of the present case and had not undertaken a full and careful analysis of the evidence before them. In the Court’s view, the omissions observed appeared sufficiently serious for it to be considered that the investigation carried out had not been effective for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the other applicable international instruments and, in particular, the Council of Europe “Lanzarote Convention”6.