- 26 35. On 5 July 2013, the Public Prosecutor requested that the Athens Forensic Medical Service carry out a forensic medical examination, which took place on 8 July 2013. It records that the persons concerned had “no obvious macroscopic injuries”, although one of them reported pain in the upper and lower chest. The file also contains the report of a second, more thorough, forensic medical examination of two of the detainees, which records the following findings: HW: “Round shaped scratches, healing and reddish; left arm painful; this is a bodily injury for which we cannot determine the cause because of the lapse of time”. WI: “Irregularly shaped bruise, undergoing reabsorption on the right side of upper third of his right arm. Headache, left eye pain, nose pain and pain in the right arm and right side of the chest. Suggest x-ray of the nose”. 36. The Prosecutor, GK, recalls in his decision that, “under article 47(1) and 47(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prosecutor shall examine complaints but if they are manifestly unfounded, may reject them with summary reasoning. If the prosecutor considers that there may have been activity under article 243 or if the prosecutor so decides, a criminal investigation may be ordered”. In his decision, GK finds that the persons concerned were “detained and to be deported. In an effort to avoid deportation, they refused to leave and they were taken to a waiting area. They asked to see a forensic doctor and were taken to a doctor, who found that “only one of them had a scratch which was healing on the lower third part of the left arm”. However, no reference is made to the findings of the second forensic medical examination and, instead, GK concludes that the “findings of the forensic medical examination reflected the untrue claims of the accused that they were tortured and suffered heavily bodily injuries”. Consequently, he exercises his discretion under article 47(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to summarily dismiss their complaints and to close the file. There is no evidence that any further action has been taken against the police officers implicated in their alleged ill treatment. 37. Having regard to the procedural obligations to prevent ill-treatment incumbent upon Greece under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights,27 it is self-evident that the actions of the Public Prosecutor GK to investigate the serious allegations of torture and severe ill-treatment made by detainees DA, HW and WI against four named police officers are manifestly insufficient. 27 According to the Court, the investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be both prompt and thorough. That means that the authorities 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 or to use as the basis of their decisions (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, and Batı and Others v. Turkey, 3 June 2004). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], 8 July 1999, and Gül v. Turkey, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Boicenco v. Moldova, 11 July 2006).