4. Zontul as a leading judgment identifying systemic flaws in Greek administrative and judicial proceedings In Zontul the Strasbourg Court found seriously flawed both the investigation that was carried out by the coast guard as well as the criminal proceedings that followed. Among the major shortcomings identified by the Court in the coast guard investigation was the non-examination of the victim by a medical doctor despite the former’s request after his rape, and the falsification of the victim’s statement given that his rape was recorded as a “slap” and “use of psychological violence”. As for the shortcomings of the Greek criminal law system the Strasbourg Court highlighted two major issues: on the one hand, the clemency of the criminal sanction imposed on the rapist coast guard officer was manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the ill-treatment. Thus, the criminal system did not show capable of having a dissuasive preventive effect or of providing an adequate remedy to the victim. On the other, the Court noted the impossibility for the victim, who had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party but lived in London, to be kept properly informed by the authorities about the progress of these proceedings and effectively participate therein as a civil party, despite his efforts through the Greek embassy and the judicial authorities in Greece. As regards the threadbare procedures of investigation and the totally inadequate sanctioning of the law enforcement officers (procedural aspects of a violation of Article 3 ECHR), the Court recalled the following notable principles: First, states have a positive obligation under ECHR to put in place a system of protection that is sufficiently dissuasive with regard to violations covered by Article 3 ECHR. Secondly, in cases of ill-treatment by state agents there are two major measures necessary for providing adequate reparation. First, the authorities should carry out a “thorough and effective” investigation able to lead to the identification and sanctioning of those responsible. It is to be noted that under the Court’s case law, for an investigation to be effective in practice the state should have enacted criminal law provisions penalising practices that are contrary to Article 3. 11 This is an in important requirement given that it imposes upon states the obligation to enact criminal legislation that is in accordance with the European and international standards and able to lead to the effective, dissuasive sanctioning of persons responsible for ill-treatment. As shown in following sections, this is one of the major flaws of current Greek law and practice. The thoroughness and effectiveness of an investigation may be gauged by several criteria such as: the promptness with which this is initiated and carried out; the outcome of the investigation and the criminal proceedings that it leads to, including the sanction imposed and the disciplinary measures taken. In this context it is usefully recalled that the Court has stressed that in cases where state agents are charged with offences involving ill-treatment, they should be suspended from duty while being investigated or tried and should be dismissed if convicted. 12 Thirdly, states, under Article 3 ECHR, should impose adequate and dissuasive penalties. Even though the Court acknowledges the role of the national courts in the choice of appropriate penalties for ill-treatment by state agents, it retains its supervisory function and intervenes in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment imposed. Fourthly, in addition to disciplinary and criminal sanctions that should be imposed on perpetrators of ill-treatment, the victim should receive a compensation where appropriate, or, at least, to have the possibility to request and to obtain damages for the harm caused by ill-treatment. However, 11 12 Gäfgen v. Germany, GC, judgment of 1 June 2010, para. 117. See, inter alia, Gäfgen v. Germany, GC, judgment of 1 June 2010, para. 125. 5