Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 58169/13

Furthermore, it finds no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the applicant from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, and emphasises that the Constitutional Court also explicitly referred in the applicant's case (see paragraph 11 above) to the reasoning adopted in its previous case-law, according to which appellants were to follow the procedure under Article 157a of the Code of Criminal Procedure before lodging a constitutional appeal (compare Maslák and Michálková v. the Czech Republic, no. 52028/13, § 96, 14 January 2016).

Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 58169/13

I. ÚS 510/04 of 22 February 2006; I. ÚS 448/06 of 29 August 2006; I. ÚS 1641/07 of 20 November 2007; IV. ÚS 826/08 of 29 April 2008; I. ÚS 1277/08 of 29 July 2008; III. ÚS 1132/08 of 25 June 2009; III. ÚS 2982/09 of 3 December 2009; III. ÚS 2997/09 of 9 December 2009; and IV. ÚS 2436/10 of 26 October 2010).

Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 58169/13

In this connection, the Court reiterates that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see, among many other authorities, Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 206, 22 December 2020) and that the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Mugemangango v. Belgium [GC], no. 310/15, § 131, 10 July 2020).

Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 58169/13

Article 3 of the Convention additionally requires that an official investigation be conducted even in the absence of an express complaint, if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment might have occurred (see, for example, Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007, and Gjini v. Serbia, no.1128/16, § 93, 15 January 2019).