CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 13 two-pronged approach to protesters: the policemen showed maximum respect towards those who offered passive resistance and carried them away, while a number of protesters offered active resistance to policemen in implementing the planned intervention and encouraged individual Roma to oppose the police, provoking physical contact with the police in which the policemen were compelled to apply physical force by using truncheon and by hitting and kicking protesters in order to remove them. 4.9 Further, the State party provided extensive information on existing legal avenues available to the injured party to exercise its right to compensation through the institution of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. It claims that by filing a claim for compensation under article 172 of the Contracts and Torts Law, the complainant could have prosecuted the Republic of Serbia and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a civil lawsuit. It is not necessary to establish the names of all individuals who caused the damage in order to institute and conduct these proceedings. Because the legal person (the Republic of Serbia) is responsible for the damage caused by its agencies to third persons in the discharge or in connection with the discharge of their functions, it suffices to establish that the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have been involved. In deciding on the lawsuit, the court would have had to determine whether the intervention of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ officers was justified or not. If the court finds that the intervention was not justified, it would have accepted the request and ordered the State to compensate the injured party. If the intervention was considered justified, the court would have assessed whether excessive force was used and if, in the court’s opinion, it was – the request would have been accepted and the State would have been ordered to compensate the injured party. 4.10 Finally, the State party claimed that the complainant had not exhausted all domestic remedies, as the civil lawsuit described above under the objective responsibility provision is a more effective procedure to obtain redress and stands a better chance of success than the criminal procedure. It further noted that the injured party’s request to institute criminal proceedings under article 66 of the Criminal Law against policemen involved in the operation on 8 June 2000 would come under the statute of limitations on 8 June 2006. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 July 2005, the complainant submitted his comments in which he maintained all his initial claims and stressed that the State party has failed to respond to all aspects of the communication on the alleged breaches of articles 13 and 14 and to certain aspects of article 12. He further stated that the State party’s silence could be taken to mean that it has no objections on these points. 5.2 As to the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the complainant contended that the State party’s arguments on the theoretical availability of a separate law suit were unfounded. As implicitly supported by the Committee’s jurisprudence, there is no requirement for a victim to pursue multiple avenues of redress19 – criminal, civil and administrative – in order to be deemed to have exhausted domestic remedies. Moreover, given that the wrong suffered by the 19 Henri Unai Parot v. Spain, Communication No. 6/1990, Views adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 10.4 and Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, supra n.15, para. 8.6.