129 “an administrative-law action […] is a remedy based on the strict liability of the State, in particular for the illegal acts of its agents, whose identification is not, by definition, a prerequisite to bringing an action of this nature. However, the investigations which the Contracting States are obliged […] to conduct in cases of fatal assault must be able to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible […]. That obligation cannot be satisfied merely by awarding damages […]. Otherwise, […] the State's obligation to seek those guilty of fatal assault might thereby disappear.252 213. Likewise, in the case of Kaya versus Turkey the European Court of Human Rights decided that the violation of a right protected by the convention could not be redressed exclusively by establishment of civil liability and the respective payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victim.253 214. The Court deems that comprehensive reparation of the abridgment of a right protected by the Convention cannot be restricted to payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victim. In the instant case, however, the Court appreciates some of the results attained in said administrative-law proceedings, which include certain aspects of the reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, which it will take into account when it establishes the respective reparations, insofar as the outcome of those proceedings has generated res judicata and is reasonable under the circumstances of the case. c) Disciplinary proceedings 215. A disciplinary proceeding based on the facts of July 1997 commenced before the Attorney General’s Office against several members of the Armed Forces and public officials. The file before the Court only shows that on April 24, 2001 the Deputy Attorney General of the Nation decided to disciplinarily punish, with absolute dismissal from the Armed Forces or a severe reprimand, several members of the Army, and to dismiss several public officials (supra para. 96.134). Despite being a body to which the next of kin of the victims have no access, the Court appreciates the decision of said Attorney General’s Office in terms of the symbolic value of the message of reproval that this type of punishment has within the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, since the parties contributed no further information on this matter, the Court will not rule on the actions during said proceedings. d) proceeding Effectiveness of the duty to investigate within the regular criminal 216. This Court has pointed out that the right to access to justice goes beyond the processing of domestic proceedings, as it must also ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin for everything necessary to be done to learn the truth about what happened and to punish those who may be 252 See European Court of Human Rights. Yasa v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, § 74. 253 See European Court of Human Rights. Kaya v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, § 105.