ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 23 Liability for Ahmet Çakıcı’s death is therefore attributable to the respondent State and there has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 on that account. Furthermore, having regard to the lack of effective procedural safeguards disclosed by the inadequate investigation carried out into the disappearance and the alleged finding of Ahmet Çakıcı’s body (see paragraphs 80 and 10507), the Court finds that the respondent State has failed in its obligation to protect his right to life. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on this account also. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A. Concerning the applicant’s brother, Ahmet Çakıcı 88. The applicant alleged that his brother had been the victim of breaches by the respondent State of Article 3 of the Convention, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 89. The applicant submitted that his brother had been subjected to serious ill-treatment, amounting to torture, while detained at Hazro and at Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie headquarters. He had, inter alia, been beaten and subjected to electric shocks. The applicant further submitted that the failure to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances of Ahmet Çakıcı’s detention disclosed an additional breach of Article 3, relying on Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3179, § 102). 90. The Government’s submissions on this aspect were restricted to their criticisms of the Commission’s assessment of the facts and of its alleged failure to apply a strict standard of interpretation in keeping with the caselaw regarding Article 3 of the Convention. 91. The Commission considered that the evidence of Mustafa Engin, who had witnessed the after-effects of the ill-treatment of Ahmet Çakıcı and to whom Ahmet Çakıcı had spoken of being beaten and subjected to electric shocks, provided a sufficient basis for finding that Ahmet Çakıcı had been tortured. It expressed the consideration that in cases of unacknowledged detention and disappearance independent, objective medical evidence or eyewitness testimony was unlikely to be forthcoming and that to require either as a prerequisite of a finding of a violation of Article 3 would undermine the protection afforded by that provision. 92. The Court notes that Mustafa Engin’s evidence to the delegates was judged to be reliable and credible. This witness was detained in the same room as Ahmet Çakıcı for a period of sixteen to seventeen days and had the