ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 19 original custody records, to facilitate the attendance of the witness Hikmet Aksoy and to secure the attendance before the delegates of two State officials, Aydın Tekin (a public prosecutor) and Colonel Eşref Hatipoğlu (a gendarmerie officer) (see paragraph 43 above). The Court notes that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted under former Article 25 of the Convention (now replaced by Article 34) not only that applicants or potential applicants are able to communicate freely with the Convention organs without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities but also that States furnish all necessary facilities to enable a proper and effective examination of applications (see former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which concerned the fact-finding responsibility of the Commission, now replaced by Article 38 of the Convention as concerns the Court’s procedures). The Court also notes the lack of explanation given by the Government with regard to the custody records, and finds the explanations given by the Government in respect of the witnesses unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Consequently, it confirms the finding, reached by the Commission in its report, that in this case the Government fell short of their obligations under former Article 28 § 1 (a) to furnish all necessary facilities to the Commission in its task of establishing the facts. II. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 77. The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 of the Convention by making proper use of the redress available through the procedure of instituting criminal proceedings, or by lodging claims before the civil or administrative courts. They invoked the Court’s judgment in the Aytekin case (Aytekin v. Turkey judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII) as establishing that the Turkish authorities showed no reluctance in instituting criminal proceedings against members of the security forces and that civil and administrative remedies were effective. They submitted, in particular, that the applicant did not petition the public prosecutor as claimed in respect of the alleged disappearance of his brother, since the petition of 22 December 1993 bore no address, or any stamp of receipt or registration indicating that it had been received by the prosecutor’s office. 78. The applicant’s counsel at the hearing maintained that the applicant’s father had presented a petition at the Diyarbakır National Security Court public prosecutors’ office and stated that there was no invariable practice of registering such petitions. Further, the petition clearly identified the applicant’s claim that his brother had been taken by the security forces and identified three witnesses to that fact.