KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 iv In instant case, authorities confronted with an arguable claim that applicant’s son detained by security forces in village – authorities obliged in circumstances to conduct, for benefit of relatives, thorough and effective investigation into disappearance – no such investigation conducted for reasons given for finding of violation of Article 5. Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two). V. ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 5 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints not substantiated. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). VI. ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION Complaint not substantiated. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). VII. ARTICLE 25 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Reaffirmation of Court’s case-law on obligation of Contracting State to ensure that applicants are able to communicate freely with Commission without being subjected to any form of pressure to withdraw or modify their complaints – expression “any form of pressure” covers not only direct coercion and intimidation but also improper indirect acts intended to dissuade or discourage applicants or potential applicants, their families or legal representatives from pursuing a Convention remedy – in instant case, Court satisfied on facts that applicant subjected to indirect and improper pressure to make statements in respect of her application to Commission – furthermore, threat of criminal proceedings against applicant’s lawyer, even if not followed up, to be considered an interference with exercise of right of individual petition – allegations against a respondent State, even if proved false, must be tested in accordance with Convention procedures and not by threat of criminal measures against applicant’s lawyer. Conclusion: violation (six votes to three). VIII. ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A. Non-pecuniary damage Separate sums awarded to applicant’s son and to applicant herself – first sum to be held by applicant for her son and his heirs. Conclusion: respondent State ordered to pay specified sums (eight votes to one).