KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 19 thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared persons which may involve a violation of the right to life (General Comment no. 6 (16th Session 1982) [37 UN GAOR, Supp, no. 40 (A/37/40), Annex V] paragraph 1). The Human Rights Committee later affirmed this statement in its Mojica v. Dominican Republic decision of 15 July 1994 with respect to the need to safeguard disappeared persons against the risks of ill-treatment. 70. Citing the above-mentioned Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras judgment of the Inter-American Court, Amnesty International reported that the practice of disappearances often involves the secret execution without trial and concealment of the body and that the prolonged isolation and deprivation of an individual are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, which is harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the victim. In its Mojica v. Dominican Republic decision of 15 July 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered that the disappearance of a person is inseparably linked to treatment that amounts to a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which mirrors Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 71. Furthermore, Amnesty International has drawn attention to the fact that “disappearances” gravely violate the rights of the “disappeared” person’s family, who almost certainly suffer severe mental anguish, often prolonged for years while uncertainty exists over their loved one’s fate. Amnesty International notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has taken this approach in its Quinteros v. Uruguay decision of 21 July 1983. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 72. Mrs Koçeri Kurt applied to the Commission on 11 May 1994 on her son’s behalf as well as on her own behalf. She complained that her son, Üzeyir, was taken into custody and that he has subsequently disappeared. She maintained that her son is a victim of breaches by the respondent State of Articles 2, 3, 5, 14 and 18 of the Convention and that she herself is a victim of breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 73. The Commission declared the application (no. 24276/94) admissible on 22 May 1995. In its report of 5 December 1996 (Article 31), it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5 in respect of the disappearance of the applicant’s son (unanimously); that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant (nineteen votes to five); that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicant’s son (unanimously); that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously) in respect of the applicant; that there had been