KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 29 in fact meet his death in custody. As to the applicant’s argument that there exists a practice of violation of, inter alia, Article 2, the Court considers that the evidence which she has adduced does not substantiate that claim. 109. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s assertions that the respondent State failed in its obligation to protect her son’s life in the circumstances described fall to be assessed from the standpoint of Article 5 of the Convention. C. Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s son 110. The applicant, consonant with her approach to her complaints under Article 2, further alleged that her son had been the victim of breaches by the respondent State of Article 3 of the Convention, which stipulates: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 111. Relying, mutatis mutandis, on the arguments used to support her complaints under Article 2, she reasoned that the respondent State was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention since the very fact of her son’s disappearance in a context devoid of the most basic judicial safeguards must have exposed him to acute psychological torture. In addition, she had seen with her own eyes that he had been beaten by the security forces and this in itself gave rise to a presumption that he was physically tortured subsequent to his detention outside Hasan Kılıç’s house. 112. The applicant maintained that this presumption must be considered even more compelling in view of the existence of a high incidence of torture of detainees in the respondent State. With reference to the materials relied on by her to ground her allegation of a practice of violation of Article 2, she requested the Court to conclude also that her son was the victim of an aggravated violation of Article 3 on account of the existence of an officially tolerated practice of disappearances and ill-treatment of detainees. 113. She submitted further that the failure of the authorities to provide any satisfactory explanation for her son’s disappearance also constituted a violation of Article 3, and that the absence of any adequate investigation into her complaint resulted in a separate breach of that provision. 114. The Government repudiated the factual basis of the applicant’s allegation under Article 3. 115. Before the Court, the Delegate explained that in the absence of any evidence as to the ill-treatment to which Üzeyir Kurt may have been subjected while in custody the Commission did not find it appropriate to find a violation of that provision. It considered that the applicant’s complaints in respect of her son under Article 3 fell, like the Article 2 complaints, to be examined in the context of Article 5 of the Convention.