KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 37 public prosecutor had a duty under Turkish law to carry out an investigation of allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty (see paragraph 58 above). The superficial approach which he took to the applicant’s insistence that her son had not been seen since being taken into custody cannot be said to be compatible with that duty and was tantamount to undermining the effectiveness of any other remedies that may have existed (see paragraphs 56–61 above). 142. Accordingly, in view in particular of the lack of any meaningful investigation, the Court finds that the applicant was denied an effective remedy in respect of her complaint that her son had disappeared in circumstances engaging the responsibility of the authorities. There has therefore been a violation of Article 13. VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 5 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 143. The applicant contended that forced disappearances primarily affected persons of Kurdish origin. The conclusion had to be drawn that her son was on that account a victim of a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, which provides: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 144. The applicant stated that her claim was borne out by the findings contained in the reports published between 1991 and 1995 by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. 145. The Government repudiated this allegation, maintaining that there was no factual basis to support it. They stressed further that the Turkish Constitution guarantees the enjoyment of rights to everyone within its jurisdiction regardless of considerations of, inter alia, ethnic origin, race or religion. 146. The Commission concluded that the applicant had not adduced any evidence to substantiate a breach under this head of complaint. 147. The Court agrees with the conclusion of the Commission. The evidence which has been presented by the applicant in support of her complaint does not substantiate her allegation that her son was the deliberate target of a forced disappearance on account of his ethnic origin. Accordingly, there has been no violation of the Convention under this head of complaint.