KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 iii extra-judicial killing of detainees corroborate allegation of unlawful killing – in view of Court, applicant’s assertion that authorities failed to protect son’s life falls to be assessed under Article 5. Conclusion: not necessary to decide on complaint (unanimously). C. Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s son As with Article 2 complaint, no evidence adduced to substantiate allegation of illtreatment of applicant’s son in custody – complaint falls to be considered from angle of Article 5. Conclusion: not necessary to decide on complaint (unanimously). D. Article 5 Reiteration of Court’s case-law on fundamental importance of Article 5 guarantees for protection of physical liberty and personal security of individuals. Unacknowledged detention of an individual must be considered a negation of these guarantees – assumption by authorities of control over individual requires them to account for individual’s whereabouts – Article 5 requires that authorities take effective measures to safeguard against risk of disappearance and to conduct prompt effective investigation into arguable claim that an individual has not been seen since being taken into custody. In instant case, no record kept of son’s detention in village – moreover, authorities failed to carry out any meaningful investigation into applicant’s allegation – applicant never interviewed – authorities must be considered in circumstances to have failed to discharge their responsibility to account for whereabouts of applicant’s son – can be concluded that son held in unacknowledged detention without protection of safeguards guaranteed by Article 5 – in view of Court, this gives rise to particularly grave violation of that Article. Conclusion: violation (six votes to three). III. ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT HERSELF No serious consideration given by authorities to applicant’s complaint – applicant a victim of authorities’ complacency in face of her anguish and distress – suffering endured over prolonged period of time and must in circumstances be considered ill-treatment within scope of Article 3. Conclusion: violation (six votes to three). IV. ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Reiteration of Court’s case-law on nature of an effective remedy in cases of alleged serious violations of Convention rights.