KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 21 two occasions gone of her own volition to a notary in Bismil to repudiate the allegations made in the application (see paragraph 34 above) which had been lodged with the Commission at the instigation of the association. 77. The Commission found that the applicant’s oral statements before the delegates confirmed her intention to pursue her case against the authorities and that there was no reason to suppose that her application to the Commission, irrespective of the involvement of the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association in its preparation (see paragraphs 17 and 50 above), did not reflect her belief that the State was accountable for her son’s disappearance. 78. The Court observes that the applicant confirmed her intention to take part in the proceedings before it and designated her legal representatives for this purpose (see paragraph 2 above). Moreover, she was present at the hearing before the Court in her case. Having regard also to her clear affirmation before the delegates (see paragraph 77 above), it must be concluded that when she first contacted the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association on 23 December 1993 she was seeking redress in respect of the authorities’ refusal to admit that her son had been taken into custody and that he had not been seen since. That was the essence of her complaint against the authorities and she has steadfastly maintained that complaint in all her contacts with the domestic authorities (see paragraph 37 above) and throughout the proceedings before the Convention institutions. Her application must therefore be considered valid and freely lodged by her in the exercise of her right of individual petition. The Government’s objection is therefore dismissed. II. THE GOVERNMENT’S SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 79. Although the Government did not allude to this matter in their memorial they asserted at the hearing, as they had done at the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Commission, that the applicant had not exhausted available and effective remedies under domestic law. Her case must on that account be declared inadmissible having regard to the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention. 80. The Government pleaded that the applicant had never instituted legal proceedings to challenge the authorities’ findings, firstly, that her son had not been detained in the village and, secondly, that he was not in detention. The applicant had herself conceded that at no stage had pressure ever been brought to bear on her to dissuade her from invoking the jurisdiction of the domestic courts. Turkish law guaranteed her a range of remedies if she believed that the State was linked to her son’s disappearance. They stressed in this respect that she could have sued the authorities in administrative-law