KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 35 134. Having regard to the circumstances described above as well as to the fact that the complainant was the mother of the victim of a human rights violation and herself the victim of the authorities’ complacency in the face of her anguish and distress, the Court finds that the respondent State is in breach of Article 3 in respect of the applicant. V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 135. The applicant, with whom the Commission agreed, asserted that the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into her son’s disappearance gave rise to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government challenged this contention. Article 13 provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 136. The applicant endorsed the reasoning of the Commission in finding a violation of Article 13 (see paragraph 138 below). She maintained further that not only did the inadequacy of the official investigation into her complaint result in her being denied access to an effective remedy in respect of her son’s disappearance but that this failure on the part of the authorities was indicative of the lack of an effective system of remedies in the respondent State to address the occurrence of serious violations of Convention rights. 137. The Government reaffirmed that when the applicant first contacted the public prosecutor she never intimated that she feared that her son had been unlawfully detained or that his life was at risk. She simply wanted to ascertain whether he had been taken into custody. No complaint was lodged against the authorities. They reiterated that in the circumstances best endeavours had been made to try to trace his whereabouts. Enquiries were made (see paragraphs 39–43 above) and statements were taken by gendarmes from villagers on 23 February and 7 December 1994 which reinforced the official view that the applicant’s son had either been kidnapped by the PKK or had left the village to join the terrorists (see paragraph 38 above). There was therefore no basis on which to find a violation of Article 13. 138. The Commission found that the applicant had brought the substance of her complaint to the attention of the public prosecutor. However, her petitions received no serious consideration. The public prosecutor was not prepared to inquire further into the report issued by the gendarmes that her son had not been detained; no statements were taken from the soldiers or village guards who were involved in the military operation in the village and the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the