KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 31 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” 119. The applicant reasoned that the very fact that her son’s detention was unacknowledged meant that he was deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner contrary to Article 5 § 1. She contended that the official cover-up of his whereabouts and fate placed her son beyond the reach of the law and he was accordingly denied the protection of the guarantees contained in Article 5 §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5. 120. The Government reiterated that the applicant’s contention regarding the disappearance of her son was unsubstantiated by the evidence and had been disproved by the investigation which the authorities had conducted. In their submission, no issue could therefore arise under Article 5. 121. The Commission considered that the disappearance of the applicant’s son raised fundamental and grave issues under Article 5 having regard to the importance of the guarantees offered by the provision for securing respect for the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3. Having established that Üzeyir Kurt was in the custody of the security forces on 25 November 1993, the Commission reasoned that this finding gave rise to a presumption of responsibility on the part of the authorities to account for his subsequent fate. The authorities could only rebut this presumption by offering a credible and substantiated explanation for his disappearance and by demonstrating that they had taken effective steps to inquire into his disappearance and ascertain his fate. The Commission concluded that neither of these requirements was satisfied in the circumstances. For these reasons in particular, the Commission found that the unacknowledged detention and subsequent disappearance of Üzeyir Kurt involved a flagrant disregard of the guarantees of Article 5. 122. The Court notes at the outset the fundamental importance of the guarantees contained in Article 5 for securing the right of individuals in a democracy to be free from arbitrary detention at the hands of the authorities. It is precisely for that reason that the Court has repeatedly stressed in its case-law that any deprivation of liberty must not only have been effected in conformity with the substantive and procedural rules of national law but must equally be in keeping with the very purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among many other authorities, the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1864, § 118). This insistence on the protection of the individual against any abuse of power is illustrated by the fact that Article 5 § 1 circumscribes the circumstances in which individuals may be lawfully deprived of their liberty, it being stressed that these circumstances must be given a narrow interpretation having regard to the fact that they constitute