KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 40 For these reasons the Commission considered that the respondent State was in breach of its obligations under Article 25 § 1. 159. The Court recalls that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 25 that applicants or potential applicants are able to communicate freely with the Commission without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints (see the abovementioned Akdivar and Others judgment, p. 1219, § 105; and the abovementioned Aksoy judgment, p. 2288, § 105). 160. The expression “any form of pressure” must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or potential applicants or their families or legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy. The Court would observe that whether or not contacts between the authorities and an applicant or potential applicant are tantamount to unacceptable practices from the standpoint of Article 25 must be determined in the light of the particular circumstances at issue. In this respect, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities. In this connection, the Court, having regard to the vulnerable position of applicant villagers and the reality that in south-east Turkey complaints against the authorities might well give rise to a legitimate fear of reprisals, has found that the questioning of applicants about their applications to the Commission amounts to a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure, which hinders the exercise of the right of individual petition, in breach of Article 25 of the Convention (see the above-mentioned Akdivar and Others judgment, p. 1219, § 105). 161. Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is to be noted that the applicant was interviewed on several occasions by the authorities as from 19 November 1994 subsequent to the communication of her application by the Commission to the Government (see paragraphs 20–24 above). On 9 December 1994, and following an interview with the Bismil public prosecutor (see paragraph 20 above), she addressed statements to the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association and to the Foreign Affairs Ministry repudiating all petitions made in her name. 162. The Court is not convinced that these two statements, made shortly after the communication of the application to the Government and in the wake of the interview with the public prosecutor, can be said to have been drafted on the initiative of the applicant. Nor is it satisfied that the two visits which the applicant made to the notary in Bismil on 6 January and 10 August 1995 were organised on her own initiative. As the Commission observed (see paragraph 158 above), the applicant was brought to the notary’s office by a soldier in uniform and was not required to pay the notary for drawing up the statements in which she purported to withdraw