KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 42 authorities to conduct investigations into victim’s grievances. Having regard to the centrality of the public prosecutor’s role in the operation of the system of remedies as a whole it could only be concluded that remedies were wholly ineffective in south-east Turkey and that this result was condoned by the authorities. 167. The Government rejected the applicant’s claim. 168. The Commission, for its part, found that it was unnecessary to decide whether or not there was a practice of unacknowledged detention in the respondent State as maintained by the applicant. As to the alleged practice of ineffective remedies, the Delegate informed the Court that the Commission had also found it unnecessary to examine this complaint in reaching its admissibility decision. 169. The Court recalls that it has rejected the applicant’s complaints that there exists a practice of violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, being of the view that she had not substantiated her allegations (see paragraphs 108 and 116 above). It is not persuaded either that the evidence which she has adduced substantiates her allegations as to the existence of a practice of violation of either Article 5 or Article 13 of the Convention. X. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 170. The applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as reimbursement of costs and expenses under Article 50 of the Convention, which provides: “If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Non-pecuniary damage 171. The applicant maintained that both she and her son had been victims of specific violations of the Convention as well as a practice of such violations. She requested the Court to award a total amount of 70,000 pounds sterling (GBP) which she justified as follows: GBP 30,000 for her son in respect of his disappearance and the absence of safeguards and effective investigative mechanisms in that regard; GBP 10,000 for herself to compensate for the suffering to which she had been subjected on account of her son’s disappearance and the denial of an effective remedy with respect to his disappearance; and GBP 30,000 to compensate both of them on account of the fact that they were victims of a practice of “disappearances” in south-east Turkey.