ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 104 conclusion in the matter (paragraph 645 above). In this regard, the Court recalls its case-law to the effect that, where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see the Assenov v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 3290 § 102). If this were not the case, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice, and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (ibid.). Such an investigation should therefore be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. 649. In view of the total inactivity of the judicial authorities in the present case to investigate the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment in gendarme custody, the Court concludes that there has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural aspect. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION A. Submissions of the parties 1. The applicants 650. The applicants contended that their arrests were arbitrary and unlawful, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which provides insofar as relevant as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law... (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence ...” 651. The applicants claimed that no evidence had been provided by the Government as to the reasons for the decisions to apprehend them. The evidence on which the Government relied did not disclose any reasonable suspicion against them. The true motive of the measure was the authorities' hostile attitude to the applicants' work as defence lawyers before the State Security Court and their role in assisting individuals to denounce human