KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 14 on the evidence that village guards were in the village at some time during the operation, contrary to the apparent operational practice whereby the role of village guards should be restricted to areas outside villages other than their own. 53. The Commission found that it was the applicant’s genuine and honestly held belief that her son was taken into custody by the security forces after which he “disappeared” and that there was no basis for inferring that the applicant’s testimony was influenced by a reluctance to accord blame to the PKK or to acknowledge their involvement. Having regard to the assessment of the evidence before it, the Commission accepted her evidence that she saw him surrounded by soldiers and village guards outside Hasan Kılıç’s house on the morning of 25 November 1993. It found that this was the last time he was seen by any member of his family or person from the village. (c) Other aspects of the conduct of the operation 54. The Commission found it unnecessary to make any findings as to the cause of the burning of the applicant’s house or as to the role, if any, played by the security forces in the decision of the villagers to abandon the village (see paragraph 14 above). II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 55. The Government have not submitted in their memorial any details on domestic legal provisions which have a bearing on the circumstances of the case. The Commission in its Article 31 report provided an overview of domestic law and practice which may be of relevance to the case. This overview was based on submissions by the respondent State in previous cases. A. Constitutional provisions on administrative liability 56. Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution provides as follows: “All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ... The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures.” 57. This provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war. The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the administration, whose liability is of an absolute, objective nature, based on the theory of “social risk”. Thus the administration may indemnify people