KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 22 proceedings, invoking the principle of strict liability in respect of the acts of public authorities (see paragraphs 56–58 above). Furthermore, the criminal law was there to assist her if she believed that her son had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty or had been killed or ill-treated at the hands of the authorities as alleged (see paragraph 59 above). Since the applicant had never resorted to any of these remedies she must on that account be considered to have failed to comply with Article 26 of the Convention. 81. The Court notes that the Government’s objection was not raised in their memorial but only at the hearing and therefore outside the time-limit prescribed in Rule 48 § 1 of Rules of Court A, which stipulates: “A Party wishing to raise a preliminary objection must file a statement setting out the objection and the grounds therefor not later than the time when that Party informs the President of its intention not to submit a memorial or, alternatively, not later than the expiry of the time-limit laid down in Rule 37 § 1 for the filing of its first memorial.” 82. The objection must therefore be dismissed (see the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 28, § 56). 83. Moreover, the Court notes in this respect that Mrs Kurt did everything that could be expected of her to seek redress for the complaint. She contacted the public prosecutor in Bismil on two occasions; firstly, on 30 November 1993 and, secondly, on 15 December 1993. She also petitioned the National Security Court at Diyarbakır on 14 December 1993 (see paragraphs 39–43 above). At no stage did the authorities take a statement from her although she insisted that her son had been taken into custody following the clash between the soldiers and the PKK in her village. Her petition of 15 December was even more forceful since she stated that she was concerned for his life. Both the district gendarmerie command and Captain Cural of the provincial command, on the very day that the applicant lodged her first petition, reported back that it was supposed that Üzeyir Kurt had been kidnapped by the PKK. However, no reasons were given to support this hastily reached hypothesis and the public prosecutor did not inquire further into its merits. The applicant’s reluctance to accept the official explanation is confirmed by the fact that she persisted with her request for information on her son’s whereabouts by contacting the authorities on two further occasions, maintaining all along that he had been taken into custody. However, no serious consideration was ever given to this assertion, the authorities preferring instead to pursue an unsubstantiated line of inquiry that he had been kidnapped by the PKK. In the absence of any effective investigation by the authorities into her complaint there was no basis for any meaningful recourse by the applicant to the range of remedies described by the Government in their submissions before the Court.