Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook suffering of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which is inevitably caused to the relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements include the proximity of the family tie (a certain weight will attach to the parent-child bond), the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person, and the way in which the authorities responded to those attempts. The Court emphasised that the essence of such a violation did not so much lie in the fact of the disappearance of the family member but rather concerned the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it was brought to their attention. According to the Court, it was especially in respect of the latter that a relative could claim to be a victim of the authorities’ conduct. Having found that the applicant had suffered, and continued to suffer distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of his two sons and of his inability to find out what had happened to them, and in view of the manner in which his complaints had been dealt with by the authorities, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant.336 In Chahal v. the United Kingdom, which concerned Mr. Chahal’s imminent deportation to India, his wife and children were also allowed to join the case as applicants and argued that Mr. Chahal’s deportation would violate their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention.337 In Çakıcı v. Turkey, on the other hand, the Court found that the brother of a disappeared man was not an indirect victim. In this case, the brother was not present when the security forces took his brother, as he lived with his own family in another town. It appears also that, while the applicant was involved in making various petitions and enquiries to the authorities, he did not bear the brunt of this task, […] [n]or have any aggravating features arising from the response of the authorities been brought to the attention of the Court in this case.338 The next of kin of killed or disappeared persons can not only claim their own rights as indirect victims, they can also allege Article 2 and 3 violations of their killed or disappeared relatives (section e below). In addition, the application of a person who dies while the Strasbourg proceedings are pending may be pursued by a close relative (section f below).339 336 337 338 339 108 İpek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, 17 February 2004, §§ 178–183. Chahal v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996. Çakıcı v. Turkey, no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, § 99. See Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, 18 December 1996, § 7, in which the father of a victim of ill-treatment continued the application lodged by his son who died in the course of the Court’s proceedings.