to doctors, lawyers, family or friends who could provide support and assemble the necessary evidence (see Aksoy [. . .] § 97).”35 Accordingly, a failure to secure the safeguards can amount to “omission[s] of investigation”36: “. . . as a result of the failure to perform the additional medical examinations in the instant case, Bülent Gedik, Müştak Erhan İl and Arzu Kemanoğlu were deprived of the fundamental guarantees to which persons in detention are entitled. Not only does this constitute an omission in the investigation, it may also amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment” (see Algür v. Turkey, no. 32574/96, § 44, 22 October 2002).” 37 The prohibition of ill-treatment is closely related to the right to liberty and security and fair trial, particularly in the sphere of unacknowledged detention. Consequently, some of the safeguards are considered by the Court under Article 5 and 6.38 This does not detract, however, from the centrality of these components to the prohibition of ill-treatment. Thus, it puts the burden of proof of the fact that the right of notification of custody has been secured on states: “First, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the Court accords weight to the applicant’s argument that he was not allowed to contact his next of kin after the arrest. There is no evidence showing that the investigator immediately informed the family of the applicant’s arrest or that the applicant asked him not to do so. The Court considers that affording a detainee a possibility to make his family aware of his or her arrest is an important safeguard against arbitrary detention and is intended to facilitate his or her decision concerning the exercise of the right to legal assistance, as well as the privilege against self-incrimination and right to remain silent (see also paragraphs 61 and 62 above).”39 35. Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 11 January 2007, application no. 34445/04, para. 74. 36. See Bati and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 3 June 2004, applications nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, paras. 134 and 143 (with further references). 37. Ibid, para 143, italics added. 38. Cf. Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 354-355, 18 June 2002: “The Court considers that the alleged failure of the authorities to inform the relatives of the Ormaniçi villagers taken into detention on 20 February 1993 of the latter’s whereabouts does not raise, as such, an issue under Article 3 of the Convention but might give rise to an issue under Article 5, and has been considered below in this context (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 354-355, 18 June 2002).” 39. Pavlenko v. Russia, Judgment of 1 April 2010, application no. 42371/02, para. 74 Effective investigation of ill-treatment – Guidelines ► Page 26