These ‘special factors’ include proximity in time and space to the alleged violation, the closeness of the relationship (a certain weight will attach to the parent-child bond), the degree of the relatives’ involvement in attempts to obtain information, and the way in which the authorities respond to inquiries.405 The European Regional System 2 The Court was careful to distinguish the circumstances in İpek v Turkey from those of Tahsin Acar v Turkey.406 In the latter case, the brother’s application failed to satisfy the applicable criteria as the Court found that “it has not been established that there were special factors which would justify finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicant himself.”407 It is clear from these cases that a State generally owes a duty to investigate a disappearance not only to victims but also to their relatives. In relation to disappearances, the finding of a violation of the rights of the relatives arises not so much from the fact of the disappearance itself, but “rather concerns the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention.”408 2.3.7 Extradition and expulsion The nature of the State’s obligation to protect individuals from violations has been examined extensively in respect of expulsion and extradition cases, over and above the prohibition of collective expulsion of non-citizens provided by Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The leading case on this issue is Soering v UK.409 The case involved an extradition application by the USA regarding a German national residing in the UK, on a charge of murder. The applicant claimed that, should the extradition take place, the UK would violate Article 3. While the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty per se, Ibid. §181. Tahsin Acar v Turkey, no. 26307/95, ECHR 2004-III, judgement of 8 April 2004. 407 Ibid. §239. In this instance, the applicant was the brother of the disappeared person. Unlike the mother in Kurt v Turkey (1998), op. cit., he was not present when the security forces took his brother, and while he was involved in making various enquiries, he did not bear the brunt of the task. The Court also concluded that there had been no aggravating circumstances arising from the response of the authorities. Accordingly, there had been no violation in respect of the applicant. 408 İpek v Turkey (2004), op. cit., §181. 409 Soering v UK (1989), op. cit. See also the earlier case, Amekrane v UK, no. 5961/72, 1973 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, No. 16, p. 356, where a friendly settlement was reached. 405 406 84