ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 31 116. The Commission concluded that the applicant’s allegations under these provisions were unsubstantiated and disclosed no violations. The Government were of the same view. 117. The Court, on the basis of the facts as established by the Commission, finds no violation of these provisions either. VIII. ALLEGED PRACTICE BY THE AUTHORITIES OF INFRINGING ARTICLE 13 118. The applicant argued that there was evidence that practices, tolerated at the highest level, in violation of the Convention existed in Turkey and that the degree of official tolerance evident in these practices rendered the system of remedies in south-east Turkey wholly ineffective, such that there was a practice of violating Article 13. 119. The Government rejected the applicant’s allegations in this regard. 120. The Delegate of the Commission, while referring to the Court’s previous judgments in Turkish cases containing findings of ineffective remedies, pointed out that the Commission had not yet found a practice in the light of its own extensive experience, although it could not be excluded that the Commission could yet do so in the cases examined before its office expired at the end of October 1999. 121. The Court considers that the scope of examination of the evidence undertaken in this case and the material on the case file are not sufficient to enable it to determine whether the authorities have adopted a practice of violating Article 13 of the Convention. IX. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 122. Under Article 41 of the Convention, “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Pecuniary damage 123. The applicant requested that pecuniary damages be paid for the benefit of his brother’s surviving spouse and children. He claimed a sum of 282.47 pounds sterling (GBP) representing 4,700,000 Turkish liras (TRL), which it is alleged was taken from Ahmet Çakıcı on his apprehension by a first lieutenant, and GBP 11,534.29 for loss of earnings, this capital sum being calculated with reference to Ahmet Çakıcı’s estimated monthly earnings of TRL 30,000,000.