ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 119 albeit of a temporary nature. More generally, the Court expresses its concern as to the inevitable chilling effect that this case must have had on all persons involved in criminal defence work or human rights protection in Turkey (see paragraph 669 above). However, the Court must limit its conclusion to the facts of the present applications. 715. In the light of the above considerations, the Court does not find, on balance, that there has been a significant hindrance in the applicants' right of individual petition in breach of former Article 25 of the Convention. 716. As to the recent general complaint of hindrance, made by the other applicants under Article 34 of the Convention, the Court is unable to take cognisance of it as it has been lodged out of time (Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention). VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 717. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “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 718. Each of the applicants made claims for loss of earnings in the following amounts: - for Tahir Elçi, 107,000 pounds sterling (“GBP”); - Nevzat Kaya, GBP 70,000; - Şinasi Tur, GBP 70,000; - Sabahattin Acar, GBP 105,000; - Niyazi Çem, GBP 28,000; - Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, GBP 30,000; - Meral Daniş Beştaş, GBP 70,000; - Mesut Beştaş, GBP 45,000; - Vedat Erten, GBP 70,000; - Baki Demırhan, GBP 70,000; - Arif Altinkalem, GBP 65,000; - Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, GBP 75,000; - Fuat Hayri Demır, GBP 100,000; - Hüsniye Ölmez, GBP 70,000; - İmam Şahin, GBP 70,000; and - Arzu Şahin, GBP 70,000. 719. The Government contested the applicants' claims for pecuniary damages as being unsubstantiated by any evidence, excessive, fictitious and