SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 12 (e) that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (unanimously); (f) that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (by twenty-six votes to two); (g) that there had been a violation of Article 13 (by twenty-six votes to two); (h) that there had been no violation of Article 14 (unanimously); (i) that there had been no violation of Article 18 (unanimously). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the two separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment1. FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 48. The Government, in their memorial, and at the hearing, asked the Court to find that the applications should have been declared inadmissible on the grounds that they were not validly brought and that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, or, in the alternative, that there had been no violation of the Convention in the present case since the evidence heard by the delegation of the Commission had not substantiated the applicants’ allegations. 49. The applicants, for their part, asked the Court to find violations of Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and to award them just satisfaction under Article 50 of the Convention. AS TO THE LAW I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS 50. The Government challenged the Commission’s findings of fact, particularly its assessment of the evidence heard by its delegates in Ankara (see paragraph 26 above). In their submission, since Mr Asker and his wife and Mrs Selçuk and her brother-in-law not only stood to profit from any compensation awarded by the Court but also feared reprisals from the PKK, their testimony should be treated with great scepticism. They pointed out that the only witnesses who had no material interest in the case were Mr Korkmaz, Mr Karaaslan, Mr Memiş, Mr Şeker and Mr Şimşek. All of these, except Mr Korkmaz, whose testimony was full of contradictions and 1. Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry.