SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 24 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Furthermore, in the light of the evidence adduced by the applicants of a systematic, cruel and ruthless policy of population displacement, they requested the Court also to find a breach of Article 18 of the Convention, which provides: “The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.” 100. The Government did not address these allegations beyond denying the factual basis of the substantive complaints. 101. The Commission found the applicants’ above allegations unsubstantiated. 102. For its part, the Court, on the basis of the facts as established by the Commission (see paragraphs 27–32 above), finds no violation of these provisions. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 103. The applicants claimed just satisfaction under Article 50 of the Convention, which provides: “If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Pecuniary damage 104. The applicants claimed pecuniary damage in respect of the loss of their houses, cultivated land, household property, livestock and, in the case of Mrs Selçuk, her mill. They also claimed that an award should be made in respect of the cost of alternative accommodation. 105. The Government argued that the applicants’ allegations that their property had been destroyed by security forces had not been proved, and that there was therefore no requirement to award any compensation. In the alternative, in the event that the Court did find it appropriate to award some compensation, they submitted that the assessment thereof should not be such as to cause any unjust enrichment. The amounts claimed