SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 25 as pecuniary damage were excessive and had not been substantiated, as they would have to be before a Turkish court. The Court should take into account the economic conditions in Turkey, where the minimum monthly wage amounted to 700 French francs (FRF) and the net maximum monthly allowance of a senior judge amounted to FRF 7,250. 106. The Court recalls its findings that the applicants’ homes and household property, and Mrs Selçuk’s mill, were destroyed by security forces (see paragraph 57 above). In view of this finding it is undoubtedly necessary to award compensation for pecuniary damage. However, since the applicants have not substantiated their claims as to the quantity and value of their lost property with any documentary or other evidence, the Government have not provided any detailed comments, and the Commission has made no findings of fact in this respect, the Court’s assessment of the amounts to be awarded must, by necessity, be speculative and based on principles of equity. 1. Houses and other buildings 107. Mrs Selçuk claimed damages in respect of a two-storey cement and stone house covering 250 square metres, which she valued at 1,250,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), a one-storey, 300 square metres, cement and stone stable, valued at TRL 1,500,000,000 and the three-storey, 80 square metres, water mill, valued at TRL 580,000,000, which she co-owned with three others. Mr Asker claimed damages in respect of a two-storey, 300 square metres, cement and stone house, valued at TRL 1,500,000,000, and a onestorey, 400 square metres, cement and stone stable, valued at TRL 2,000,000,000. 108. As it did in its Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (Article 50) judgment (1 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 718, § 18), the Court observes that it has not been provided with decisive proof of the size of the properties destroyed. Against this background, and with reference to equitable considerations and the approach adopted in the above-mentioned Akdivar (Article 50) judgment, it awards, in respect of destroyed buildings, TRL 1,000,000,000 to each of the applicants. 2. Other property 109. The applicants submitted claims in respect of household goods, such as bedding, kilims, electrical goods and food and fuel stores, amounting to TRL 1,451,650,000 for Mrs Selçuk and TRL 2,415,000,000 for Mr Asker. In addition, they claimed to have lost livestock worth in total