A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1998 8 II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 25. Article 8 of the Convention provides as follows: ��1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 26. The Commission concluded that, given its finding of a violation of Article 3, it was not necessary to consider the issues under Article 8. The Government asked the Court also to take this approach. 27. In his memorial to the Court, the applicant submitted that, if the Court were to find a violation of Article 3, he would not pursue his complaint under Article 8. However, at the hearing before the Court, he contended that, in the light of the Government’s memorial and their proposals for legislative change, it was necessary for the Court to rule under Article 8 in order to provide guidance to the Government and protection for children against all forms of deliberate violence. 28. The Court recalls that it has found a violation of Article 3 in the present case. In these circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the inadequacy of the legal protection provided to A. against the illtreatment that he suffered also breached his right to respect for private life under Article 8. III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 13 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION 29. The applicant accepted the Commission’s finding of no violation of Article 13 of the Convention and did not pursue his complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and/or 8. 30. In these circumstances, it is not necessary for the Court to consider these complaints. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 31. The applicant 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.”