ELCI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 124 731. The Government submitted that only documented costs, with receipts, invoices, telephone bills and the like could be considered, not the rough calculations presented by the applicants. 732. The Court is not persuaded that all the fees claimed in respect of the KHRP, involving inter alia four British lawyers, were necessarily incurred or that it was essential to have in addition three Turkish lawyers assisting the applicants, themselves lawyers. It accepts, however, that this was a complex case, involving many applicants and considerable translation and co-ordination costs. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 43,385 in fees and EUR 2,855 in costs, to be paid into the bank account indicated in the applicants' just satisfaction claim. D. Default interest 733. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Dismisses, unanimously, the Government's preliminary objections; 2. Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been both a substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Hüsniye Ölmez, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Mesut Beştaş and Vedat Erten; 3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the case of each of the applicants; 4. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Niyazi Çem and Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu; 5. Holds, unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 6. Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of former Article 25 of the Convention; 7. Holds, by 6 votes to 1,