SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 11 45. Article 8 of Decree no. 430 of 16 December 1990 provides as follows: “No criminal, financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against the state of emergency regional governor or a provincial governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this decree, and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end. This is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim indemnity from the State for damage suffered by them without justification.” According to the applicants, this Article grants impunity to the governors and reinforces the powers of the regional governor to order the permanent or temporary evacuation of villages, to impose residence restrictions and to enforce the transfer of people to other areas. Damage caused in the context of the fight against terrorism would be “with justification” and therefore immune from suit. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 46. In their applications (nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94) to the Commission introduced on 15 December 1993, the applicants, relying on Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complained that their homes had been burnt by State security forces on or about 16 June 1993 and that they had therefore been forced to leave their village. The first applicant also complained that a mill partly owned by her was destroyed by security forces on or about 26 June 1993. The second applicant claimed in addition that his life had been endangered during the attack on his house, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 47. The Commission declared Mrs Selçuk’s application admissible on 3 April 1995 and that of Mr Asker admissible on 28 November 1994. It joined the two applications on 8 March 1996. In its report of 28 November 1996 (Article 31), it expressed the following opinion: (a) that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously); (b) that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously); (c) that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (by twenty-seven votes to one); (d) that there had been no violation of Article 2 in respect of the second applicant (unanimously);