SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 28 D. Request for restoration of rights 123. The applicants further submitted that they were entitled to be reestablished in their village or, if this were not possible, to an equivalent monetary award. 124. The Government maintained that the restoration of the applicants’ rights was not feasible due to the emergency conditions prevailing in the region. 125. The Court recalls that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (restitutio in integrum). However, if restitutio in integrum is in practice impossible, the respondent States are free to choose the means whereby they comply with a judgment in which the Court has found a breach, and the Court will not make consequential orders or declaratory statements in this regard. It falls to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, acting under Article 54 of the Convention, to supervise compliance in this respect (see the above-mentioned Akdivar and Others (Article 50) judgment, pp. 723-24, § 47). E. Default interest 126. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in the United Kingdom at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 8% per annum. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Dismisses unanimously the preliminary objection concerning the nonvalidity of the applications; 2. Dismisses by eight votes to one the preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; 3. Holds by eight votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; 4. Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to consider the complaints under Articles 2 and 5 § 1 of the Convention; 5. Holds by eight votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;