KONSTAS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 6 allegations that might influence the re-examination of his case by the Court of Appeal. He added that the intention of the above-mentioned people to undermine his right to be presumed innocent was obvious because the offending remarks had been made days after the Athens Assize Court pronounced its verdict. At the time, however, judgment no. 2444/2007 of the Athens Assize Court had not yet been finalised, so the members of the Government had not been in possession of all the facts, as established by that court, which had served as a basis for his conviction. In the applicant’s submission the fact that judgment no. 2444/2007 had not yet been finalised at the time had also deprived him of the possibility of answering their allegations having reference to the content of the court’s judgment. Generally speaking, the applicant submitted that in view of the high-level posts occupied by the Government members concerned, they should have shown more restraint in their attitude towards criminal proceedings that were still pending. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Admissibility 28. The Court notes that the Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust the domestic remedies, as the applicant had not brought proceedings before the domestic courts seeking compensation for the damage to his reputation. The Court reiterates that the rule concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available, in practice and in law, in respect of the alleged violation (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hassan and Chaoush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-XI). The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires applicants – using the legal remedies available in domestic law in so far as they are effective and adequate – to afford the Contracting States the possibility of putting right the violations alleged against them before bringing the matter before the Court (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I). The only remedies which Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient. The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among other authorities, Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). 29. In the present case the Court observes that the remedy the Government referred to is based on Article 57 of the Civil Code, which provides for the possibility of claiming compensation for defamation. The