SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 iii C. Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 No doubt that burning of property constituted grave and unjustified interference with rights under these provisions. Conclusion: violation (eight votes to one). D. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention Given nature of complaint, and in line with case-law, not necessary to determine whether there has been violation of Article 6 § 1. Respondent State had not carried out thorough and effective investigation into applicants’ allegations, as required by Article 13. Conclusion: not necessary to examine complaint under Article 6 § 1 (unanimously); violation of Article 13 (eight votes to one). E. Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention Acceptance of Commission’s findings that allegations unsubstantiated. Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). IV. ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A. Damage Pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part. B. Costs and expenses Claim allowed in full. Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants (eight votes to one). COURT’S CASE-LAW REFERRED TO 7.7.1989, Soering v. the United Kingdom; 16.9.1996, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey; 18.12.1996, Aksoy v. Turkey; 26.11.1997, Sakık and Others v. Turkey; 28.11.1997, Menteş and Others v. Turkey; 1.4.1998, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (Article 50)