KURT JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1998 44 179. The Court notes that the issues raised by this case are particularly complex and involved on the part of the applicant’s legal representatives considerable background research and analysis. Having regard to the fact that an applicant is free to designate a legal representative of his or her own choosing, Mrs Kurt’s recourse to United Kingdom-based lawyers specialising in the international protection of human rights cannot be criticised. In view of the specifications submitted by the applicant and deciding on an equitable basis it awards the sum of GBP 15,000 in respect of costs and expenses claimed by the United Kingdom-based lawyers and her Turkish lawyers together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, less the amounts received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe which have not already been taken into account. 180. On the other hand, the Court is not persuaded of the merits of the claim (GBP 3,725) made on behalf of the KHRP, having been provided with no details on the precise extent of that organisation’s involvement in the preparation of the case. This part of the claim is accordingly rejected. C. Default interest 181. 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 Government’s preliminary objection concerning the validity of the applicant’s application; 2. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; 3. Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to decide on the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention; 4. Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to decide on the applicant’s complaint in respect of her son under Article 3 of the Convention; 5. Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; 6. Holds by six votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant herself; 7. Holds by seven votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;