ERGI JUDGMENT OF 28 JULY 1998 31 Court, this failure undermined the exercise of any remedies the applicant and his niece had at their disposal under Turkish law. Accordingly, it finds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. D. Alleged violations of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention 99. The applicant submitted that the attack on the village illustrated the discriminatory policy pursued by the State against ordinary Kurdish citizens and the existence of an authorised practice in violation of Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention. Article 14 reads: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Article 18 provides: “The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.” 100. The Commission, finding that these allegations were unsubstantiated, concluded that there had been no violation of the above provisions. The Government were of the same view. 101. The Court, on the basis of the facts as established by the Commission, finds no violation of these provisions either. E. Alleged violation of Article 25 § 1 of the Convention 102. Finally, the applicant complained that the authorities of the respondent State had hindered him in the exercise of his right to present and pursue his complaints with the Commission (see paragraph 26 above), in breach of Article 25 § 1 of the Convention, which provides: “The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in [the] Convention, provided that the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of the Commission to receive such petitions. Those of the High Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.” 103. The Commission considered that, when questioning the applicant about his declaration of means in support of his legal-aid request to the Commission, the authorities had subjected him to pressure and this had constituted a hindrance in the exercise of his right of individual petition as