ERGI JUDGMENT OF 28 JULY 1998 18 It notes that the Government did touch upon the matter at the hearing before the delegates on 7 and 8 February 1996, when their Agent asked Muharrem Ergi whether he was the person who had signed the application, noting that he had mistakenly been referred to as a woman (see paragraph 28 above). More importantly, in their final observations to the Commission of 30 July 1996, the Government, referring to the abovementioned differences in signature, expressed doubts as to whether Muharrem Ergi was the real applicant in this case. In these circumstances, the Government cannot be considered to be estopped from raising before the Court their objection as to the validity of the application. 63. However, as to the merits of the objection, the Court notes that it is not contested that a person named Muharrem Ergi appeared before the Commission’s delegates at the above-mentioned hearing, who were in a position to observe his reactions and demeanour and, hence, to assess the veracity and probative value of his evidence. Mr Ergi replied in the affirmative to the question put by the Government Agent as to whether he was the person who had signed the application (see paragraph 28 above). The Commission, after having assessed the evidence, found no reason to doubt that the application before it disclosed a genuine and valid exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention and decided to pursue its examination of the application (see paragraph 55 above). 64. The Court sees no reason for departing from those findings, recalling that under its case-law the establishment and verification of the facts are primarily a matter for the Commission (Articles 28 § 1 and 31 of the Convention) and that it is only in exceptional circumstances that it will exercise its powers in this area (see, inter alia, the Menteş and Others v. Turkey judgment of 28 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, pp. 2709–10, § 66). The Court, accordingly, dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection as to the validity of the application. B. The Government’s second preliminary objection 65. The Government further requested the Court to uphold their preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 26 of the Convention, as he had not used the effective remedies available to him under Turkish law (see paragraphs 46-53 above). While the Commission had held in its admissibility decision of 2 March 1995 that no observations had been submitted by the Government, the latter had, by letter of 4 November 1994, asked the Commission to postpone its examination of the application until completion of the investigation by the national authorities. The Government had stated that the Ergani public