ÇAKICI v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 34 before the Court in Strasbourg. A sum of GBP 3,520 is listed as incurred fees and administrative costs in respect of the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) in its role as liaison between the legal team in the United Kingdom and the lawyers and the applicant in Turkey, as well as a sum of GBP 3,600 in respect of work undertaken by three lawyers in Turkey. The applicant requested that the Court provide reasons for the award which it gave, or at least for departing from the sums claimed, in order to promote legal certainty and assist future applicants and their legal representatives. 132. The Government disputed that any sum should be awarded in respect of the KHRP, whose function is insufficiently elaborated. They contested the appropriateness of awarding high fees and costs in respect of lawyers from outside Turkey and also contended that the fees claimed in respect of work done by lawyers in Turkey were excessive in comparison with local rates, in particular the claimed hourly rate of GBP 60 which contrasted markedly with the hourly rate of GBP 25 claimed by domestic lawyers in the Kurt case cited above. They also challenged that they should be liable to fund case-law research and analysis which the applicant’s lawyers would be able to utilise in other cases. 133. In relation to the claim for costs, the Court, deciding on an equitable basis and having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicant, awards him the sum of GBP 20,000, together with any valueadded tax that may be chargeable, less the 7,000 French francs received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. C. Default interest 134. The Court considers it appropriate to take the statutory rate of interest applicable in the United Kingdom at the adoption of adotion of the present judgment, namely 7.5% per annum. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Dismisses unanimously the Government’s preliminary objection; 2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention; 3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s brother; 4. Holds by fourteen votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant;