GÜLEÇ JUDGMENT OF 27 JULY 1998 29 FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 58. The applicant’s lawyer asked the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and to order the respondent State to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by his client, and to reimburse the costs and expenses he had incurred. 59. The Government asked the Court, as their principal submission, to rule that domestic remedies had not been exhausted in the present case, and for the rest to hold that there had been no breach of the Convention. AS TO THE LAW I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 60. The Government objected that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, in that the applicant had not brought an action for damages in the appropriate administrative court. 61. The Delegate of the Commission observed that during the proceedings before the Commission the Government had requested and obtained two extensions of the time-limit they had been given for submitting observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These observations, which had been submitted on 26 January 1994, argued that the application should be rejected, firstly because it was an abuse of the right of petition – being, in the Government’s opinion, “highly political” and, in their view, seeking to impute the applicant’s son’s death to the security forces – and secondly because there had been no breach of Article 2, as the fatal bullet had been fired by the demonstrators, not by the security forces. As the argument concerning non-exhaustion had been put forward for the first time before the Court, the Government were estopped from relying on it. 62. The Court sees no reason to disagree with that submission.