SELÇUK AND ASKER JUDGMENT OF 24 APRIL 1998 21 87. It follows that the Court finds violations of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. D. Alleged violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention 88. The applicants complained that they had been denied any effective remedy by which to challenge the destruction of their homes and possessions by the security forces and to seek compensation. This, they argued, gave rise to violations both of their rights of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as is relevant, provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…” and their rights to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 89. The Government accepted that the criminal investigation into the applicants’ complaints had met with some setbacks, which might, however, have been avoided had the applicants contacted the public prosecutor immediately, when the evidence was clear and free of any doubt. Nonetheless, they maintained that, had the applicants commenced civil proceedings, they would have enjoyed effective access to a court; in this connection they referred once more to the Ağırtmış case (see paragraph 62 above). 90. The applicants contended that the failure of the authorities to conduct any thorough investigation into the burnings in İslamköy operated to deny them effective access to a court, since without such an investigation there was no chance of success in civil proceedings. 91. The Commission considered that the applicants did not have effective access to a tribunal that could have determined their civil rights, since it was unrealistic to expect villagers to pursue theoretical civil or administrative remedies in respect of allegations against security forces in the emergency region in the absence of any positive findings of fact by the State investigatory mechanism.