İLHAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ 35 Kurt judgment of 25 May 1998 (Forced disappearance – Violation) [A. Non-pecuniary damage] [Claim] “171. The applicant maintained that both she and her son had been victims of specific violations of the Convention as well as a practice of such violations. She requested the Court to award a total amount of 70,000 pounds sterling (GBP) which she justified as follows: GBP 30,000 for her son in respect of his disappearance and the absence of safeguards and effective investigative mechanisms in that regard; GBP 10,000 for herself to compensate for the suffering to which she had been subjected on account of her son's disappearance and the denial of an effective remedy with respect to his disappearance; and GBP 30,000 to compensate both of them on account of the fact that they were victims of a practice of 'disappearances' in southeast Turkey.” [Award] “174. The Court recalls that it has found the respondent State in breach of Article 5 in respect of the applicant's son. It considers that an award of compensation should be made in his favour having regard to the gravity of the breach in question. It awards the sum of GBP 15,000, which amount is to be paid to the applicant and held by her for her son and his heirs.” Tekin judgment of 9 June 1998 (Violation of Article 3) [A. Damage] [Claim and award] “75. The applicant claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage of 25,000 pounds sterling (GBP) and aggravated damages of GBP 25,000.” ... “77. The Court considers that an award should be made in respect of non-pecuniary damage bearing in mind its findings of violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the high rate of inflation in Turkey, it expresses the award in pounds sterling, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement (see the above-mentioned Selçuk and Asker judgment, p. 917, § 115). It awards the applicant GBP 10,000. 78. The Court rejects the claim for 'aggravated damages' (see the above-mentioned Selçuk and Asker judgment, p. 918, § 119).”