İLHAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ 36 Ergi judgment of 28 July 1998 (Violation of Articles 3 and 13) [A. Non-pecuniary damage] [Claim] “107. The applicant submitted that he, his deceased sister and the latter's daughter had been the victims both of individual violations and of a practice of such violations. He claimed 30,000 pounds sterling (GBP) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In addition, he sought GBP 10,000 for aggravated damages resulting from the existence of a practice of violation of Article 2 and of a denial of effective remedies in south-east Turkey in aggravated violation of Article 13.” [Award] “110. The Court observes from the outset that the initial application to the Commission was brought by the applicant not only on his own and his sister's behalf but also on behalf of his niece, Havva Ergi's daughter. ... Having regard to the gravity of the violations (see paragraphs 86 and 98 above) and to equitable considerations, it awards the applicant GBP 1,000 and Havva Ergi's daughter GBP 5,000, which amount is to be paid to the applicant's niece or her guardian to be held on her behalf. 111. On the other hand, it dismisses the claim for aggravated damages.” Oğur judgment of 20 May 1999 (Violation of Article 2) [A. Damage] [Claim] “95. In respect of the damage she had sustained, the applicant claimed 500,000 French francs (FRF), of which FRF 400,000 was for pecuniary damage and FRF 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage. She pointed out that she had had no means of support since the death of her son, who had maintained the family by working as a night-watchman.” [Award] “98. ... Having regard to its conclusions as to compliance with Article 2 and to the fact that the events complained of took place more than eight years ago, the Court considers that it is required to rule on the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.