İLHAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ 41 147. The applicant claimed a sum of GBP 40,000 for the non-pecuniary damage arising from the violations of the Convention suffered by his son and from the alleged practice of such violations, to be held by him on behalf of his son's widow and four children, as well as a sum of GBP 2,500 for himself on account of the lack of an effective remedy. He referred to the Court's previous decisions regarding unlawful detention, torture and the lack of an effective investigation.” [Award] “150. As regards the applicant's claims for loss of earnings, the ... Court has found (see paragraph 131 above) that it may be taken as established that Mehmet Ertak died following his arrest by the security forces and that the State's responsibility is engaged under Article 2 of the Convention. In those circumstances, there is indeed a direct causal link between the violation of Article 2 and the loss by his widow and children of the financial support which he provided for them (see the Çakıcı judgment cited above, § 127). The Court awards the applicant the sum of GBP 15,000, to be held by him on behalf of his son's widow and children. 151. As regards non-pecuniary damage, ... the Court has held that there has been a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 2. Noting the awards made in previous cases involving the application of the same provision in south-eastern Turkey (see the Kaya judgment cited above, p. 333, § 122; the Güleç judgment cited above, p. 1734, § 88; the Ergi v. Turkey judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1785, § 110; the Yaşa judgment cited above, pp. 2444-45, § 124; and Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III) and having regard to the circumstances of this case, the Court awards the sum of GBP 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be held by the applicant on behalf of his son's widow and four children ...” 12. Lastly, I cannot accept that the legal costs awarded under Article 41 should be paid into the applicant's “bank account in the United Kingdom”. This point is an aspect of the general issue of payment of “costs and expenses”. To make clear what I mean, I must go back to certain earlier facts and arguments. The manner of implementing former Article 50 (now Article 41) as regards legal costs (including counsel's fees) was discussed in depth by the old Court because some applicants' lawyers (always the same ones) continually sought, very insistently, to have the costs paid to them direct into their bank account abroad in a foreign currency. The Court always dismissed those applications except in one or two cases in which it agreed to payment in a foreign currency (but always in the country of the respondent State). After deliberating, the Court decided that costs would be paid (1) to the applicant, (2) in the country of the respondent State, and (3) in the currency of the respondent State (if there was a high rate of inflation in the respondent State, the sum was to be expressed in a foreign currency and converted into that State's currency at the date of payment – see the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1521-22, § 77). In accordance with that decision, all other types of application have been categorically rejected. Whereupon, counsel for the applicant began to seek to have costs paid to the applicant, a national of the respondent State and