42 İLHAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ resident in its territory, in his bank account abroad and in a foreign currency. They have never succeeded. Despite numerous applications of this kind (always by the same counsel), not a single decision has yet been taken allowing such an application. Is it not astonishing that almost all the applicants living in very humble circumstances in a small village or hamlet in a remote corner of southeastern Anatolia should have bank accounts in a town of another European State? 13. If certain counsel have problems with their clients, that is none of the respondent State's business, since the contract between the lawyer and his client is a private one which concerns them alone and the respondent State is not a party to disputes concerning them. 14. I must point out that in the system established by the Convention, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue orders to the Contracting States as to the manner in which its judgments are to be executed. In my opinion, any payment under Article 41 must be made to the applicant as before, in the currency of the country and in the country concerned.